Stories about
Robert Mueller


Robert Swan Mueller III (/ˈmʌlər/; born August 7, 1944) is an American attorney who served as the sixth Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 2001 to 2013. A conservative Republican, he was appointed by President George W. Bush; President Barack Obama gave his original ten-year term a two-year extension, making him the longest-serving FBI Director since J. Edgar Hoover. He is currently head of the Special Counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and related matters.

America First with Sebastian Gorka

Published  5 hours ago

Whatever happens in the years to come, American politics can never return to what they were before November 8, 2016.

Why, you ask? Because a brash TV celebrity businessman from Queens broke the media, broke Washington D.C., and broke the self-appointed “elite” on both coasts. The stake he drove through their hearts will endure no matter who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

First, they laughed at Donald Trump the candidate. At his appearance, at his demeanor, at his outré stump speeches. Then, when he wiped the floor with the 16 establishment Republican candidates they panicked.

The criminal cartel that is the Clinton machine hired a former British intelligence officer—who hated Donald Trump the man—to generate a “dossier” of outlandish and false opposition research that was used by Barack Obama’s thoroughly corrupt Justice Department and FBI to gain under bogus pretenses a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance warrant to spy on her opponent’s campaign. But they failed.

That is when the coup plot was hatched.

I do not use that word lightly. However given that both the liberal judicial authority Alan Dershowitz, and the most preeminent conservative historian and strategist, Victor Davis Hanson, have recently used the word “coup” to describe the machinations of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, the choice is deliberate and justified.

Rosenstein and McCabe had never been elected to any public office, let alone the cabinet of the United States. Yet by McCabe’s own admission, they plotted to use the 25th Amendment to our Constitution to remove the duly elected president—an amendment that was designed for the incumbent president’s cabinet to employ in the dire scenario that their superior was incapacitated and unable to perform his duties as commander-in-chief.

The amendment is very clear. The president’s removal is decided by the vice president and a majority of his cabinet. Not by an FBI flunky whose wife received $700,000 from Hillary Clinton’s bagman Terry McAuliffe to run as a Democrat for the Virginia State Senate. And not by the acting attorney general—a man who would name his friend Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate the president the very day after Mueller failed in his interview with President Trump to get his old job back as Director of the FBI. This is exactly what a coup d’etat looks like—albeit, thankfully, a failed coup d’etat.

The point here is that Rosenstein, McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and the rest of the corrupt bureaucrats failed and Donald Trump remains president. Not only that, but beyond all rational expectations of standard political calculation and despite the overwhelming bias of the media—coverage of Trump is estimated at 90 percent negative in just the last year— his popularity stands by at least one measure at a remarkable 52 percent, which is significantly higher than for Obama at the same time in his first term.

This is the dispositive proof that Donald J. Trump has changed America in ways that no “expert” ever could imagine.

They spied on him and tried to subvert his campaign for election to the highest office. Once installed in the White House, they plotted to remove him. And all the while the media and the establishment as a whole either was not on his side or actively working against him. Yet he is winning more than ever.

Just look at Friday’s deal and his proclamation on a national emergency on our Southern border for proof.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went on record saying she’d only give the president $1 for the wall. Then, after a government shutdown and three weeks of negotiations, the president was finally offered $1.375 billion by the Democrats. In the meantime his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney found $6.6 billion, including drug cartel asset forfeitures, sitting at Department of Justice. So after requesting $5.7 billion to build the wall, and being refused and ridiculed, President Trump apparently walks away with $8 billion to keep his MAGA promise to America. Nancy promised $1, America ended up with $8 billion.

When I grew up in the United Kingdom, there was a famous story that became a popular song and then a movie. It concerned Charles Wells, “The Man who Broke the Bank in Monte Carlo.” Wells walked into the famous casino on July 28, 1891, with 4,000 British Pounds and walked away with the equivalent of 4 million.

For more than 30 years, America has been held hostage by a political, economic, media and cultural elite which has been wrong on every major issue you can imagine. From foreign adventurism to trade policies; national sovereignty versus globalization; love of country to hatred of the principles upon which our nation was built—one man has broken the stranglehold of a morally bankrupt “elite” and he isn’t even a politician.

For more excellent, independent, conservative thought head over to the American Greatness website today!

The Gateway Pundit

Published  12 hours ago

According to a new report by Bloomberg, New York prosecutors have put together a criminal case against Trump’s former campaign chair Paul Manafort that they could quickly file if Trump were to issue him a presidential pardon.

It is clear that Robert Mueller and now the criminal and corrupt prosecutors out of New York want Paul Manafort to die in prison.

Last Friday, Robert Mueller issued a sentencing memo recommending Paul Manafort, who will turn 70 in April, serve between 19.5 to 24.5 years in prison.

But this isn’t enough – if Paul Manafort were to be issued a presidential pardon, the Communist thugs in New York are ready with plan B.

Bloomberg reported:

New York County District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. is ready to file an array of tax and other charges against Manafort, according to two people familiar with the matter, something seen as an insurance policy should the president exercise his power to free the former aide. Skirting laws that protect defendants from being charged twice for the same offense has been one of Vance’s challenges.

Prosecutors in Vance’s office began investigating Manafort in 2017, months before Mueller charged him with conspiracy, failure to file reports of foreign bank accounts and failure to register as an agent of a foreign country, activities stemming from his earlier work for Ukraine. Mueller’s team followed up with more charges of bank fraud, filing false tax returns and failure to file reports of foreign bank accounts in early 2018.

At the state level, Vance is preparing an array of criminal charges. While their full extent isn’t clear, they would include evasion of New York taxes and violations of state laws requiring companies to keep accurate books and records, according to one of the people, who asked not to be identified because the investigation is confidential.

Much of the evidence against Manafort has emerged through Mueller’s prosecutions. But Vance’s office can’t cut and paste Mueller’s charges into a state indictment. It must avoid New York’s double jeopardy law, which provides protections for defendants even stronger than those guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

In other words, Paul Manafort should die in prison for the crime of associating with Donald Trump — the crimes Manafort is being charged with were dug up by the criminal and corrupt Andrew Weissmann as revenge.

Last summer a jury in the eastern district of Virginia convicted Paul Manafort on 8 counts of bank and tax fraud. Manafort also pleaded to two felonies and entered a plea deal with the government and promised to cooperate.

The corrupt and criminal Obama-appointed Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled last week that Paul Manafort intentionally lied to Mueller and the FBI and voided his plea deal.

Paul Manafort also faces an addition maximum of 10 years in prison on the two felonies counts, reported CBS News.

What is happening to Paul Manafort should frighten every American. He was thrown into solitary confinement for the same ‘crimes’ Tony Podesta committed (failing to file a FARA form) yet Tony Podesta was allowed to retroactively file a FARA form for his work in Ukraine then he was given immunity.

How is the US any different from a banana republic with a two-tiered justice system?

The Federalist

Published  16 hours ago

The true scandal is not the swirling gossip that Rod Rosenstein mentioned the 25th Amendment, but the Sypgate dossier, stupid!

I Love My Freedom

Published  18 hours ago

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation wraps up, leaked reports have sent Democrats and the media into panic mode.

Last week, it was reported that the Department of Justice is expecting to receive the final report from Mueller on his findings in the Russia investigation.

SPECIAL OFFER: Free “Build The Wall” Coin – Just Cover Shipping!

Someone in the Senate also leaked to NBC News that lawmakers are ending their own congressional probe into alleged Russia collusion after finding no evidence of any wrongdoing.

The leaked information to NBC News indicated that the bipartisan Senate committee was unable to uncover “direct evidence” of a “conspiracy” between Trump officials and Russia during the 2016 election.

Since news broke that Mueller is nearing the end of his two-year investigation, reality is setting in for Democrats and the media.

It would certainly appear that there will be no charges brought against President Donald Trump nor will there be any proof of alleged Russia collusion during the 2016 election.

Democrats and the media have been heavily invested in the Trump-Russia “collusion narrative,” and they are already trying to play clean-up.

POLL: Should Jim Acosta Be BANNED FOR LIFE From The Press Pool?

Last week, NBC News warned liberals that they might be “disappointed” by Mueller’s final report and his findings.

Millions of Americans may be sorely disappointed.

Unless Mueller files a detailed indictment charging members of the Trump campaign with conspiring with Russia, the public may never learn the full scope of what Mueller and his team has found — including potentially scandalous behavior that doesn’t amount to a provable crime.

CNN analyst James Clapper, who previously served as the Director of National Intelligence under former President Barack Obama, warned Democrats that Mueller isn’t going to save them.

“I think the hope is that the Mueller investigation will clear the air on this issue once and for all. I’m really not sure it will, and the investigation, when completed, could turn out to be quite anti-climactic and not draw a conclusion about that,” Clapper said on CNN.

VOTE: Should Jussie Smollett Get PRISON TIME For Orchestrating The “MAGA Hoax”?

Far-left comedian Rosie O’Donnell was so pissed off over news that Mueller’s report will be “anti-climatic” that she is now backing a boycott of CNN.

O’Donnell took to Twitter late last week after CNN reported that Mueller’s report likely won’t deliver anything close to what Trump-haters want and retweeted the following post from a user: “I’m so done with CNN. They’ve thrown in with the Orange Menace and now this. #BoycottCNN and their advertising. It’s an insult to real journalists and the American people.”

That’s right, liberals are so upset that Trump might be fully vindicated and proven innocent that they are calling for a boycott of CNN, arguably the most liberal cable news outlet of them all.

Time will tell when Mueller actually concludes his probe, but Democrats and the media are already starting to panic, and that speaks volumes.

PETITION: Tell Mueller To STOP Wasting Our Taxpayer Dollars On The Phony Russia Probe!

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 day ago

Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, tore into Republicans on Thursday in an open letter published in the Washington Post.

“This is a moment of great peril for our democracy,” Schiff said.

The powerful Democrat slammed Republicans for publicly standing by as Trump continues to demonstrate a complete lack of fitness and decency, even as they privately express their concern with the president’s conduct.

Schiff also hit the GOP for letting Trump get away with his fake national emergency, which is essentially an attempt to “strip” Congress of its authority.

The congressman wrote:

To my Republican colleagues: When the president attacked the independence of the Justice Department by intervening in a case in which he is implicated, you did not speak out. When he attacked the press as the enemy of the people, you again were silent. When he targeted the judiciary, labeling judges and decisions he didn’t like as illegitimate, we heard not a word. And now he comes for Congress, the first branch of government, seeking to strip it of its greatest power, that of the purse.

Many of you have acknowledged your deep misgivings about the president in quiet conversations over the past two years. You have bemoaned his lack of decency, character and integrity. You have deplored his fundamental inability to tell the truth. But for reasons that are all too easy to comprehend, you have chosen to keep your misgivings and your rising alarm private.

That must end. The time for silent disagreement is over. You must speak out.

With the Robert Mueller report on the verge of being released, Republicans will again have a chance to demonstrate where their loyalties lie.

According to Andrew McCabe, the special counsel’s findings could be detailed and damning, leaving Republicans very little wiggle room when it comes to defending this president.

If the past is any indication, though, the GOP will continue to act as a spineless lap dog for this president – no matter what dirt the Mueller report shows.

Ultimately, nothing can forgive the Republican Party’s appeasement of Donald Trump over the past two years. History will forever consider it a dark stain on the party and the country.

But if they have any interest in redeeming themselves and their party, they should listen to Adam Schiff and say publicly what they have reportedly said privately: that Donald Trump is a disgrace to the presidency and must be stopped.

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 day ago

Commentary Former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is owed an apology by an awful lot of people in ...

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 day ago

Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe sent shockwaves across the nation earlier this week when he admitted during ...

New York Post

Published  1 day ago

During the financial crisis, the federal government bailed out banks it declared “too big to fail.” Fearing their bankruptcy might trigger economic Armageddon, the feds propped them up with

Spectator USA

Published  1 day ago

Andrew McCabe, second-in-command at James Comey’s FBI, is at it again. First, he and his boss shredded the Bureau’s reputation as the world’s leading law enforcement agency. Now, McCabe is compounding the damage by making wild, self-serving charges to sell his new book. In one TV interview, he said it is ‘possible’ that Donald Trump is a Russian agent.

Serious charges need serious proof. Simple fairness demands it. But McCabe presents none. That’s par for the course. Simple fairness was not the hallmark of the Comey-McCabe era. No disinterested observers think the Bureau’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server was treated the same way as the amorphous charges against the Trump campaign. That bias wasn’t the fault of FBI field agents. Comey pulled the investigation away from them and gave it to his inner circle. They were men on a mission. It was not a mission for blind justice.

Their double standards were clear when they passed out immunity to all Hillary’s top aides without demanding full testimony in return, when they destroyed Clinton staffers’ computers and cell phones without preserving the evidence, and when they wrote a memo clearing Mrs Clinton before she had been interviewed. Comey, whose incompetence is rivaled only by his smug self-righteousness, then held a press conference that both smeared and cleared Hillary. It smeared her with evidence that should never have been revealed unless she was charged. It cleared her by whitewashing the crimes she should have been charged with.

Comey, McCabe, and their cronies had no intention of serving up the same softball to Trump. No, siree. The Bureau relied on thin, biased evidence to obtain warrants to spy on Carter Page (really, on the Trump campaign). That evidence consisted mainly of opposition research against Trump, conducted by a former British spy and paid for by Clinton through two cut-outs. The FBI and DOJ knew the political origins, the dicey source, and the lack of verification. Instead of disclosing all that to the courts, they falsely said it was verified and hid the source’s bias. They put a cherry on this cow patty by including a Yahoo news article as additional evidence. They never told the judges it came from the same source as their other ‘evidence,’ not from independent reporting. There are words for this kind of dodge. They are found in the criminal statutes.

McCabe’s central role in this sleazy operation comes on top of a scathing report about his conduct from the Department of Justice’s Inspector General. It concludes that McCabe leaked information to the media and then lied about it to investigators on three occasions. He is now under criminal investigation for those actions. (McCabe doesn’t exactly deny the leaks but says Comey authorized them. Comey denies it.) That leaking and lying (alleged, alleged), plus McCabe’s lack of proof for his recent claims, suggest his comments are little more than hyperbole, designed to inflate his standing among Trump-haters.

Make no mistake: McCabe’s charges against Trump are extremely serious, especially since they come from a former top law-enforcement official who was involved in pertinent investigations. Any president who acted as agent of a hostile foreign power would have committed ‘a high crime and misdemeanor,’ worthy of impeachment and conviction. In fact, it would be the gravest crime against our nation since the Confederate states seceded.

So far, the public evidence does not support McCabe’s grave accusations. That’s significant because multiple investigations have been underway for a long time. The intensive probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller has not yielded a single charge of conspiracy involving the Trump campaign and the Russians. Finding out if there was such collusion was one of the two reasons Mueller was appointed. (The other was to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, whether or not it involved either campaign.) A number of Russians have been charged with interfering with US elections and some US citizens have been charged with various offenses, but none involve collaboration between US citizens and the Russians during the 2016 campaign. The charges against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are serious, and he has already been convicted on some of them, but, once again, none involve the Trump campaign conspiring with Russia.

There is a major caveat here. Mueller’s investigation is not finished and we don’t know if he will conclude his work with some conspiracy charges. But, as McCabe knows, the Special Counsel would already have brought such charges against Manafort and others if he could substantiate them. He hasn’t brought any.

The Senate Intelligence Committee hasn’t found any conspiracy either, and they have been investigating on a bipartisan basis for two years.

McCabe knows all that, but he’s still flinging dung. After we wipe it off, we can ask of him, as the Army’s Chief Counsel, Joseph Welch, once asked of Joe McCarthy, ‘Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?’

In McCabe’s case, as in McCarthy’s, the question answers itself.

Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Chicago, where he is founding director of PIPES, the Program on International Politics, Economics, and Security.

The Sydney Morning Herald

Published  1 day ago

The Australian government issued the document after deciding he was not likely to be arrested for a serious criminal offence in a foreign country.

The Gaily Grind

Published  1 day ago

The federal judge presiding over Roger Stone’s criminal case on Thursday banned him from speaking publicly about his case or the special counsel investigation on Thursday, after hauling him back to court to answer for a social media post personally attacking her.

“Publicity cannot subside if it’s the defendant that’s fanning the flames,” District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said Thursday.

Before Berman Jackson’s ruling, Stone took the stand to beg for forgiveness.

“I am hurtfully sorry for my own stupidity. I am kicking myself, not as much as my wife is kicking me,” Stone told the court. He called the Instagram post “a momentary lapse of judgement” before saying that the photo was selected by someone who works for him, which he estimated was about “five or six people.”

“I heard political commentators talking about the likelihood that I’ll be raped in prison. It’s been a stressful situation. I’m having a hard time putting food on the table and making rent,” he said, reports NBC News.

Roger Stone: "I let myself down, my family down, my attorneys down. It was a momentary lapse of judgement. I heard political commentators talking about the likelihood that I’ll be raped in prison. It’s been a stressful situation."

— Allan Smith (@akarl_smith) February 21, 2019

The judge said the former Trump adviser “couldn’t keep his story straight on the stand” when she allowed him the opportunity to explain his decision to post the inflammatory photo on Instagram of her with what appeared to be small crosshairs next to her head over the weekend.

Got a notification for another Roger Stone Instagram post…it’s the judge presiding over his case. And in the upper left hand corner it looks like the symbol for crosshairs. pic.twitter.com/m6IW3QznTF

“Through legal trickery Deep State hitman Robert Mueller has guaranteed that my upcoming show trial is before Judge Amy Berman Jackson , an Obama appointed Judge who dismissed the Benghazi charges again [sic] Hillary Clinton and incarcerated Paul Manafort prior to his conviction for any crime. #fixisin Help me fight for my life at @StoneDefenseFund.com,” the now-deleted post read. Included in the picture was a banner at the bottom with Berman Jackson’s name displayed under her face.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 days ago

Michael Cohen An analyst with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was charged for leaking Michael Cohen’s bank records. CNN reported that he analyst was charged by the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California with unauthorized disclosure of a suspicious activity report, or SAR. Banks file SARs on any transactions that could be […]

Fox News

Published  2 days ago

The FBI's top lawyer in 2016 thought Hillary Clinton and her team should have immediately realized they were mishandling "highly classified" information based on the obviously sensitive nature of the contents of the emails sent through her private server -- and believed she should have been prosecuted until "pretty late" in the investigation, according to a transcript of his closed-door testimony before congressional committees last October. 

Big League Politics

Published  2 days ago

As Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) agitates against the Jews as a Congresswoman, the Minneapolis Somali community has emerged as the foremost terrorist hot spot of the United States.

This influx of Somali migrants is threatening the national security of the United States and is being enabled by far-left Democratic legislators such as Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) who, unsurprisingly, are happy to kowtow to these hostile invaders for votes and campaign cash.

However, the problem goes far deeper than mere pandering Democratic politicians. It is a bipartisan issue, as the Somalian migrant influx picked up during the Bush years. It was the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under the stewardship of Director Robert Mueller that dropped the ball following the Sept. 11 attacks when the Bureau should have been at its most vigilant.

Organizations like Church World Services, Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the National Association of Evangelicals’ World Relief Corp, and other nominally private religious organizations have soaked up tens of millions in federal funds to resettle so-called refugees as a result of Bush’s “faith-based initiative” policies. According to a WorldNetDaily report, the Bush administration resettled 49,613 Somalis per the U.S. State Department’s refugee database primarily to the state of Minnesota, which has apparently been designated as a Somali hub by the central planners of this refugee madness. Serving as FBI director for nearly five years under Obama, Mueller was responsible for much of the 47,500 Somali refugees who were resettled during his presidency as well.

Refugee resettlement expert Ann Corcoran pointed out that it is the FBI’s lax mentality that has allowed this issue to fester and become a bona fide national security threat. She points to a particularly telling quote from a federal official as reported by FOX News.

“Based on historical experience, we had (an uptick) in 2007 and 2008 going for al-Shabab, then a lull. Then, as ISIS came back, we saw a whole bunch of people no longer headed for Somalia. They were headed for Iraq and Syria. That really caught us off-guard, we didn’t see that coming. It didn’t make sense to us. We understood why kids were going back to Somalia, but going to Syria was another… issue,” a federal official said to Fox News.

This quote implies federal officials including those working under Mueller in the FBI did not take much issue with Somali migrants becoming Jihadis for the radically Islamic anti-American terror group, al-Shabab. Corcoran also points to comments made by FBI brass serving under Mueller in 2009 downplaying the threat of Somali migrants when al Shabab was initially on the rise.

“Global issues, issues in the Horn of Africa having an immediate impact, a ripple effect on communities in Columbus, Ohio; in Cincinnati; in Seattle; in San Diego; and in Minnesota–it is a real example of what globalization means in the new information world,” former FBI Associate Executive Assistant Director J. Philip Mudd said to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs back in 2009.

In his remarks, Mudd acknowledged the threat briefly before discounting it while pushing the usual line of globalism and diversity being our strength.

“We are not here to look at a mosque. A mosque is a building, a church is a building, a synagogue is a building, and a temple is a building,” Mudd said. “We are here to look at people who might be thinking about or have committed acts of violence or are supporting those who do so. This is about individuals who are small segments of a community and who do not represent the beauty that this country brings to immigrants.”

In his closing statement, Mudd made it abundantly clear that Somali radicalism wasn’t particularly high on the priority list of the FBI because the bureaucracy had so much on its plate.

“This is a priority for the FBI. It is one of a handful or more of priorities… And I want to put this in the context of a lot of priorities we have. This is not one of a couple. This is one of many. And we will continue to focus on it, but in the context of other priorities we have,” Mudd said.

Mudd was plucked from the CIA by Robert Mueller to serve as the Bureau’s first ever deputy director where he worked under Mueller for five years. Mudd now serves as a CNN counterterrorism analyst, losing his mind over the obvious assertion that he could receive lobbying money and other fringe benefits from his years of being a federal spook.

Because of the lack of concern from Mueller and his underlings about this problem, the Somali migrant community in Minneapolis – estimated at as many as 100,000 people – has become the leader in producing terrorist defectors, even outpacing other U.S. Islamic enclaves by a wide margin. Also, Rep. Omar has a national podium to preach her hate and extremism against the Jewish people because of Mueller’s failure to protect his nation.

Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) November 16, 2012

The fact that this career bureaucrat who failed to keep his country safe as FBI director is now allowed to undermine President Trump as he tries to correct Mueller’s mistakes is a scandal dwarfing anything involving the Russians in importance.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  2 days ago

Former Vermont governor and DNC chair Howard Dean said that he expects indictments and jail time for members of Donald Trump’s family – no matter what happens with the special counsel investigation.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Ari Melber, Dean said that regardless of whether Robert Mueller’s report shows conclusive evidence of a conspiracy with Russia, the “stench” of Trump family corruption will not go away.

“I don’t see a big change in the status quo,” the former governor said. “I do think there are a number of people going to jail. And I wouldn’t rule out Donald Jr.”

Howard Dean says Trump and his family are in trouble regardless of what the final Mueller report shows. #ctl #p2 pic.twitter.com/IRYP45YLxj

— PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) February 21, 2019

The exchange between Melber and Dean:

MELBER: Governor Dean, big picture. And if there is, quote, unquote, no election conspiracy, no collusion, what do you take from this? Is the Democrats’ argument yeah, okay, there wasn’t an international Watergate election conspiracy, there was just a ton of felonies by all the top people Trump picked?

DEAN: I don’t think the stench of the Trump family corruption is going to go away no matter what happens. I think if he gets indicted or if many of his people get indicted, there may be impeachment hearings depending on how muh evidence there is. But Trump’s label is now corruption. And his base is going to love him anyway and everybody else is going to hate him. And I don’t see a big change in the status quo. I do think there are a number of people going to jail. And I wouldn’t rule out Donald Jr.

Given the indictments, court filings, guilty pleas and endless lies from the Trump team about their communications with Russia, it’s hard to envision a scenario in which the Mueller report isn’t at least somewhat damning to the president and his corrupt circle of family and aides.

As PoliticusUSA’s Jason Easley noted on Wednesday, the report could be completed as early as next week. While there isn’t an exact timeline for the release, it’s clear that Mueller’s investigation is just about over.

The key remaining question is whether the report will be made available to the public so the country can see the truth about the president’s ties to a foreign adversary.

If the document isn’t made public by Trump’s new attorney general William Barr, not only will Democrats in Congress raise hell but the American people will take to the streets to demand its release.

American Greatness

Published  2 days ago

Whatever happens in the years to come, American politics can never return to what they were before November 8, 2016.

Why, you ask? Because a brash TV celebrity businessman from Queens broke the media, broke Washington D.C., and broke the self-appointed “elite” on both coasts. The stake he drove through their hearts will endure no matter who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

First, they laughed at Donald Trump the candidate. At his appearance, at his demeanor, at his outré stump speeches. Then, when he wiped the floor with the 16 establishment Republican candidates they panicked.

The criminal cartel that is the Clinton machine hired a former British intelligence officer—who hated Donald Trump the man—to generate a “dossier” of outlandish and false opposition research that was used by Barack Obama’s thoroughly corrupt Justice Department and FBI to gain under bogus pretenses a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance warrant to spy on her opponent’s campaign. But they failed.

That is when the coup plot was hatched.

I do not use that word lightly. However given that both the liberal judicial authority Alan Dershowitz, and the most preeminent conservative historian and strategist, Victor Davis Hanson, have recently used the word “coup” to describe the machinations of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, the choice is deliberate and justified.

Rosenstein and McCabe had never been elected to any public office, let alone the cabinet of the United States. Yet by McCabe’s own admission, they plotted to use the 25th Amendment to our Constitution to remove the duly elected president—an amendment that was designed for the incumbent president’s cabinet to employ in the dire scenario that their superior was incapacitated and unable to perform his duties as commander-in-chief.

The amendment is very clear. The president’s removal is decided by the vice president and a majority of his cabinet. Not by an FBI flunky whose wife received $700,000 from Hillary Clinton’s bagman Terry McAuliffe to run as a Democrat for the Virginia State Senate. And not by the acting attorney general—a man who would name his friend Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate the president the very day after Mueller failed in his interview with President Trump to get his old job back as Director of the FBI. This is exactly what a coup d’etat looks like—albeit, thankfully, a failed coup d’etat.

The point here is that Rosenstein, McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and the rest of the corrupt bureaucrats failed and Donald Trump remains president. Not only that, but beyond all rational expectations of standard political calculation and despite the overwhelming bias of the media—coverage of Trump is estimated at 90 percent negative in just the last year— his popularity stands by at least one measure at a remarkable 52 percent, which is significantly higher than for Obama at the same time in his first term.

This is the dispositive proof that Donald J. Trump has changed America in ways that no “expert” ever could imagine.

They spied on him and tried to subvert his campaign for election to the highest office. Once installed in the White House, they plotted to remove him. And all the while the media and the establishment as a whole either was not on his side or actively working against him. Yet he is winning more than ever.

Just look at Friday’s deal and his proclamation on a national emergency on our Southern border for proof.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went on record saying she’d only give the president $1 for the wall. Then, after a government shutdown and three weeks of negotiations, the president was finally offered $1.375 billion by the Democrats. In the meantime his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney found $6.6 billion, including drug cartel asset forfeitures, sitting at Department of Justice. So after requesting $5.7 billion to build the wall, and being refused and ridiculed, President Trump apparently walks away with $8 billion to keep his MAGA promise to America. Nancy promised $1, America ended up with $8 billion.

When I grew up in the United Kingdom, there was a famous story that became a popular song and then a movie. It concerned Charles Wells, “The Man who Broke the Bank in Monte Carlo.” Wells walked into the famous casino on July 28, 1891, with 4,000 British Pounds and walked away with the equivalent of 4 million.

For more than 30 years, America has been held hostage by a political, economic, media and cultural elite which has been wrong on every major issue you can imagine. From foreign adventurism to trade policies; national sovereignty versus globalization; love of country to hatred of the principles upon which our nation was built—one man has broken the stranglehold of a morally bankrupt “elite” and he isn’t even a politician.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

Photo credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Fox News

Published  2 days ago

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe is wrapping up soon, and a source familiar with the investigation tells Fox News it is "near the end game" -- although there has been no formal notification to President Trump's legal team that Mueller's work is completed.

Exiting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversaw the Mueller probe for 18 months until the recent confirmation of AG William Barr, had said privately he intended to remain in his role until the Mueller report was delivered to Congress. On Tuesday, the White House announced that Deputy Secretary of Transportation Jeff Rosen would replace Rosenstein.

Sources close to the investigative process have told Fox News that the high-level shakeup at Justice -- with Barr assembling his new team, and Rosenstein planning to leave by mid-March -- is a sign that the stars are aligning for the probe's conclusion.

The DOJ has not confirmed it is planning an announcement on the inquiry, and neither Mueller's team nor the DOJ responded to Fox News' request for comment.

ROSENSTEIN, FMR FBI DIRECTOR MCCABE NEED TO TESTIFY ABOUT APPARENT PLOT TO REMOVE TRUMP, GOP SAYS

Also unclear is whether the final Mueller report will be made public. Barr testified during his confirmation hearings that, as he understands the regulations governing the special counsel, the report will be confidential – and any report that goes to Congress or the public will be authored by the attorney general.

Some Democrats sounded the alarm after Barr's testimony, with Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal charging that Barr indicated he'd exploit legal "loopholes" to hide Mueller's final report from the public and to resist subpoenas against the White House.

"I will commit to providing as much information as I can, consistent with the regulations," Barr had told Blumenthal when asked if he would ensure that Mueller's full report was publicly released.

Mueller's team is still leading several prosecutions, including against longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone on charges of witness tampering and lying to Congress, and against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who awaits sentencing on charges he lied to FBI agents during the Russia probe. Flynn is cooperating as part of a separate Foreign Agents Registration Act case regarding lobbying work in Turkey as part of his plea deal.

The flurry of activity comes shortly after Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley -- who until recently was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- said he expected Mueller's final Russia report "within a month." Grassley later walked back those comments, saying they were based on unconfirmed news reports and rumors.

The top Republicans on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, meanwhile, are calling for former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe and Rosenstein to testify before their respective panels, following McCabe's explosive claims in an interview last week that senior Justice Department officials had considered removing President Trump using the 25th Amendment.

According to McCabe, Rosenstein offered to wear a wire to record the president, seemingly confirming reports last year. Rosenstein strongly denied that allegation, calling McCabe's statements "factually incorrect."

The 25th Amendment governs the succession protocol if the president dies, resigns or becomes temporarily or permanently incapacitated. While the amendment has been invoked six times since its ratification in 1967, the specific section of the amendment purportedly discussed by top DOJ officials -- which involves the majority of all Cabinet officers and the vice president agreeing that the president is "unable" to perform his job -- has never been invoked.

Fox News' Catherine Herridge and Jake Gibson contributed to this report.

WND

Published  2 days ago

There were more than a dozen stunningly explicit videos that were released by the Center for Medical Progress several years ago that revealed the unabashed profit motive in Planned Parenthood for their sales of baby body parts to middlemen who then sold them to researchers.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  2 days ago

Both CNN and The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation could wrap up as soon as next week.

While this could just mean that Mueller’s work is finished, Rachel Maddow dropped a chilling warning that Donald Trump’s new attorney general William Barr could be behind the special counsel’s sudden conclusion.

“Less than one week into the tenure of President Trump’s new attorney general William Barr, it’s over,” the MSNBC host said. “William Barr knows that’s what he was hired to do.”

Rachel Maddow floats a chilling theory about why the Mueller investigation is reportedly wrapping up as early as next week. #ctl #p2 #maddow pic.twitter.com/iWdmBa9XBl

— PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) February 21, 2019

Maddow said:

Less than one week into the tenure of President Trump’s new attorney general William Barr, it’s over. The Mueller investigation is being wrapped up as soon as next week, as soon as Monday. Time’s up. … So maybe this is just another stone on this long, dumb path of people saying Mueller is done. We’ve been hearing that forever. This absolutely could be that. It could also be, on the other hand, on the other range of possibility, it could be that attorney general William Barr has just shut it down. William Barr was hired to be attorney general, A. Because there was a vacancy. Why was there a vacancy? Because Trump fired Jeff Sessions as the previous attorney general. Why did trump fire Jeff Sessions as the previous attorney general? Well, what he said about it out loud for months is that Jeff Sessions wouldn’t shut down the Russia investigation, so that made him a terrible attorney general. So William Barr knows that’s what he was hired to do.

Since the special counsel investigation was launched, Trump has not even tried to hide his efforts to undermine it, whether it was pressuring witnesses or attacking its credibility via Twitter.

He has openly admitted that he wanted to fire Jeff Sessions because he didn’t protect him by shutting down the Russia investigation. Now, just days after William Barr was sworn in as the new attorney general, the special counsel investigation is reportedly over.

While it could be a coincidence and Mueller may just be finishing on his own terms, some Trump loyalists believed this is exactly what would happen after William Barr took over as attorney general.

Tomorrow will be the first day that President Trump will have a fully operational confirmed Attorney General. Let that sink in. Mueller will be gone soon.

— Matt Schlapp (@mschlapp) February 14, 2019

Ultimately, the American people have no reason to trust this administration or this Justice Department. The president has made it clear all along that he believes the DOJ is there to protect him.

In other words, the final Mueller report shouldn’t just be made public, but so should the circumstances surrounding its completion.

After nearly two years of a special counsel investigation into whether the president is essentially a Russian asset, it’s critical that the American people can trust the end result.

As of right now, Donald Trump hasn’t given them much reason to.

TheHill

Published  2 days ago

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Wednesday that he's far from sure that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation will clear up questions about President Trump and Russia.

He said he was hopeful the Mueller probe will provide some answers, but warned it might not even draw a conclusion on whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

“I think the hope is that the Mueller investigation will clear the air on this issue once and for all. I’m really not sure it will, and the investigation, when completed, could turn out to be quite anti-climactic and not draw a conclusion about that,” Clapper said Wednesday on CNN.

Clapper, a frequent critic of Trump's, said people in the intelligence community see a strange deference on the president's part toward Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“The strange thing I think that has bothered a lot of people both in and out of the intelligence community is this strange personal deference to Putin by the president. I’ve speculated in the past that the way Putin behaves is to treat President Trump as an asset,” Clapper said Wednesday.

He added that if Trump were indeed advancing Putin’s interests, he would more likely be doing so unwittingly.

The White House has lashed out at Clapper over his criticism in the past, and announced in August it was reviewing existing security clearances for Clapper and several other former intelligence and law enforcement officials who have criticized the White House.

Speculation has ramped up over Trump’s relationship with Russia after it was reported last month that the Justice Department had opened an investigation into whether the president was working on behalf of Moscow’s interests.

Former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe on Friday made the startling claim that he believes it’s possible Trump is a Russian asset.

McCabe and Trump have been embroiled in a particularly nasty fight, with the president firing the FBI official hours before he could retire.

POLITICO

Published  2 days ago

A coordinated barrage of social media attacks suggests the involvement of foreign state actors.

Breitbart

Published  2 days ago

For decades, voters have been lied to by politicians promising to crack down on immigration. We vote and we vote and we vote, and nothing ever changes. Wage-lowering, culture-destroying policies manage to appear in every bill Congress passes.  | Immigration

Breitbart

Published  3 days ago

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Wednesday raised the possibility that special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on his Russia investigation could be “anti-climactic.”

Appearing on CNN Wednesday morning, Clapper discussed recent remarks made by fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe regarding the possibility that President Donald Trump is a Russian “asset.” The longtime Deep Stater said that while he has speculated that the president might be a “witting asset” of Russian president Vladimir Putin, he ranks the possibility quite low.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper hopes that "the Mueller investigation will clear the air," but also cautions the results might be "anti-climatic, and not draw a conclusion" https://t.co/fCl8eRvh3D pic.twitter.com/DYYuEOqKt2

“You consider Putin’s background as a trained, experienced KGB agent and how he would approach somebody that he is trying to co-opt, or influence or gain leverage over, and in this case, you know, appeal to ego,” Clapper told New Day co-host Alisyn Camerota. “In that sense, in that context, is what I think of when I mean potential unwitting asset.”

Clapper said the Mueller probe will answer many questions about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election; however, some may view its findings far from conclusive.

“I think the hope is that the Mueller investigation will clear the air on this issue once and for all. I’m really not sure it will, and the investigation, when completed, could turn out to be quite anti-climactic and not draw a conclusion about that,” he said.

Clapper, a frequent critic of President Trump, told CNN last month that the arrest of longtime political operative Roger Stone shows “coordination” and “synchronization” between Trump officials and the Kremlin, an assessment disputed by legal experts and court filings.

“The indictment does not allege that Stone had any direct communications with Assange, nor does it allege that Stone or anyone else at the Trump campaign had any direct communications with Assange or any foreknowledge of actions that WikiLeaks took,” wrote Byron York of the Washington Examiner. “At various times, Stone claimed to have foreknowledge — a hint that something big was up — but the indictment suggests that he did not, in fact, know what WikiLeaks was going to do,” he added.

Rantt

Published  3 days ago

In a comprehensive piece, The New York Times outlines new details in Trump and House Republicans’ effort to obstruct investigations Trump is a subject of.

Rantt Rundown, Day 761 of Trump’s presidency – Today’s top stories:

1. The case for obstruction of justice: Over the last two years, the American people have watched as President Trump and House Republicans publicly and brazenly attempted to obstruct Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s attack on US democracy. Today, The New York Times published a must-read report that laid out the sequence of events in the most detailed manner we’ve seen thus far. In the piece, they also included new details that reveal President Trump’s early obsession with who would run the Southern District of New York’s attorney’s office didn’t end. Here are the key highlights from the report:

Whitaker revelation: President Trump reportedly called then-Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker and tried to see if he could get Trump ally Geoffrey S. Berman to be placed at the head of the Southern District of New York’s (SDNY) investigation into Trump. Berman had already recused himself. Even Fox News’ legal analyst Judge Napolitano said that this request appears to be “an attempt to obstruct justice” and demonstrates “corrupt intent.” This is important because one of President Trump’s first moves as POTUS was to fire then-SDNY prosecutor Preet Bharara after he denied Trump’s attempts to befriend him. The SDNY’s probe into Michael Cohen and Trump’s hush money payments, as well as New York’s other probes into the Trump Organization and Inaugural Committee, have now become some of Trump’s chief legal worries. House Democrats are reportedly looking into whether Whitaker committed perjury by telling the House Judiciary Committee he was never pressured over investigations concerning the president.

A chronological look at obstruction: The New York Times outlined the last two years of obstructive moves on the part of President Trump and his allies. From Trump’s efforts to end the FBI’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, his firing of FBI Director James Comey, his efforts to fire Mueller, to his attacks on former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, it’s all covered. The piece also discusses the conduct of Trump’s allies in the House who helped Trump take his assault on the rule of law to the next level. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) were especially key congressional allies in the President’s perpetuation of endless conspiracy theories that were subsequently debunked. The Times also made a potentially damning mention of Trump’s TV lawyer Rudy Giuliani coordinating with Paul Manafort’s lawyer and discussions of a potential pardon.

More than 1,100 attacks on the Russia investigation:The New York Times counted up the number of times President Trump has publicly attacked the Russia investigation and the total was staggering.

Whether or not you are a supporter of President Trump or, in spite of all the mounting evidence, believe he has committed no crimes, it is indisputable that he has conducted himself like a guilty man.

This is only a partial version of our Rantt Rundown newsletter. To get the full newsletter breaking down the top 5 stories of the day in your inbox every weeknight, please subscribe below.

Rantt Media’s comprehensive articles source reporting from top news organizations, but they’re also built on brilliant analysis from our team. We are independently-owned and strive for quality, not clicks. But the only way to truly have a media for the people is for media to be funded by the people. We take pride in being reader-funded so that we are beholden to you, not corporate interests. If you like the work we do, please consider supporting us by signing up for a monthly subscription.

Medium

Published  3 days ago

Both CNN and the Washington Post are reporting that Robert Mueller’s investigation into a possible conspiracy between the Trump campaign…

I Love My Freedom

Published  3 days ago

Robert Mueller's Russia investigation may be completed as early as next week according to Attorney General William Barr who was confirmed just last week. Mueller's investigation has been going on for almost two years and he

The Gateway Pundit

Published  3 days ago

CBS obtained surveillance video of the Osundairo brothers buying “supplies” from a store before the fake MAGA assault on Jussie Smollett. Sources told CBS News that Jussie Smollett told the brothers what to buy and countless phone calls were placed for this. Red hats and ski masks were among the items purchased by the brothers. The […]

dailycaller

Published  3 days ago

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe acknowledged Tuesday night that the FBI’s decision to open a counterintelligence investigation against President Trump is based on information that is already publicly known rather than previously undisclosed information tying the Republican to Russia.

“Are there other things that haven’t been made public at this point that contributed to the opening of the investigation of the president?” CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked McCabe in an interview.

“I’m not so sure that there are things that haven’t been made public,” replied McCabe, who was fired from the FBI on March 16, 2018.

McCabe’s comments help settle speculation about whether the FBI had secret information linking Trump to Russia. The New York Times first reported on Jan. 11 that the FBI had opened the investigation alongside a separate obstruction of justice inquiry against Trump.

McCabe’s comment on CNN suggests that the FBI did not have any smoking gun piece of evidence showing that Trump was working as an agent of the Russian government. (RELATED: McCabe Says He ‘Absolutely’ Will Support Mueller Report Even If No Collusion Is Found)

McCabe approved both investigations days after Trump fired James Comey as FBI director and days before Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel.

McCabe has said that Trump’s public comments criticizing the FBI’s Russia probe and Trump’s alleged request that Comey drop an investigation into Michael Flynn were catalysts for the counterintelligence investigation.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Judicial Watch

Published  3 days ago

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible collusion with Russia by the Trump presidential campaign dominates the news, but behind the scenes another bombshell story is coming together piece by piece. Was the Clinton network knee-deep in Russians and did the FBI shut down an investigation that would have provided answers about Clinton collusion?

Judicial Watch is one of the few organizations in pursuit of the story. We filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Justice Department after it failed to respond to our request for “all communications” related to “the closure or possible closure of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation” in 2016. Last week, in a separate lawsuit, we uncovered evidence pointing to undisclosed documents related to controversial FBI official Andrew McCabe and potential charges against Mrs. Clinton. We sued for records of a meeting between a top FBI official and an attorney for a Clinton-connected law firm related to then-candidate Trump and Russia, a story first reported by Fox News. And we’ve taken a skeptical look at the appointment by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions of U.S. Attorney John Huber to “evaluate certain issues” rising from the 2016 election.

One of those issues is the Uranium One controversy. Russia’s Rosatom atomic energy corporation in 2010 received U.S. permission, including a sign-off from Hillary Clinton’s State Department, to buy Uranium One, a Canadian company that owned significant American uranium assets. Was the Russian purchase of Uranium One connected to payments to the Clinton network and improper actions by Secretary of State Clinton?

Judicial Watch is lonely on the story but not alone. The Hill’s indefatigable John Solomon a year ago broke the news that the Clinton Foundation was under FBI investigation. “The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state,” Solomon reported.

Earlier this month, Solomon was at it again. Revisiting an episode that has “escaped significant attention,” Solomon reports that there is “clear evidence now that shows Hillary Clinton’s family and charity profited from Moscow and simultaneously facilitated official government actions benefitting Russia.”

The episode centers around the Skolkovo Innovation Center, a high-tech business center launched in Moscow in 2009. Five years later, as Skolkovo entities expanded in the U.S., the FBI issued an extraordinary public warning, saying that the Skolkovo connection “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies.”

Solomon notes that Secretary of State Clinton’s “handprint was everywhere” on the Skolkovo project, part of an attempt by the U.S. to reboot Russia relations. Leading the Russian side of the project was oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, a Putin-connected billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor. Firms connected to the oligarch donated at least $75,000 to the foundation. As the Skolkovo collaboration got underway, Solomon reminds us, Bill Clinton made his way to Moscow and was paid a jaw-dropping $500,000 for a speech to a Russian investment bank, Renaissance Capital.

Solomon reports that Bill Clinton sought permission from the State Department to meet with Vekselberg and “Arkady Dvorkovich, a senior official of Rosatom,” during the Moscow trip. This was at the time Rostom was “seeking State’s permission to buy Uranium One.” The Washington Examiner notes that the Clintons’ “relationship to Vekselberg continued throughout Hillary Clinton’s time at the State Department.”

Solomon adds additional details on possible Clinton collusion with the Russians—read his full report here. And Viktor Vekselberg certainly is a busy man, making a cameo in the Mueller probe and turning up in various other sketchy endeavors. Not everything in the Russia story comes up as collusion, cover-up or crime, but Solomon correctly notes that evidence related to Skolkovo, Rosatom and Uranium One “shows that the Clintons financially benefitted from Russia—personally and inside their charity—at the same time they were involved in U.S. government actions that rewarded Moscow and increased U.S. security risks.”

Micah Morrison is chief investigative reporter for Judicial Watch. Follow him on Twitter @micah_morrison. Tips: mmorrison@judicialwatch.org

Investigative Bulletin is published by Judicial Watch. Reprints and media inquiries: jfarrell@judicialwatch.org

Washington Examiner

Published  3 days ago

Some of the most zealous NeverTrump conservatives are seeking a candidate to challenge President Trump in the 2020 Republican primaries. It's an uphill slog in GOP politics, where the incumbent president enjoys substantial support and huge tactical advantages. But the NeverTrumpers' task could be further complicated by developments on the Democratic side of the race.

The dilemma: A primary challenge could weaken Trump and ensure the election of a Democrat. And as the Democratic Party lurches left, that could mean the work of NeverTrump conservatives ensures the election of a radical candidate on a platform of the Green New Deal, tax rates above 70 percent, universal health care, free college, even more liberal abortion policies, and more. It would be hard to imagine a more self-defeating result for activists who previously worked in conservative Republican politics.

This is not a secret. NeverTrump strategists are well aware that primary challenges weaken sitting presidents and help the opposition party. Some strategists are actually reminding potential supporters of that fact as they seek to organize a challenge to Trump. In 1976, President Gerald Ford faced a primary challenge and went on to lose the election. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter faced a primary challenge and went on to lose the election. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush faced a primary challenge and went on to lose the election.

Of course, there were other factors involved, particularly in the post-Watergate year of 1976. But in none of those cases did the primary challenger -- Ronald Reagan, Ted Kennedy, and Pat Buchanan -- go on to win his party's nomination that year.

Sarah Longwell, a Republican strategist working with former Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol in an anti-Trump group called Defending Democracy Together, recently cited another example from history. "In 1968, incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson -- supposedly on a glide path to the Democratic nomination -- was stunned to win barely 50 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary against Sen. Eugene McCarthy's 42 percent," Longwell wrote in a February 1 Washington Post op-ed. "Johnson dropped out of the race."

Longwell neglected to mention that McCarthy did not go on to win the Democratic nomination in 1968. The man who did, Vice President Hubert Humphrey, was defeated in the general election. But Longwell's NeverTrump readers cannot have failed to get the message: Challenge Trump and he will lose.

Last month, the New York Times reported that Longwell and Kristol "have been meeting with Republican donors and potential challengers, sharing focus-group and polling data about the president's vulnerability with what they call 'Reluctant Trump Voters.'"

If NeverTrump politicos persuade a reasonably well-known Republican -- Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, or former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, who has just launched an exploratory committee -- to challenge Trump in the GOP primaries, the likely result will not be that the party will nominate Hogan or Kasich or Weld but that it will nominate an incumbent damaged by the primary battle.

"I think any primary challenge of Trump is doomed to fail and silly to even start," Republican strategist Brad Todd told me in a recent email exchange. "Trump was the left-most candidate in the 2016 primary, and now his record is more conservative than his platform was then. You don't beat Republican incumbents in primaries from the left. The question is whether NeverTrumpers are willing to get it out of their system via a primary challenge. If they run a primary and lose, will they unite to beat the socialists in November? That is the question we should be asking."

Another GOP strategist, David Carney, suggested that Trump has vulnerabilities, while at the same time NeverTrumpers are not the ones to exploit them.

"The tone and tenor matter more than just running," Carney said in an email exchange. "The problem with the NeverTrumpers is they never gave Trump a chance and are perceived as being negative, on the whole, about everything Trump does or says. Primary voters will think they were not 'team members.' Someone else, if they run a serious effort and not just for media attention, could have a shot."

Perhaps. NeverTrumpers point to a few polls from early voting states to show that Republican voters would be open to a primary challenge to Trump. Longwell noted a Des Moines Register poll showing 63 percent of registered Republicans in Iowa would be open to a challenge, and a New Hampshire Journal poll showing 40 percent of GOP voters think a challenge would be a good thing.

At the moment, such polls are the NeverTrumpers' best case for a challenge. But there are doubts about whether the surveys really say much, because voters generally don't like to tell pollsters that their minds are closed a year before an election. "At this early point in any campaign, people are not going to shut their minds," said Republican pollster David Winston in a recent conversation. "They just don't do that. There's a huge difference between people saying they're thinking through things and how they behave. My guess is those polls are probably true, but that's because the electorate is trying to be thoughtful."

Winston believes the Democratic move to the left will change the nature of the 2020 race. The more Democrats advocate policies that were on the party's far left just a short time ago -- and are still out of the larger political mainstream -- the more the race will become a referendum on the future of the country, on which way it should go, and not on the personalities of the candidates. That could unite Republicans -- and many independents -- against moving in a policy direction so antithetical to their beliefs.

An example of that, Winston noted, is the recent progressive Democratic opposition that forced Amazon to pull out of a plan to build a second headquarters in New York City. The Amazon opponents, Winston wrote in Roll Call, "showed the American people the real-world consequences of progressive socialism and gave Republicans the perfect example to illustrate the choice in 2020 -- radical economic policies that cost jobs or pragmatic, commonsense economic policies that drive growth and create jobs."

But maybe there is some other way a GOP Trump challenge might work. Maybe the Democratic Party will shift again and nominate former Vice President Joe Biden as a more centrist candidate. It's possible, although it seems hard to believe Biden could win the nomination without moving steadily left. In any event, NeverTrumpers could cite a "moderate" Biden presidency as an acceptable outcome of their challenge to Trump.

That is theoretically possible, but the fact is, the 2020 choice is likely to be between Trump and a sharp turn left. And if that comes to pass, NeverTrumpers challenging the president -- on the explicit grounds that the challenge will weaken him and cause him to lose -- would be a key part of that sharp turn left.

There is yet one more possibility. Some NeverTrumpers could be betting that a damning report from Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller will fatally weaken Trump and possibly lead to impeachment and even removal from office, sending Republicans scrambling for another candidate. In that case, it is probably safe to say that the GOP would be screwed whatever it does. A NeverTrump challenge would be just one element of an extremely ugly post-Mueller intra-party battle.

Short of that, though, it seems likely that Republican voters will stick with the Republican president. And that is even more likely if Democrats keep moving left. Yet some NeverTrumpers, long committed to "disposing of" Trump (Kristol's phrase), will no doubt keep trying, no matter where that might lead.

Breitbart

Published  3 days ago

On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “Cuomo Primetime,” Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) stated that if Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report exonerates President Trump, “we move on.” He added that there are other investigations by Congress, states, and the Southern District of New York.

Lieu said, “Now, if the report comes out and exonerates Donald Trump, we move on. If it doesn’t, if it basically says, hey, we would have indicted Donald Trump for these offenses, but for the fact that there’s a policy memo saying we can’t, then I think Congress has to really look at these issues and decide what to do with whatever offenses the Robert Mueller investigation reveals. Separate from that, the House Judiciary Committee and other committees in Congress will investigate other aspects of potential wrongdoing, such as obstruction of justice, witness tampering, abuse of power.”

He later added, “Regardless of what Robert Mueller’s report shows, there are investigations by the Southern District of New York. There are state attorney general investigations. So, this is going to keep on going to make sure that all of the possible crimes that Donald Trump and his associates may have engaged in will be investigated.”

POLITICO

Published  3 days ago

President Donald Trump has derided CNN as a leading purveyor of “fake news,” and now, a recently departed administration official is joining the network in a senior role.

Sarah Isgur, who served as the Justice Department’s leading spokeswoman under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is joining the network as a political editor next month, where she will coordinate political coverage for the 2020 campaign.

Isgur joined the administration in 2017 after overcoming resistance from the president, who balked at bringing on a political operative who had trashed him on the campaign trail. As deputy campaign manager for Carly Fiorina’s presidential campaign, and in the months after Fiorina bowed out of the race, Isgur repeatedly laced into Trump.

“Saying you will criminally prosecute your political opponent when you win is a scary and dangerous threat,” she wrote on Twitter in October of 2016, in reference to Trump’s repeated threats to jail his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Isgur, who did not respond to a request for comment on this story, was equally critical of Clinton during the campaign.

While it is common for departing administration officials to join cable news networks as analysts or contributors, it is less common for them to oversee news coverage. Isgur has no experience in news but a long history as a political operative, most recently with the Trump administration and the Fiorina campaign. Before that, she worked for the Republican National Committee and on Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, according to her LinkedIn profile. She began working with Sessions before his confirmation hearing, guiding him through the process and preparing with him in mock hearings.

At CNN, Isgur will not play a role in covering the Department of Justice, according to a CNN official, who also said she will occasionally appear on air analyzing politics.

After Sessions recused himself from overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe in March 2017, causing an irreparable rupture in his relationship with the president, Isgur took on an awkward role inside the administration. She served not only Sessions’ public defender in the face of news reports that the president was routinely deriding him, but also as the spokeswoman for Sessions’ deputy, Rod Rosenstein, who assumed ownership of the Mueller probe and has had a similarly tense relationship with the commander in chief.

Isgur’s discussions with the network have sparked a whisper campaign among Trump supporters in and out of the government who are arguing — with no evidence — that she was the source of damaging leaks against the administration.

The president’s latest clash with CNN came on Friday when he dismissed a question from CNN’s chief political correspondent, Jim Acosta, calling it “a very political question.”

“You have an agenda, you’re fake news, you have an agenda,” Trump said.

Disclosure: Eliana Johnson is a political analyst at CNN.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  3 days ago

Newly-confirmed Attorney General Bill Barr is preparing to announce as early as next week the completion of dirty cop Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation according to CNN.

CNN reported Wednesday that AG Bill Barr plans to submit a summary of Mueller’s report to Congress.

According to CNN, the timing of the announcement is subject to change.

The President will soon be traveling to Vietnam to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jon Un for a summit so Mueller’s timing is suspicious. Mueller has been essentially shaping foreign policy by announcing indictments every time President Trump travels overseas.

The scope and contours of what Barr will send to Congress remain unclear. Also unclear is how long it will take Justice officials to prepare what will be submitted to lawmakers.

Bill Barr said during his confirmation hearings that he wants to be as transparent as possible “consistent with the rules and the law.”

According to the special counsel rules, Robert Mueller has to submit a “confidential” report to the attorney general. The rules do not require the attorney general to share the report with Congress or even make it public, but rest assured, the Democrats will fight like hell to get their hands on the report — even if it means using subpoena power.

Even though Robert Mueller is winding down his unconstitutional witch hunt, his report will be released and or leaked out and used as fodder against President Trump to impact his 2020 presidential run.

Democrats fear that Mueller’s report will be anticlimactic and or won’t be made public so they are ramping up additional ‘Trump-Russia’ investigations to harass President Trump.

House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) just announced a massive investigation into Trump’s personal life and finances.

Robert Mueller has jailed many of Trump’s associates on process crimes as punishment for helping Donald Trump defeat Queen Hillary.

The Deep State attempted a coup against Donald Trump — it’s time to jail the coup plotters.

The Independent

Published  3 days ago

Donald Trump has appointed the son-in-law of his next attorney general to the White House legal office, sparking fresh conflict-of-interest concerns in an administration that has increasingly become a family affair.

Tyler McGaughey, who is married to attorney general William Barr’s youngest daughter, left his post in the Justice Department for the new role.

News of the transition broke just as the US Senate voted to confirm Mr Barr as the nation’s next chief law enforcement officer on Friday afternoon.

The attorney general refused to commit to recusing himself from overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, despite previously describing the probe as “fatally misconceived” in an unsolicited memo sent to the Justice Department.

His son-in-law will now join a division of the White House legal team whose work reportedly intersects with the Russia investigation. However, he has not been assigned to the team responsible for defending the president in the special counsel’s probe.

Created with Sketch. The biggest names involved in the Trump-Russia investigation

Show all 17 Created with Sketch. Created with Sketch.

Created with Sketch. The biggest names involved in the Trump-Russia investigation

Mary Daly, Mr Barr’s oldest daughter who also worked at the Justice Department within the deputy attorney general’s office as the director of Opioid Enforcement and Prevention Efforts, has also found a new role at the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. She will now work at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), though her specific role was not immediately clear.

Ms Daly’s husband — who also works at the Justice Department — was expected to remain in his post within the department’s national security division, CNN reported.

Walter Shaub, former director of the Office of Government Ethics, described the attorney general’s son-in-law joining the White House legal team as “concerning,” though he said it was “a good idea” for Mr Barr’s family to leave their posts in the Justice Department in order to “avoid the bad optics that could come from the appearance of them working for him”.

“That’s troubling because it raises further questions about Barr’s independence,” Mr Shaub told the network about Mr McGaughey’s new role in the White House.

When questioned about the 20-page memo he sent to the department denouncing the special counsel’s probe, Mr Barr said he would request counsel from the Justice Department’s career ethics officials, but said he would “make my decision based on the law and the facts”.

There were at least 20 families in which multiple members held federal positions across Mr Trump’s administration, according to a Daily Beast report published in 2017.

Many of the president’s own family members either hold senior White House positions or top roles in his 2020 re-election campaign, including his daughter-in-law Lara Trump, whose White House meetings with administration officials have also sparked controversy.

We’ll tell you what’s true. You can form your own view.

At The Independent, no one tells us what to write. That’s why, in an era of political lies and Brexit bias, more readers are turning to an independent source. Subscribe from just 15p a day for extra exclusives, events and ebooks – all with no ads.

Fox News

Published  3 days ago

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said in an interview Tuesday that he believes it is possible that President Trump is a Russian asset and thinks “that’s why we started our investigation.”

McCabe has said in the past that the FBI had a good reason to open up a counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump was working with Russia and a possible national security threat.

The former official was on CNN’s "Anderson Cooper 360" when he was asked if he believes Trump may still be a Russian asset. He said he’s "anxious" to see the conclusion of special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s investigation.

GET THE FOX NEWS APP

He was also asked if he believes Trump is fit to serve and said it is not up to him to make the determination.

NaturalNews.com

Published  4 days ago

(Natural News) On Thursday reports noted that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired last year on the recommendation of the Justice Department inspector general’s office for lying to officials, revealed in interviews that he one of the ringleaders involved in an attempted coup against POTUS Donald Trump.

To be clear, McCabe didn’t come out and say, “Hey, we tried to oust a duly elected president and have our ‘preferred’ candidate installed,” but given actions he has admitted to and deeds he claims to have done or orchestrated, it’s obvious a coup is precisely what he was attempting.

According to excerpts of an upcoming “60 Minutes” interview, McCabe not only said he ordered the ‘obstruction of justice’ probe into POTUS Donald Trump, allegedly because he was “concerned” about ‘Russian collusion,’ but he also admitted that he was involved in “discussions” with the Justice Department to “remove” our duly elected president under terms outlined in the 25th Amendment after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey over his pathetic handling of the Hillary Clinton classified email probe.

In order to convince Cabinet members that POTUS Trump was ‘unfit’ to serve, McCabe and others, specifically Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, conspired to entrap the president by sending Rosenstein to see him while wearing a wire. The objective was to get the president to say something outrageous and unhinged, or something that could be spun that way, and use it to trigger his removal under the Constitution.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley said Thursday on CBS; Pelley interviewed McCabe for the “60 Minutes” segment.

Rosenstein and the Justice Department are, of course, denying McCabe’s account, but the former FBI official has not only insisted that the wire idea was actively and seriously discussed, but he also claims Rosenstein brought it up repeatedly.

“Either McCabe is fabricating everything in his book and, thus, will need to reimburse his publisher — or he’s being honest, which means he just laid out a case for being charged with” sedition, at a minimum, The National Sentinel suggested.

Let’s remember Obama was smack-dab in the middle of this

McCabe also told 60 Minutes that he was responsible for ordering the “counterintelligence investigation” against the president after Trump fired Comey (on the recommendation of Rosenstein — which now smells suspiciously like a set-up from the get-go) because he was allegedly “concerned” about Russian influence. This is the same line of reasoning that led Rosenstein to appoint Robert Mueller, a long-time friend and ally of Comey, as special counsel to investigate “Trump-Russia collusion.”

All of this came after the FBI under Comey launched a probe against Team Trump 2016 based on allegations contained in the now-infamous “Russia dossier” compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, who relied on Russian sources. The dossier was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Comey knew all along it was garbage — a prop used to justify FISA court surveillance warrants against Team Trump advisor Carter Page. The FBI knew it too.

And let’s never forget that this attempted coup began under the administration of one Barack Hussein Obama, who was well aware it was taking place and, according to former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, ordered it. (Related: It’s time for the American people to declare our own national emergency and remove destructive Dems from power.)

There are a number of figures — McCabe, Clapper, Comey just for starters — who took an active role in attempting to pull off a coup against a president who was chosen lawfully and constitutionally. It’s patently obvious now. A ringleader has arrogantly admitted it.

If newly appointed Attorney General William Barr doesn’t prosecute McCabe and those involved in the coup attempt, the Deep State will try this again with the next president they don’t ‘approve’ of.

And maybe next time they’ll be successful.

Read more about the Deep State’s corruption at Corruption.news.

Sources include:

NBC News

Published  4 days ago

Andrew McCabe served as the acting director of the FBI in the three-month aftermath of President Donald Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey. Excerpts from his book, “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump,” set for release on February 19, provide disturbing new insights into how and why we find ourselves in a full-blown special counsel investigation of our president, his inner circle and their contacts with Russian representatives. Spoiler alert: The book’s title — which compresses the words “threat,” “terror” and “Trump” into one breath — is a clue.

McCabe served America as an FBI special agent for over 20 years, working his way along an arduous career path from organized crime in New York to counterterrorism and high-value detainee interrogations to his eventual appointments as deputy director and then acting director. Among other high-profile cases he worked on, McCabe helped secure the arrest of Ahmed Abu Khattala for suspected involvement in the 2012 Benghazi attack.

Many FBI agents have written books filled with war stories or tales espousing the rewards of public service. Yet, few FBI leaders have felt that they had to write a book.

In the interest of full disclosure, I know Andrew McCabe. I served alongside McCabe for a short period at FBI headquarters; he led the counterterrorism division and I headed up counterintelligence. We were colleagues but not friends, in large part because the crushing work hours typically left little time for socializing. But we both sat through countless early morning briefings of then-FBI Director Robert Mueller. During these times I observed McCabe to be quiet, calm, smart and dedicated.

Many FBI agents have written books filled with war stories or tales espousing the rewards of public service. Yet, few FBI leaders have felt that they had to write a book. McCabe is writing a book for the same reasons that James Comey seems to have written a book; because he feels he must tell his side of the story and counter the withering barrage of taunting he and his family has endured from our bully of a president. "Yet now the rule of law is under attack, including from the President himself,” he writes.

No FBI agent wants to have to appear on national television to share what are typically guarded and private processes. We are all secretive and private about our work by nature and by protocol. It is not in our DNA to publicly recount sensitive discussions and decision-making at the highest levels of our institutions. Knowing what I know about FBI agents, and knowing what I know about Andrew McCabe, I believe this book was probably actually painful to write.

FBI agents are trained to identify and mitigate threats. It’s clear that McCabe was seriously concerned about a national security threat emanating directly from the Oval Office. As such, he tried to mitigate that threat. These passages paint an image of a chaotic administration made even more chaotic with the firing of the FBI director.

In an interview Sunday on CBS, “60 Minutes,” McCabe stated that during the days after Comey was fired, “the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the President,” even exploring the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment to have Trump removed from office. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who allegedly was part of such discussions, has offered only a partial denial of such talks. The Department of Justice has disputed the account. I’m convinced such discussions took place and that they reflected genuine concern that this president might be incapable of fulfilling his duties.

Similarly, McCabe asserts he was present when Rosenstein offered, multiple times, to wear “a wire” to record conversations with the president. The New York Times reported in September 2018 that Rosenstein proposed secretly recording Trump, a report that Rosenstein quickly denied. A Justice Department spokeswoman told the Times at the time that Rosenstein made the offer sarcastically.

But McCabe told “60 Minutes” on Sunday that Rosenstein’s offer was not just a joke and that it happened more than once. In fact, McCabe deemed it “so serious that he took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss it.” The fact that the deputy attorney general of the United States would talk of secretly recording the U.S. president, seemingly to capture conversations related to the obstruction of on-going investigations, and/or to gather evidence that the president was unfit for duty, shows there were indeed deep concerns about Trump’s conduct.

Shockingly, as excerpted in the Washington Post, McCabe recounts an Oval Office briefing in July 2017, wherein the president refused to believe a U.S. intelligence report that North Korea had test-fired an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Trump dismissed this intelligence as a “hoax” because Russian President Vladimir Putin told him North Korea lacked that capacity. To a trained senior FBI agent and lawyer like McCabe, this would have fueled further concern that a president whose potential ties to Russian agents was already under suspicion, was relying on and receiving disinformation from the head of our most formidable adversary.

In McCabe’s telling, he was seriously worried that obstruction of the Mueller probe was happening or could happen. In his “60 Minutes” interview, McCabe said that fearing he might be fired, he moved to try and ensure the “Russia case was on solid ground.” He took steps to make it tougher for anyone to end the investigation if he was removed. Specifically, McCabe said he ordered an obstruction of justice investigation of the president. This additional obstruction component would have added a layer of protection to the Russian case in that someone trying to close the investigation would have had to prove that decision was not intended to obstruct, or aid the president in obstructing, the broader investigation.

Of course, McCabe’s fears about his job were warranted. He was fired from the FBI a mere 26 hours before he could have retired with an FBI pension. This firing was the result of a DOJ Inspector General inquiry that recommended McCabe be fired for an unauthorized media disclosure and for lacking candor on four occasions. I led an adjudication unit in the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility and was responsible for disciplinary decisions in cases of serious misconduct. I later served as the FBI’s chief inspector, investigating and reviewing sensitive personnel and program performance issues. In the hundreds of internal investigations that I’ve handled, I never saw an FBI employee fired within 26 hours of retirement. In my experience, employees in similar situations were typically allowed to stay on, sometimes under suspension, until retirement eligibility kicked in.

The fact that McCabe may have lacked candor during an inquiry troubles me greatly, but the circumstances around his firing trouble me even more and give rise to concern that the White House or attorney general put their thumbs on the scale of justice when it came to decisions of what to do with McCabe. Importantly, even if the lack of candor allegations were valid, we need to take notice of McCabe’s verifiable observations and accounts. He’s sounding an alarm and we need to listen.

Breitbart

Published  4 days ago

CNN again publicly fantasized about that “dandy” Roger Stone getting raped in prison.

This time, it was David Gergen, one of the far-left network’s ancient analysts, who has not said anything interesting or insightful in decades. His job is to pretend to be a Republican and then bash Republicans in the way his media masters demand.

Stone, a longtime Trump supporter, is now in some legal jeopardy over an Instagram post that apparently violated a judge’s gag order. One possible outcome is the revocation of his bail, which would find Stone cooling his heels in prison until his trial date. Stone was indicted last month by special counsel Robert Mueller for a process crime.

Upon hearing the news of a possible bail revocation Tuesday afternoon, Gergen’s mind immediately turned to sodomy, the forced sodomy of that “dandy” Roger Stone.

“Roger Stone must also worry that if he goes there — you know, he’s seen as something of a dandy — will he be physically safe? Will he be subject to rape?” Gergen said. “I mean, there must be a lot of things are going through his mind.”

This is the second time a CNN leftist has planted the seed of Stone’s prison rape in the public’s mind.

Late last month, CNN anchor and anti-Trump activist Jake Tapper, in an obvious reference to prison rape, said Stone “might like” prison.

“No one’s going to cry if Roger Stone goes to jail or when he goes to jail,” former Obama adviser Jen Psaki said of Stone.

“He might like it,” quipped Tapper.

Psaki laughed and added, “He might. Who knows?”

And this is not the first time Tapper has viewed the horror of rape through a partisan prism. Last year, while hosting an anti-gun town hall, Tapper offered only silent approval as his audience booed a rape victim.

And it is not only CNN doing it. John Podhoretz, a Never Trumper and frequent MSNBC guest, also spread the idea of Stone enjoying a good, old-fashioned prison rape.

“The thing is,” Podhoretz gleefully wrote in a now-deleted tweet, “given his proclivities, Stone would enjoy prison.”

Worse than openly fantasizing or joking about a 66-year-old man getting raped in prison, though, there is the wish-casting. The seething hatred that emanates from Tapper, Gergen, Podhoretz, and their left-wing confederates throughout the political and media establishment is no secret, nor is it hidden.

And now, here they are, not only openly delighting in the idea of “dandy” Roger Stone getting raped; I would go even further to argue the intent here is to plant a seed, to float the idea into the ether. The suggestion is obvious, is it not? Stone’s got it coming, which means raping him would be a virtuous act, would be a just act that would earn the admiration of America’s political media elites…

Tell me again how the media are not the enemy of the people.

Breitbart

Published  4 days ago

The Justice Department could announce the completion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on his investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election as early as next week, according to report Wednesday.

CNN reports that newly-confirmed attorney general Willian Barr is expected to turn over a summary of the report to Congress soon after its completion. The outlet cautioned that President Donald Trump’s overseas trip to meet with North Korea dictator Kim Jong-un could impact the “precise timing of the announcement.”

Preparations undertaken by Barr and Justice Department officials is the clearest sign yet that the nearly two-year-old investigation is drawing to a close. CNN writes: “The scope and contours of what Barr will send to Congress remain unclear. Also unclear is how long it will take Justice officials to prepare what will be submitted to lawmakers.”

Barr has cited Justice Department regulations that say Mueller’s report should be confidential. They require only that the report explain decisions to pursue or decline prosecutions.

The Justice Department, nor the special counsel’s office would comment to CNN regarding its report.

In a press conference last month, then-Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said he believed Mueller’s investigation was “close to being completed.”

“Right now the investigation is I think close to being completed,” the Justice Department official told reporters. “I hope we can get the report from Director Mueller as soon as possible.”

Appearing on CNN’s New Day Wednesday morning, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Mueller’s report could be “anti-climactic.”

“I think the hope is that the Mueller investigation will clear the air on this issue once and for all. I’m really not sure it will, and the investigation, when completed, could turn out to be quite anti-climactic and not draw a conclusion about that,” he said.

Mueller, a former FBI director, was named by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in May 2017 to look into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Mueller’s team has indicted a total of 34 people — yet thus far, no charges of outright collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow have been filed. Last month, Roger Stone, a veteran Republican operative and longtime Trump adviser, was arrested at his south Florida home by FBI agents on charges of making false statements to Congress and witness tampering. Six Trump associates have pleaded guilty to various charges so far including his former campaign manager Paul Manafort, former lawyer Michael Cohen and former national security advisor Michael Flynn.

House Democrats are stepping up their efforts to investigate President Trump and his associates, hiring new lawyers and staff as they take on oversight responsibility and prepare for a showdown over access to Mueller’s report. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) confirmed last week that he hired two veteran lawyers and Trump critics — Barry Berke and Norman Eisen — as his panel gears up to investigate the Justice Department and review Mueller’s final conclusions. Nadler and other Democrats have pressured Barr to release as much of the report as possible.

Meanwhile, it appears Senate investigators may be winding down their own probe without finding evidence of collusion. NBC News, citing Democrats and Republicans, reported last week that the panel has yet to uncover “direct evidence” of “conspiracy” between Trump officials and Russia. “If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) told CBS News.

The Agence France-Presse and Associated Press contributed to this report.

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  4 days ago

News Analysis Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s interview with Scott Pelley of “60 Minutes” aired on Sunday, ...

Raw Story

Published  4 days ago

Trump’s longtime confidant Roger Stone on Monday attacked the federal judge presiding over his criminal case in the special counsel’s Russia probe.

In an Instagram post, Stone lashed out at U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson.

“Through legal trickery Deep State hitman Robert Mueller has guaranteed that my upcoming show trial is before Judge Amy Berman Jackson , an Obama appointed Judge who dismissed the Benghazi charges again Hillary Clinton [sic] and incarcerated Paul Manafort prior to his conviction for any crime,” he wrote. Stone then asked for donations.

The Guardian’s Jon Swaine noted that the picture Stone posted on Instagram placed crosshairs next to Jackson’s head.

Last week, Jackson prohibited Stone from commenting on the case near the Washington, D.C., courthouse. But he remains otherwise free to discuss his situation. However, Jackson has warned that she could amend the limited gag order in the future if necessary.

“This is completely out of bounds. The cross hairs will likely lead prosecutors to ask for revocation of his pre-trial release. At best, this is a cheap stunt designed to get the judge to recuse, at worst, an outright threat,” former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance said.

Stone later deleted the photo, and re-posted it on Instagram after cropping the crosshairs out of the image. He then deleted that photo as well.

(Note: This article was updated after Roger Stone deleted his original Instagram post.)

The Federalist

Published  4 days ago

McCabe proves that the Russia probe was always tainted and that many in the FBI and DOJ aren’t public servants, but rather incompetent attention-seekers.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  4 days ago

For nearly two years Donald Trump has relentlessly attacked special counsel Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutors. It’s another team of prosecutors, however, who pose an equally grave threat to his presidency — the federal prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). And according to a new report in POLITICO, this threat to Trump hasn’t been getting the attention it deserves.

The SDNY has been running several serious and aggressive investigations into Trump’s life and business affairs, and even into alleged crimes committed by his children. In fact, some legal experts believe that the SDNY investigators and prosecutors may soon be in a position to issue criminal indictments against the president, as well as three of his children — Don Jr., Ivanka and Eric.

They are investigating possible crimes surrounding Trump’s inauguration committee and his family-owned business. Of course they have also investigated Trump’s longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen and sent him to jail. And earlier this month we reported that Vice President Mike Pence may also be implicated in crimes being investigated by the SDNY.

The bad news for Trump is that he has no viable way to shut down the SDNY probes that could not just end his presidency but possibly send him and three of his children to jail. On top of that, New York federal prosecutors may use the RICO laws to take all of Trump’s money and assets.

Clearly the SDNY should be — and probably is — causing Donald Trump to experience many sleepless nights. (In fact, this may partially explain his increasingly deranged behavior.)

According to POLITICO:

“Manhattan-based federal prosecutors can challenge Trump in ways Mueller can’t. They have jurisdiction over the president’s political operation and businesses — subjects that aren’t protected by executive privilege, a tool Trump is considering invoking to block portions of Mueller’s report.”

The most recent rumor, POLITICO says, is that “legal circles are… buzzing over whether SDNY might buck DOJ guidance and seek to indict a sitting president.”

Due to informal Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines, it has been widely assumed that federal prosecutors would not indict Trump while he is president. But that may not in fact be true, since the SDNY is not strictly bound by a mere “guideline.” Needless to say, if they do indict Trump while he is in office it would create a controversy unlike anything seen in Washington for decades.

Another worry for Trump is that the SDNY investigations can continue indefinitely and will probably last well past the time when Mueller’s probe ends.

So even if Mueller wraps up his work in a few months, the SDNY probes will continue into 2020, severely damaging a possible Trump 2020 reelection bid. And if that happens, we will have Robert Mueller to thank.

As POLITICO said in its report:

“Mueller can take credit for spawning significant parts of SDNY’s work. The two DOJ units have shared staff, witnesses and leads, and SDNY has been well-positioned to pick up anything that is outside Mueller’s primary lane of investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

Part of the genius of Robert Mueller is that he has arranged so that Donald Trump cannot evade prosecution for his crimes. He has made sure other law enforcement agencies are involved so the probes will continue even if the special counsel’s office is shut down by the president.

Trump can’t stop the SDNY from continuing, and in addition to that there are ongoing investigations from the New York Attorney General‘s office and the New York Revenue Department (which is looking at Trump‘s alleged tax crimes). Clearly Donald Trump‘s future does not look very bright.

We also have reported that House Democrats are just beginning their investigations. It is clear that no matter what happens with respect to the Mueller probe, the investigations into Donald Trump‘s alleged crimes will continue for a long time into the future.

cbsnews

Published  4 days ago

Former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe tells 60 Minutes about taking over for James Comey, starting investigations of President Trump, interactions with the president and his own firing

Liberty Freedom | United States | The Washington Pundit

Published  5 days ago

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said in an interview broadcast Sunday that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein “was not joking” when he suggested secretly recording President Donald Trump in the Oval Office following the May 2017 dismissal of FBI Director James Comey.

McCabe, speaking to CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” recounted a conversation soon after Comey’s firing about the ongoing Russia investigation in which he said Rosenstein told him: “I never get searched when I go into the White House. I could easily wear a recording device. They wouldn’t know it was there.”

“Now, he was not joking,” McCabe said of Rosenstein’s comments. “He was absolutely serious. And in fact, he brought it up in the next meeting we had.”

McCabe told “60 Minutes” that he “never actually considered taking [Rosenstein] up on the offer,” but said he did discuss the matter with the FBI’s then-general counsel, James A. Baker. Last fall, Baker told lawmakers during a closed-door deposition that McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page came to Baker “contemporaneously” and told him details of the meeting where Rosenstein made the comments. Baker told congressional investigators he took the word of McCabe and Page “seriously.”

McCabe told CBS News that “I think the general counsel had a heart attack” when he told him of Rosenstein’s plan.

“And when he got up off the floor, he said, ‘I, I, that’s a bridge too far. We’re not there yet,'” McCabe added. Days later, Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special counsel to oversee the bureau’s investigation into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Rosenstein repeatedly has denied he “pursued or authorized recording the president” and also has denied McCabe’s suggestion that the deputy attorney general had broached the idea of invoking the Constitution’s 25th Amendment, which allows Cabinet members to seek the removal of a president if they conclude that he or she is mentally unfit. The Justice Department echoed both denials in a statement released last week, saying Rosenstein “was not in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment.”

“Rod raised the [25th Amendment] issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort,” McCabe told interviewer Scott Pelley, adding that he believed Rosenstein was “counting votes or possible votes” to remove Trump from office.

“What seemed to be coursing through the mind of the deputy attorney general was getting rid of the president of the United States one way or another,” Pelley suggested.

“I can’t confirm that,” McCabe answered. “But what I can say is, the deputy attorney general was definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity and about his intent at that point in time.”

According to McCabe, Rosenstein was affected by what McCabe called an “incredibly turbulent, incredibly stressful” time after Comey’s firing. The former FBI deputy director claimed Trump had instructed Rosenstein to cite the Russia investigation in a memo Rosenstein wrote justifying Comey’s dismissal.

“[Trump was] saying things like, ‘Make sure you put Russia in your memo.’ That concerned Rod in the same way that it concerned me and the FBI investigators on the Russia case,” said McCabe, who added that Rosenstein “explained to the president that he did not need Russia in his memo. And the president responded, ‘I understand that. I am asking you to put Russia in the memo anyway.'”

During his interview, McCabe criticized Trump for what he called an “unwillingness to learn the true state of affairs that he has to deal with every day.” He cited an account by an anonymous FBI official who met with the president only to be met with “several unrelated diatribes by Trump.”

“One of those was commenting on the recent missile launches by the government of North Korea,” McCabe said. “And, essentially, the president said he did not believe that the North Koreans had the capability to hit us here with ballistic missiles in the United States. And he did not believe that because [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin had told him they did not. President Putin had told him that the North Koreans don’t actually have those missiles.”

When intelligence officials allegedly told Trump that their information did not match what the Russian leader had told him, Trump allegedly said, “I don’t care. I believe Putin.”

McCabe was dismissed from the FBI in March 2018 after the Justice Department’s internal watchdog concluded he approved leaking information to a Wall Street Journal reporter in order to cast himself in a positive light, then lied under oath about it. In the interview broadcast Sunday, McCabe denied intentionally misleading the DOJ’s internal investigators, saying: “There’s absolutely no reason for anyone and certainly not for me to misrepresent what happened … Did I ever intentionally mislead the people I spoke to? I did not. I had no reason to. And I did not.”

He added, “I believe I was fired because I opened a case against the president of the United States.”

In the White House response to McCabe’s claims, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders noted that “Andrew McCabe was fired in total disgrace from the FBI because he lied to investigators on multiple occasions, including under oath. His selfish and destructive agenda drove him to open a completely baseless investigation into the President. His actions were so shameful that he was referred to federal prosecutors.

“Andrew McCabe has no credibility and is an embarrassment to the men and women of the FBI and our great country.”

Fox News

Published  5 days ago

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe said in an interview broadcast Sunday that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "was not joking" when he suggested secretly recording President Donald Trump in the Oval Office following the May 2017 dismissal of FBI Director James Comey.

McCabe, speaking to CBS News' "60 Minutes," recounted a conversation soon after Comey's firing about the ongoing Russia investigation in which he said Rosenstein told him: "I never get searched when I go into the White House. I could easily wear a recording device. They wouldn't know it was there."

"Now, he was not joking," McCabe said of Rosenstein's comments. "He was absolutely serious. And in fact, he brought it up in the next meeting we had."

McCabe told "60 Minutes" that he "never actually considered taking [Rosenstein] up on the offer," but said he did discuss the matter with the FBI's then-general counsel, James A. Baker. Last fall, Baker told lawmakers during a closed-door deposition that McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page came to Baker "contemporaneously" and told him details of the meeting where Rosenstein made the comments. Baker told congressional investigators he took the word of McCabe and Page "seriously."

McCabe told CBS News that "I think the general counsel had a heart attack" when he told him of Rosenstein's plan.

"And when he got up off the floor, he said, 'I, I, that's a bridge too far. We're not there yet,'" McCabe added. Days later, Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special counsel to oversee the bureau's investigation into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Rosenstein repeatedly has denied he "pursued or authorized recording the president" and also has denied McCabe's suggestion that the deputy attorney general had broached the idea of invoking the Constitution's 25th Amendment, which allows Cabinet members to seek the removal of a president if they conclude that he or she is mentally unfit. The Justice Department echoed both denials in a statement released last week, saying Rosenstein "was not in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment."

"Rod raised the [25th Amendment] issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort," McCabe told interviewer Scott Pelley, adding that he believed Rosenstein was "counting votes or possible votes" to remove Trump from office.

"What seemed to be coursing through the mind of the deputy attorney general was getting rid of the president of the United States one way or another," Pelley suggested.

"I can't confirm that," McCabe answered. "But what I can say is, the deputy attorney general was definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity and about his intent at that point in time."

MCCABE, ROSENSTEIN MUST TESTIFY TO EXPLAIN CLAIM THAT DOJ DISCUSSED REMOVING TRUMP, GOP LEADERS SAY

According to McCabe, Rosenstein was affected by what McCabe called an "incredibly turbulent, incredibly stressful" time after Comey's firing. The former FBI deputy director claimed Trump had instructed Rosenstein to cite the Russia investigation in a memo Rosenstein wrote justifying Comey's dismissal.

"[Trump was] saying things like, 'Make sure you put Russia in your memo.' That concerned Rod in the same way that it concerned me and the FBI investigators on the Russia case," said McCabe, who added that Rosenstein "explained to the president that he did not need Russia in his memo. And the president responded, 'I understand that. I am asking you to put Russia in the memo anyway.'"

During his interview, McCabe criticized Trump for what he called an "unwillingness to learn the true state of affairs that he has to deal with every day." He cited an account by an anonymous FBI official who met with the president only to be met with "several unrelated diatribes by Trump."

"One of those was commenting on the recent missile launches by the government of North Korea," McCabe said. "And, essentially, the president said he did not believe that the North Koreans had the capability to hit us here with ballistic missiles in the United States. And he did not believe that because [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin had told him they did not. President Putin had told him that the North Koreans don't actually have those missiles."

When intelligence officials allegedly told Trump that their information did not match what the Russian leader had told him, Trump allegedly said, "I don't care. I believe Putin."

McCabe was dismissed from the FBI in March 2018 after the Justice Department's internal watchdog concluded he approved leaking information to a Wall Street Journal reporter in order to cast himself in a positive light, then lied under oath about it. In the interview broadcast Sunday, McCabe denied intentionally misleading the DOJ's internal investigators, saying: "There's absolutely no reason for anyone and certainly not for me to misrepresent what happened ... Did I ever intentionally mislead the people I spoke to? I did not. I had no reason to. And I did not."

He added, "I believe I was fired because I opened a case against the president of the United States."

In the White House response to McCabe's claims, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders noted that "Andrew McCabe was fired in total disgrace from the FBI because he lied to investigators on multiple occasions, including under oath. His selfish and destructive agenda drove him to open a completely baseless investigation into the President. His actions were so shameful that he was referred to federal prosecutors.

"Andrew McCabe has no credibility and is an embarrassment to the men and women of the FBI and our great country."

I Love My Freedom

Published  5 days ago

Andrew McCabe is going down and taking everyone with him.

The former acting FBI Director has now snitched on Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

SPECIAL EDITION Trump/Reagan Coin – Limited Time Offer

McCabe claims that Rosenstein “offered to wear a wire into the White House” and then took it a step further. He told Scott Pelley on “60 Minutes” that Rosenstein once said “I never get searched when I go into the White House. I could easily wear a recording device. They wouldn’t know it was there.”

Here’s where it gets tricky.

CNN reported that Rosenstein denies he ever tried to wear the wire, but conflicting reports, particularly from McCabe suggest he mentioned it at least twice.

McCabe says Rosenstein wasn’t joking, which contradicts the narrative that some claimed Rosenstein was just kidding. McCabe believes Rosenstein was serious and that he brought it up more than once.

The report on KTVZ stated, “He was absolutely serious,” McCabe told Pelley. “And in fact, he brought it up in the next meeting we had. I never actually considered taking him up on the offer. I did discuss it with my general counsel and my leadership team back at the FBI after he brought it up the first time.”

Was he going to wear a wire in attempt to take down President Trump? Did he hope to be the bane of Trump’s existence in hopes that someone would find dirt on the President?

There’s a good chance that people already wore wires in the White House and the fact that nothing has surfaced yet tells us all we need to know.

Numerous people try finding dirt on President Trump but they continue coming up empty.

Comments like this almost got Rosenstein to leave the the department he worked for, but he stayed and kept an eye on Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia.

That investigation laid up a goose egg, wasting everyone’s time for two years as the investigation was pointless.

KTVZ continued, “In response to McCabe’s 60 Minutes interview, a Justice Department spokesperson issued a statement late last week, saying Rosenstein “never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe references.”

Just because it wasn’t authorized, doesn’t mean Rosenstein didn’t want it to happen.

[RELATED: TRUMP CARD! POTUS Frees Up $8 BILLION For The Wall; Dems Are Pissed]

Full Measure

Published  5 days ago

Russia Probe

02/17 12:01 pm

Nearly two years ago, Special Counsel Mueller was named to investigate whether President Trump broke the law by somehow conspiring with Russian President Vladimir Putin to win the presidency. We still don’t know the outcome of that. But we’ve learned a lot about what some in our intelligence community have been up to. And some argue that’s proving to be an equally important— and chilling— story. From Trump associate Roger Stone..

Breitbart

Published  5 days ago

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) hinted that he would not accept the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller as the end of the investigation into President Donald Trump and Russia.

CNN’s Dana Bash asked, “We expect at some point maybe soon, maybe not, the findings of the Mueller investigation to finally be completed. If he finds that there was no direct collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, will you accept that?”

Schiff, “We’re going to have to do our own investigation, and we are. We’ll certainly be very interested to learn what Bob Mueller finds. We may have to fight to get that information. Bill Barr has not been willing to commit to provide that report either to the Congress or to the American people. We’re going to need to see it. The American people need to see it. We may also need to see the evidence behind that report. There may be, for example, evidence of collusion or conspiracy that is clear and convincing but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

He added, “The American people are entitled to know if there is evidence of a conspiracy between either the president or the president’s campaign and a foreign adversary. At the end of the day, the most important thing for the American people to know is whether the president is somehow compromised, whether there’s a leverage the Russians could use over the president and if the Russians are in a position to expose wrongdoing by the president or his campaign. That’s compromising.”

Bash pressed, “You are talking about transparency, but I guess the question is, in terms of what the substance of his findings are, Robert Mueller, will you, given the fact he has had such an extensive investigation, will you accept the findings separate from the investigation that you are doing?”

Schiff, said, “You know, I will certainly accept them in this way, Dana; I have great confidence in the special counsel. And if the special counsel represents that he has investigated and not been interfered with and not been able to make a criminal case, then I will believe that he is operating in good faith.”

Fox News

Published  5 days ago

That was the official finding in February 2018 of a scathing 39-page report by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General. They found McCabe, then Deputy Director of Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) "lacked candor" in answering questions about his authorization of disclosures in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. The referral for further action went to the DOJ.

GRAHAM CALLS MCCABE COMMENTS 'BEYOND STUNNING' AS HE THREATENS TO SUBPOENA FORMER FBI CHIEF

One year later he is publishing a book, being highlighted on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” and walking free after lying at least four times, three of them under oath, to federal authorities investigating his conduct. Trading on the notoriety he gained from his partisan loyalty, he will now have the opportunity to monetize the duplicity that shielded Hillary Clinton from justice.

For a time, McCabe was the acting director of the FBI. He of all people knew the rules, the law, and had a duty and responsiblity to tell the truth.

In stark contrast, the subjects of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigations have been shown no such favor. Several are being prosecuted for lying to federal authorities. Much to my surprise, Mueller actually managed to get the DOJ to prosecute someone for lying to Congress – former Trump attorney Michael Cohen. That is a promising development.

People who lie to Congress should be prosecuted. But not selectively. We seem to live in a world with two sets of rules – one for loyal Democrat partisans, and a strict one for everyone else, especially those who supported Donald Trump.

If ever there was a case that demands prosecution, McCabe's is that case. For an FBI employee, integrity and credibility are the most important tools of the trade. How can one testify credibly if they have been shown to "lack candor" – in FBI parlance – in other cases?

The Inspector General in its February 2018 report provided the DOJ with mounds of evidence, including audio recordings, detailing how McCabe lacked candor “in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership.”

For a time, McCabe was the acting director of the FBI. He of all people knew the rules, the law, and had a duty and responsiblity to tell the truth. And yet his own colleagues found he lied. In fact, he accomplished something federal employees rarely accomplish - he was ultimately fired for his offenses.

Now he’s on a book tour. He should be under prosecution.

Jason Chaffetz is a Fox News contributor who was the chairman of the U.S. House Oversight Committee when he served as a representative from Utah. He is the author of "The Deep State: How an Army of Bureaucrats Protected Barack Obama and is Working to Destroy the Trump Agenda."

the Guardian

Published  5 days ago

A director of the controversial data company Cambridge Analytica, who appeared with Arron Banks at the launch of the Leave.EU campaign, has been subpoenaed by the US investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

A spokesman for Brittany Kaiser, former business development director for Cambridge Analytica – which collapsed after the Observer revealed details of its misuse of Facebook data – confirmed that she had been subpoenaed by special counsel Robert Mueller, and was cooperating fully with his investigation.

He added that she was assisting other US congressional and legal investigations into the company’s activities and had voluntarily turned over documents and data.

Kaiser, who gave evidence to the UK parliament last April in which she claimed Cambridge Analytica had carried out in-depth work for Leave.EU, is the second individual connected to the firm subpoenaed by the special counsel. The Electoral Commission has said its investigation into Leave.EU found no evidence that the campaign “received donations or paid for services from Cambridge Analytica …beyond initial scoping work”.

Damian Collins, chairman of parliament’s inquiry into fake news, said it was “no surprise” that Kaiser was under scrutiny by Mueller because “her work connected her to WikiLeaks, Cambridge Analytica and [its parent company] SCL, the Trump campaign, Leave.EU and Arron Banks”.

He said it was now vital Britain had its own inquiry into foreign interference: “We should not be leaving this to the Americans.”

Tom Watson, the deputy leader of the Labour party, echoed Collins’s statement, saying: “This is the first evidence that a significant player in the Leave.EU campaign is of interested to the global Mueller inquiry. People will be bewildered that the British government has no interest in establishing the facts of what happened.”

In August, Sam Patten, a US political consultant who had worked for Cambridge Analytica on campaigns in the US and abroad, struck a plea deal with Mueller after admitting he had failed to register as a foreign agent for a Ukrainian oligarch.

He became a subject of the special counsel’s inquiry because of work done with Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager, in Ukraine. He had also set up a business with Konstantin Kilimnik, a key figure who Mueller has alleged has ties to Russian intelligence and who is facing charges of obstruction of justice. In a 2017 statement to the Washington Post, Kilimnik denied any connection to intelligence services. Kaiser, however, is the first person connected directly to both the Brexit and Trump campaigns known to have been questioned by Mueller.

The news came to light in a new Netflix documentary, The Great Hack, which premiered at the Sundance film festival last month and is expected to be released later this spring. Film-makers followed Kaiser for months after she approached the Guardian, including moments after she received the subpoena. She claims the summons came after the Guardian revealed she had visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange while still a Cambridge Analytica employee in February 2017, three months after the US election.

One part of Mueller’s investigation focuses on whether the Trump campaign sought to influence the timing of the release of emails by WikiLeaks before the election. Investigators are looking at communications between them. In the film, Kaiser says that she has gone from being a cooperating witness to a subject of investigation because of her contact with Assange.

In October 2017, it was revealed that Alexander Nix, the chief executive of Cambridge Analytica, had contacted Assange in August 2016 to try to obtain emails from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign – which indictments from Mueller’s team say were obtained by Russian military intelligence – to use in Donald Trump’s campaign. When Kaiser gave evidence to parliament last year, she was asked about her relationship with Assange and WikiLeaks but failed to reveal that she had met Assange.

In the documentary, Kaiser is shown after receiving an email from the Guardian last June asking about meeting Assange and alleged donations of cryptocurrency to WikiLeaks. Kaiser did not respond to the email at the time, but on camera says: “She knows I met Assange. And she knows I donated money to WikiLeaks in bitcoin.”

Her legal representatives later wrote to the paper to say that the allegations, including that she had “channelled” donations to WikiLeaks, were false. Kaiser said she had received a small gift of bitcoin in 2011 – long before she worked at Cambridge Analytica – and, not knowing what else to do with it, gave it to WikiLeaks, because she had benefited from material it had released over the years.

Her lawyer told the Observer that the meeting with Assange came about after a chance encounter in London with an acquaintance who knew him. It lasted 20 minutes and consisted mainly of Assange telling her “about how he saw the world”. He said they did not discuss the US election.

Patten and Kaiser were involved in a controversial election campaign in Nigeria in January 2015, which former Cambridge Analytica employees say had “unsettling” parallels to the US presidential election.

The Guardian revealed that the data firm had worked alongside a team of unidentified Israeli intelligence operatives on the campaign. Ex-Cambridge Analytica employees described how the Israelis hacked the now-president of Nigeria’s emails and released damaging information about him to the press weeks before the election.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  5 days ago

A sure sign that bad news is coming for Trump is that the president is tweeting about the ‘illegality’ of the Robert Mueller investigation.

Trump tweeted:

The Mueller investigation is totally conflicted, illegal and rigged! Should never have been allowed to begin, except for the Collusion and many crimes committed by the Democrats. Witch Hunt!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2019

Trump is a terrible political poker player. The president has tried to deflect and preemptively negate bad news for him from Mueller since the investigation began. It is a habit, almost a nervous tic, and certainly a tell.

For example, Trump went on an extended rant in December about the Mueller investigation hours before Mueller delivered details about how Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen helped the investigation. With his own non-recused attorney general now overseeing the investigation, Trump has probably been told what is coming soon, and he is tweeting in an effort to discredit the special counsel.

Donald Trump went on a Twitter rant about Mueller on November 15, and on November 20th Trump’s lawyers announced that he had submitted his written answers to Mueller’s questions.

It looks Trump is trying to prepare his supporters because another Mueller bombshell is ready to drop.

For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.

Follow Jason Easley on Facebook

The Gateway Pundit

Published  6 days ago

Corrupt Obama judge Amy Berman Jackson may jail Roger Stone over an Instagram post he published this week.

On Tuesday, Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered Roger Stone to appear in court this week to explain his since-deleted Instagram post where he slammed the judge assigned to his case.

The Judge said Roger Stone needs to show cause at a hearing as to why his Instagram post did not violate a limited gag order on the case, reported Reuters.

Roger Stone shared an image of Judge Amy Berman Jackson with a neo-pagan symbol in the background — and the media immediately erupted and claimed Roger Stone was “sending a message” to the judge by placing “crosshairs” behind her head. (screenshot below)

“Through legal trickery Deep State hitman Robert Mueller has guaranteed that my upcoming show trial is before Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointed Judge who dismissed the Benghazi charges again Hillary Clinton and incarcerated Paul Manafort prior to his conviction for any crime,” Stone wrote in the caption.

Roger Stone later “humbly” apologized for sharing the image on his Instagram page.

“A photo of Judge Jackson posted on my Instagram has been misinterpreted. This was a random photo taken from the Internet. Any inference that this was meant to somehow disrespect the Court is categorically false. What some say are crosshairs are in fact the logo of the organization that originally posted it something called corruption central. They use the logo in many photos.” Stone said in a statement to ABC News.

Washington Examiner

Published  6 days ago

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., wouldn't say Sunday if he would accept special counsel Robert Mueller being unable to find direction collusion between President Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia.

The House Intelligence Committee is embarking on a sweeping investigation into Trump’s financial transactions and Russia, and Schiff adamantly stressed that his panel will continue its work unimpeded regardless of what Mueller says.

During an interview on CNN, Schiff discussed at length all the "evidence in plain sight" of collusion he believes there is, but said "it will be up to Mueller to decide if that amounts to criminal conspiracy."

However, when he was asked point blank if he would accept Mueller's findings if no clear evidence of collusion is determined, Schiff demurred. Instead he focused his answer on how his committee will conduct its own inquiry and how he'll fight to gain access to Mueller's evidence should it be withheld from public view.

"We're going to have to do our own investigation, and we are. We'll certainly be very interested to learn what Bob Mueller finds. We may have to fight to get that information. Bill Barr has not been willing to commit to provide that report either to the Congress or to the American people. We're going to need to see it," Schiff said on "State of the Union," referring to Trump's newly confirmed attorney general.

"The American people need to see it. We may also need to see the evidence behind that report," he added. "There may be, for example, evidence of collusion or conspiracy that is clear and convincing. But not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The American people are entitled to know if there is evidence of a conspiracy between either the president or the president's campaign and a foreign adversary. At the end of the day, the most important thing for the American people to know is whether the president is somehow compromised, whether there's a leverage the Russians could use over the president, and if the Russians are in a position to expose wrongdoing by the president or his campaign."

Host Dana Bash pressed Schiff again, asking if he would accept Mueller's findings separate from his own investigation. Schiff's response focused on the integrity of Mueller's operation.

"You know, I will certainly accept them in this way, Dana. I have great confidence in the special counsel. And if the special counsel represents that he has investigated and not been interfered with and not been able to make a criminal case, then I will believe that he is operating in good faith," Schiff said.

Schiff and his Democratic majority are reopening the House Intelligence Committee's inquiry into Russian interference after the GOP-led panel in the last term completed an investigation that found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. At the time, the Democrats said the GOP-led effort wrapped prematurely.

Schiff also dismissed a recent assertion made by Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., that Schiff's panel's Russia investigation has yet to turn up evidence of collusion. He quipped "Chairman Burr must have a different word for" collusion, citing such controversies as the infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting and Trump campaign staffer George Papadopoulos, who last year served 12 days for lying to FBI investigators about his contact with people linked to Russia during the 2016 campaign.

Axios

Published  6 days ago

Brittany Kaiser, a former director at Cambridge Analytica, has been subpoenaed by special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation regarding possible links between President Trump's 2016 campaign and the Russian government, The Guardian reports.

The big picture: Kaiser is the second former employee from Cambridge Analytica, a now-shuttered, Trump-linked British analytics firm that harvested the data of millions of Facebook users, to be drawn into Mueller's probe. She told The Guardian that the subpoena came after a report that she'd visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in February 2017 to discuss the results of the 2016 election while still employed by the firm.

Go deeper: Cambridge Analytica data scandal highlights chaos at Facebook

The Washington Times

Published  6 days ago

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

On Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee announced that it found no direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The president took a victory lap, but that hardly means the two-year-long attempt to undo his legitimate election is over.

Democrats on the Hill have far too much invested in the “Russia Job,” a political instrument pointed at the White House, to let it slip from their hands. They’re joined by Clinton operatives, Obama-era officials, as well as large parts of the press corps, all keen to prolong their coordinated efforts to hobble the presidency.

The state of play is still in flux. It’s unclear whether the special counsel will continue to enjoy free rein, or if Attorney General William Barr will put the brakes on Robert Mueller. Rep. Adam Schiff, California Democrat, now has the gavel as chair of the House Intelligence Committee and is urging Mr. Mueller to dig ever deeper into the president’s finances.

Perhaps most tellingly, the media are still running an offense against a Republican congressman who has not only ridiculed the collusion narrative but also exposed the corruption underlying it — Mr. Schiff’s counterpart on the House Intelligence Committee, ranking member Devin Nunes, also of California.

A recent New Yorker piece tried to tie Mr. Nunes to a shady private Israeli spy firm operating in his home district, and two Daily Beast pieces alleged (without evidence) that he’s come under the special counsel’s scrutiny.

Why the latest round of attention? Because Mr. Nunes has promised that the Republican minority “will be making criminal referrals on many people who lied to Congress.”

Mr. Nunes intends to continue the work he started as chairman, looking into abuses and possible crimes committed during the FBI’s 2016 probe of the Trump campaign. For nearly two years, a media onslaught targeting Mr. Nunes was keyed to a political operation purposed to curtail his efforts.

It began with a March 2017 press appearance in which he announced that he’d found evidence the Trump team may have been spied on. Playing to block, left-wing activists pushed for the House Ethics Committee to investigate Mr. Nunes, sidelining him for eight months. The message was clear: There’s a price to be paid for going after the political establishment.

The anti-Nunes operation reached the high point of absurdity in the 2018 election cycle. I visited California’s 22nd Congression District during the campaign and marveled that Russiagate had migrated from Washington, D.C., to fill the warm Central Valley air. Billboards in Russian with Mr. Nunes‘ picture portrayed him as an associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“This recent election was just full of lies,” said Ray Appleton, Central California’s top-rated radio talk-show host, who frequently invites Mr. Nunes on the air. “The most dishonest campaign I’ve ever seen.”

Prior to the Russia Job, Mr. Nunes had strong support from independents and moderate Democrats in a heavily agricultural and ethnically diverse district, including immigrants of Mexican, Armenian and Portuguese stock, like the Nunes family. He was first elected in 2002, when he promised to take on environmentalists who wanted to divert water into the ocean and choke the land, some of the world’s most fertile.

During the latest election season, however, the district was flooded with outside activists who had only one thing on their mind — Russia. The Democrats spent more than $9 million against the incumbent and local political analysts estimate that another $2 million in so-called dark money poured into the safely Republican district. It appears that they were aiming not to unseat Mr. Nunes but to punish him.

Even his family came in the crosshairs. Activists filed a California Public Records Act request for the emails of his wife, a third-grade teacher. A camera crew stormed his uncle’s farm to forge a story out of his outrage. A journalist from Esquire was dispatched to report on a “secret” farm owned by his father.

The local press went as mad as the national media, giddy with collusion and the prospect of toppling Mr. Trump, and holding Mr. Nunes to blame for standing in the way. The Fresno Bee’s editorial staff, including a sports columnist, took turns going after the congressman. His opponent, however, Fresno County prosecutor Andrew Janz, was untouchable. For instance, neither the Bee nor any other outlet pushed Janz headquarters or the DA’s office for answers after reports showed that the Democratic candidate appears to have been campaigning on the taxpayers’ dime.

The purpose of the anti-Nunes campaign was to send a warning: Stop digging into what we did to frame Mr. Trump or we’ll come after you, at home, and your family. It appears that Democratic donors are willing to spend lavishly to protect their allies from scrutiny.

• Lee Smith is a columnist at Tablet Magazine.

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

Breitbart

Published  6 days ago

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) hinted that he would not accept the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller as the end of the investigation into President Donald Trump and Russia.

CNN’s Dana Bash asked, “We expect at some point maybe soon, maybe not, the findings of the Mueller investigation to finally be completed. If he finds that there was no direct collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, will you accept that?”

Schiff, “We’re going to have to do our own investigation, and we are. We’ll certainly be very interested to learn what Bob Mueller finds. We may have to fight to get that information. Bill Barr has not been willing to commit to provide that report either to the Congress or to the American people. We’re going to need to see it. The American people need to see it. We may also need to see the evidence behind that report. There may be, for example, evidence of collusion or conspiracy that is clear and convincing but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

He added, “The American people are entitled to know if there is evidence of a conspiracy between either the president or the president’s campaign and a foreign adversary. At the end of the day, the most important thing for the American people to know is whether the president is somehow compromised, whether there’s a leverage the Russians could use over the president and if the Russians are in a position to expose wrongdoing by the president or his campaign. That’s compromising.”

Bash pressed, “You are talking about transparency, but I guess the question is, in terms of what the substance of his findings are, Robert Mueller, will you, given the fact he has had such an extensive investigation, will you accept the findings separate from the investigation that you are doing?”

Schiff, said, “You know, I will certainly accept them in this way, Dana; I have great confidence in the special counsel. And if the special counsel represents that he has investigated and not been interfered with and not been able to make a criminal case, then I will believe that he is operating in good faith.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

dailycaller

Published  6 days ago

News outlets tout Stone's private messages with WikiLeaks as breaking news

DC Tribune

Published  6 days ago

There’s no shortage of speculation as to who the next target of Mueller’s special counsel probe it will be that gets indicted, especially given the number of people who seemingly know that their time is coming — Don Junior has been expecting his own arrest since late last year, and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, who was instrumental in passing back and forth information between Roger Stone and WikiLeaks, knows that he’ll be on the block soon as well.

But speculation aside, it’s definitely just about time for the next arrest. How do we know?

In order for law enforcement to effect an arrest on a suspected or known criminal who isn’t actually in the process of committing a crime in the moment they’re arrested, the final step is to obtain a warrant for that person’s arrest — in federal cases with a grand jury, that’s the indictment.

The Thursday before Roger Stone’s arrest — he was taken on a Friday — the special counsel filed the indictment allowing the FBI to do so in what’s called a “sealed order” in federal court. The “sealed” part is because there are no names, just case numbers, and for high-profile cases, those numbers mean nothing to anyone without direct knowledge of the proceedings. That’s done so as to avoid tipping prosecutors’ hands and allowing defendants to flee, destroy evidence, or otherwise screw things up for the prosecution.

But the pattern has been the same for years and years: File the sealed indictment(s), prepare for the execution of the warrant, and effect the arrest.

Well, guess whose office just filed four new sealed indictments:

Of note is the fact that, in sets of two, the case numbers are sequential. We may not know who these indictments are pointing at, but that’s a pretty good indicator that they’re multiple charges against one or two individuals.

And while we’re sitting here smiling and puzzling over just who the poor saps are in Mueller’s sights now, we might as well take a moment to reflect on another major occurrence in the same past few days since those indictments were filed: Don Junior’s testimony transcripts from his time before Congress — you know, the ones in which literally everyone knows he committed perjury — were just officially handed over to Robert Mueller’s office by the House of Representatives, just before these filings.

Some indicators are just as good as others, too: Donald Trump has more than a hundred times, including dozens pertaining directly to the Russia investigation, since these indictments were filed. Looks like somebody’s pretty nervous about who might be next.

Featured image via screen capture

Fox News

Published  6 days ago

Former top FBI lawyer James Baker, in closed-door testimony to Congress, detailed alleged discussions among senior officials at the Justice Department about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office, claiming he was told Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said two Trump Cabinet officials were “ready to support” such an effort.

bostonherald

Published  6 days ago

That Justice Department officials were having discussions about ousting a sitting president should concern every American. It is simply astonishing that these actors allegedly held conversations around the notion of seizing power from the elected head of the executive branch.

Obviously, heads should roll, but really such a plot should result in criminal prosecutions with all the high-profile force that was used to arrest Roger Stone.

The new revelations come to us care of former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe, who has written a book and is shilling it on “60 Minutes.” The interview will air in full on Sunday, but the tidbits that have been released in advance are already damning.

According to CBS’ Scott Pelley, the reporter who interviewed McCabe, after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, McCabe jumped into action with other members of the Justice Department. McCabe was alarmed that Trump “might have won the White House with the aid of the government of Russia.” The next day, he brought the investigators together for a meeting.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” Pelley said.

“I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency and just won the election for the presidency,” McCabe told CBS. “And who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage, and that was something that troubled me greatly.”

The arrogance is astounding.

According to Pelley, McCabe noted that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offered to wear a wire in order to record conversations with President Trump and the idea was discussed on several occasions. It was “so serious that he took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss it,” Pelley explained on “CBS This Morning.”

It was at this time that Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate whether Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russians interfering in the 2016 election.

This is one tight circle of Washington, D.C., Justice Department brass and G-men. And they’ve succeeded in hampering a sitting president using their power because they were “troubled” by him.

These men must face consequences for their actions.

Thankfully a purge has begun.

As we know, Director Comey was fired, as was Deputy Director McCabe, and Peter Strzok, an FBI senior counterintelligence agent, a onetime member of Mueller’s team. Add to that Lisa Page, who was also on the Mueller team, and Bruce Ohr, who was stripped of his title as associate deputy attorney general.

Page had been texting anti-Trump messages back and forth with Strzok, and Ohr had been in contact with the authors of the Steele dossier shortly after the election. In fact, Ohr is married to Nellie Ohr, who worked for Fusion GPS, the firm that hired ex-British intelligence agent Christopher Steele to compile the infamous dossier.

And this is just a partial list.

Americans need to know the entire story. If, as it appears, there was an effort to sabotage a presidency and create elaborate distractions and cover-ups using the powers entrusted to them, members of the U.S. government have involved themselves in a criminal conspiracy that dwarfs Watergate.

The Federalist

Published  6 days ago

McCabe proves that the Russia probe was always tainted and that many in the FBI and DOJ aren’t public servants, but rather incompetent attention-seekers.

Fox News

Published  6 days ago

A federal judge on Friday issued a partial gag order in the criminal case of former Trump political adviser Roger Stone as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the federal court for the District of Columbia on Friday ordered that Stone “refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case,” according to the court filing.

ROGER STONE PLEADS NOT GUILTY TO MUELLER CHARGES IN FEDERAL COURT

Jackson further ordered that any participants in the case, including witnesses and counsel, “refrain” from making any statements to the media or public when they are near the courthouse that could “influence any juror, potential juror, judge, witness or court officer or interfere with the administration of justice.”

"There will be no additional restrictions imposed on the defendant's public statements or appearances at this time, although this order may be amended in the future...if necessary," Jackson said in a court order. "This order should not be interpreted as modifying or superseding the condition of the defendant's release that absolutely prohibits him from communicating with any witness in the case, either directly or indirectly. Nor does this order permit the defendant to intimidate or threaten any witness, or to engage or attempt to engage in any conduct in violation of [U.S. Code.]"

She added: "Finally, while it is not up to the Court to advise the defendant as to whether a succession of public statements would be in his best interest at this time, it notes that one factor that will be considered in the evaluation of any future request for relief based on pretrial publicity will be the extent to which the publicity was engendered by the defendant himself."

Stone, who last month pleaded not guilty to obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and making false statements to Congress after being indicted last month as part of Mueller’s probe, was also ordered not to travel anywhere other than Washington, the Eastern District of New York, and the Southern District of Florida while the case is pending. Stone is not permitted to have a passport in his possession or apply for any new passport. Stone was also ordered to return to court “whenever required.”

Stone, 66, was taken into custody last month after being indicted by a federal grand jury a day earlier as part of Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates in the 2016 presidential election. More than a dozen FBI agents arrived in tactical gear outside of Stone’s home.

Following his arrest, Stone made several media appearances and comments about the case on his social media accounts.

The 24-page indictment released last month alleges that Stone worked to obstruct the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election by making false statements to the committee, denying he had records sought by the committee and persuading a witness to provide false testimony.

The indictment does not charge Stone with conspiring with WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website that published the emails, or with Russian officers Mueller says hacked them. Instead, it accuses him of witness tampering, obstruction, and false statements about his interactions related to WikiLeaks.

Stone served as an adviser to Trump for years before Trump ran for president. He left Trump’s campaign in August 2015, but maintained regular contact with and publicly supported the Trump campaign throughout the 2016 presidential election.

FBI'S SHOW OF FORCE IN ROGER STONE ARREST SPURS CRITICISM OF MUELLER TACTICS

Jackson, who presided over the case of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, also imposed a gag order in that criminal case as part of Mueller's probe.

Mueller’s investigation, which was initially ordered to look into the 2016 election, has gone on for more than a year and a half. It has expanded to probe financial crimes of Trump associates before the election, conversations Trump’s national security adviser had with the Russians during the transition and whether Trump obstructed justice with his comments and actions related to the probe.

Twenty-six Russian nationals and three Russian companies have been charged with interfering in the 2016 presidential election. But none of the Trump associates have been charged with crimes related to collusion.

Other convictions include former national security adviser Michael Flynn and former campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who both pleaded guilty to making false statements in 2017. Former campaign adviser Rick Gates in 2018 pleaded guilty and former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted and later pleaded guilty in a separate financial crimes case dating back before the 2016 election.

Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements in a case brought by Mueller in November. Alex van der Zwaan, a London-based lawyer, pleaded guilty to making false statements this year, and Richard Pinedo, a California man, pleaded guilty to identity fraud in 2018.

Fox News

Published  6 days ago

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was once again reminded that she exaggerated her Native American ancestry and was heckled during a campaign stop in Georgia.

While introducing herself to a crowd of about 1,000 supporters in a Lawrenceville high school, a man shouted “Why did you lie?" Warren replied back “Be easy, be easy,” while the crowd chanted her name and clapped.

The man was holding up a campaign sign that read “1/2020” as he was quickly escorted out of the building. Warren released DNA results examining her possible Native American ancestry last year in response to criticism from Republicans and President Donald Trump.

The test revealed she could be anywhere between 1/64th and 1/1,204th Native American. In early February, she apologized to the Cherokee Nation for taking the test, which angered some tribal leaders who felt that being apart of the nation was rooted in centuries of culture and laws, not through DNA tests.

The incident came just days after Warren suggested President Trump "may not even be a free person" in 2020.

Warren made the remark at the Veterans Memorial Building in Cedar Rapids in front of a crowd of several hundred. The Massachusetts senator argued that Democrats should resist the urge to respond to "a racist tweet, a hateful tweet, something really dark and ugly" when choosing whether or not to spar with Trump.

TRUMP NEEDLES NEW PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WARREN ON NATIVE AMERICAN CLAIMS

“Are we going to let him use those to divide us?” Warren said, according to a report from the New York Times.

“By the time we get to 2020, Donald Trump may not even be president,” she continued. “In fact, he may not even be a free person.”

When asked to clarify her statements, Warren pointed to the multiple open investigations into the president, which includes the Russia probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and two additional investigations led by federal prosecutors in New York and Democrats who won back the majority in the House of Representatives this past November.

Warren's comments came after President Trump took a jab at her on Twitter shortly after she announced her presidential campaign.

"Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for President," he tweeted. "Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore?"

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Michael Monico, the high-powered criminal defense attorney representing longtime Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, revealed Thursday that he is also representing Empire star Jussie Smollett, the actor-singer reports indicate may have been involved in staging an attack on himself last month.

Monico, appearing on WGN’s The Roe Conn Show, discussed Cohen and special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation for several minutes, before confirming the actor is a client of his.

“I’d like to get your thoughts [on] Jussie Smollett here, but we can’t get your thoughts on Jussie Smollett because [of] this big developing story today, and it turns out you’re the attorney for Jussie Smollett, too,” Conn said to Monico.

“Yes, at the moment, I am,” Monico replied.

“Oh for god sakes!” Conn joked. “Can you stop getting clients so I can talk to you about the stories?”

It is unclear when Monico began representing Smollett, and in what capacity he is doing so.

Monico, a former federal prosecutor in the Northern District of Illinois, and his law partner, Barry Spevack, took over as Cohen’s attorney, the longtime Trump lawyer’s press representative Lanny Davis said January 28. Monico and Spevack took over for Guy Petrillo, a criminal defense attorney who previously served as the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office’s criminal division chief.

The development comes as an investigation into Smollett’s account of being beaten in a racist, anti-gay attack took a sharp turn Friday when police announced the arrest of two black men they believe assaulted him.

At least one of the men worked on the TV show, police said.

Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said authorities had probable cause to believe the suspects committed assault and battery against Smollett. However, they had not been charged as of Friday afternoon.

Guglielmi would not comment on a possible motive.

Smollett, who is gay, has said two masked men shouting racial and anti-gay slurs and “This is MAGA country!” beat him and looped a rope around his neck early on Jan. 29 before running away. Further, he claimed they also poured some kind of chemical on him.

The police spokesman said that there is “no evidence to say that this is a hoax” and that Smollett “continues to be treated by police as a victim, not a suspect.”

The two suspects, identified only as Nigerian brothers, were picked up at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on Wednesday on their return from Nigeria after police learned at least one worked on Empire, according to police.

Guglielmi said police have not found any surveillance video of an attack but continue to look. He said police also are contacting stores in the hope of finding out who bought the rope that was around Smollett’s neck.

In an interview with ABC News, the singer and actor said he didn’t remove the rope from around his neck before police arrived “because I wanted them to see.”

Smollett also said he initially refused to give police his cellphone because the device contained private content and phone numbers. He later gave detectives heavily redacted phone records that police have said are insufficient for an investigation.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

National Review

Published  1 week ago

Those peddling the “Putin hacked the election” story have always lacked credible evidence that Trump was complicit in the Kremlin’s “cyber-espionage.”

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

SHUT IT DOWN.

Robert Mueller is a rogue prosecutor with an endless budget roving around terrorizing anyone and everyone connected to Donald Trump.

It is now being reported that Mueller’s lawyers interviewed White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders.

Sarah Sanders confirmed to CNN on Friday that Mueller’s office interviewed her.

“The President urged me, like he has everyone in the administration, to fully cooperate with the special counsel. I was happy to voluntarily sit down with them,” Sanders said in response to a question from CNN.

The interview is one of the final known interviews by Mueller’s team. It came around the same time as the special counsel interviewed former White House chief of staff John Kelly, well after a number of other senior officials, including former White House communications director Hope Hicks and former press secretary Sean Spicer, were brought in for questioning.

It is unclear what Robert Mueller asked Sarah Sanders, however it is likely he may have wanted to know how Sanders composed statements defending President Trump against hack reporters asking questions about the Russia witch hunt.

Robert Mueller is not only looking for ‘Russian collusion’ — which we know never happened, but he’s also investigating obstruction of justice.

Both the House Intel Panel and Senate Intel Panel have concluded that Donald Trump never conspired with the Kremlin during the 2016 election.

Robert Mueller is reportedly winding down his investigation into ‘Russian collusion’ and is expected to release a Trump report just in time for election season.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is leaving the Justice Department. This news comes after it was learned that Rod allegedly offered to wear a wire around President Trump. Get Your "Build The Wall" Coin For 50%

Washington Press

Published  1 week ago

Special Counsel Robert Mueller just revealed that his indictments against Roger Stone and Russian military intelligence (GRU) officers came from the same search warrant against Trump’s longtime political operative in a court filing today. (embedded below)

In addition, Mueller’s team announced for the very first time in today’s filing that it has copies of direct communications between Roger Stone and Wikileaks.

NEW: Prosecutors said for the first time that they have evidence of Roger Stone communicating with Wikileaks, according to a new court filing from special counsel prosecutors.

— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) February 15, 2019

The Special Counsel’s Office indicted Stone on seven total counts of lying to Congress and obstruction charges, and today’s revelation arrived in a filing asking for the same judge to be assigned to the former Trump campaign manager’s case as is assigned to the Russian hackers.

Mueller’s team made two main arguments which necessitate having the same judge oversee the two cases over Stone’s objections, firmly tying his criminal indictment to Wikileaks dissemination of hacked emails from Democrats. They wrote:

A. This Case and Netyksho [the Russian hacker’s case] Arise from Common Search Warrants.

B. This Case and Netyksho Involve Activities That Are Part of the Same Alleged Criminal Event or Transaction.

Russian hackers ripped off confidential documents from Democratic National Committee and the House fundraising operation, the D.C.C.C. Russian operatives then allegedly distributed those hacked emails and later stolen Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails through the Wikileaks transparency organization, but many speculated that they had help.

Donald Trump mentioned Wikileaks over 160 times in the last month of the 2016 presidential election, which made them his number one campaign topic.

Mueller’s probe and the FBI investigated the thefts after Trump’s shocking electoral college win, which led to search warrants against Roger Stone, and that they say, is what led to Wikileaks and later the Russians. They wrote:

Several of those search warrants were executed on accounts that contained Stone’s communications with Guccifer 2.0 and with Organization 1. [which is Wikileaks]

Evidence obtained from those search warrants resulted in the allegations that the Netyksho defendants hacked and stole documents for release through intermediaries, including [Wikileaks], and that Stone lied to a congressional committee investigating, among other things, the activities of [Wikileaks] regarding those stolen documents.

Federal prosecutors made the second point in their filing by explaining that Roger Stone’s lying and witness tampering activities were an active cover-up into the indictment of Russian GRU hackers, which also permits them to apply for a single judge overseeing both cases.

The White House, Trump, and Stone have spent years lying about their involvement with Russians during the 2016 election, particularly, with the slimy Florida-based operative saying he had no idea about the timing of the explosive email releases that sunk Clinton’s campaign after the first publicly known FBI complaints were filed during the campaign.

Today’s news from the Special Counsel’s Office means that Roger Stone’s involvement with Russian hackers is central to the start of the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s efforts to collude with Putin’s political operatives.

It also makes perfect sense of why Mueller is charging Stone, for material lies central to covering up Trump’s electoral help from Russia, because he is the person that led authorities to the GRU in the first place.

Here is a copy of the complete filing from the Special Counsel’s Office:

Add your name to support the effort to prevent Trump from pardoning himself and his corrupt cronies!

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Over the next year, with a brand new Attorney General William Barr, this country, we've got to decide. Do you want to save the United States? Do you want to be a constitutional republic? Do you want actual justice under the law? Do you want a dual justice system or do you want America to be handed off to your kids and grandkids as a banana republic? 

NBC News

Published  1 week ago

Federal prosecutors charged Ryan Jaselskis, a 22-year-old health and wellness coach from Charlotte, N.C., on Wednesday, alleging he attempted to burn down Comet Ping Pong, the pizza restaurant allegedly at the center of an internet conspiracy theory that falsely claims a sex ring run by celebrities and prominent Democrats is based out of its nonexistent basement.

The so-called Pizzagate conspiracy has been promulgated by far-right adherents since October 2016. It led to a shooting in the shop where no one was hurt in December 2016, when conspiracy theorist Edgar M. Welch demanded to see the child sex ring and fired a rifle several times. Welch is now serving a four-year prison sentence for the crime. And on Jan. 23, a fire broke out at Comet Ping Pong, which prosecutors allege was set by Jaselskis, citing surveillance footage.

A video posted to Jaselskis’ parents’ YouTube account the night of the fire seems to provide a possible link between the alleged arson and the disturbing conspiracy theory that became popular among a fringe group of Trump supporters during the 2016 election, and inspired a shooting in the restaurant that same year.

A video titled “Melissa Video” was posted to the YouTube account run by Paul and Chrissy Jaselskis at 8:07 p.m. ET on Jan. 23, alleging that the world is run by a Satanic global pedophile ring fronted by most major celebrities and Hillary Clinton.

One hour later, at 9:17 p.m., federal prosecutors allege the Jaselskis’ son Ryan attempted to set fire to Comet Ping Pong, where Pizzagate conspiracy theorists falsely believe the global pedophile ring is partially located.

Jaselskis was apprehended after a physical fight with law enforcement officials directly outside the Washington Monument on Feb. 4, a brawl that was captured on video. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives released surveillance video in an attempt to find the alleged arsonist days after the fire, in which no one was hurt. Charged with malicious property damage, Jaselskis is being held without bond.

David Bos, a public defender representing Ryan Jaselskis, said it was too early to comment on the case.

The video posted by Paul and Chrissy Jaselskis’ account, which was deleted Thursday evening, is a repost of a notorious YouTube Qanon and Pizzagate conspiracy theorist named JoeM, who has 125,000 subscribers and often warns of an impending great awakening that will include mass arrests of democrats and the global cabal. It was the first Qanon video posted by the account, which usually featured testimonials about health supplements aimed at Christians.

Qanon is a conspiracy theory that alleges the same pedophile cabal is secretly being destroyed by Donald Trump, along with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whom Qanon believers think is quietly working with the president. Qanon is centered around Q, an anonymous account that posts to far-right politics forums on 4chan and 8chan which claims to be run by a government, and whose elaborate prophecies of a mass arrests against the cabal have repeatedly failed to occur.

The video claims President Donald Trump is secretly taking down the global cabal, which it says has been hiding secret cures to “our most deadly diseases” as well as an unspecified free energy source that will abolish the use of fossil fuels as well, and will soon abolish all income taxes.

The original video has been viewed over 1.2 million times, and is a favorite in QAnon circles, posted in Facebook groups and on Twitter as an introduction to the conspiracy theory.

Reached by phone, Chrissy Jaselskis declined to comment on her son’s arrest or the YouTube post on her account.

At least two names for Ryan Jaselskis (ryanjaselskis.net and ryanrimas.com) were purchased using Chrissy Jaselskis’ email address and phone number, dating back to 2014, according to Domain tools, a domain analysis tool used by security researchers.

In 2013, Ryan Jaselskis was arrested for malicious destruction of property during a fight over chores and the family car. In the fight, Jaselskis pushed his father into a wall and caused damage to his parents’ home, according to an arrest report provided by South Carolina’s York County Sheriff's Office. Prosecutors at the time declined to pursue it further.

Facing persistent public pressure about the company’s role in the proliferation of false conspiracy theories, YouTube vowed last week to limit the reach of certain conspiracy theories, including “flat Earth” videos.

Qanon theories readily surfaced in basic searches on YouTube for public figures over the last year. A simple search for “Tom Hanks” or “Hillary Clinton” returned almost exclusively posts about Qanon last summer, falsely tying them to a global cabal in the crosshairs of Donald Trump. Last month, a search for Ruth Bader Ginsburg returned mostly videos that falsely claimed the Supreme Court Justice was dead, a conspiracy theory created by Qanon fans.

Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory that circulated before the 2016 election, predicated on the idea that emails leaked by Wikileaks from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta reveal a secret pedophile cabal if readers were to replace words like “pizza” with “boy.”

After many Pizzagate communities were banned across major social media platforms, elements of Pizzagate were later folded into the conspiracy theory Qanon, which launched a year later.

Comet Ping Pong owner James Alefantis, who has been bombarded with threats since the release of the emails, told The Washington Post last month he did not believe the recent attempted arson was tied to Pizzagate. He didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

Special Counsel Robert Mueller and team have been hard at work attempting to prove the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. After all this time (and massive

Newsweek

Published  1 week ago

Former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka continued to promoted a conspiracy theory that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died as the Supreme Court Justice returned to work.

On Friday, NBC News reporter Ben Collins wrote that "Now that RBG will be out in public soon, the conspiracy that she's secretly dead will only evolve. Too many people—not just Qanon folks (where it started) but also guys like Seb—got into this one. Expect lots of weird, close-up shots of ears to prove it's an old lady body double."

Gorka responded "How is there a 'public' appearance behind closed doors? Let the Games begin!"

Ginsburg, 85, had been absent from the court since receiving surgery to remove two cancerous nodules from her left lung in December. CNN reported that Ginsburg went to the court for a closed-door conference on Friday, the first such appearance since her operation.

While Democrats have worried about the justice's health -- she fell and fractured three ribs in November -- others have used Ginsburg's time away from the court to postulate that she was actually dead.

In her absence from the court, QAnon conspiracy theorists had circulated the idea that Ginsburg had died and Democrats were covering up her passing to prevent President Donald Trump from appointing a third Supreme Court justice.

Gorka previously

promoted the conspiracy on January 30.

Fox & Friends helped fuel the conspiracy last month by airing a graphic indicating that Ginsburg had died. The show apologized for the mistake, but online commentators capitalized on the error to promote their claims.

QAnon supporters promote an broad, nebulous and constantly changing set of claims that include the idea that Trump and special counsel Robert Mueller are working together to arrest pedophiles and criminal political figures while uprooting the "deep state."

They say an unidentified figure, known as "Q," has high-level security clearance and is revealing highly classified information about the inner workings of government.

Adherents of the pro-Trump theory think that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and presidents before Trump have engaged in child molestation and other crimes.

Believers have promoted the idea that figures in the "deep state" tried to shoot down Air Force One and that Trump will send his enemies, including Clinton and Obama, to Guantanamo Bay, according to The Daily Beast.

In August, prominent QAnon believer Michael Lebron, known as Lionel online, met Trump in the White House, CNN reported.

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 week ago

Major broadcast networks excluded from their evening news the results of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation, which found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Yet, in the past two years, the evening newscasts dedicated over 2,200 minutes, nearly fifth of their Trump-related reporting, to the Russia investigation, according to the right-leaning nonprofit Media Research Center (MRC), which went through coverage on ABC’s “World News Tonight,” the CBS “Evening News,” and the NBC “Nightly News” between Jan. 21, 2017 and Feb. 10, 2019.

After interviewing more than 200 witnesses and reviewing 300,000 pages of documents, the Senate Intelligence Committee has found no evidence of collusion between the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump and the Russian government, according to both Democratic and Republican sources on the committee.

But the networks not only shut the news out of the nighttime news, but, in case of the NBC and CBS, from their flagship morning shows as well.

“NBC’s failure to mention this on either Today or the Nightly News is especially egregious, since the story was broken by the network’s own Ken Dilanian on Feb. 12,” MRC stated in a Feb. 14 report.

“Over the past two years, broadcast evening news shows have spent more than 36 hours haranguing viewers about potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Given their keen interest in the subject, you might expect a bipartisan group of investigators finding ‘no material evidence’ of collusion to be newsworthy. But evidently, you’d be wrong.”

ABC’s “Good Morning America” dedicated less than one minute to the news on Feb. 13.

Extensive Investigation

The committee’s investigation started more than two years ago and appears to be close to a conclusion. Its chairman, Richard Burr (R-N.C.), told CBS in an interview published Feb. 7 that investigators have found no evidence to support the allegations of a conspiracy between the campaign and Russia. Anonymous Democratic sources on the committee did not dispute Burr’s statements, according to Dilanian’s report.

Senator Richard Burr, The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, just announced that after almost two years, more than two hundred interviews, and thousands of documents, they have found NO COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA! Is anybody really surprised by this?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 10, 2019

The committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, disputed Burr’s characterization of the evidence, but didn’t offer examples.

The president has denied the allegations. Instead, Trump suggests that his opponent, former State Secretary Hillary Clinton colluded with Russia. The president has pointed to the fact that the Clinton campaign paid for a dossier of the opposition research on him compiled by a former British spy using sources with ties to the Kremlin. The FBI used the dossier, without due verification, to spy on a former Trump-campaign associate Carter Page.

The findings by the Senate mirror those released last year by the House Intelligence Committee, which concluded that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Special counsel Robert Mueller has been investigating the collusion allegations concurrently with the congressional investigations. Mueller issued multiple indictments, but none for colluding with Russia.

Both Mueller and the Senate Intelligence Committee are expected to conclude their investigations soon. Burr said there were “no new questions” left to answer. Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, who is overseeing Mueller’s probe, said the investigation is “close to being completed.”

Epoch Times staff members contributed to this report.

Follow Petr on Twitter: @petrsvab

Conservative News Today

Published  1 week ago

Scandal-plagued former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe reportedly admitted in a recent CBS interview that after disgraced former FBI Director James Comey’s abrupt termination in 2017, he and other Justice Department officials plotted to remove President Donald Trump from office. “There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president […]

Katrina Pierson

Published  1 week ago

As reported by TheFederalist

Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe publicly admitted that after the firing of James Comey, national security officials strategized on invoking the 25th amendment to remove President Trump from office.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” Scott Pelley said he learned in his “60 Minutes” interview with McCabe.

Pelley described the top bureaucrats as “counting noses,” and speculating on where various cabinet members might stand on the question of the president’s removal.

“These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president,” Pelley said.

More than once, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offered to wear a wire into the White House to attempt to record incriminating conversations with the president. McCabe said this was an idea he took seriously and discussed with FBI lawyers.

McCabe, who was fired by President Trump last March, admitted to ensuring a counterintelligence investigation of President Trump and his alleged ties to Russia. “I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion,” McCabe said. “That were I removed quickly, or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace.”

In a statement to CBS, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that McCabe had “opened a completely baseless investigation into the president.”

.@ScottPelley on what McCabe told @60Minutes: "There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment." pic.twitter.com/iVAyrEV4MF

— Norah O'Donnell (@NorahODonnell) February 14, 2019

After CBS aired a portion of the “60 Minutes” interview Thursday morning, Trump mocked McCabe on Twitter, saying he was “a disgrace to the FBI and a disgrace to our Country.”

Disgraced FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe pretends to be a “poor little Angel” when in fact he was a big part of the Crooked Hillary Scandal & the Russia Hoax – a puppet for Leakin’ James Comey. I.G. report on McCabe was devastating. Part of “insurance policy” in case I won….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2019

You can read more here.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Andrew McCabe, you see, has reminded us once again that there really is a powerful deep state, and that there has not been a full accounting of rampant FBI misconduct during the presidential campaign of 2016.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Author and law professor Alan Dershowitz went on with Tucker Carlson on Thursday night following reports on Andrew McCabe’s interview with “60 Minutes.” CBS News Correspondent Scott Pelley teased the interview on Thursday. According to Pelley Andrew McCabe says the FBI and DOJ Democrats discussed wearing wires several times to spy on President Trump. This […]

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein rejected allegations made by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to CBS News that he and other officials discussed removing the president via the 25th amendment after he fired James Comey, according to a Department of Justice (DOJ) statement.

“As to the specific portions of this interview provided to the Department of Justice by 60 Minutes in advance, the Deputy Attorney General again rejects Mr. McCabe’s recitation of events as inaccurate and factually incorrect,” the statement said.

CBS News’ Scott Pelley reported Thursday morning after interviewing McCabe:

There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment.

These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president.

.@ScottPelley on what McCabe told @60Minutes: "There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment." pic.twitter.com/iVAyrEV4MF

— Norah O'Donnell🇺🇸 (@NorahODonnell) February 14, 2019

“[McCabe] is the very first person involved in these meetings who has come out and spoken publicly,” Pelley said. “They were counting noses, they were not asking cabinet members whether they would vote for or against removing the president, but they were speculating ‘This person would be with us. That person would not be,’ and they were counting noses in that effort. … This was not perceived to be a joke.”

Pelley also said McCabe told him Rosenstein offered multiple times to wear a wire in meetings with the president, and that he was so serious about it he took it to FBI lawyers.

The DOJ said in its statement “the Deputy Attorney General never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe references.”

“Finally, the Deputy Attorney General never spoke to Mr. Comey about appointing a Special Counsel. The Deputy Attorney General in fact appointed Special Counsel Mueller, and directed that Mr. McCabe be removed from any participation in that investigation,” the DOJ said.

The statement also essentially called McCabe a liar. It pointed to a finding by the DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz, that McCabe had lied to federal investigators.

“Subsequent to this removal, DOJ’s Inspector General found that Mr. McCabe did not tell the truth to federal authorities on multiple occasions, leading to his termination from the FBI,” it said.

The New York Times reported in September that Rosenstein had suggested that he wear a wire to talk to the president, and discussed removing him by invoking the 25th Amendment. Rosenstein denied the story, but refused to speak to testify in front of the then-Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee.

The DOJ reiterated Rosenstein’s previous position that based on his personal dealings with the president, “there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment, nor was the DAG in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment.”

Rosenstein is due to step down from his position, following the confirmation of William Barr as attorney general this week.

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe in March. In April, Horowitz concluded that McCabe had repeatedly lied to investigators when asked about media leaks related to FBI efforts to investigate the Clinton Foundation in 2016.

McCabe’s interview comes as part of a book tour launch for his new book, “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump.”

The United Free

Published  1 week ago

We thought we’d seen the last of disgraced former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe when he was fired for telling multiple lies to multiple investigators looking into his actions in conjunction with…

The Atlantic

Published  1 week ago

Meanwhile, the Democratic-led House committee is gearing up for a reinvigorated inquiry.

American Greatness

Published  1 week ago

After the Coup is Gone

02/14 1:51 pm

Post by @theamgreatness.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Amy Berman Jackson, the corrupt Obama-appointed judge assigned to Stone’s case, hit Roger Stone with a limited gag order on Friday.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson ordered Stone, his lawyers and Robert Mueller to stop publicly speaking about Roger Stone’s case after the Trump advisor was indicted for lying to Congress and obstructing the Russia investigation.

Politico reported that Amy Berman Jackson sided with Mueller’s lawyers on Friday and said Roger Stone and his attorneys “must refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case.”

Amy Berman Jackson also ordered potential witnesses to hold back from commenting to reporters when they walk in and out of the D.C. courthouse where Roger Stone will go to trial in the fall.

Last Friday, Roger Stone decided to take a stand and fight back against the corrupt Obama-appointed judge threatening to silence him with a gag order that would prevent him from talking to the media about the charges brought against him by dirty cop Mueller.

Roger Stone’s lawyer, Robert Buschel fought back against the corrupt Obama-appointed judge last Friday, and argued Stone has First Amendment rights to defend himself publicly.

“There should be no imposition of prior restraint on Mr. Stone’s First Amendment free speech rights,” the 8-page filing says.

Mueller’s team filed its own brief last week and agreed with Amy Berman Jackson’s proposed gag order.

“The government submits that the order would be supported by a finding that there is a substantial likelihood that extrajudicial comments by trial participants will undermine a fair trial,” the filing states.

It’s no surprise that a corrupt judge like Amy Berman Jackson would deny Roger Stone his First Amendment rights to publicly defend himself.

In contrast, a judge never hit Andrew McCabe with a gag order — He is out on a PR blitz defending himself after a grand jury was impaneled last summer to investigate his crimes.

Editor’s note: This article was updated to clarify that Roger Stone’s gag order is limited. Mr. Stone is barred from making public statements while he’s around the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C. Mr. Stone’s lawyers, however, were given a broader restriction and cannot make public statements about the case anywhere.

This Roger Stone gag order is really weak.

(audience: "How weak is it?!")

He can stay on InfoWars as long as he hangs up the phone on the courthouse sidewalk… pic.twitter.com/RnuLYREWfS

— David Martosko (@dmartosko) February 15, 2019

Daily Wire

Published  1 week ago

Fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe will appear on “60 Minutes” to discuss some of his time at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the investigation into whether President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election.

But as snippets of the interview were released Thursday morning, Trump began attacking the former FBI official and officials at the DOJ began pushing back on his claims.

During his interview, McCabe claimed he participated in meetings with other DOJ officials to discuss using the 25th Amendment to oust Trump.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” Pelley said. “These were the eight days from [Fired FBI Director James] Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president.”

McCabe also said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein repeatedly discussed wearing a wire during conversations with Trump — something Rosenstein has previously denied as a joke. Rosenstein also said previously that there was never any serious discussion about using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump. Shortly after details of McCabe’s interview were released, the DOJ released a statement to NBC denying the former official’s claims.

"The Deputy Attorney General never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe references," the statement said. "As the Deputy Attorney General previously has stated, based on his personal dealings with the President, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment, nor was the DAG in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment."

There is some wiggle room in the statement, as it claims Rosenstein never authorized any recording. That doesn’t mean Rosenstein never seriously considered the measure. CBS’s Scott Pelley, who conducted the interview with McCabe, said on “CBS This Morning” that McCabe said Rosenstein didn’t merely joke about wearing a wire, but that “it came up more than once, and it was so serious that he took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss it.”

Nothing in the FBI’s denial negates this. Rosenstein may have talked to the lawyers and never authorized the use of a wire.

Vice President Mike Pence also took aim at McCabe’s interview, telling NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell that he "never heard of any discussion of the 25th amendment, and, frankly, I find any mention of it to be absurd."

Trump also excoriated McCabe using his preferred messaging vehicle: Twitter.

“Disgraced FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe pretends to be a “poor little Angel” when in fact he was a big part of the Crooked Hillary Scandal & the Russia Hoax - a puppet for Leakin’ James Comey. I.G. report on McCabe was devastating. Part of “insurance policy” in case I won....” Trump tweeted.

He followed up that tweet with another, where he made a reference to McCabe’s wife running for political office. The FBI has previously said McCabe didn’t take over the Clinton email investigation until after his wife lost.

“Many of the top FBI brass were fired, forced to leave, or left. McCabe’s wife received BIG DOLLARS from Clinton people for her campaign - he gave Hillary a pass. McCabe is a disgrace to the FBI and a disgrace to our Country. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Trump tweeted.

dailycaller

Published  1 week ago

Controlling what news voters do and do not receive has become a big focus in the digital age. Mainstream media giants and establishment political operatives alike have long fought to stigmatize, discredit, and censor any news that doesn’t fit their agendas.

Now a familiar player is getting into the censorship game: Microsoft just announced that the tech giant’s Edge web browser will feature a “NewsGuard” plugin that will display a big red exclamation mark and a scolding warning when users view news outlets its censors dislike. Media outlets hand-selected by NewsGuard and Microsoft, on the other hand, will get a big friendly green check mark and flattering praise of their journalistic merit.

Who are the approved “green check mark” news sources? The left-leaning, establishment media outlets you would expect: CNN, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, and so on. These are the same sites that rushed to publish dozens of demonstrably false stories about Catholic high schoolers harassing a Vietnam veteran — and wound up putting those teenagers and their families in the crosshairs of a vicious internet hate mob — and then, largely refused to apologize for getting the story completely wrong.

Other members of the “good news” club include Rolling Stone, responsible for making a cover story out of the most destructive rape hoax since the Scottsboro Boys, and BuzzFeed News, responsible for the report accusing President Trump of committing a felony by allegedly telling Michael Cohen to lie to Congress. The story was so outrageously false that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office issued a rare public statement to disavow it.

Which media sources are arrayed on the other side of this equation, the “bad news” bears designated on NewsGuard with red exclamation points? Exactly who you’d expect: Breitbart News; Drudge Report; the Daily Mail, Britain’s third-largest newspaper; and other outlets popular outside the Acela corridor.

In the end, this scheme is really no different than the dubious “fact checks” that holier-than-thou establishment media outlets have used to belittle their competitors and silence people who see the world a little differently than the folks in newsrooms in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles.

It should come as no surprise that NewsGuard’s creators and censors come from the same media world they seek to police, mostly former editors and publishers of establishment news and opinion publications. Nor should the syrupy praise their former colleagues and co-workers are already lavishing on the scheme be surprising – it has become a commonplace belief among these paternalistic elites that the common man needs to be protected from raw, “unfiltered” news and opinion.

The most novel aspect of this news-censoring trend is Microsoft’s involvement. Google and Facebook have been engaging in media censorship for years, but this is older generation big tech getting in on the act, perhaps in some ways demonstrating that it has to censor just to keep up with its younger, and more innovative, social media brethren.

What’s at stake here? News outlets such as Breitbart have broken some of the biggest scandals eating away at Microsoft and other tech giants’ public images.

Luckily for Americans who are uncomfortable with this kind of big-brother censorship, and who wish to decide for themselves which news outlets they trust, Microsoft Edge is one of the least popular major web browsers, and so this late-to-the-game censorship move could have limited impact.

The latest estimates suggest that only a little over 2 percent of internet users browse with Edge. Google’s Chrome, by contrast, accounts for half of the entire U.S. browser market.

Chalk up one more ostensibly neutral search engine going the way of the dinosaurs, to be replaced with a paternalistic “helper” to steer consumers into narrow channels blessed by our digital overlords, and away from the big, bad, open seas of information.

Harmeet Dhillon is a nationally recognized lawyer focusing in commercial litigation, employment law, First Amendment rights, and election law matters.

Editor’s Note: A previous version of this opinion article used the words “by default” and “immediately” but did not specify that while versions of Microsoft Edge are pre-loaded with “NewsGuard,” users must turn the plug-in on in their settings. Those words have been removed to clarify the meaning.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.

NBC News

Published  1 week ago

Investigators fear President Trump is still considering the plan, which was pushed by Flynn and Trump friend Tom Barrack.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 week ago

This is the least surprising admission of this or any other day.

Andrew McCabe as a political actor first and a law enforcement guy second? I’m pretty sure the bloom’s been off that rose for awhile now, but it’s helpful to have confirmation:

Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe in a new interview reveals fresh details of the investigations into President Trump, telling CBS that there were conversations about the possibility of removing Trump under the 25th Amendment and confirming that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had offered to wear a wire around the president.

McCabe spoke to “60 Minutes” for an interview ahead of the release of his book, “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump.”

CBS News’s Scott Pelley appeared on “CBS This Morning” Thursday to discuss his interview with McCabe, saying that McCabe told him about the efforts to figure out “what to do” with Trump during the eight days between the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey and the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.

TRENDING: Who cares what CAIR thinks?

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” Pelley said Thursday. “And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president.”

Pelley said that McCabe told him Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offered multiple times to wear a wire in meetings with Trump.

Some may quibble with my characterization of this as a coup because it is provided for in the Constitution via the 25th Amendment. I disagree with your quibble.

The 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967 in the immediate aftermath of the Kennedy assassination. It was designed to address a potential scenario in which the president in incapacitated or otherwise unable to perform his duties. Because President Kennedy died soon after being shot, there was no such scenario at play in 1963. But the question that arose was: What if he’d been in a long-term coma or otherwise incapacitated? Who would have had the authority to govern?

The 25th Amendment answers that question by empowering a majority of the cabinet, including the vice president, to declare the president incapable of performing his duties and transferring the power of the presidency to the vice president.

That is in no way the same thing as sending in Rod Rosenstein to wear a wire in the hope you will catch the president saying something outrageous and justifying a grab at his power, which is more or less what McCabe and his colleagues at the DOJ were contemplating.

McCabe also admits that he opened the counterterrorism investigation of Trump and Russia as a procedural move in the aftermath of James Comey’s firing, just in case McCabe was fired as well (which of course he eventually was, because he was caught leaking) and there was no file for his successors to pick up on.

In other words, the file was opened as a procedural just-in-case thing. That grew into the Mueller investigation, and here we are two years later, with no evidence of anything but a political narrative that won’t die.

All this because Andrew McCabe was bothered by who won the presidency and decided he needed to find a way to reverse the decision of the American people.

And you say the swamp isn’t real.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 week ago

On Sunday, Trump tweeted a Rush Limbaugh quote that suggested all of the investigators who are investigating the president should be jailed.

Trump tweeted:

“These guys, the investigators, ought to be in jail. What they have done, working with the Obama intelligence agencies, is simply unprecedented. This is one of the greatest political hoaxes ever perpetrated on the people of this Country, and Mueller is a coverup.” Rush Limbaugh

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2019

Innocent people don’t try to get the people who are investigating them thrown in prison. This should be obvious to all, but with Trump’s constant assault on law and order, it is vital to remind people that this not just abnormal presidential behavior. It is also not normal behavior from human beings who have not committed crimes.

The President Of The United States does not care about the rule of law. The only thing that Trump cares about is saving his own skin. Trump’s retweets are endorsements. The president is suggesting that people should be thrown in prison for investigating him. Donald Trump thinks that he is above the law, and anyone who tries to enforce the law as it relates to his crimes should be thrown in prison.

Trump wants the FBI and Robert Mueller locked up

Like any low-level crime boss, Trump has declared war on law enforcement. There is no way that the author of this tweet is going to let Robert Mueller do his job and release his report. Trump can’t hide the truth, so he dreams of punishing anyone who seeks it. Robert Mueller is a hero for trying to uncover the facts. Trump’s authoritarian impulses are shining through. Anyone who opposes him should be locked up, and this includes war hero Robert Mueller.

For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.

Follow Jason Easley on Facebook

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Guest post by Joe Hoft Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointed corrupt liberal judge with an angry disposition towards Americans who think differently than Obama, continues to put her own distorted interpretation of US law ahead of the US Constitution. Her actions with Paul Manafort alone are ample cause for her to be removed […]

TheHill

Published  1 week ago

Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe in a new interview reveals new details of the investigations into President Trump, telling CBS that there were conversations about the possibility of removing Trump under the 25th amendment and confirming that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had offered to wear a wire around the president.

McCabe spoke to “60 Minutes” for an interview ahead of the release of his book, “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump.”

CBS News’ Scott Pelley appeared on “CBS This Morning” Thursday to discuss his interview with McCabe, saying that McCabe told him about the efforts to figure out “what to do” with Trump during the eight days between the firing of then-FBI Director James County and the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” Pelley said Thursday. “And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president.”

Pelley said that McCabe told him Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offered multiple times to wear a wire in meetings with Trump.

The New York Times reported in September that Rosenstein proposed secretly recording Trump, a report that Rosenstein quickly denied. An unnamed Justice Department spokeswoman told the Times that Rosenstein made the offer sarcastically.

Pelley says that McCabe said that Rosenstein's offer was serious and it happened more than once.

"McCabe ... says no, it came up more than once and it was so serious that he took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss it," Pelley said.

In an excerpt of the interview that aired Thursday on “CBS This Morning,” McCabe told Pelley that he ordered an obstruction of justice probe into Trump immediately after Comey’s firing in order to document and protect the investigation due to concerns it may “vanish.”

“I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion,” McCabe told Pelley. “That were I removed quickly, or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace."

McCabe was abruptly fired in March before an inspector general report concluded that he lied to FBI agents about his disclosures to the press. His full “60 Minutes” interview airs this Sunday.

The Atlantic

Published  1 week ago

The president steps over bright ethical and moral lines wherever he encounters them. Everyone in America saw it when he fired my boss. But I saw it first hand time and time again.

cbsnews

Published  1 week ago

Soon after speaking to President Trump about the firing of his boss James Comey, Andrew McCabe, who became the bureau's acting director, began obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations involving the president and his ties to Russia. In his first television interview since his own firing, McCabe tells 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley he wanted those inquiries to be documented and underway so they would be difficult to quash without raising scrutiny.

"I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion," McCabe tells Pelley in the interview. "That were I removed quickly, or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace."

The interview with the veteran FBI agent who rose to acting director of the bureau will be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, February 17 at 7:00 p.m., ET/PT on CBS.

"I wanted to make sure that our case was on solid ground and if somebody came in behind me and closed it and tried to walk away from it, they would not be able to do that without creating a record of why they made that decision," McCabe said.

The White House responded to the opening of that investigation, calling it a "completely baseless investigation."

The first excerpt from the interview was broadcast on "CBS This Morning" Thursday as Pelley appeared on the program to talk about his report on McCabe.

"The most illuminating and surprising thing in the interview to me were these eight days in May when all of these things were happening behind the scenes that the American people really didn't know about," Pelley said on the show.

"There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment," Pelley said. "These were the eight days from Comey's firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president."

Pelley said McCabe confirms in their interview that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein considered wearing a wire in meetings with President Trump. Previously, a Justice Department statement claimed that Rosenstein made the offer sarcastically, but McCabe said it was taken seriously.

"McCabe in [the 60 Minutes] interview says no, it came up more than once and it was so serious that he took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss it," Pelley told "CBS This Morning."

McCabe has written a book, "The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump," in which he describes his career, and the FBI investigative process. It's an insider's account that details FBI decisions in the 2016 election and what took place at the bureau in the days between the firing of Comey and the appointment of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller to probe Russian influence in the election.

NBC News

Published  1 week ago

The special counsel operates under rules that severely constrain how much information can be made public.

Blunt Force Truth

Published  1 week ago

Like every disgraced Spygate figure, Andy McCabe has a book. And a media tour. He put in his contact lenses and he’s talking coup.

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, speaking out in a new book and TV interview, detailed the central role he played in the bureau’s Russia probe and the eventual appointment of a special counsel — while reportedly describing Justice Department meetings where officials discussed ousting President Trump.

McCabe, who was fired from the bureau in March 2018 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions after it was determined he lied to investigators about a leak, spoke to “60 Minutes” ahead of the release of his new book, “The Threat.” CBS News’ Scott Pelley revealed parts of the interview Thursday morning.

Guy under investigation for leaking does high profile media tour.

The entire Russia conspiracy theory came from the Clinton campaign. And McCabe, a Clinton ally, was using the Clinton conspiracy theory and opposition research to undermine her opponent.

The excerpts detail the eight days between the firing of former FBI Director James Comey and the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. After Comey’s firing, McCabe was acting director of the FBI.

Want more BFT? Leave us a voicemail on our page or follow us on Twitter @BFT_Podcast and Facebook @BluntForceTruthPodcast. We want to hear from you! There’s no better place to get the #BluntForceTruth.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

The Department of Justice is reportedly investigating the leak of Michael Cohen’s confidential bank records, according to CNN.

Prosecutors with the US attorney’s office in the Northern District of California are leading the criminal and criminal charges could be announced soon, CNN said.

On April 9, 2018 FBI agents raided the office of one of Trump’s personal lawyers Michael Cohen at the request of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Michael Cohen was President Trump’s personal attorney at the time.

One month later — Cohen’s financial documents were leaked to the porn star Stormy Daniels’s shady attorney Michael Avenatti.

Michael Cohen made a “hush payment” to porn star Stormy Daniels through Essential Consultants LLC, a shell company that Mr. Cohen created — A lawyer representing Cohen insisted his bank records were illegally obtained.

Michael Avenatti refused to divulge his source of the bank records but he suggested Cohen’s bank transactions were in a SAR, or ‘suspicious activity report.’

A bank will file a SAR with the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network if certain transactions raise red flags. It is illegal for a bank to disclose the contents or identity of a SAR.

The Treasury Department’s inspector general previously launched an investigation into how Stormy Daniels’s lawyer Michael Avenatti obtained confidential banking records concerning a company controlled by Michael Cohen — that investigation is still ongoing.

Shortly after Michael Avenatti posted Michael Cohen’s bank records online last May, a “law enforcement official” admitted to The New Yorker to leaking Cohen’s bank records.

According to the official who leaked the report, these sars were absent from the database maintained by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or fincen. The official, who has spent a career in law enforcement, told me, “I have never seen something pulled off the system. . . . That system is a safeguard for the bank. It’s a stockpile of information. When something’s not there that should be, I immediately became concerned.” The official added, “That’s why I came forward.”

The name of the leaker was withheld from the public.

Robert Barnes predicted last May that the leaker was likely a person out of the Southern District of New York or one of Mueller’s thugs.

Hopefully we will find out soon who this leaker is!

As forecast, Avenatti obtained his information through an illegal, CRIMINAL LEAK by someone now identified as a "law enforcement official." Given this source both knew about bank transactions and had access to a government database, this is highly likely either #SDNY or #Mueller. https://t.co/cuReeYc2qn

— Robert Barnes (@Barnes_Law) May 16, 2018

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Investigation by cyber-security and intelligence experts William Binney and Larry Johnson WHY THE DNC WAS NOT HACKED BY THE RUSSIANS The FBI, CIA and NSA claim that the DNC emails published by WIKILEAKS on July 26, 2016 were obtained via a Russian hack, but more than three years after the alleged “hack” no forensic evidence […]

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee is demanding to know why the panel's Democratic leadership made the "costly" decision this week to hire two prominent anti-Trump consultants to conduct a purportedly impartial investigation of the the White House.

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 week ago

Commentary Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, announced Feb. 6 ...

Newsweek

Published  1 week ago

Moscow routed millions of dollars to the U.S. expecting the funds would benefit ex-President Bill Clinton’s charitable initiative while his wife, Hillary Clinton, worked to reset relations with Russia, an FBI informant in an Obama administration-era uranium deal stated.

In a written statement to three congressional committees, informant Douglas Campbell said Russian nuclear executives told him that Moscow hired American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide to influence Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, among others in the Obama administration, The Hill reported on Wednesday.

Campbell said Russian nuclear officials expected APCO to apply its $3 million annual lobbying fee from Moscow toward the Clintons’ Global Initiative. The contract detailed four $750,000 payments over a year’s time.

“APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement,” Campbell stated.

The so-called Uranium One deal in 2010 handed Russia control of 20 percent of the U.S.’s uranium supply. Hillary Clinton served on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which unanimously approved the partial sale of the Canadian mining company Uranium One to Russian nuclear giant Rosatom.

FBI agents and the confidential informant made secret recordings, gathered records and intercepted emails dating back to 2009 that showed that Russian officials had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks. However, the Department of Justice did not bring charges until 2014.

In a statement to The Hill, APCO said its activities involving client work for the Clinton Global Initiative and Tenex, a unit of Rosatom, were “totally separate and unconnected in any way” and that “any assertion otherwise is false and unfounded.”

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, told the outlet that Campbell’s statement is being used as a distraction from special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into possible collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and the Russians in the 2016 election.

“Just yesterday the committee made clear that this secret informant charade was just that—a charade,” Merrill said Wednesday. “Along with the widely debunked text-message-gate and Nunes’ embarrassing memo episode, we have a trifecta of GOP-manufactured scandals designed to distract from their own president’s problems and the threat to democracy he poses.”

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

The most egregious anti-democratic actions ever taken by the what can now fairly be called the Deep State are confirmed with the publication of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s new book.

The Federalist

Published  1 week ago

Former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe publicly admitted that after the firing of James Comey, national security officials strategized on invoking the 25th amendment to remove President Trump from office.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” Scott Pelley said he learned in his “60 Minutes” interview with McCabe.

Pelley described the top bureaucrats as “counting noses,” and speculating on where various cabinet members might stand on the question of the president’s removal.

“These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president,” Pelley said.

More than once, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein offered to wear a wire into the White House to attempt to record incriminating conversations with the president. McCabe said this was an idea he took seriously and discussed with FBI lawyers.

McCabe, who was fired by President Trump last March, admitted to ensuring a counterintelligence investigation of President Trump and his alleged ties to Russia. “I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion,” McCabe said. “That were I removed quickly, or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace.”

In a statement to CBS, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that McCabe had “opened a completely baseless investigation into the president.”

.@ScottPelley on what McCabe told @60Minutes: "There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment." pic.twitter.com/iVAyrEV4MF

— Norah O'Donnell🇺🇸 (@NorahODonnell) February 14, 2019

After CBS aired a portion of the “60 Minutes” interview Thursday morning, Trump mocked McCabe on Twitter, saying he was “a disgrace to the FBI and a disgrace to our Country.”

Disgraced FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe pretends to be a “poor little Angel” when in fact he was a big part of the Crooked Hillary Scandal & the Russia Hoax – a puppet for Leakin’ James Comey. I.G. report on McCabe was devastating. Part of “insurance policy” in case I won….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2019

McCabe’s new book, “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump,” is self-described as “a dramatic and candid account of his career,” and details the behind-the-scenes events that unfolded between Trump’s election and McCabe’s firing.

Pelley’s full interview with McCabe will air on CBS’s “60 Minutes” Sunday night.

Talking Points Memo

Published  1 week ago

Manafort-Linked PAC Failed To Report $1 Million And The FEC Wants To Know Why

Judicial Watch

Published  1 week ago

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it sent an official complaint to the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General (IG) calling for investigations into leaks of information about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The complaint asks for an investigation of any leaks to CNN about the controversial raid on the home of Roger...

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Longtime political operative Roger Stone on Wednesday filed a motion requesting a federal judge force special counsel Robert Mueller to prove he did not tip off CNN about his January 25 arrest.

Stone’s legal team argues CNN showed it a draft copy of the indictment, stamped without a PACER, after their client’s arrest, suggesting the document had been released prematurely. “A person with privileged access to a ‘draft’ of Roger Stone’s Indictment, identical to that which had been filed under seal … had — in violation of the Court’s Order — publicly distributed the Indictment prior to its release from the sealing ordered by the Court,” the filing reads.

Since his arrest, Stone has contended CNN was given notice of his arrest ahead of time. The filing states a CNN camera crew began camping outside Stone’s Fort Lauderdale, Flordia residence at 4:58 a.m. EST. The FBI arrested Stone at 6:06 a.m. EST, after which a CNN journalist contacted the political operative’s lawyer and texted over a “draft copy of the still sealed indictment” at 6:22 a.m. EST.

CNN denied being tipped off about the indictment, claiming that it was their reporters’ “instinct” to send a crew to Stone’s home before dawn on the morning of his arrest. “[FBI agents] walked me out in the middle of the street to make sure the CNN camera could get great footage of the whole thing. The street was sealed off, so how CNN had a camera right outside the door; that’s very hard to understand, because nobody else was allowed on the street,” Stone said of his arrest in an interview with Breitbart News Daily host Alex Marlow.

On January 28, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking for an investigation into whether details of Stone’s indictment were leaked to the media ahead of his arrest.

“It is hard to believe that this reporter and camera crew showed up at the home of Mr. Stone, on the right day at the right time, on a hunch,” the Republican congressman wrote. “This leads me to believe that CNN may have received advance notice of the date and time of the arrest.”

Stone has also lamented what many are arguing was an excessive use of force by the FBI during his arrest. “I’m 66 years old, I do not own a gun, I do not have a valid passport, I have no prior criminal record, I’m charged with nonviolent process crimes,” he told reporters. “To storm my house with greater force than was used to take down bin Laden or El Chapo or Pablo Escobar, it’s unconscionable.”

Stone was charged with lying to Congress, obstruction and witness tampering related to discussions he had during the 2016 election about WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy group that released material stolen from Democrat groups including Hillary Clinton’s campaign. U.S. intelligence agencies have said that Russia was the source of the hacked material, and last year Mueller charged 12 Russian intelligence officers in the hacking.

Prosecutors have tied that case to Stone’s, saying they share a common search warrant and involve activities that are “part of the same alleged criminal event or transaction.” However, they have not accused Stone of being directly involved in any Russian election conspiracy.

Stone, who remains free on $250,000 bond, has denied having any direct contact with WikiLeaks. The Trump ally has said he only sought to encourage voter interest in the group’s public disclosures. He also has denied discussing the issue with President Trump.

Stone pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

Fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has admitted that he, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and other top FBI officials met in mid-2017 to discuss using the 25th Amendment to remove President Donald Trump from office.

During an interview with CBS 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley asked McCabe about his new book, specifically a section where he recounts the meeting and conversation about invoking the 25th Amendment after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017.

Get Your “Build The Wall” Coin For 50% Off And We’ll Send Nancy Pelosi A Foam Brick!

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” Pelley said.

“These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president,” Pelley added.

Pelley spoke with McCabe about the details of the conversations included in his book.

“[McCabe] is the very first person involved in these meetings who has come out and spoken publicly,” Pelley said.

“They were counting noses, they were not asking cabinet members whether they would vote for or against removing the president, but they were speculating ‘This person would be with us. That person would not be…’ and they were counting noses in that effort. … This was not perceived to be a joke,” he added.

The 25th Amendment of the Constitution details a procedure where the vice president and a majority of Cabinet members vote to remove a sitting president from office if they deem them unfit to serve.

Here’s what section 4 of the 25th Amendment states:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

In Sept. 2018, it was reported that Rosenstein implied to McCabe and other senior officials that he wanted to secretly record conversations he was having with Trump.

Rosenstein also reportedly mentioned the idea of getting members of the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office for firing Comey.

The allegations are outlined in memos authored by McCabe, which he confirmed on Thursday during his interview with CBS News.

Just let that sink in.

It’s confirmed that top government officials discussed removing the duly elected president of the United States without him being charged with a single crime.

McCabe was fired for lying and is being prosecuted for lying.

[RELATED: Senate Intel Committee Reveals Final Report On Russia Probe – We Knew It!]

The Hive

Published  1 week ago

Later today, William Barr is expected to be confirmed as Donald Trump’s next attorney general, despite just three Democrats voting to advance his nomination earlier this week. But the Barr family is intent on gaining the nation’s trust. In order to avoid any thorny work situations, Barr’s son-in-law, Tyler McGaughey, will be leaving his job in the Justice Department . . . for a new gig that will seemingly provide even more opportunities for conflicts of interest, this time of the Russian variety!

CNN reports that McGaughey, the husband of Barr’s youngest daughter, has been hired as an attorney in the White House counsel’s office, where he’ll “advise the president, the executive office, and White House staff on legal issues concerning the president and the presidency.” While the division is separate from the legal team that defends Trump in the Russia investigation—a group of leading lights that includes Rudy “maybe there was collusion” Giuliani—its work nevertheless does “intersect with the investigation.” (Trump reportedly blamed former White House counsel Don McGahn for failing to bring the probe to a close.) Meanwhile, Mary Daly, Barr’s oldest daughter, will be leaving her current job in the deputy attorney general’s office for a gig at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which has had its own Russian intrigues.

Barr, of course, has his own special conflicts of interest when it comes to Robert Mueller’s probe. Last June, he sent an unsolicited 20-page memo to the Justice Department calling the inquiry into potential obstruction of justice by Trump “fatally misconceived” and Mueller’s actions “grossly irresponsible,” and insisting “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.” (Presumably, the memo didn’t hurt Barr’s position on the short list to replace the long-suffering Jeff Sessions.) While Barr said in January that he would not end the Mueller inquiry without cause if asked to do so by the president, he also told lawmakers he saw no reason to recuse himself in light of the memo, saying he would “seek the counsel of Justice Department ethics officials” but would not necessarily take their advice.

Walter Shaub, the former director of the Office of Government Ethics, said it was a “good idea” for McGaughey and Daly to leave the D.O.J., but added that McGaughey’s beeline for the White House was “concerning.” “That’s troubling because it raises further questions about Barr's independence,” he told CNN.

More Great Stories from Vanity Fair

— The leaking, gossiping, and infighting that made Kellyanne Conway a formidable White House player

— Nancy Pelosi is America’s most powerful power-suit boss

— Your passport to Vanity Fair’s 25th Hollywood Issue with Saoirse Ronan, Timothée Chalamet, Chadwick Boseman, and more

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

The Senate voted Thursday to confirm William Barr, President Trump’s pick to serve as his next attorney general.

Barr’s confirmation passed a 54-45 mostly party line vote in the GOP-led Senate. The vote came more than three months after Jeff Sessions, Trump's first attorney general, was fired.

Democrats who oppose Barr’s confirmation have criticized his ability to fairly oversee special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russians. Many said they were alarmed by a 20-page memo Barr authored in June questioning the legitimacy of the Mueller probe and making the case that Mueller should not demand Trump “submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.”

Barr told Judiciary Committee lawmakers during his confirmation hearing his memo aimed to narrowly address the obstruction question and that he believes Mueller should be able to complete his investigation into alleged collusion.

“The Justice Department needs a leader who will be independent of the White House and who is able to stand up to President Trump, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, of California., who is the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said. "Bill Barr hasn’t demonstrated that he would be that independent leader."

Despite complaints from most Democrats, three of them voted to confirm Barr: Doug Jones of Alabama, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Republican Rand Paul, R-Ky., who questioned Barr’s support of federal surveillance tactics, voted against him.

Barr won the overwhelming support of Republican senators, who praised his long career as a lawyer and former attorney general for President George H.W. Bush.

The position has been filled temporarily by Sessions’ chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, since Sessions was fired.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

William Barr was confirmed Thursday by the Senate to serve as President Trump’s next attorney general, sending him to lead a Justice Department whose past officials have come under sharp criticism from the president over the ongoing Russia investigation.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Corrupt Obama judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled on Wednesday that Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort intentionally lied to the FBI and Robert Mueller several times, voiding his plea deal.

Manafort “intentionally made multiple false statements to the FBI, the OSC and the grand jury concerning matters that were material to the investigation,” Judge Amy Berman Jackson decided.

The Washington Times reported Manafort lied about his own payments, about his interactions with Konstantin Kilimnik, and about what the judge referred to as “another DOJ investigation.” But Mr. Mueller didn’t prove he lied about “his contacts with the administration,” she ruled.

“The Office of Special Counsel is no longer bound by its obligations under the plea agreement, including its promise to support a reduction of the offense level in the calculation of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for acceptance of responsibility,” Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote in an order issued Wednesday.

Paul Manafort is currently in solitary confinement for a myriad of tax and finance crimes that Mueller decided to dig up as revenge against political opponents.

Amy Berman Jackson’s ruling Wednesday means Manafort could face more prison time when he is sentenced in March.

Manafort’s lawyers denied their client lied in a prior ruling.

President Trump should pardon every American caught up in Mueller’s inquisition and put an end to the rogue special counsel.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

No matter when and how Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe ends, House Democrats are planning to aggressively ramp up their own Trump-related investigations that will include a network of committees and high-profile public hearings likely to last well into the 2020 election year.

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 week ago

News Analysis On Dec. 7, 2018, CNN published an article discussing events in the eight days following the ...

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

FBI officials met to discuss the idea of whether the 25th Amendment could be implemented to remove Donald Trump from office, CBS News confirms.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” CBS 60 Minutes reporter Scott Pelley said. “These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what do with the president.”

Pelley interviewed former FBI acting director Andrew McCabe who is promoting a new book with details of the conversations.

“[McCabe] is the very first person involved in these meetings who has come out and spoken publicly,” Pelley said on CBS This Morning on Thursday. “They were counting noses, they were not asking cabinet members whether they would vote for or against removing the president, but they were speculating ‘This person would be with us. That person would not be,’ and they were counting noses in that effort. … This was not perceived to be a joke.”

The 25th Amendment of the Constitution details a procedure whereby the vice president and a majority cabinet members can vote to remove from office a sitting president who they deem unfit to serve. Section 4 of the 25th Amendment provides:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

The potential use of the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office due to “mental incapacity” has been a major talking point of his most vocal critics.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

Democrats continue to flounder after a devastating two weeks that is hardly what they expected after winning back control of the House Of Representatives in the midterm elections and President Trump is now putting on

Axios

Published  1 week ago

Mueller is just the beginning. House Democrats plan a vast probe of President Trump and Russia — with a heavy focus on money laundering — that will include multiple committees and dramatic public hearings, and could last into 2020.

The state of play: The aggressive plans were outlined yesterday by a Democratic member of Congress at a roundtable for Washington reporters. The member said Congress plans interviews with new witnesses, and may go back to earlier witnesses who "stonewalled" under the Republican majority.

Why it matters: The reporters, many of them steeped in the special counsel's investigation, came away realizing that House Dems don't plan to depend on Robert Mueller for the last word on interference in the 2016 election.

Instead, Dems will use their new subpoena power to produce a voluminous exposé of their own.

Here's the congressional blueprint, as outlined by the member:

At least three committees are already involved: The House Intelligence Committee is taking the lead, coordinating with House Financial Services on money-laundering questions and with House Foreign Affairs on Russia.

Democrats are considering ways to uncover what was said in a Trump private meeting with Putin, "whether that's subpoenaing the notes or subpoenaing the interpreter or other steps."

On Trump family finances, the member said the president is "not in a position to draw red lines."

"I am concerned that he may have drawn a red line that the Department of Justice may be observing."

"If we didn't look at his business, ... we wouldn’t know what we know now about his efforts to pursue what may have been the most lucrative deal of his life, the Trump Tower in Moscow — something the special counsel's office has said stood to earn the family hundreds of millions of dollars."

"Now, most of his stuff isn't building anymore: It's licensing, and it doesn't make that kind of money. So, this would have been huge."

"[T]he fact that the president says now: 'Well, it's not illegal and I might have lost the election. Why should I miss out, basically, on all that money?' He may very well take the same position now: 'I might not be re-elected, and so why shouldn't I ... still pursue it?"

Go deeper:

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Veteran criminal defense attorney John Dowd has savaged Robert Mueller’s Russia probe as a "terrible waste of time" and questioned whether a report will ever be produced.

Dowd, who served as a member of President Donald Trump’s legal team from June 2017 until March 2018, made the explosive comments during an interview with ABC News.

“I will be shocked, if anything regarding the president is made public, other than, ‘we’re done’,” the 77-year-old said.

This is one of the greatest frauds this country's ever seen

— John Dowd

“I know exactly what he has. I know exactly what every witness said, what every document said. I know exactly what he asked. And I know what the conclusion or the result is.”

When pressed on what he believes the conclusion of the probe will be, Dowd unleashed a blistering attack.

“It's been a terrible waste of time… This is one of the greatest frauds this country's ever seen,” he said. “I'm just shocked that Bob Mueller didn't call it that way and say, ‘I'm being used.’ I would’ve done that.

FBI SCRAMBLED TO RESPOND TO HILLARY CLINTON LAWYER AMID WEINER LAPTOP REVIEW, NEWLY RELEASED EMAILS SHOW

“I'd have gone to Sessions and Rosenstein and said, "Look. This is nonsense. We are being used by a cabal in the FBI to get even.”

The 77-year-old’s explosive remarks fly in the face of public comments made by members of the Justice Department.

While being quizzed on the Russia probe during an oversight hearing last week, Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said he respects Mueller and his “ability to conduct this investigation”.

President Trump has repeatedly referred to the investigation as a “witch hunt”.

True Pundit

Published  1 week ago

John Dowd, The Former Lead Attorney Representing President Donald Trump In Dealing With Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Investigation Into Alleged Collusion With Russia In The 2016 Presidential Campaign, Blasted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein In An Abc News Podcast Released Tuesday For His Handling Of The Investigation.

Dowd’s resignation last March was interpreted as a blow to the president’s legal defense, and perhaps as a sign that the White House was losing confidence in its case. But Dowd said then, and told ABC News again Tuesday, that Mueller would find nothing on Trump — and said the Special Counsel should simply “‘knock it off and get it done.”

In addition, he said that Rosenstein had failed to manage Mueller’s investigation properly, and had declined to investigate former FBI director James Comey for misleading Congress when presented with the evidence:

Dowd said that at one point after Comey appeared before Congress, he wrote to Rosenstein to ask for the Justice Department to investigate whether the former FBI director lied in his testimony.

“He blew me off,” Dowd said. “That’s not leadership. That’s not accountability. … We did it in writing. We did it politely. We did it confidentially. And he just blew us off. So, I lost all respect for Rod Rosenstein.” – READ MORE

Rantt

Published  1 week ago

Rantt Rundown, Day 755 of Trump’s presidency – Today’s top stories:

1. Judge rules Paul Manafort lied to Robert Mueller about Russia-related contacts: Ahead of former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort March 13th sentencing, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has made a consequential ruling. Judge Jackson has sided with Special Counsel Robert Mueller on 3 of the 5 areas where Manafort was accused of lying to investigators. The ruling determines that Mueller has “established a preponderance of evidence” proving that Manafort intentionally lied about a $125k payment he made to an unnamed firm, matters related to another DOJ investigation, and his communications with Russian Intelligence Operative Konstantin Kilimnik. This has voided Manafort’s plea deal and will be taken into consideration at his sentencing.

This is important because last week Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on the Special Counsel’s team, made comments that Manafort’s lies pertained to matters at the “heart” of their investigation. The reason the contacts with Kilimnik are at the heart of the probe is that it could amount to a quid pro quo of in the potential Trump-Russia conspiracy. Manafort met with Kilimnik several times, including when Kilimnik was in DC for the inauguration as well as in February 2017 and 2018. There was also the August 2016 meeting in New York, which Deputy Campaign Chairman Rick Gates also attended, where Manafort handed Kilimnik campaign polling data and discussed a Ukraine Peace plan that would lift sanctions on Russia. It’s clear Rick Gate’s cooperation is paying off for the Mueller team.

It’s unclear whether this is related to the Ukraine Peace plan Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen and associate Felix Sater worked on and reportedly delivered to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. Either way, it fits within the pattern of behavior of various Trump officials who sought to implement pro-Russia policies.

Watch this story, because if it’s proven that there was an agreement for sanctions relief in exchange for help winning the election, then that would be the missing piece needed to determine if there was a criminal conspiracy. To learn more about the Trump-Russia collusion story, read our 6-minute primer outlining all of the evidence.

This is only a partial version of our Rantt Rundown newsletter. To get the full newsletter breaking down the top 5 stories of the day in your inbox every weeknight, please subscribe below.

Rantt Media’s comprehensive articles source reporting from top news organizations, but they’re also built on brilliant analysis from our team. We are independently-owned and strive for quality, not clicks. But the only way to truly have a media for the people is for media to be funded by the people. We take pride in being reader-funded so that we are beholden to you, not corporate interests. If you like the work we do, please consider supporting us by signing up for a monthly subscription.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

There have been reports recently that the Senate Intelligence Committee, the panel conducting the bipartisan flagship congressional investigation of the Trump-Russia affair, has not found evidence to conclude that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to fix the 2016 election.

"If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don't have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia," the committee's chairman, Republican Sen. Richard Burr, told CBS last week.

Pressed on his statement a few days later, Burr said, "The only thing I've addressed is whether we had facts that suggest there was [collusion]. We don't have any." Burr added one caveat: "Just saying what factually we've found to date. We haven't finished our investigation."

At about the same time, NBC News reported that committee Democrats did not fundamentally dispute Burr's statement, although they emphasized they had uncovered no "direct" evidence of collusion. "Both Republicans and Democrats are telling us that they found no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, which after all was the big question that everyone was asking," said NBC's Ken Dilanian Tuesday.

The talk prompted pushback from the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. Mark Warner, who told CNN that he is not on board with Burr. "Respectfully, I disagree," Warner said. "I'm not going to get into any conclusions I've reached, because my basis of this has been that I'm not going to reach any conclusion until we finish the investigation. And we still have a number of the key witnesses to come back."

The "no collusion" talk set off alarm bells among those who have devoted the last two years to promoting the notion that Trump and Russia conspired in 2016. The Committee to Investigate Russia, established by actor Rob Reiner and including former intelligence chiefs James Clapper and Michael Hayden, sent out an email headlined, "No Direct Link So Far...But So What?"

Likewise, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe was in no mood to entertain a "no collusion" argument. "Burr is out on a limb that his non-GOP colleagues are sawing off," Tribe tweeted Tuesday. "He's being a partisan. Plus his definition of 'evidence' is wildly unrealistic. Nobody ever imagined Trump saying to Putin, 'Hey, I'll lift the sanctions if you make me president.' That's not how it works."

For her part, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow seemed to take issue with her own network's reporting by tweeting out a Mother Jones story headlined, "Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats Dispute Claims That Russia Probe Found No Collusion." The story featured a quote from Warner saying, "The president is terrified about where our investigation...may lead."

Some might be particularly distressed by the prospect that the Senate could reach the same verdict on collusion as House Intelligence Committee Republicans did in a report that was widely derided in some media circles last year.

The committee's Republicans, led by then-chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, "found no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, coordinated, or conspired with the Russian government," the report said. Nevertheless, GOP lawmakers added, "the investigation did find poor judgment and ill-considered actions by the Trump and Clinton campaigns."

Democrats mocked the report and its no-collusion conclusion. The document was "rife with significant inaccuracies, mischaracterizations, vital omissions of fact and context, and often risible attempts to explain away inconvenient truths," committee Democrats said in a minority report.

"This was basically a kindergarten exercise where they brought in witnesses, let them say what they were going to say, took them at their word, and said, OK guys, we're all done here, no collusion," said Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro, an Intelligence Committee member.

"Let me just say that this Republican report from the House Intel Committee really is a fake report," Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu said. "They had the view that there was no collusion. Of course, they're going to do a report that shows there's no collusion because they weren't looking for it, and they were actually trying to ignore evidence of collusion."

Senate Intelligence Committee investigators were not trying to ignore evidence of collusion. But now, it appears they, too, are headed for essentially the same conclusion as House Republicans.

Even more concerning to some Democrats is that the news from Burr came on the heels of stories to the effect that Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller might not charge Trump associates with conspiracy and might not even allege that the much-discussed Trump-Russia conspiracy even occurred. Many House Democrats have been relying on Mueller to give them a roadmap and cover to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. Now, they face the question of what to do if Mueller does not give them what they want.

The answer could be that House Democrats will have to do the job by themselves. Frustrated by Republican control the last two years, followed -- potentially -- by the failure of both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Mueller investigation to provide proof of collusion, bound-and-determined House Democrats will have to rely on themselves to come up with grounds to impeach Trump. That is one reason why the talk in the House today is of new investigations that will go where Mueller could not, and finally uncover evidence of impeachable offenses. If the Senate and Mueller investigations reach a disappointing end, Democrats might have to go it alone.

Red Journalists

Published  1 week ago

Former CIA Director John Brennan dismissed the report that the Senate Intelligence Committee has found no direct evidence of Trump colluding with Russia.

Speaking with MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace on Tuesday afternoon, Brennan discussed the collusion issue, saying that there was “collusion in plain sight.”

“What the Mueller team is doing is trying to determine whether or not the engagement rises to the level of criminal conspiracy,” he said. “You can collude without violating the law.”

Brennan brought up the Senate Intel report and said he thought they were going to look at “what the Russians actually did” and how the U.S. government actually responded.

Host Nicolle Wallace said the president will undoubtedly tout the committee’s conclusion very soon. The former CIA Director said the Senate Intel Committee doesn’t have “the investigative tools” and other things that Robert Mueller has.

“The special counsel’s team I’m sure has so much more information,” Brennan said. “Everybody should take a step back and breathe and not make any conclusions about whether or not there was a criminal conspiracy… I am confident [Mueller] has had access to a lot more than the Senate or the House Intelligence Committees.”

You can watch the video here, via MSNBC:

What are your thoughts on this? Please share and comment.

Don’t forget to subscribe to our exclusive newsletter.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Jeff Bezos' girlfriend has privately acknowledged that she shared some photos and texts from the Amazon founder with several female friends, adding to the mystery of who leaked salacious material to the National Enquirer.

AP News

Published  1 week ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler says he has hired two veteran lawyers and critics of President Donald Trump as his committee begins to investigate the president and his administration.

The hiring of the two prominent lawyers, Barry Berke and Norman Eisen, comes as lawmakers from both parties are pressuring Trump attorney general nominee William Barr to release a full accounting of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe when it’s complete. The new additions to Nadler’s staff could also provide expertise for impeachment proceedings, if Democrats decide at some point to pursue them.

Nadler said in a statement that the panel is determined to “ask critical questions, gather all the information, judiciously assess the evidence, and make sure that the facts are not hidden from the American people.”

He did not mention impeachment, but noted that Trump faces “numerous allegations” of corruption and obstruction.

“His conduct and crude statements threaten the basic legal, ethical and constitutional norms that maintain our democratic institutions,” Nadler said. “Congress has a constitutional duty to be a check and balance against abuses of power when necessary.”

Nadler said Berke and Eisen “have been retained on a consulting basis as special oversight staff” to the committee’s Democratic majority. He said they would consult on matters related to the Department of Justice and Mueller’s Russia probe.

Both men have been high-profile critics of Trump, and they co-authored a Brookings Institution report released last year that laid out a case for his impeachment. The report said “it has become apparent that the president’s pattern of potentially obstructive conduct is much more extensive than we knew.”

Eisen served as a White House counsel for President Barack Obama and has focused on government ethics and corruption as a co-founder of the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Berke is a top trial lawyer and white collar criminal defense lawyer who is based out of New York.

Democrats have been cautious in speaking about impeachment, with most arguing that they want to see the Mueller report before they would even consider such a step. Nadler has called impeachment a “trauma” that should be approached judiciously and with bipartisan support.

Still, he has said he believes Trump has engaged in a pattern of obstruction — one of the issues Mueller is investigating.

“This is a critical time in our nation’s history,” Nadler said in the statement.

Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary panel, criticized the hires and the “sharply partisan op-eds” that Eisen and Berke have written together.

“Looks like Democrats are staffing up for impeachment before Mueller’s report is even out,” Collins said.

Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

The Senate voted Tuesday to advance the nomination of William Barr, President Trump’s pick to serve as attorney general, to a final vote.

Barr’s confirmation cleared a procedural hurdle along mostly party lines, in a 55-44 vote. The vote followed a contentious Judiciary Committee hearing last week in which Democrats questioned Barr’s ability to fairly oversee special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russians.

Barr won the overwhelming support of Republican senators, who praised his long career as a lawyer and former attorney general for President George H.W. Bush.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called Barr “a tried and true public servant and a proven professional” who is committed to upholding the rule of law.

Despite initial support from senior Democratic lawmakers, Barr ended up passing with few Democratic votes.

Democrats said they were alarmed by a 20-page memo Barr authored in June questioning the legitimacy of the Mueller probe and making the case that Mueller should not demand Trump “submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.”

Barr told Judiciary Committee lawmakers during his confirmation hearing his memo aimed to narrowly address the obstruction question and that he believes Mueller should be able to complete his investigation into alleged collusion.

Democrats said they were not convinced by Barr’s testimony and believe he's a Trump loyalist appointed to protect the president from Mueller.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who is running for president, said Tuesday Barr has already taken extraordinary steps to undermine the Mueller probe by authoring the memo.

“Man, that is quite the cover letter for a job application, when the job is overseeing the very investigation you don’t think should exist in the first place,” Warren said.

Warren also criticized Barr’s views on women’s reproductive rights and immigration.

She said Barr would “continue to take our government further and further in favor of the powerful few over everyone else.”

Democrats backing bar were Sens. Doug Jones of Alabama, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

“Today I will vote to confirm William Barr to be the next attorney general because he is well-qualified, and I am confident that he will faithfully execute the duties of the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America,” Manchin said.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. voted against Barr because of Barr’s support for warrantless surveillance.

The Washington Times

Published  1 week ago

For over a year, the Hillary Clinton campaign, other Democrats and liberal pundits have pummeled President Trump and his men with one main weapon: a dossier.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

A court filing from Roger Stone’s attorneys documents how CNN was in possession of a sealed indictment long before the court ordered it to be released.

For weeks, we have been hearing CNN claim again and again that their presence at Stone’s home ahead of the FBI’s pre-dawn raid was a combination of “luck” and good reporting. They have since built on that fairy-tale, describing their propagandist filming of Stone’s arrest the result of watching “unusual grand jury activity” in the days leading up to January 25th.

However, we at The Gateway Pundit reported exclusively how the metadata on a draft copy of the indictment obtained by a CNN reporter and sent to Roger’s attorney after his arrest showed a save date of two days prior to the January 25th unsealing of the court documents following the Stone’s arrest. This proved that CNN illegally obtained a copy of the grand jury indictment, and now Mr. Stone’s attorneys are demanding the Mueller’s office explain themselves.

According to the filing, Stone is laying out exactly how CNN came into possession of the illegally leaked document, which lead to their “stake out” in front of Stone’s South Florida home an hour before the FBI arrived on scene. Last week, home surveillance video of the raid was released by Infowars, and showed FBI agents coordinating with CNN to position their film crew to televise Mr. Stone’s arrest.

READ THE COURT FILING:

Stone Motion To Show Cause … by on Scribd

This was meant to taint the jury pool and frame the longtime Trump advisor as some sort of violent criminal mastermind that required a heavily armed 29-member FBI strike force raid on his home, despite Stone being charged with non-violent process crimes on immaterial matters. Roger’s hearing impaired wife Nydia was even dragged from her bed barefooted onto the front lawn in the Gestapo-style raid and arrest.

An illegal leaking of the documents by the Office of the Special Counsel, which the evidence suggests, is a crime that should earn the person who leaked it imprisonment or a fine, preferably both. Further action should be considered in all honesty, since the leak came from someone within the Office of the Special Counsel, which is arguing for a gag order to be placed on Mr. Stone, so he doesn’t “taint the jury pool.”

Obviously that is a laughable request given the fact that the Office of the Special Counsel, acting under the direction of Robert Mueller, have now been busted illegally leaking sealed court documents to CNN in an effort to taint the jury pool against Mr. Stone, who was dragged from his home wearing a “Roger Stone Did Nothing Wrong” t-shirt.

CNN’s entire coven of Fake News peddlers should also issue corrections and apologies to the American public for lying about how they “just happened to be there” to film Stone’s arrest. It was not due to their monitoring of publicly available court documents or grand jury activity, it was due to an illegal leak that they have helped to conceal with their cockamamie cover story.

You can help Roger fight back against Robert Mueller and his goon-squad of politically motivated prosecutors by donating to stonedefensefund.com

The Rush Limbaugh Show

Published  1 week ago

RUSH: He said this in a podcast that has been reported by ABC News. ABC News is devastated by this news.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 week ago

By Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Republican and Democratic senators on Wednesday will introduce a bill seeking to punish Russia for meddling in U.S. elections and for its aggression in Ukraine by imposing sanctions on its banking, energy sector and foreign debt.

The bill will be introduced by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Democratic Senator Bob Menendez and is a tougher version of the one the two lawmakers backed last year but which failed to pass, Menendez’s office said. The bill has been seen by Reuters.

Among other things, it would impose sanctions on Russian banks that support efforts to interfere in foreign elections, sanction Russian liquefied natural gas projects outside of Russia, sanction the country’s cyber sector, impose sanctions on new sovereign debt and sanction individuals deemed to “facilitate illicit and corrupt activities, directly or indirectly, on behalf of (Russian President Vladimir) Putin.”

The bill would have to pass Congress and be signed by President Donald Trump before becoming law. Trump has gone along with increasing sanctions on Russia, though sometimes reluctantly.

U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election and Moscow’s possible collusion with the Trump campaign. Russia has denied interfering in the election and Trump has called Mueller’s probe a witch hunt.

Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Congress wanted action to respond to the humanitarian disaster in Syria, where Russia backs President Bashar al-Assad, Moscow’s aggression in Ukraine “and the steady erosion of international norms.”

“One thing is increasingly clear: Moscow will continue to push until it meets genuine resistance,” Menendez told Reuters.

Graham, a leading Republican congressional foreign policy voice is a Trump ally who called last year’s legislation “the sanctions bill from hell.” He said he was determined to send a strong message to Moscow.

“Our goal is to change the status quo and impose meaningful sanctions and measures against Putin’s Russia,” Graham said in an email to Reuters. “He should cease and desist meddling in the U.S. electoral process, halt cyberattacks on American infrastructure, remove Russia from Ukraine, and stop efforts to create chaos in Syria.”

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Paul Simao)

Axios

Published  1 week ago

It would essentially be a life sentence for the 69-year-old former Trump campaign manager.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

There are new revelations about what took place in Washington during the extraordinary period from May 9, 2017, when President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, to May 17, 2017 when Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed.

The short version is: The reports were true. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein really did discuss wearing a wire to secretly record the president. Rosenstein and others did discuss invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office. And the FBI did adopt an aggressive new investigation strategy, targeting the president himself, almost instantly after the Comey firing.

It's all true, that is, if revelations in an upcoming book by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe are accurate. The bottom line on that is that, at least from what we know now, McCabe's story seems consistent with information congressional investigators have been able to glean elsewhere.

"It's just like we thought all along," said one House Republican upon hearing the news. "If McCabe's account is true, it confirms what we thought, that Rod Rosenstein was serious when he talked about wearing a wire and invoking the 25th Amendment. Rosenstein should be under oath answering our questions. We need to know who was in the room and what was said."

Whether that happens, in the House at least, is up to the new Democratic majority. But Rosenstein has so far declined to answer congressional questions on the wearing-a-wire and 25th Amendment matters.

To promote his book, McCabe has done an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes." Correspondent Scott Pelley appeared on CBS Thursday morning with a preview. "There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment," Pelley said. "These were the eight days from Comey's firing to the point that Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president."

As another part of his book promotion, McCabe published an excerpt Thursday morning in the Atlantic. The theme of the excerpt is that, after the Comey firing, McCabe was determined to cement in place a Trump-Russia investigation that could not be stopped by the president.

It might be more accurate to say "investigations." McCabe wrote that he ordered an "overall review" of the FBI's Trump-Russia work. "Were there individuals on whom we should consider opening new cases?" he wrote. "I want to protect the Russia investigation in such a way that whoever came after me could not just make it go away."

The New York Times reported last month that in that period, the FBI opened up a counterintelligence investigation focused on the president himself. "Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national security," the Times reported. "Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence."

That is one sort of investigation. The other probe McCabe wanted to nail into place was what became the Mueller investigation. Describing the decision to appoint Mueller — the decision was actually made by Rosenstein — McCabe wrote, "If I got nothing else done as acting director, I had done the one thing I needed to do."

And then there were the talks about secretly recording the president and using the 25th Amendment to remove him from office. According to CBS, top law enforcement officials were discussing which Cabinet members might be persuaded to go along with an effort to remove Trump. "They were counting noses," Pelley said on CBS Thursday morning. "They were not asking Cabinet members whether they would vote for or against removing the president, but they were speculating."

Much, if not all, of what McCabe reports has been reported before. But an eyewitness, insider account lends new weight to the idea that the highest levels of the national security apparatus experienced a collective freakout in the days after the Comey firing.

In particular, it intensifies questions about Rosenstein's behavior in those eight days. Remember that Rosenstein played a key role in the removal of Comey. A few days later, he was talking about removing the president for having removed Comey. The sheer audacity of that has stunned even experienced Capitol Hill observers.

"The guy who wrote the memo providing the justification for firing Comey is then upset that the swamp is mad at him for helping fire Comey and then comes up with a plan to wear a wire and invoke the 25th Amendment," said the House Republican.

After the CBS report, the Justice Department, on Rosenstein's behalf, issued a statement saying McCabe's account was "inaccurate and factually incorrect." Rosenstein, the Department said, "never authorized any recording that Mc. McCabe references." That was not exactly a denial of the basic story that Rosenstein discussed wearing a wire.

One final note. The frenzy of May 2017 set off investigations that continued previous investigations that, as far as the public knows today, have not uncovered evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to fix the 2016 election. And if those investigations have not found that proof by now, they certainly had not found it in May 2017. And yet the investigations multiplied, and are still multiplying to this day.

WayneDupree.com

Published  1 week ago

Law enforcement groups and many others supported the choice, while those on the Left worried about his views on the special counsel's investigation

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

President Trump on Thursday blasted former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe as a “disgrace” to the FBI and to the country while criticizing his handling of the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and his work on the “Russia Hoax.”

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

The Senate Intel Committee has found no direct evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to BOTH Democrats and Republicans on the Committee, NBC reported.

After over two years, 200 interviews and reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents and wasting money, Senate investigators are now saying what we’ve known all along — there was no Trump-Russia collusion.

Last week, Senate Intel Chairman Richard Burr told CBS, “If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia.”

“If I can finish tomorrow, I would finish tomorrow,” Burr said, adding, “We know we’re getting to the bottom of the barrel because there’re not new questions that we’re searching for answers to.”

The President tweeted his support for Richard Burr on Sunday and asked, “Is anybody really surprised by this?” after the Committee found zero collusion with Russia.

Senator Richard Burr, The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, just announced that after almost two years, more than two hundred interviews, and thousands of documents, they have found NO COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA! Is anybody really surprised by this?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 10, 2019

According to NBC, even the Democrats on the Committee admit there is no Trump-Russia conspiracy.

“We were never going find a contract signed in blood saying, ‘Hey Vlad, we’re going to collude,'” one Democrat aide said.

One Democrat investigator twisted himself into a pretzel trying to make even the most insignificant contact with anyone of Russian descent an issue — “Donald Trump Jr. made clear in his messages that he was willing to accept help from the Russians,” one Democratic Senate investigator said. “Trump publicly urged the Russians to find Clinton’s missing emails.”

What does that even mean?? Again, no crimes were committed and the Democrats blatantly ignore Hillary Clinton’s contact with a British spy who compiled a fake dossier from Russian intel sources to spy on her political opponent.

The House Intel Panel also began a parallel ‘Trump-Russia’ probe in January of 2017, but concluded in April of 2018 that they found zero evidence of collusion.

Mark Warner, the Democrat working along side of Senator Burr as Vice Chairman of the Senate Intel Panel has made numerous media appearances over the last two years complaining about Russian Twitter trolls and vaguely suggesting there are new developments in his committee’s Russia probe as evidence Trump may have conspired with Russia.

Although Senate Intel Chairman Burr doesn’t speak to the media too often, he publicly stated over the summer his committee still had found no evidence of Russian collusion and reiterated that statement once again in the Fall.

According to NBC, it is going to take about 6 or 7 months for the Senate Intel Committee to write their final report — JUST IN TIME FOR ELECTION SEASON! How convenient!

As the Senate Intel Committee and Robert Mueller wind down their investigations into ‘Trump-Russia collusion,’ House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) is ramping up a massive investigation into President Trump’s finances and personal life, also known as presidential harassment.

Mail Online

Published  1 week ago

An FBI employee who texted with her in-house lover about blocking Donald Trump's presidential ambitions wrote in 2016 of a 'quid pro quo' with the State Department to hide the fact that an email found on Hillary Clinton's home-brew email server was considered classified.

Lisa Page fretted in the closing days of the presidential campaign about a pending Freedom of Information Act disclosure of a discussion between top State and Justice Department officials about the potential trade.

Under the arrangement, the State Department would have given the FBI more legal attachés for its overseas division in exchange for altering the basis for keeping one of the Clinton emails from the public.

At the time, the email in question was exempt from FOIA requests because it was classified – a fact that was ultimately made public. The FBI had asked the State Department to 'change the basis of the FOIA withhold [decision] ... from classified to something else.'

The plot was never consummated. But Page, an FBI lawyer, was worried enough about it at the time to alert her colleagues that other employees had told investigators about it.

One of those colleagues was Peter Strzok, the married FBI agent she was having an affair with.

'Jason Herring will be providing you with three 302s [witness interview reports] of current and former FBI employees who were interviewed during the course of the Clinton investigation,' Page warned.

'These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week, and produced (with redactions) pursuant to FOIA at the beginning of next week.'

'As you will see, they describe a discussion about potential quid pro quo arrangement between then-DAD in IOD [deputy assistant director in the FBI's International Operations Division] and an Undersecretary at the State Department whereby IOD would get more LEGAT [legal attaché] positions if the FBI could change the basis of the FOIA withhold re a Clinton email from classified to something else.'

The email came to light on Monday as part of a raft of material released by Judicial Watch, a conservative government transparency group whose standard practice is to sue government agencies that slow-walk the disclosure of public records.

Page and Strzok became poster children in 2017 for conservatives' claims that the Burean was biased against Trump and took actions to tilt the election in Clinton's favor despite the national security threats posed by classified material found on her unsecured private email server.

Text messages between the pair, both of whom worked on Special Counsel Robert Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, have given Republicans ample fodder to question the ongoing investigation.

Strzok was a respected, veteran counterintelligence agent who helped lead the 2016 probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. That operation ultimately cleared her despite the presence of classified material among her messages and a conclusion that some of that material was accessed by foreign agents.

Strzok was removed from the Russia probe in the summer of 2017 after the Justice Department found out about the texts.

The furtive messages between him and Page included observations about the 2016 election and criticism of Trump using words like 'idiot,' 'loathsome,' 'menace' and 'disaster.'

In one August 2016 exchange, Page wrote Strzok: '(Trump's) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!'

Strzok responded: 'No. No he won't. We'll stop it.'

The couple also discussed an unnamed 'insurance policy' against Trump's White House ambitions.

A DOJ inspector general report released Thursday found that exchange 'is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate's electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.'

HuffPost

Published  1 week ago

The Texas rally included cameos from QAnon conspiracy theorists, a Pewdiepie fan and the leader of a far-right militia group.

NBC News

Published  1 week ago

"We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

President Trump is expressing gratitude to MSNBC for a new report that may shed light on the findings from the Senate Intelligence Committee.

NBC News reported Tuesday morning that according to both unnamed Republicans and Democrats, the Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded that there is no direct evidence of conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election after conducting 200 interviews over the course of two years.

As NBC News’ Ken Dilanian reported on-air, Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., told another news outlet last week that the panel had reached a conclusion, but now there is reporting from the Democratic side that confirmed Burr’s remarks.

“They are nearing the end of this investigation we are told but that once they interview their final witness, it will take another six or seven months to prepare a report. So the American public may not see the fruits for some time,” Dilanian told MSNBC’s Hallie Jackson.

JEROME CORSI REPORTEDLY CLAIMS ROGER STONE TRIED TO TRIGGER HEART ATTACKS TO PREVENT TESTIMONY

Dilanian later stressed that the Senate Intel investigation is completely independent from the probe conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and how he may draw different conclusions.

“That said, Trump will claim vindication through this, and he’ll be partially right,” Dilanian added.

The president took to Twitter to praise MSNBC’s reporting and share a clip of its on-air reporting.

“Thank you to MSNBC!” he tweeted.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 week ago

Contents of various Department of Justice records obtained this week by the watchdog group Judicial Watch via a Freedom of Information Act filed last year suggest that the FBI interacted with both the State Department and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s team in potentially sinister ways just prior to the general election on Nov. […]

Daily Intelligencer

Published  1 week ago

President Trump spent the weekend decrying the “coup” against him, demanding the imprisonment of federal investigators, and calling for retribution against those who mock him. Below the surface, though, a more serious argument is taking shape. While Congress is opening probes of a wide array of apparent crimes by Trump and his family business, the president is not likely to cooperate or accept the legitimacy of the investigations at all.

A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley is a blinking red sign of what’s to come. Rivkin, a veteran of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, is perhaps the state-of-the-art conservative-movement legal apparatchik, regularly published in the Journal and quoted in the mainstream media arguing that the Constitution demands whatever the party happens to need at any given moment. Rivkin’s latest essay blazes a new trail in Trump’s legal defense. It asserts Congress has no right whatsoever to investigate anything Trump did before assuming the presidency.

Trump of course faces massive political and legal vulnerabilities not only for collusion with Russia during the presidential campaign, but also secretive financial ties to Russia and other authoritarian states, tax fraud, campaign finance violations, abuse of a pseudo-charitable foundation, and embezzlement of inaugural funds. This is a non-exhaustive list of potential crimes that precede Trump taking the oath of office. Rivkin and Foley argue that Congress cannot investigate any of these things.

The obstacle to this claim of legal impunity is the legal precedent in the case Clinton v. Jones. This was a lawsuit brought by Paula Jones, against President Clinton, and which created the precedent that presidents can be sued for behavior that occured before their presidency. Conservatives enthusiastically supported this precedent when the target was a Democrat. Indeed, the notion of investigating the president’s pre-presidential conduct drew rabid support on the right. The Wall Street Journal published so many editorials demanding investigations of Whitewater (a Bill Clinton Arkansas-era deal) that the books republishing them ran well over 500 pages. After eight years fanatically hounding a president over a land deal, and producing no evidence of a crime, it is astonishing to see the Journal turning around and insisting pre-presidential conduct should never be investigated at all.

What is the difference between the cases of Clinton and Trump? Rivkin and Foley’s explanation is hilarious. They argue that the investigations of Clinton were found not to threaten “interference with the President’s duties.” By contrast, the investigations of Trump do:

Mr. Trump is subject to a deluge of lawsuits and investigations, including by state attorneys general, involving his conduct before entering politics. The House Intelligence Committee has announced a wide-ranging investigation of two decades’ worth of Mr. Trump’s business dealings. The Ways and Means Committee plans to probe many years of Mr. Trump’s tax returns. By contrast, the 1995 resolution establishing the Senate Whitewater Committee targeted specific areas of possible improper conduct by the White House and federal banking regulators.

In other words, Trump can’t be investigated because he is such a massive crook. The president could function when he was defending one private lawsuit and one financial investigation, but not when he is defending a series of elaborate global rackets. It’s just a simple matter of time management. Trump can’t do his job if he has to defend all these crimes.

Rivkin is probably correct that, when the Supreme Court predicted defending against a lawsuit would not interfere with a president’s official conduct, it was not anticipating that one day the president might be a professional money launderer. Still, it seems just a bit unfair that the law would allow Congress to investigate a president for what turned out to be a nonexistent crime while forbidding it to investigate a president for decades worth of extremely serious crimes, some of which, by rendering him indebted to hostile foreign states, compromise national security.

It seems awkward that the rationale for this double standard is that the president is just too darn busy to cooperate with any investigations — even Rivkin and Foley say, to turn over his tax returns. It seems especially unfair that the too-busy defense should be made on behalf of a president who has a policy of holding no meetings before 11 a.m., who binge-watches hours of cable television and frequently livetweets his responses, who visits his golf clubs constantly and who recently shelled out $50,000 for a golf simulator for the White House.

Yes, congressional investigations of Trump’s misdeeds and vulnerability to foreign blackmail will cause him to miss some of his favorite shows. Is that Rivkin’s real concern?

I ask because Rivkin has previously argued that Trump is under no obligation to divest or pause his business while serving as president; that Robert Mueller cannot issue a subpoena to compel Trump’s testimony; that Trump can thwart any investigation by pardoning all his accomplices and himself; and that Mueller’s investigation is so biased it must be shut down.

Given his belief that Trump is free to profit from his position while in office, and that both the Department of Justice and congressional investigations into any criminal history are illegal or illegitimate, it seems to leave very few avenues of legal accountability. Why, it’s almost as if Trump’s legal supporters want him to be able to get away with crimes!

Leave a Comment

The Atlantic

Published  1 week ago

The former deputy director of the FBI explains why the bureau felt obligated to investigate the president—and how the Mueller probe might end.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 week ago

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) confirmed that the Senate Finance Committee is investigating the Russian money connection to the NRA.

Wyden said on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes, “With respect to that area, I’m also the ranking Democrat on the senate finance committee. The finance committee staff is looking at it. We’ll have more to stay before too long. When he said it was not an official trip, I want your viewers to know I don’t think that is credible and certainly, when you’re talking about a tax-exempt organization, we want to know who their loyalties run to. They run to the American people or to some foreign adversary.”

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) confirms that the Senate is investigating the NRA's Russian money connection. pic.twitter.com/SvOVM8Lml7

— Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) February 13, 2019

The congressional investigation is at least the third known probe into Russia and the NRA. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the Russia/NRA connection, and the FBI is investigating the NRA. The NRA is under investigation for potentially laundering Russian money and getting it into the campaign coffers of Donald Trump and Republican Senate candidates. Congress is also investigating the NRA for illegally funneling money to Trump and other Republican candidates through the use of shell companies.

The NRA is in a world of hurt, and when Trump goes down, he is likely taking the Russian bought gun lobby front group down with him.

For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate invoked cloture to end debate on AG nominee Bill Barr and passed in a 55-44 vote.

The Senate could vote to confirm Bill Barr as President Trump’s new Attorney General as early as Wednesday or Thursday.

On Tuesday evening, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said he was unable to support Bill Barr’s nomination because of his overall “troubling” record on the 2nd and 4th Amendments.

“I am unable to support Bill Barr’s nomination to be the next Attorney General. While I support President Trump and have supported most of his nominees, I have too many concerns about the record and views of this nominee. Bill Barr was a leading proponent of warrantless surveillance, and his overall record on the Fourth Amendment is troubling to me. I remain concerned that Bill Barr does not agree with our bipartisan efforts to reform our criminal justice system. Finally, Bill Barr has a troubling record on the Second Amendment. For these reasons, I voted today against his nomination for Attorney General,” Senator Rand Paul said in a statement.

I am unable to support Bill Barr’s nomination to be the next Attorney General. While I support President Trump and have supported most of his nominees, I have too many concerns about the record and views of this nominee. Read my full statement here: https://t.co/v9RngU2YQg

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) February 13, 2019

Earlier Tuesday, Democrat Senator Joe Manchin (WV) announced he supported Bill Barr in the cloture vote to be the next Attorney General.

“Today I will vote to confirm William Barr to be the next Attorney General because he is well-qualified and I am confident that he will faithfully execute the duties of the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America,” Manchin said on Twitter.

Trump supporters voiced concern over Bill Barr after it was revealed he is Robert Mueller’s “best friend.”

Bill Barr is a DC insider who praised Comey, Rosenstein and Mueller during his confirmation hearings — how is President Trump going to drain the swamp if Mueller’s best friend is running the DOJ?

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on Sunday questioned whether special counsel Robert Mueller has adequately investigated President Trump’s financial dealings with a German bank, thus reinforcing his case for a new Democrat-led House to begin its own inquiries into the president’s finances.

During an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the Democratic California congressman said his concerns stem from a New York Times report in April that said Trump tried to get Mueller fired after it was reported the special counsel had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank. That same report said Trump backed down only after Mueller's office told his advisers and lawyers that the reports were untrue.

The president has warned that Mueller’s investigators would be crossing a “red line” if they sought to investigate his personal finances and business dealings. Deutsche Bank provided loans to Trump in the 1990s after U.S. lenders opted against it following a flurry of bankruptcies.

“If the special counsel hasn’t subpoenaed Deutsche Bank, he can’t be doing much of a money laundering investigation,” Schiff said. “So that’s what concerns me, that that red line has been enforced, whether by the deputy attorney general [Rod Rosenstein] or by some other party at the Justice Department. But that leaves the country exposed.”

Schiff announced last week the House Intelligence Committee, now with him at the helm, would embark on a sweeping probe into Trump’s financial transactions and Russia.

Included in that investigative effort is a look at Trump’s financial ties to Deutsche Bank, which received an “inquiry” from the House Intelligence Committee and the House Financial Services Committee, led by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

Schiff’s talk of investigations has prompted sharp rebukes from Trump, who last week called him a “political hack” who is engaging in “presidential harassment.”

Schiff defended the Intelligence Committee’s probe of Trump’s finances. “In terms of the president's business, we are not interested in our committee in whether he’s a tax cheat or not worth what he says he is,” Schiff said. “What we are interested in is, does the president have business dealings with Russia such that it compromises the United States?”

He also said the committee had no choice but to conduct another investigation parallel to Mueller’s rather than waiting for the special counsel’s office to finish its work.

“If we had waited to do any of our investigative work for the Mueller investigation, we would have been waiting a year and a half,” Schiff said. “And we have a separate and independent and important responsibility, and that is to tell the country what happened.”

[Read more: Adam Schiff aims to make House Intel transcripts 'fully available' to Mueller]

BlogTalkRadio

Published  1 week ago

All you need to know radio showtime Thurs. 4:30pmcst Sponsor - America's Best Property Management

Trump gave his State of the Union address last year, he was coming off one of the highest points in his presidency. He had just signed a huge tax cut into law and removed the Obamacare mandate penalty. Both the House and Senate were controlled by Republicans.

Trump is delivering his address in the wake of the longest government shutdown in US history. The House has been taken over by Democrats, funding for the border wall is still off the table in negotiations, he remains hounded by the Robert Mueller investigation

Washington Examiner

Published  1 week ago

Yes, Democrats want to start a new investigation into already-under-investigation Trump-Russia allegations. And yes, they want to investigate Trump associates like Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, and others. But by far the biggest thing Democrats want, now that they have the majority in the House, is to get their hands on the president's tax returns.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 week ago

Robert Mueller is investigating Trump and his campaign for engaging in a criminal conspiracy with Russia that involved a quid pro quo deal on lifting Russian sanctions.

The New York Times reported:

Comments by one of Mr. Mueller’s lead prosecutors, disclosed in a transcript of a closed-door hearing, suggest that the special counsel continues to pursue at least one theory: that starting while Russia was taking steps to bolster Mr. Trump’s candidacy, people in his orbit were discussing deals to end a dispute over Russia’s incursions into Ukraine and possibly give Moscow relief from economic sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies.

Yet Mr. Weissmann’s cryptic comments suggest that the special counsel’s investigation — which Mr. Trump has sought to dismiss as a witch hunt and which the acting attorney general, Matthew G. Whitaker, has said will wrap up soon — is still pursuing the central question of whether there was some kind of deal between Russia and the Trump campaign.

Robert Mueller is investigating a conspiracy. The idea is that the Trump campaign promised to drop sanctions if the Russians helped him win the election. Mueller isn’t on a “witch hunt.” The special counsel is investigating a criminal conspiracy and a crime against the American people. Mueller is investigating more than crimes committed by members of the Trump campaign. The campaign appears to be under investigation as a criminal enterprise.

Robert Mueller has a working theory based on the evidence, which suggests that the Trump campaign wasn’t corrupted. It was a conspiracy to steal the presidency.

Fox News

Published  1 week ago

Newly released internal FBI emails showed the agency's highest-ranking officials scrambling to answer to Hillary Clinton's lawyer in the days prior the 2016 presidential election, on the same day then-FBI Director James Comey sent a bombshell letter to Congress announcing a new review of hundreds of thousands of potentially classified emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner's laptop.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 week ago

An MSNBC panel struggled to believe the latest report that the Senate Intelligence Committee has found “no direct evidence” of collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia.

As news continued to break about the Committee’s findings, MSNBC host Hallie Jackson and her guests seemed at first surprised and then almost skeptical.

“After two years and interviewing more than 200 witnesses, the Senate Intelligence Committee has not uncovered any direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia,” intelligence and national security correspondent for NBC News, Ken Dilanian, reported Tuesday.

“That’s according to sources on both the Republican and the Democratic side of the aisle,” he said.

“If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia,” Sen. Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CBS News last week, prompting more questions, according to Dilanian.

Senator Richard Burr, The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, just announced that after almost two years, more than two hundred interviews, and thousands of documents, they have found NO COLLUSION BETWEEN TRUMP AND RUSSIA! Is anybody really surprised by this?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 10, 2019

“What I found,” Dilanian said,” is that Democrats don’t dispute that characterization.”

He noted that the final report is not yet out and will likely question the judgement of those in Trump’s presidential campaign.

“But, again, no direct proof of a conspiracy. As one Democratic aide said to me, ‘we never thought we were going to find a Democrat between Trump and Vladimir Putin saying let’s collude, but the question is how do we interpret all these various contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia,’” Dilanian concluded.

Jackson looked for some clarification.

“Not to put too fine a point on it, but I want to make sure I’m understanding this,” she said.

“If and when the president, as he may inevitably do, point to this reporting point to these conclusions and says look, the Senate Intelligence Committee found I’m not guilty of conspiracy, he would be correct in saying that?” Jackson asked, seeming surprised.

Dilanian appeared to affirm the conclusion but noted that, as the committee was not a court of law, the use of a “not guilty” phrase would not apply. He also indicated that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has not wrapped up his investigation yet and may have information that the Intelligence Committee was not privy to.

“That said, Trump will claim vindication through this, and he’ll be partially right,” he said.

“If there was an intercept between officers suggesting they were conspiring with the Trump campaign, [the committee] would see that. And that has not emerged,” he explained. “So that evidence does not exist, and Trump will claim vindication.”

Dilanian’s report seemed only to bring up more issue for Shawna Thomas of Vice News.

“There’s two things I question about [the report],” she said.

“Number one, if and when the report finally comes out from the Senate Intelligence Committee, is there anything in there that will cause, especially some of these new House Dems, to start to clamor, even if there isn’t ‘conspiracy’ or ‘collusion’, for impeachment?” Thomas asked.

“The other thing is, based on what Ken is saying, it’s all stuff we knew already,” Thomas noted, apparently conflicting with MSNBC’s treatment of the report as breaking news.

Zero Hedge

Published  1 week ago

In his first interview about the Russia probe since he was summarily fired by President Trump just 26 hours before he was set to retire and collect his pension, and while the possibility of criminal charges over his attempts to cover up his leaks to the press, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe sat for an interview with CBS about the early days of the Russia probe.

In an excerpt of the full interview, which is set to air on Sunday, McCabe described how he quickly moved to start the Russia probe a day after meeting with Trump in May 2017 in the days after James Comey's firing, over fears that he would soon be fired. After authorizing the investigation into Trump's Russia ties, McCabe sought to ensure that the investigation - which was eventually rolled into the probe eventually taken over by Special Counsel Robert Mueller - would be on "solid ground" even if he was booted from the FBI.

"I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground in an indelible fashion that were I removed quickly or reassigned or fired that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace," McCabe told CBS.

The interview marked the first time McCabe has ever opened up about his thought process when he launched the probe. In his recounting of his conversation with President Trump, McCabe said he felt intimidated by the president.

"I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency and won the election for the presidency and who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage," McCabe said in an excerpt aired on CBS on Thursday. "And that was something that troubled me greatly."

He compared Trump's request that McCabe allow him to visit the FBI - a visit that McCabe suggest would have been well outside the bounds of decorum - to tactics used by Russian mobsters that McCabe had once prosecuted.

"In this moment, I felt the way I’d felt in 1998, in a case involving the Russian Mafia, when I sent a man I’ll call Big Felix in to meet with a Mafia boss named Dimitri Gufield," McCabe wrote. "The same kind of thing was happening here, in the Oval Office. Dimitri had wanted Felix to endorse his protection scheme. This is a dangerous business, and it’s a bad neighborhood, and you know, if you want, I can protect you from that. If you want my protection. I can protect you. Do you want my protection? The president and his men were trying to work me the way a criminal brigade would operate."

Of course, nobody in the mainstream press has pointed out that the timing of McCabe's decision to launch the probe would suggest that he was looking for leverage to stop him from being fired along with Comey...though, thanks to his decision to lie to the DOJ's inspector general, that problem swiftly took care of itself.

In a discussion about the interview, McCabe's interviewer Scott Pelley said McCabe affirmed that there had been discussions about invoking the 25th amendment to remove Trump - something that was the subject of a series of leaks last year about a plot allegedly concocted by Rod Rosenstein.

.@ScottPelley on what McCabe told @60Minutes: "There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment." pic.twitter.com/iVAyrEV4MF

— Norah O'Donnell🇺🇸 (@NorahODonnell) February 14, 2019

The full interview will air Sunday night at 7 pm. But CBS has published an excerpt below:

NewsBusters

Published  1 week ago

According to an NBC News exclusive aired during the 10 o’clock hour of Tuesday’s MSNBC Live, both Republican and Democratic sources on the Senate Intelligence Committee admitted they had not found

Rantt

Published  1 week ago

It’s been widely suspected that Trump’s campaign was offered election help in exchange for pro-Russia policies. Mueller appears to suspect the same.

Rantt Rundown, Day 753 of Trump’s presidency – Today’s top stories:

1. Mueller’s search for collusion still at the “heart” of his probe: Last week, the Special Counsel’s office was pressed by a judge to explain the importance of former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort’s alleged lies. A courtroom transcript from that hearing included revealing comments from Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. It indicated that a possible criminal conspiracy is still at the “heart” of their probe and it also it appears to signal the Special Counsel’s office believes sanctions relief on Russia may have been the quid pro quo between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. The New York Times reported:

Comments by one of Mr. Mueller’s lead prosecutors, disclosed in a transcript of a closed-door hearing, suggest that the special counsel continues to pursue at least one theory: that starting while Russia was taking steps to bolster Mr. Trump’s candidacy, people in his orbit were discussing deals to end a dispute over Russia’s incursions into Ukraine and possibly give Moscow relief from economic sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies.

“This goes to the larger view of what we think is going on, and what we think is the motive here,” Mr. Weissmann said. “This goes, I think, very much to the heart of what the special counsel’s office is investigating.”

This is clearly significant because it goes to the very core of whether there was a criminal conspiracy. This is a possible quid pro quo we at Rantt have analyzed on many occasions. As we know, Paul Manafort met with Russian Intelligence operative Konstantin Kilimnik several times, including when Kilimnik was in DC for the inauguration as well as in February 2017 and 2018. Trump Campaign Deputy Chairman Rick Gates also attended one of those meetings. They discussed the Russia-Ukraine peace plan (which would’ve lifted sanctions). We were already aware they had discussed this in August 2016 when Manafort handed campaign polling data to Kilimnik. It’s unclear whether this is related to the Ukraine Peace plan Trump’s former fixer Michael Cohen and associate Felix Sater worked on and reportedly delivered to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

This fits within the bigger picture of possible Trump-Russia collusion and includes the Trump Tower Moscow Project, the pro-Russia stances added to the Republican platform, the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting, the apparent coordination of Wikileaks releases, and more. If it’s proven there was an agreement to pursue sanctions relief in exchange for help winning the election, that would be the smoking gun.

This is only a partial version of our Rantt Rundown newsletter. To get the full newsletter breaking down the top 5 stories in your inbox every weeknight, please subscribe below.

Rantt Media’s comprehensive articles source reporting from top news organizations, but they’re also built on brilliant analysis from our team. We are independently-owned and strive for quality, not clicks. But the only way to truly have a media for the people is for media to be funded by the people. We take pride in being reader-funded so that we are beholden to you, not corporate interests. If you like the work we do, please consider supporting us by signing up for a monthly subscription.

Rantt

Published  1 week ago

We compared 56 years of corruption in Republican and Democratic presidencies: both sides are not equally corrupt.

Dan Bongino

Published  1 week ago

The former top attorney for President Trump said that he does not believe Special Counsel Robert Mueller will release a final report, and called the investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia a “terrible waste of time.”

Speaking to an ABC News podcast, John Dowd, who left the Trump legal team in March 2018 said, “I don’t think there’ll be a report. I will be shocked if anything regarding the president is made public, other than ‘We’re done.’”

“I ran big corruption cases,” he said. “I didn’t go around, picking scabs and just making any case I could make. If there was a petty case, I shifted it to someone else. I didn’t do it. And that’s where I disagree with Bob [Mueller].”

Mr. Dowd said the president has cooperated with the special counsel at an unprecedented level, even providing investigators with communications with the White House Counsel’s office

“There’s no time in history has anybody had this kind of look at communications with the president,” Mr. Dowd said.

For the full story, click HERE.

STAR POLITICAL

Published  1 week ago

As the Special Council’s investigation which was supposed to be limited to Russian Collusion begins to come to an end with absolutely NOTHING to show forth, top Dems are now shifting the blame to Robert Mueller.

According to The Washington Examiner, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) kicked off a torrent of criticism on Sunday, questioning whether “Mueller has adequately investigated President Trump’s financial dealings with a German bank,” and suggesting that Mueller’s investigation could be so woefully incomplete that the House has no choice but to resume investigating the president themselves.

“If the special counsel hasn’t subpoenaed Deutsche Bank, he can’t be doing much of a money laundering investigation,” Schiff said. “So that’s what concerns me, that that red line has been enforced, whether by the deputy attorney general or by some other party at the Justice Department. But that leaves the country exposed.”

Matthew Whitaker acting AG told Congress two weeks ago that Mueller was close to ending his probe, and the Senate Intelligence Committee told reporters including NBC News on Tuesday that after “two years and 200 interviews” they’re close to wrapping up their own investigation, having found no concrete evidence that the Trump campaign knowingly colluded with the Russians to steal the 2016 presidential election.

As noted by The Daily Wire, The revelations have clearly caused the Democrats to dramatically shift position on Mueller. Just six months ago, the Democrats were spearheading efforts to shield Mueller from the president’s criticisms and protect Mueller if the president decided to fire the Special Counsel, even going so far as to promise Mueller would find a job with the Democratic House Intelligence committee if he were summarily booted from the Justice Department.

As you can imagine this didn’t sit well with Democrats hell bent on removing a duly elected President.

If Trumps inauguration is any example of how liberals may react to the news, it is safe to say we may see a few tantrums, a significant amount of “safe spaces” open, and a shortage of crayons for a few weeks.

Coupled with The President’s approval rating now at the highest it’s ever been, Libs are in for a Rough month.

a 9-point jump in 10 days…

POLITICO

Published  1 week ago

Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker will remain at the Justice Department despite William Barr’s being sworn in to lead the department.

Whitaker, who served as chief of staff to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions until President Donald Trump tapped him for the acting role in November, is now a senior counselor in the associate attorney general’s office, a department spokesperson said Friday.

Attorney General William Barr was sworn in at the White House on Thursday after the Senate voted 54-45 to confirm him.

The Office of the Associate Attorney General, whose titular role is currently filled on an acting basis, oversees, among other things, the DOJ’s divisions on civil rights, antitrust, tax and the environment.

Whitaker was a controversial player in the president’s Cabinet, drawing backlash from congressional Democrats who protested his past public statements that were critical of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, an inquiry Whitaker oversaw during his time as acting attorney general. Democrats also attacked Whitaker for his time serving as an advisory board member for a patent company banned from the industry by the Federal Trade Commission for fraud.

The former acting attorney general was the first major Trump official to face a grilling by the House Democratic majority, testifying in a contentious hearing before the House Judiciary Committee last Friday.

Whitaker’s career plans had until now been something of a mystery. On Monday, a representative of the National Sheriffs’ Association offered the outgoing acting attorney general a gift after he wrapped up a speech to the organization during a Washington, D.C., conference.

“Great, is it a new job?” Whitaker quipped.

Talking Points Memo

Published  1 week ago

Mueller Team Believes Potential Trump Pardon Tainted Manafort's Cooperation

Newsweek

Published  1 week ago

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Friday, widely rebuked by Democrats, has also earned the scorn of a former leading FBI official. Whitaker, who was appointed to the role by President Donald Trump following the ousting of Jeff Sessions in November, repeatedly avoided questions from Democrats during Friday’s hearing. On several occasions, Sessions’s former chief of staff challenged the authority of the committee, which was holding its first hearing with a member of the Trump administration since Democrats took control of the House in the 2018 midterms.

Speaking on MSNBC shortly after the hearing, former FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Frank Figliuzzi said Whitaker’s performance compared negatively to some of the most dangerous criminals he had interviewed in his career.

“I’m not kidding when I say I have interviewed terrorists who are more cooperative and respectful than Matt Whitaker was today,” Figliuzzi began, provoking laughter from MSNBC host Nicole Wallace. “I gotta tell you, I say that with sadness, because the attorney general role is America's lawyer.

“We are his client and we are represented by the Congress members sitting in that room and he treated us with utter disdain, sarcasm, barely trying to get through this seriously,” Figliuzzi continued. “This is basically thumbing your nose at oversight by the people. And the way he conducted himself today is an indication that he is not America’s attorney. He is essentially seeing himself as Trump’s attorney.”

Whitaker faced most scrutiny during the hearing over why he was chosen by Trump to head the Justice Department, rather than the normal line of succession rules being followed. Numerous questions centered on Whitaker’s media appearances before joining the Justice Department in which he railed against special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign.

At times, Whitaker appeared to be adopting deliberate stalling tactics to avoid answering Democrats’ questions. Near the beginning of the hearing, the 49-year-old informed Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler that his five-minutes questioning time had expired, prompting gasps from the chamber.

Whitaker, frequently smirking, later made a similar comment to another Democrat on the committee, Sheila Jackson Lee, prompting a fierce admonishment.

“Mr. attorney general, we’re not joking here. And your humor is not acceptable,” Jackson Lee said. “Now, you are here because we have a constitutional duty to ask questions, and the Congress has a right to establish government rules. The rules are that you are here, and I need to ask the question and I need to have my time restored so that you can behave appropriately.”

Still, in the mind of the president, whose nominee William Barr is set to soon replace Whitaker, there was only one side that was in the wrong during the hearing.

“The Democrats in Congress yesterday were vicious and totally showed their cards for everyone to see,” Trump tweeted Saturday morning. “When the Republicans had the Majority they never acted with such hatred and scorn! The Dems are trying to win an election in 2020 that they know they cannot legitimately win!”

USA TODAY

Published  1 week ago

As the special counsel probe grinds toward its conclusion, there are growing signs that Mueller will never say anything about his own investigation.

Neon Nettle

Published  1 week ago

Newly released emails show FBI jumping through hoops for Hillary Clinton's lawyer

Updating World

Published  1 week ago

The U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday, Feb. 6, that it has opened an investigation into a 2007 plea deal that allowed New York billionaire Jeffrey Epstein to serve only 13 months in a …

The Washington Times

Published  1 week ago

Rep. Adam Schiff in 2017 kicked off the House's most publicized hearing into Russia election interference by leveling a number of felony charges against President Trump's associates, citing news repor

Mediaite

Published  1 week ago

On Tuesday, Intelligence and national security correspondent for NBC News Ken Dilanian reported the somewhat breaking news to MSNBC’s Hallie Jackson that the Senate Intelligence Committee admits it has found, after two years, “no direct evidence” of collusion between Donald Trump and Russia. The report met surprise first, then skepticism, with Jackson and her guests.

“After two years and interviewing more than 200 witnesses, the Senate intelligence Committee has not uncovered any direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia,” said Dilanian. “That’s according to sources on both the Republican and the Democratic side of the aisle.”

Dilanian noted that the Republican chair of the committee made remarks to that effect last week, but that the network continued to dig since that was a “partisan” comment. “What I found,” he said,” is that Democrats don’t dispute that characterization.”

The report hinges on “direct” evidence, a fine distinction as Dilanian noted in the segment. After more discussion about the details, and about the length of time before the final report comes out, Jackson sought a succinct summary.

The eventual report will question the campaign’s judgment, Dilanian said as he wrapped up. “But, again, no direct proof of a conspiracy. As one democratic aide said to me, ‘we never thought we were going to find a Democrat between Trump and Vladimir Putin saying let’s collude, but the question is how do we interpret all these various contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia.'”

“Not to put too fine a point on it, but I want to make sure I’m understanding this,” said Hallie Jackson leading into her summary question.

“If and when the president, as he may inevitably do, point to this reporting point to these conclusions and says look, the Senate intelligence committee found I’m not guilty of conspiracy,” she asked rather incredulously, “he would be correct in saying that??”

Dilanian clarified that “not guilty” wouldn’t apply because it is not a court of law. He added the caveat that Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s investigation is not complete and may have access to things that the intelligence committee does not have access to. But he answered in the sort of affirmative.

“That said, Trump will claim vindication through this, and he’ll be partially right,” he said.

He pointed out that the Senate investigators have access to highly classified information, and that “ff there was an intercept between officers suggesting they were conspiring with the Trump campaign, [the committee] would see that. And that has not emerged.”

“So that evidence does not exist, and Trump will claim vindication,” he said.

Guest Shawna Thomas of Vice News weighed in as Jackson move to a panel discussion, and questioned whether this report matters. “There’s two things I question about [the report],” she said.

“Number one, if and when the report finally comes out from the Senate intelligence committee, is there anything in there that will cause, especially some of these new House Dems, to start to clamor, even if there isn’t ‘conspiracy’ or ‘collusion’, for impeachment?” said Thomas with plenty of air quotes.

“The other thing is, based on what Ken is saying, it’s all stuff we knew already,” said Thomas, stomping on the significance MSNBC’s own exclusive, breaking news.

The segment ended there. Watch the clip above, courtesy of MSNBC.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Attorney General nominee William Barr said in 2017 that he believed there was more basis to investigate failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her alleged role in the Uranium One agreement than President Donald Trump’s purported collusion with the Russian government in the 2016 election.

Following a call last year by President Trump for the Department of Justice to probe into Clinton’s role in the deal, Barr told the New York Times that there was “nothing inherently wrong” about a president requesting a probe — but cautioned that one shouldn’t be undertaken because the White House wants one. Barr also told the Times: “I have long believed that the predicate for investigating the uranium deal, as well as the foundation, is far stronger than any basis for investigating so-called ‘collusion.’”

“To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility,” he added.

In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, Barr was asked about his previous comments regarding Uranium One. “I have no knowledge of Uranium One,” he told lawmakers. “I didn’t particularly think that was necessarily something that should be pursued aggressively. I was trying to make the point that there was a lot out there. I think all that stuff at the time was being looked at by [Utah U.S. Attorney John] Huber.”

Huber, tasked by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is looking into whether the law enforcement officials ignored allegations of Clinton involved in the sale of American uranium rights.

“The point I was trying to make there was that whatever the standard is for launching an investigation, it should be dealt with evenhandedly,” Barr added.

Brought to the forefront by Breitbart News senior editor-at-large Peter Schweizer in his New York Times best-selling book, Clinton Cash, the Uranium One scandal refers to an alleged scheme in which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Russia control over more than 20% of America’s uranium supply in exchange for $145 million in pledges benefiting the Clinton family and their foundation.

Rosatom acquired a majority stake in Uranium One in 2010 and bought the remainder of the company in 2013. Because Uranium One had holdings in American uranium mines, which at the time accounted for about 20 percent of America’s licensed uranium mining capacity, Rosatom’s 2010 purchase had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. Such committee, known as CFIUS, is made up of officials from nine federal agencies, including the State Department. Other agencies represented on the committee include the departments of Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy, and Homeland Security and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

In April 2015, The New York Times published an article echoing much of the Schweizer book, including one item that not long after the Russians said they wanted to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, former president Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. The speech was paid for by a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin as it promoted Uranium One stock.

Canadian financier Frank Giustra, a top Clinton Foundation donor, sold his company, UrAsia, to Uranium One, which was chaired by Ian Telfer, also a Clinton Foundation donor. Giustra has said he sold his stake in the deal in 2007, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.

According to Schweizer, who also serves as president of the Government Accountability Institute, the FBI, headed up by now special counsel Robert Mueller at the time, appears to have ignored evidence of Russian involvement in the uranium market when they approved the deal in 2010. “There was a megatons program that was designed to, in a sense, help the Russian nuclear industry transition from sort of military-based work to civilian work — a lot of detailed corruption that the FBI tracked in the 1990s and 2000s, so going up to the 2010 approval for Uranium One, it’s really impossible for senior FBI officials, including the director at the time — Mueller — to argue that they are just completely shocked that Uranium One and these kickbacks were taking place. It was widely known,” Schweizer told SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight co-hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak last February.

The congressional testimony of “Uranium One whistleblower” William Douglas Campbell has led to the convictions of Russian executives tied to Rosatom in 2015 on bribery and money-laundering charges in connection to the Uranium One agreement. “This is a guy who was an FBI witness. It’s known that the Russians were paying him $50,000 a month to do work for them, and some of that work included, according to his job description, setting up meetings with high-level ranking U.S. officials. That’s all not in dispute,” Schweizer said of Campbell. “So this is a guy that certainly was there. The FBI found him credible. He got FBI executives thrown into jail, and they eventually pleaded guilty to a variety of charges, including bribery and kickbacks. So you can’t dismiss, as some Clinton defenders want to, this whistleblower as if he has no credibility because he was there.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 week ago

Far-left extremist Congresswoman Ilhan Omar doesn’t just want to defund Immigration and Customs Enforcement — she now says she wants to defund the Department of Homeland Security as well.

The Somalian lawmaker also referred to President Donald Trump as “individual 1,” referring to the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

“When Democrats stood our ground last month, we proved that Individual 1 does not have the public support to ram his hateful wall through Congress,” Omar tweeted. “Let’s stand firm: #Not1Dollar for DHS.”

When Democrats stood our ground last month, we proved that Individual 1 does not have the public support to ram his hateful wall through Congress.

Let’s stand firm: #Not1Dollar for DHS.

— Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) February 8, 2019

The tweet was ratioed in a big way — with nearly 3,500 comments and only 1,900 likes at the time of writing this.

The Minnesota Congresswoman has previously made excuses for a 2013 terrorist attack, claiming the attack which left 71 people dead and over 200 wounded was “a reaction” to “our involvement in other people’s affairs.”

Additionally, as a Minnesota state representative, Omar asked a judge to show leniency for a group of men who were convicted of trying to join ISIS.

“The best deterrent to fanaticism is a system of compassion,” Omar wrote in a letter to the judge presiding over the case. “We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to effect change, we should refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation.”

One of the men she had asked for compassion for had told the judge, “I was not going there to pass out medical kits or food. I was going strictly to fight and kill on behalf of the Islamic State.”

The Atlantic

Published  1 week ago

When the U.S.S.R. collapsed, Washington bet on the global spread of democratic capitalist values—and lost.

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) announced Thursday that he plans to bring a vote on impeaching President Trump to the House floor for the third time, even if House Democrats are not on board with his plan.

Green— who tried and failed in 2017 and 2018 to hold a successful House vote calling for President Trump’s impeachment— said he plans to bring another impeachment vote to the House floor, but this time, with Democrats in control of the House.

The Texas Democrat added that he would still bring up the vote “regardless” of the results of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian collusion during the 2016 presidential election, vowing to “act on Trump’s bigotry.”

“There will be a vote on impeachment regardless as to what the Mueller Commission says,” Green said on the House floor on Thursday.

If Green successfully brings the impeachment vote to the House floor, it would be the first time Congress would vote on impeachment under a Democrat majority in the House.

But despite Green’s persistence in wanting to impeach Trump, House Democrat leaders are cautious about bringing up impeachment for fear it may backfire on them at the polls and give Trump and Republicans an edge in the 2020 elections.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) have both said they were wary about launching impeachment votes against the president, preferring to wait for the results of the Mueller probe to come to light before deciding on impeachment.

Pelosi added that if impeachment were to be a possibility, it would have to be “done in a bipartisan” fashion.

But some financial backers funding many of these Democrats’ political ambitions are hoping to push Democrats toward supporting impeachment.

Left-wing billionaire Tom Steyer announced in January that he would not provide financial support to Democrats looking to run in the 2020 elections unless they pledged to impeach Trump.

American Greatness

Published  1 week ago

The Indecent Inquisitors

02/09 2:56 pm

Post by @theamgreatness.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 week ago

On Friday, America was treated to a preview of things to come when House Democrats turned a hearing with acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker into a grotesque spectacle of the sort of nasty politics and

The Washington Times

Published  1 week ago

Rep. Adam Schiff in 2017 kicked off the House's most publicized hearing into Russia election interference by leveling a number of felony charges against President Trump's associates, citing news repor

dcclothesline

Published  2 weeks ago

(Natural News) Stunning new video footage released exclusively by InfoWars.com shows FBI personnel directing the CNN camera man who filmed the armed raid of Roger Stone. The new footage exposes the pure theater of the armed “Gestapo” raid on Roger Stone, which was carried out by 29 armed, geared-up FBI agents who now function as Robert Mueller’s domestic terrorism mercenaries.

The shocking video footage proves that the corrupt FBI was complicit in the theatrical staging of the arrest for CNN’s cameras, further proving that CNN was tipped off by someone in Robert Mueller’s office. Leaking this information to the media is a felony crime, demonstrating that Robert Mueller’s deep state mafia is, itself, a criminal operation engaged in domestic terrorism tactics against Americans.

The FBI attempted to confiscate this footage but reportedly failed to find and remove the DVR that captured it. Some of the video footage shows the FBI placing tape over the lens of one of the cameras, confirming that the FBI is actively engaged in attempts to cover up their crimes of violence that target innocent Americans for political purposes.

See the video screen grabs below, and share everywhere. This is now the America in which we live: A deep state, police state bureaucracy run by federal terrorists who stage armed raids against political enemies while collaborating with the anti-Trump media to stage such raids for propaganda “news” broadcasts. (All while the tech giants censor the independent media to silence the truth.)

Both CNN and the FBI are now clearly enemy combatants in a civil war being waged against America’s President and anyone linked to him. It’s time for all Americans to stand up and demand the arrest and criminal prosecution of Robert Mueller, James Comey, top FBI officials and CNN collaborators. The rogue deep state is out of control and has crossed the line into total criminality. The bureaucracy is now run by actual enemy combatants who are attempting to carry out a political coup in America, and they are now using Gestpo-style terrorism tactics to accomplish their intended goals.

Help support Roger Stone’s mounting legal costs by donating at StoneDefenseFund.com.

The CNN production vehicle arrives, having been illegally tipped off about the imminent raid:

FBI thugs meet with CNN personnel and direct them to capture the footage of the imminent raid:

Armed FBI “Gestapo” thugs launch the raid, carrying numerous rifles and handguns which are aimed at Roger Stone and his innocent wife:

Roger Stone is handcuffed and arrested for “lying to Congress” — something that James Comey, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have repeatedly done on countless occasions. Notice the armed, rifle-wielding FBI mercenary on the right side of this frame as he’s pointing his rifle at the front window of Roger Stone’s home:

Stay informed. More video footage is coming. This is why the tech giants are desperately censoring all independent media, so that they can dominate the news narratives with their fake news and staged acts of terrorism. Twitter banned Natural News yesterday, and Apple has threatened to ban the Natural News app if we continue to publish stories that expose the lies and terrorism of the lunatic Left.

Learn the truth at StoneColdTruth.com.

A Note From The Publisher: On January 17th I received another 30 day suspension from Facebook for sharing this article. The truth is a violation of community standards. We will keep publishing the truth, but please understand that we just lost a lot of traffic and I need you to help spread the word if we are to keep growing. I can't share anything on Facebook, but YOU can. Please do what you can to help. God Bless You, Dean Garrison

Quartz

Published  2 weeks ago

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) snapped at Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker during his testimony before Congress Friday, telling him that making light of the proceedings was "not acceptable."

Jackson Lee took Whitaker to task as she asked House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler if she could have some of her five-minute questioning time restored after a disruption.

Whitaker, who earlier in the hearing called "time" on Nadler, interjected, "I don't know if your time's been restored or not."

Jackson Lee fired back at the perceived light-hearted comments, responding, "Mr. Attorney General, we're not joking here. And your humor is not acceptable."

She said that Congress has a duty and a right to ask him questions, and she told him that he needs to "behave appropriately," and she will do the same.

Jackson Lee went on to press Whitaker on if he had discussed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation with President Trump or members of his administration.

Whitaker declined to get into the specifics of the ongoing investigation beyond his previous statement that he had no conversations with the president about the Mueller probe and he had not interfered in the investigation.

Watch the exchange above.

WATCH: Hearing Gets Contentious as Whitaker Tells Top Dem 'Your Five Minutes Is Up'

'Totally Unrealistic': Wallace Says Pelosi, Top Dems Just 'Paying Lip Service' to AOC's Green New Deal

Tomi Lahren on VA Dem Controversies: 'If These Men Were Republicans, They'd Be Ruined'

Rantt

Published  2 weeks ago

Democrats probe Trump's corruption, Nancy Pelosi claps back at the State of the Union, Jeff Bezos makes a consequential accusation, and more in week 107.

Sara A. Carter

Published  2 weeks ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker stood his ground Friday against hostile Democratic questioning about his private conversations with President Donald Trump, ongoing litigation and border security issues.

Although Whitaker did not divulge his private conversations with Trump, he did respond numerous times to multiple Democrats on one question regarding Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office. He emphatically stated that he has never discussed the subject with Trump.

Whitaker and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler wrangled in several dramatic heated exchanges. Nadler pressed Whitaker, who became acting Attorney General last November, on his private conversations with Trump and other senior White House officials. Whitaker had already expressed at the onset of the hearing and earlier in the week that he would not divulge any private conversations with the president, as those conversations are protected by executive privilege.

“I do not intend today to talk about my private conversations with the President of the United States, but to answer your question, I have not talked to the President of the United States about the special counsel’s investigation,” said Whitaker.

Whitaker reiterated numerous times throughout the hearing that he has not interfered with Mueller’s investigation.

Despite Whitaker’s Statement on Mueller, Democrats Kept Asking

But it didn’t stop Democrats from pushing.

Rep. Val Demings, D-Florida, asked combative questions. She interrupted Whitaker multiple times as he attempted to answer her questions.

She questioned Whitaker’s truthfulness. Demings asked Whitaker if he ever talked to anyone in the White House about Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen. She then asked if Whitaker had ever discussed personnel at the Southern District of New York. Cohen is being charged with tax fraud, making false statements to a financial institution, unlawful campaign contributions and unlawful corporate contributions.

“Did you discuss with President Trump anything about Michael Cohen?” charged Demings, as her voice grew louder.

“Did you talk with anybody at all about reassigning or firing any personnel with the Southern District of New York? Anybody from the District of Virginia, firing or reassigning anyone at all,” she scowled.

“I am not going to discuss my private conversations with the President of the United States,” Whitaker responded.

Whitaker Debunks CNN Story

Later under questioning by Rep. David Nicola Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, Whitaker was asked about a CNN story alleging that Trump had lashed out at him several times when Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the proposed Trump Moscow project.

This time he answered.

“Did the President lash out to you after Michael Cohen’s guilty plea about a Trump Organization project to build a tower in Moscow?” asked Cicilline.

“The president specifically tweeted that he had not lashed out,” he responded.

Cicilline then said “I’m asking you Mr. Whitaker, did the president lash out at you, I’m not asking what he tweeted. I don’t have a lot of confidence in the veracity of his tweets, I’m asking you.”

“No, he did not,” he said, after a short heated exchange.

Red Journalists

Published  2 weeks ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker slammed Rep. Eric Swalwell on Friday after the lawmaker asked if he thinks special counsel Robert Mueller is honest.

The lawmaker from California asked Whitaker at a House Judiciary Committee hearing to say, “Mr. President, Bob Mueller is honest and not conflicted.”

“Congressman, I am not a puppet to repeat what you’re saying,” Whitaker fired back. “I have answered your question as to what I believe about the special counsel.”

Earlier during the hearing, Whitaker told Swalwell he believes Mueller to be honest, but the lawmaker continued to push Whitaker to tell Trump he thinks the special counsel is also truthful and not conflicted.

President Trump called Robert Mueller a “conflicted prosecutor gone rogue” in November. Whitaker declined when pressed again on whether he thinks Mueller is honest.

“Congressman, I am not here to be a puppet to repeat terms and words that you say that I should say,” Whitaker said.

Whitaker gets upset with Swalwell's line of question about if he thinks Mueller is honest, says he's "not a puppet to repeat what you're saying" pic.twitter.com/pP1jPcfHpw

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 8, 2019

Matthew Whitaker took over as acting AG in November after Trump fired Jeff Sessions. He previously served as Sessions’ chief of staff.

Since taking over the Justice Department, Whitaker has come under fire for his past comments about Mueller’s investigation.

His criticisms of the Russia probe led to calls for him to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation. However, the Justice Department said in December Whitaker would not step aside.

What are your thoughts on this? Please share and comment.

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 weeks ago

On Thursday, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr stated to CBS that his committee’s investigation into Russia has found absolutely no collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Burr went into more detail saying that his committee has investigated over 200 witnesses and examined over 300,000 pages.

READER POLL: Should Hillary Be In Jail?

“If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia,” Burr said.

Check out what President Trump had to say about the news:

Highly respected Senator Richard Burr, Chairman of Senate Intelligence, said today that, after an almost two year investigation, he saw no evidence of Russia collusion. “We don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia.” Thank you!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

Check out what Politico had to say about Burr’s comments:

Burr also described an environment of bipartisanship within the committee, which he oversees with Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.). Burr told CBS he found it difficult to believe the committee would splinter along partisan lines, as was the case in the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation, which was shuttered by its then-GOP majority last year.

The House Intelligence Committee, now chaired by a Democrat, has announced plans to reopen and expand its Russia probe. That committee voted Wednesday to share interview transcripts with special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, potentially to catch any additional witnesses who lied to the committee.

How many investigations do we need? If the Democrats truly cared about injustice and criminal activity, they would start investigations into Hillary Clinton. She deleted thousands of emails, lied under oath and even destroyed her hard drives with hammers. But as we all know by now, the laws don’t seem to apply to Democrats in Washington D.C.

Get Your “Build The Wall” Coin For 50% Off And We’ll Send Nancy Pelosi A Foam Brick!

This whole situation seems like a bombshell story, right? Well, this news didn’t gain any traction with the main stream media, most likely because it didn’t fit their narrative. President Trump took to Twitter to explain his frustrations:

The mainstream media has refused to cover the fact that the head of the VERY important Senate Intelligence Committee, after two years of intensive study and access to Intelligence that only they could get, just stated that they have found NO COLLUSION between “Trump” & Russia….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

…It is all a GIANT AND ILLEGAL HOAX, developed long before the election itself, but used as an excuse by the Democrats as to why Crooked Hillary Clinton lost the Election! Someday the Fake News Media will turn honest & report that Donald J. Trump was actually a GREAT Candidate!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

When will this nonsense end? President Trump has every right to be angry. We are two years into his presidency and we have seen absolutely no evidence that suggests that he colluded with Russia.

gellerreport

Published  2 weeks ago

Traitors and totalitarians. We know that the social media giants have been at war with those who oppose jihad for quite some time, and are actively committed to banning and blocking counter-jihad accounts and imposing sharia blasphemy restrictions. But this is a step even farther. After stouting defending the privacy rights of the San Bernardino jihad mass murderers, Apple turned on a dime and handed over access to all of Roger Stone’s data. This shows what they think is a worse crime: not jihad mass murder, but dissenting from the left’s agenda and supporting President Trump. Apple is evil.

“Apple Gives Deep State Access To Roger Stone’s iCloud Account, After Refusing To Violate Privacy of San Bernardino Terrorists,” by Jacob Engels, Gateway Pundit, February 6, 2019 (thanks to Todd):

Three years after Apple refused to give the federal government access to the devices used by the San Bernadino terrorists who killed and injured dozens in a mass shooting event, the company has given the office of the Special Counsel complete access to Trump advisor Roger Stone’s iCloud account, reports Apple Insider.

According to the Washington Post, Apple objected to giving the federal government backdoor access to the shooters iPhones, claiming it would “set a dangerous precedent.”

“From the beginning, we objected to the FBI’s demand that Apple build a backdoor into the iPhone because we believed it was wrong and would set a dangerous precedent. As a result of the government’s dismissal, neither of these occurred. This case should never have been brought.”

Fast forward to present, and we see that Apple no longer seems to have the same privacy concerns it once did in 2015. Without any fight, they simply turned over Roger Stone’s iCloud passwords and God knows what else, because Orange Man Bad. The fact that Apple views a political persecution less of a hill to die on than protecting the rights of terrorists who killed and maimed dozens of Americans is quite telling.

More from the Washington Post on Apple’s refusal to turn over access to the San Bernandino [sic] shooters devices…

“If allowed to stand, the order in Apple’s case would have forced company engineers to create software to disable a phone security feature so that the FBI could try its hand at unlocking the device by cracking a numeric password. Apple quickly resisted, arguing that forcing it to create such software would violate the company’s constitutional rights and weaken privacy for users around the world.”

Which makes us wonder… what exactly was Apple threatened with by Robert Mueller and the Office of the Special Counsel for them to abandon their firm stance against turning over user data and access to federal investigators? Surely they didn’t reason that two mass shooters were more deserving of their tough stand against government overreach and backdoor programs? There must be some explanation as to how they could give the federal government the power to access our privately held devices and accounts at will right?…

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 weeks ago

Candace Owens is not playing around with Chelsea Clinton or her "racist parents." It all started after the "miserable" former first daughter responded to a tweet... Get Your "Build The Wall" Coin For 50% Off And

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 weeks ago

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker silenced House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., on Friday during a heated exchange that led to several people in the room laughing and gasping. During his appearance before the House

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

The Viareggio Carnival celebrated 147th years on Saturday, February 9, 2019. The parade is a long-established European tradition of Carnival festivals. It is one of the best known events in Italy. Each year the Viareggio Carnival attracts more than 600.000 spectators who gather to attend the magic of the grand parades of large floats of […]

The Hive

Published  2 weeks ago

Stephanie Winston Wolkoff was the mastermind event producer behind Trump’s inaugural celebration, which has since come under S.D.N.Y. investigation. Now, taped conversations reveal Wolkoff’s concerns with how money was being spent, the general chaos of the process, the involvement of the Trump family, and the people in charge, namely Rick Gates and Tom Barrack.

WayneDupree.com

Published  2 weeks ago

Doug Collins, ranking member, bashed Democratic colleagues for trying to mislead others

The Washington Times

Published  2 weeks ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker testified before the House Judiciary Committee Friday — and pulled no punches in fending off Democratic queries.

After telling the committee he had not spoken with President Trump or senior White House officials about special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, Chairman Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat, was incredulous.

After a lengthy, contentious exchange, Mr. Whitaker finally replied: “Mr. Chairman, your five minutes are up.”

SEE ALSO: AG Whitaker snipes at Dems, denies interfering with Mueller probe

The chamber erupted with laughter to Mr. Whitaker’s response.

Here is what led to that back-and-forth: Mr. Nadler asked Mr. Whitaker if he had been briefed on the Mueller probe after his decision not to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation. Mr. Whitaker repeatedly pressed the lawmaker to explain his basis for the question.

“You are asking me a question as to your understanding, are you going to tell me where —,” Whitaker said before being interrupted by Mr. Nadler.

“I’m not going to tell you,” Mr. Nadler shot back. “Just tell me if it is correct or not. It is a simple question.”

Mr. Whitaker responded, “If every member today asked questions based on their speculation —,” before being interrupted a second time by Mr. Nadler.

The acting attorney general remained evasive, saying he would not talk about his private conversations with the president and adding he had not spoken with Mr. Trump or any other senior White House official about the Mueller probe.

Mr. Whitaker had signaled to lawmakers ahead of the hearing that he would not talk about his conversations with Mr. Trump.

The committee’s top Republican, Rep. Doug Collins, Georgia, blasted Mr. Nadler for holding the hearing, calling it “nothing more than character assassination.”

Mr. Collins also called the hearing “pointless,” noting that by this time next week, Mr. Trump’s pick for attorney general, William Barr, will be leading the department, not Mr. Whitaker.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

A House hearing for Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker erupted in fireworks Friday morning, as the top Republican on the judiciary committee accused Democratic Chairman Jerrold Nadler of “character assassination” against the temporary head of the Justice Department and called the hearing a pointless “dog and pony show.”

“This hearing is a character assassination on Acting Attorney General Whitaker, all pure political theater, to go after the president,” Ranking Member Doug Collins, R-Ga, said in his opening statement while urging the committee to adjourn.

A vote was then taken on whether to abruptly end the hearing. The measure did not pass, and the hearing began as scheduled, with Whitaker addressing the issue Democrats are most interested in: his oversight of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.

In his opening statement, he said he never offered "promises or commitments" regarding the Mueller or any other investigation.

"There has been no change in the overall management of the special counsel investigation," he said.

Whitaker also said he's been briefed and the probe and, during a tense exchange with Nadler, said he has not discussed the status with President Trump or senior White House officials.

The hearing follows an intense back and forth between the Justice Department and the Judiciary Committee a day earlier.

The Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to give Nadler the authority to issue a subpoena if necessary, despite Whitaker having already agreed to appear before the panel voluntarily.

Nadler made clear early Thursday that he did not want to have to subpoena Whitaker, but said a “series of troubling events” suggested it would be better for him to be prepared with that authority, just in case he decided not to show up for the hearing.

But Whitaker then warned he would not show up unless lawmakers dropped the threat.

“Consistent with longstanding practice, I remain willing to appear to testify tomorrow, provided that the Chairman assures me that the Committee will not issue a subpoena today or tomorrow, and that the Committee will engage in good faith negotiations before taking such a step down the road,” Whitaker wrote to Nadler.

Hours later, Nadler responded that if Whitaker appeared before the panel “prepared to respond to questions from our members, then I assure you there will be no need for the committee to issue a subpoena on or before February 8.”

Whitaker accepted the assurances and testified Friday.

The hearing Friday comes as the Senate is close to confirming President Trump’s nominee for attorney general, William Barr. The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted, along party lines, to advance Barr’s nomination to the full Senate for confirmation.

The president fired his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, the day after the 2018 midterm elections. Prior to Whitaker’s appointment as acting attorney general, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein oversaw the Russia investigation.

Nadler and other Democrats have criticized Whitaker for not recusing himself from the Mueller probe, as Sessions did due to his involvement with the Trump campaign in 2016, as Whitaker had made public comments criticizing the investigation.

The hearing is the committee’s first major oversight hearing looking at the Justice Department of this Congress. Whitaker told reporters last week that Mueller’s probe was “close to being completed,” the first official sign that the investigation may be nearing an end. His comments, though, were a departure for the Justice Department, which rarely comments on the status of investigations. Whitaker, though, said he had been “fully briefed” on the probe.

Fox News' Jake Gibson and Gregg Re contributed to this report.

Washington Examiner

Published  2 weeks ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker on Friday snapped at Rep. Eric Swalwell after the lawmaker asked if he thinks special counsel Robert Mueller is honest, and refused to answer the question because he's "not a puppet."

Swalwell, D-Calif., asked Whitaker at a House Judiciary Committee hearing to say, “Mr. President, Bob Mueller is honest and not conflicted.”

“Congressman, I am not a puppet to repeat what you’re saying,” Whitaker replied. “I have answered your question as to what I believe about the special counsel.”

The acting attorney general earlier told Swalwell he believes Mueller to be honest, but the California Democrat continued to push Whitaker to tell Trump he thinks the special counsel is also truthful and not conflicted.

[Read more: Sheila Jackson Lee gets in nasty dust-up with Acting AG Whitaker]

The president in November called Mueller a “conflicted prosecutor gone rogue.” Whitaker declined when pressed again on whether he thinks Mueller is honest.

“Congressman, I am not here to be a puppet to repeat terms and words that you say that I should say,” Whitaker said.

Whitaker took over as acting attorney general in November after then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced from the position. He previously served as Sessions’ chief of staff.

Since taking over the Justice Department in an acting capacity, Whitaker has come under scrutiny for his past comments about Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

His criticisms of the Russia probe led to calls for him to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation. However, the Justice Department said in December Whitaker would not step aside.

National Review

Published  2 weeks ago

Mueller scours Team Trump for Russian collusion as Dems marinate in it.

dailycaller

Published  2 weeks ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker delegated time to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler on Friday while he was testifying in front of the committee, and the exchange drew a reaction.

“Mr. Chairman, I see that your five minutes is up,” Whitaker told Nadler during a contentious round of questioning regarding his involvement with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling.

“I’m here voluntarily,” Whitaker continued. “We’ve agreed to five-minute rounds.”

After an uproar ensued among the crowd, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the Republican ranking member of the House Judiciary, recommended that the committee take a break from further questioning. (RELATED: Matthew Whitaker: ‘Deeply Concerning’ Than CNN Was At Roger Stone Raid)

“I will point out that we didn’t enforce the five-minute rule on acting attorney general Whitaker,” Nadler responded and demanded that he answer if he “asked to approve any requests or action” for the special counsel.

President Donald Trump appointed Whitaker to serve as the acting attorney general after former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced to resign. With the elevation, Whitaker assumed control of oversight of the Mueller’s probe.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) said on Thursday that Virginia Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam’s blackface scandal is a symptom of President Donald J. Trump’s “bigotry” and promised to keep pushing impeachment.

Green promised to press forward with the impeachment of President Trump, contending that Gov. Northam’s refusal to resign amidst his blackface scandal is a symptom of Trump’s alleged racist views.

“When we allow bigotry to infect the body politic with impunity at the highest level, other levels will expect impunity for their bigotry,” Green tweeted on Thursday. “Gov. Northam’s refusal to resign for his bigotry is a symptom. Failure to act on Pres. Trump’s bigotry is the problem. #ImpeachmentIsNotDead.”

When we allow bigotry to infect the body politic with impunity at the highest level, other levels will expect impunity for their bigotry. Gov. Northam’s refusal to resign for his bigotry is a symptom. Failure to act on Pres. Trump’s bigotry is the problem. #ImpeachmentIsNotDead

— Congressman Al Green (@RepAlGreen) February 7, 2019

Green also said on Thursday that he will push for an impeachment vote regardless of what Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation says about alleged Russian collusion during the 2016 presidential campaign.

“There will be a vote on impeachment regardless as to what the Mueller Commission says,” Green said on the House floor on Thursday.

.@RepAlGreen: "There will be a vote on impeachment regardless as to what the Mueller Commission says." pic.twitter.com/07Nk0YxTHZ

— CSPAN (@cspan) February 7, 2019

Rep. Green has already forced two failed impeachment votes on the House floor, asked lawmakers to go “on record” and reject bigotry that starts “at the top.”

Northam, as well as Attorney General Mark Herring, continue to face calls to resign after they both admitted to wearing blackface in the 1980s. Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax faces an accusation of sexual misconduct as well and subsequent calls to resign.

The Washington Post called on Northam to resign in an editorial on Wednesday. Virginia Speaker of the House of Delegates Kirk Cox, who would become governor if Northam, Fairfax, and Herring resign, also called on Herring to resign after admitting to wearing blackface.

“You have in Virginia, a Klansman and blackface next to each other in a yearbook. It has been acknowledged as that of the governor,” Congressman Green said. “There is enough evidence not only to ask that the governor resign but to demand that he do so.

Green continued:

But I understand why this level of bigotry is going to be tolerated to a certain extent because we don’t want to take on the president. If we allow the president to exist with his bigotry, how can we demand with any degree of credibility that the governor resign? We have to start at the top. This level of bigotry is trickling down.

Chicks On The Right — Young Conservatives

Published  2 weeks ago

Hannah Bleau

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, and at this point, it’s pretty clear he knows he has nothing to lose. Did you hear the gasp heard ’round the world?

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker tells House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler "I see that your five minutes is up" when asked if President Trump ever requested that Whitaker take action against special counsel Robert Mueller. https://t.co/2nySmKwaK3 pic.twitter.com/imwkvIn3ic

This version is my fav.

This may be the best moment from Acting Attorney General Whitaker's hearing so far.https://t.co/k3ZbiAQuJD pic.twitter.com/MNmipwboYb

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) February 8, 2019

It’s safe to say that the entire hearing has been fairly contentious.

That brings me to this. Rep. Jackson Lee lost her cool with Whitaker.

Rep. Jackson Lee: "Mr. Attorney General, we're not joking here, and your humor is not acceptable. Now you are here because we have a constitutional duty to ask questions, and the Congress has the right to establish government rules." pic.twitter.com/k1dtaymEwV

— NBC News (@NBCNews) February 8, 2019

Fireworks on Capitol Hill. House Democrats are squelching the Acting Attorney General's one-liners and wisecracks. pic.twitter.com/fzWK9ni3Xw

— Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) February 8, 2019

LOL. She’s so mad.

NEW: “Mr. Attorney General, we're not joking here, and your humor is not acceptable," Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee tells Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker in contentious moment. "I need to have my time restored so that you can behave appropriately." https://t.co/4vh4SSGWcp pic.twitter.com/W3Rd0ojZaC

— World News Tonight (@ABCWorldNews) February 8, 2019

Whitaker: "I will not be your puppet and repeat what you want me to repeat"

— Kambree Kawahine Koa (@KamVTV) February 8, 2019

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

President Trump on Saturday blasted “vicious” Democrats for their conduct during a House Judiciary Committee hearing a day earlier that featured Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker -- and saw fiery exchanges between Whitaker and House Democrats.

POLITICO

Published  2 weeks ago

The House speaker discusses Trump’s border wall, impeachment and the 2020 presidential campaign in an exclusive interview with POLITICO.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Friday night aired video of the FBI’s arrest of President Trump’s longtime adviser Roger Stone, questioning the agency’s show of force -- and why a CNN camera crew was at the scene an hour before authorities arrived just before dawn on Jan. 25.

“Until now the only public footage of the raid came from CNN, which somehow knew to arrive one hour before the FBI got there,” Carlson said, before showing a clip of Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker being asked about CNN’s presence at the raid during a congressional hearing.

"It was deeply concerning to me as to how CNN found out about that," Whitaker said.

WHO'S BEEN CHARGED BY MUELLER IN THE RUSSIA PROBE SO FAR?

Security footage shows an SUV with a CNN cameraman parked across the street from Stone's Fort Lauderdale, Fla., home. The cameraman got out and began filming when FBI personnel arrived an hour later.

Carlson also took issue with the way the raid was conducted.

A team of 29 heavily armed FBI agents in tactical gear arrived at the residence and pounded on the front door, the footage shows. Stone, 66, is seen barefoot and wearing a black T-shirt emblazoned with the phrase “Roger Stone did nothing wrong.” He comes out with his hands raised above his head and is put in handcuffs.

“The footage depicts what you’d expect if the FBI raided the home of a Mexican drug lord, maybe even SEAL Team 6 going into [Osama] bin Laden’s compound,” Carlson said.

The show of force has prompted criticism of the tactics of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office. Stone pleaded not guilty later that day to making false statements to Congress about contacts with WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Like many conservatives, Carlson has raised suspicions that Stone's arrest was politically motivated.

“The FBI and their water carriers in corporate media tells us, 'Totally commonplace.' 'By the book.' "Happens all the time,'" Carlson said as he ended his segment.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

Three years after Apple refused to give the federal government access to the devices used by the San Bernadino terrorists who killed and injured dozens in a mass shooting event, the company has given the office of the Special Counsel complete access to Trump advisor Roger Stone’s iCloud account, reports Apple Insider.

According to the Washington Post, Apple objected to giving the federal government backdoor access to the shooters iPhones, claiming it would “set a dangerous precedent.”

“From the beginning, we objected to the FBI’s demand that Apple build a backdoor into the iPhone because we believed it was wrong and would set a dangerous precedent. As a result of the government’s dismissal, neither of these occurred. This case should never have been brought.”

Fast forward to present, and we see that Apple no longer seems to have the same privacy concerns it once did in 2015. Without any fight, they simply turned over Roger Stone’s iCloud passwords and God knows what else, because Orange Man Bad. The fact that Apple views a political persecution less of a hill to die on than protecting the rights of terrorists who killed and maimed dozens of Americans is quite telling.

More from the Washington Post on Apple’s refusal to turn over access to the San Bernandino shooters devices…

“If allowed to stand, the order in Apple’s case would have forced company engineers to create software to disable a phone security feature so that the FBI could try its hand at unlocking the device by cracking a numeric password. Apple quickly resisted, arguing that forcing it to create such software would violate the company’s constitutional rights and weaken privacy for users around the world.”

Which makes us wonder… what exactly was Apple threatened with by Robert Mueller and the Office of the Special Counsel for them to abandon their firm stance against turning over user data and access to federal investigators? Surely they didn’t reason that two mass shooters were more deserving of their tough stand against government overreach and backdoor programs? There must be some explanation as to how they could give the federal government the power to access our privately held devices and accounts at will right?

You may not like Roger Stone and you may not agree with him. However, he has been charged with non-violent process crimes that have nothing to do with Russian collusion. Robert Mueller’s team has yet to provide one scintilla of evidence that points to real Russian collusion, instead using his unchecked power and un-elected authority to exact political revenge on the people who stopped his pal Hillary Clinton from becoming President.

This should concern Americans on all ends of the political spectrum. Right now it is Roger Stone… but anyone who dared imagine anything other than President Hillary Rodham Clinton is sitting in the cross-hairs of rogue prosecutor and his all too willing Gestapo goon squad.

Stone has mounted a vigorous defense and plans to defend his honor by any legal means necessary.

cbsnews

Published  2 weeks ago

After two years, the committee's chairman sees no collusion, but says some questions will linger for decades

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

A federal judge grilled Special Counsel Robert Mueller team earlier this week on its claims that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort intentionally lied to investigators, according to a newly released, partially redacted court transcript released Thursday.

NBC News

Published  2 weeks ago

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump exhibited “aggressive tax planning” prior to his 2016 election and “could have eliminated his taxes for a couple of decades” by claiming millions in business-related losses, tax expert Steven Rosenthal told a congressional panel Thursday.

“There is a lot to find,” said Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center who has scrutinized portions of Trump’s 1995 and 2005 returns last year in partnership with the New York Times.

Rosenthal was among several nonpartisan tax experts who testified at the first Democratic-run House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Trump’s taxes. The hearing was intended to begin “building the public case for why the American people deserve to know something — anything — about Trump’s finances,” said a Democratic leadership aide who was not authorized to speak publicly.

The experts affirmed the tax-writing committee’s authority to obtain Trump's returns from the U.S. Treasury — kicking off a pitched battle by the new House leadership to obtain the documents that every U.S. president dating to Richard Nixon has voluntarily disclosed to the public.

“The committee can ask for anything it wants” and Trump is not prohibited from releasing his returns while under audit, said George K. Yin, a law and taxation professor at the University of Virginia School of Law

Further, “I know of no instance in which a request has been refused,” he said, as long as Congress demonstrates a “legitimate purpose.”

Republicans on the committee protested the attempts. They insisted that the Internal Revenue Service is already examining the president’s taxes by audit and that there is no precedent for forcing the release of tax returns during an active special counsel investigation, a reference to Robert Mueller's probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“This is all about weaponizing our tax laws” to target “political foes,” Rep. Jackie Walorski, an Indiana Republican, said.

There was also disagreement over the process by which the House Ways and Means Committee could release the returns to the general public.

Ken Kies, a former Republican chief of staff of the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation and managing director of the Federal Policy Group, warned that releasing any U.S. taxpayer’s returns to the general public is “to commit a felony.” Further, he said, the current IRS audits of Trump’s returns are probably already “pretty intense.”

Democratic members of the panel agreed there would need to be a vote both within the committee and by the full U.S. House before the returns could be made public.

Noah Bookbinder, executive director at the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which has been conducting numerous investigations of the Trump administration, offered examples of what the public could learn from Trump’s returns -- beginning with whether he has been complying with all U.S. laws.

Bookbinder cited a New York Times report that Trump’s family had “engaged in a tax avoidance scheme,” a current investigation by the New York attorney general into Trump’s former foundation and whether it broke the law by coordinating with his 2016 presidential campaign.

Further, it’s unclear how Trump has benefited from tax legislation that is his signature legislative achievement. Trump and his family could have personally benefited by more than $1 billion by the tax bill, Rep. Lloyd Dogget, D-Texas, said.

“Tax transparency would open the public’s eyes,” Bookbinder said, adding “that could lead to greater accountability.”

The Democratic aide cautioned that Trump’s taxes are part of a far broader inquiry into the president's finances that will span six different congressional committees.

On Wednesday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said his committee has begun "to pursue credible reports of money laundering and financial compromise related to the business interests of President Trump, his family, and his associates. The president’s actions and posture towards Russia during the campaign, transition, and administration have only heightened fears of foreign financial or other leverage over President Trump.”

Breitbart

Published  2 weeks ago

In an appearance on Fox News Channel’s “The Ingraham Angle” on Thursday, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, commented on his Democratic counterpart chairman Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) push to have Acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker testify in front of the committee.

Whitaker had said he would not testify if the committee exercised its authority to subpoena him as a witness.

Nunes asked as to why Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was originally responsible for the probe into allegations of Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election that is led by special counsel Robert Mueller to testify before the committee.

“I don’t know why you would want Whitaker — he’s been the acting AG for a month,” Nunes said. “Why not bring Rod Rosenstein in, who started the special counsel, who it has been leaked that he is going to be leaving? Why would you not bring him in to talk about everything?”

Blunt Force Truth

Published  2 weeks ago

According to a new bombshell report released by award winning investigative journalist John Solomon, former FBI Director Robert Mueller was hauled before the FISA court to address an enormous number instances the FBI cheated on FISA warrants.

Mueller has been able to escape public scrutiny for the last 16 years due to the secret nature of the FISA court, but thanks to a testimony from a former FBI lawyer, we now have a peek into documented FISA abuses under then-FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Interestingly, nearly two decades after the FBI was embroiled in a FISA abuse scandal, Robert Mueller is appointed as special counsel after a phony dossier was used to spy on Trump’s campaign.

Want more BFT? Leave us a voicemail on our page or follow us on Twitter @BFT_Podcast and Facebook @BluntForceTruthPodcast. We want to hear from you! There’s no better place to get the #BluntForceTruth.

Zero Hedge

Published  2 weeks ago

Did Mueller's FBI commit "professional misconduct" in helping Epstein receive an unreasonably light sentence?

POLITICUSUSA

Published  2 weeks ago

The NRA is now under congressional investigation for illegally funneling money through shell companies to support Trump and Republican Senators.

The Trace reported on the investigation that is being led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD):

“The evidence shows the NRA is moving money through a complex web of shell organizations to avoid campaign finance rules and boost candidates willing to carry their water,” Whitehouse told The Trace. “And if the NRA can weave such a web, so can Vladimir Putin and others trying to undermine our democracy. We need the truth about this scheme or else special interests like the gun lobby or foreign interests like Russia can flaunt the law and erode the integrity of our elections.”

Whitehouse and Raskin are demanding documents from LaPierre and five related vendors that have either worked for the NRA or for candidates it supported: OnMessage; Red Eagle Media; Starboard Strategic Inc.; American Media & Advocacy Group; and National Media Research, Planning, and Placement.

The NRA is forbidden by law from supporting political candidates, so what the organization did was use a series of shell companies to launder the money through and get it to their campaigns of their candidates.

The NRA is already under investigation by the FBI and Robert Mueller for potentially laundering Russian cash and getting it into the Trump campaign. The congressional investigation is picking up on that same thread. If the NRA was illegally funneling money to Trump and Republican Senators, the next logical question is where did the money come from?

It is already known that the Russians infiltrated the NRA. What remains unknown is the size and scope of the Russian influence over the Republican Party, and how many of Putin’s criminal tentacles have touched Republican officeholders.

For more discussion about this story join our Rachel Maddow and MSNBC group.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

One day after President Trump decried what he called "the politics of revenge" and "partisan investigations" in his State of the Union address, Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff announced a new wide-ranging probe into the president's foreign business dealings and Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

Rantt

Published  2 weeks ago

After two years of watching Devin Nunes act as President Trump’s obstructive arm in the House, Chairman Adam Schiff has arrived.

Rantt Rundown, Day 748 of Trump’s presidency – Today’s top stories:

1. Finally, the House investigation we deserve: From his false FISA surveillance scandal to his effort to impeach Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Devin Nunes and House Republicans helped President Trump undermine Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. As chairman of the powerful House Intelligence Committee, Nunes prematurely shut down the House’s Russia investigation, refused to release testimony, and ultimately aided President Trump’s coverup. Those days are over. The midterms delivered Democrats the majority in the House, and with that win came vast power. House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff is not wasting any time.

Schiff is reopening the House’s Russia investigation with a scope that covers every facet of Trump’s corrupt behavior, which will likely include a look at the evidence of Trump’s potential money laundering for Russian oligarchs. Schiff is also probing Trump’s finances for ties to foreign entities that may be influencing his policy. This goes beyond Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and into the scope of a global corruption investigation that seeks to determine whether nations like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others have successfully influenced President Trump. The House Intelligence Committee has also handed Mueller over 50 transcripts of interviews from the last two years of their Russia investigation, which puts anyone who lied to Congress under immense scrutiny. This development, on top of the recent New York subpoenas seeking whether foreign entities illegally funneled money into Trump’s inaugural committee, should strike fear into Donald Trump.

2. The State of the Union: On Tuesday night, President Trump delivered a State of the Union address calling for unity, and then immediately undercut that message by fear-mongering about immigrants. One of the most notable moments was when President Trump addressed the historic wave of newly elected female candidates, which led to the freshmen Democratic Representatives, all dressed in white, to celebrate. But surely, the moment that won the night, was Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s clapback of the century.

3. Virginia gubernatorial mess update: After admitting to wearing blackface, Governor Ralph Northam continued to refuse to resign even after losing support from the entire Democratic Party. By Saturday morning, several prominent Democrats also called for his resignation, including presidential candidates Kamala Harris, Julian Castro, and Kirsten Gillibrand. Other big names like Joe Biden had chimed in as well. By the end of the day Saturday, Northam’s own Attorney General called for his resignation as well as his key allies Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, and Terry McAuliffe. On Monday, there was an entirely new scandal arising as a woman came forward with a sexual assault allegation against Virginia Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax. And on Tuesday, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring admitted to wearing blackface in his youth as well. None have resigned so far, but all eyes are still on Virginia.

This is only a partial segment of our Rantt Rundown newsletter. To get the full newsletter in your inbox every evening, please subscribe below.

Rantt Media’s comprehensive articles source reporting from top news organizations, but they’re also built on brilliant analysis from our team. We are independently-owned and strive for quality, not clicks. But the only way to truly have a media for the people is for media to be funded by the people. We take pride in being reader-funded so that we are beholden to you, not corporate interests. If you like the work we do, please consider supporting us by signing up for a monthly subscription.

True Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz is calling for fairness in punishment to those who lie to Congress, singling out former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and several others.

Introducing a resolution this week, Gaetz pointed out a longtime ally to President Donald Trump, Roger Stone — who pleaded not guilty after he was arrested for five counts of lying to Congress — while others go unpunished, according to the Washington Examiner.

I thought Robert Mueller was supposed to be investigating #RussianCollusion, now he has become a glorified hall monitor enforcing the provisions of lying to #Congress. The problem is he is enforcing them unequally. So, I am introducing the Justice for all Act. @TuckerCarlson pic.twitter.com/HQUCYsGuIr

“Unfortunately, it often seems that we have a two-tiered justice system at work; certain people have the book thrown at them, while others face no consequences at all for their behavior,” Gaetz said, according to the Washington Examiner. “This is unfair and wrong, and I hope to correct this with my resolution.”

Gaetz’s “Justice for All” resolution, H.Res.97, calls for those lying to Congress to be “prosecuted equitably.”

“That stops today,” Gaetz wrote on Twitter, discussing his bill.- READ MORE

Dan Bongino

Published  2 weeks ago

Special Counsel Robert Mueller was summoned before the FISA courts when he was FBI director to address a “large number of instances in which the FBI cheated on sensitive surveillance warrants,” in 2002 and 2003, according to John Solomon of the Hill.

The news was revealed by former FBI principal deputy general counsel, Trisha Anderson, who testified to Congressional investigators that Mueller was asked to appear before the FISA judges over “extensive” cheating on FISA warrants.

“It preceded my time with the FBI but as I understood it, there was a pattern of some incidents of omission that were of concern to the FISA court that resulted in former Director Mueller actually appearing before the FISA court,” Anderson told Congress.

Other sources who worked for Mueller at the time told me the court’s concerns arose in 2002 and 2003 — shortly after America was stunned by the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks — when the FISC learned the FBI had omitted material facts from FISA warrant applications in more than 75 terrorism cases that dated back to the late 1990s.

Most of the omissions occurred in FBI work that pre-dated Mueller’s arrival, the sources said. But the court wanted assurances the new sheriff in town was going to stop such widespread abuses.

Mueller told the court the FBI had created a new system called the Woods Procedures — named for the FBI lawyer who drafted them — to ensure FISA warrant applications were accurate and did not omit material information, according to Anderson’s congressional interview.

For Solomon’s full report, click HERE.

CNBC

Published  2 weeks ago

Schiller was hired by the RNC to help select a site for the 2020 convention. But once Charlotte, North Carolina, was announced in July, Schiller's firm was kept on to "work on other security needs for the committee," a party official told CNBC.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

Three years after Apple refused to give the federal government access to the devices used by the San Bernadino terrorists who killed and injured dozens in a mass shooting event, the company has given the office of the Special Counsel complete access to Trump advisor Roger Stone’s iCloud account, reports Apple Insider.

According to the Washington Post, Apple objected to giving the federal government backdoor access to the shooters iPhones, claiming it would “set a dangerous precedent.”

“From the beginning, we objected to the FBI’s demand that Apple build a backdoor into the iPhone because we believed it was wrong and would set a dangerous precedent. As a result of the government’s dismissal, neither of these occurred. This case should never have been brought.”

Fast forward to present, and we see that Apple no longer seems to have the same privacy concerns it once did in 2015. Without any fight, they simply turned over Roger Stone’s iCloud passwords and God knows what else, because Orange Man Bad. The fact that Apple views a political persecution less of a hill to die on than protecting the rights of terrorists who killed and maimed dozens of Americans is quite telling.

More from the Washington Post on Apple’s refusal to turn over access to the San Bernandino shooters devices…

“If allowed to stand, the order in Apple’s case would have forced company engineers to create software to disable a phone security feature so that the FBI could try its hand at unlocking the device by cracking a numeric password. Apple quickly resisted, arguing that forcing it to create such software would violate the company’s constitutional rights and weaken privacy for users around the world.”

Which makes us wonder… what exactly was Apple threatened with by Robert Mueller and the Office of the Special Counsel for them to abandon their firm stance against turning over user data and access to federal investigators? Surely they didn’t reason that two mass shooters were more deserving of their tough stand against government overreach and backdoor programs? There must be some explanation as to how they could give the federal government the power to access our privately held devices and accounts at will right?

You may not like Roger Stone and you may not agree with him. However, he has been charged with non-violent process crimes that have nothing to do with Russian collusion. Robert Mueller’s team has yet to provide one scintilla of evidence that points to real Russian collusion, instead using his unchecked power and un-elected authority to exact political revenge on the people who stopped his pal Hillary Clinton from becoming President.

This should concern Americans on all ends of the political spectrum. Right now it is Roger Stone… but anyone who dared imagine anything other than President Hillary Rodham Clinton is sitting in the cross-hairs of rogue prosecutor and his all too willing Gestapo goon squad.

Stone has mounted a vigorous defense and plans to defend his honor by any legal means necessary.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

According to a new bombshell report released by award winning investigative journalist John Solomon, former FBI Director Robert Mueller was hauled before the FISA court to address an enormous number instances the FBI cheated on FISA warrants.

Mueller has been able to escape public scrutiny for the last 16 years due to the secret nature of the FISA court, but thanks to a testimony from a former FBI lawyer, we now have a peek into documented FISA abuses under then-FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Interestingly, nearly two decades after the FBI was embroiled in a FISA abuse scandal, Robert Mueller is appointed as special counsel after a phony dossier was used to spy on Trump’s campaign.

Once again the FBI abused the FISA courts and illegally obtained a warrant on Trump campaign advisor Carter Page — and Robert Mueller is happy to continue his legacy of FISA abuse and corruption.

John Solomon of The Hill reported:

Trisha Anderson, who recently stepped down as the FBI’s principal deputy general counsel, told House investigators late last year in an interview that early in Mueller’s FBI tenure, nearly two decades ago, the FISC summoned the new director to appear before the judges to address concerns about extensive cheating on FISA warrants.

“It preceded my time with the FBI but as I understood it, there was a pattern of some incidents of omission that were of concern to the FISA court that resulted in former Director Mueller actually appearing before the FISA court,” Anderson told Congress.

Other sources who worked for Mueller at the time told me the court’s concerns arose in 2002 and 2003 — shortly after America was stunned by the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks — when the FISC learned the FBI had omitted material facts from FISA warrant applications in more than 75 terrorism cases that dated back to the late 1990s.

Most of the omissions occurred in FBI work that pre-dated Mueller’s arrival, the sources said. But the court wanted assurances the new sheriff in town was going to stop such widespread abuses.

Mueller told the court the FBI had created a new system called the Woods Procedures — named for the FBI lawyer who drafted them — to ensure FISA warrant applications were accurate and did not omit material information, according to Anderson’s congressional interview.

“My understanding is he committed to the court to address the problem and then that the series of reforms that we implemented, including the use of the Woods form, were the direct result of his engagement before the FISA court,” Anderson told Congress.

A declassified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order from 2002 reveals just how serious the abuses were. Solomon reports that in one case, the FBI failed to tell the FISA court that the individual they were seeking a warrant on was one of their own informants!

Anderson’s testimony revealed the FBI was abusing the FISA court many years ago but we now know the bureau continued the FISA abuse well into 2016 and 2017.

Thanks to former House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes and other Republican lawmakers, we know the FBI and DOJ omitted key information when it sought a FISA warrant on Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.

Thanks to the two-page FISA memo released by Congressman Nunes, the American public also knows that Hillary’s phony dossier, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele formed an essential part of the initial and all three renewal FISA applications against Carter Page.

We also know that the phony dossier’s claims had not been corroborated by the FBI when it used the information to obtain a FISA warrant.

Will Comey be forced to explain how and why such FISA abuses took place under his watch? Will current Director Wray also be hauled before the FISA court to address what the FBI is going to do moving forward to make sure this doesn’t happen again?

Read the full report about dirty cop Mueller by John Solomon here.

American Greatness

Published  2 weeks ago

Post by @theamgreatness.

The Palmieri Report

Published  2 weeks ago

The Department of Justice has launched an investigation into billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s controversial plea deal from 2008, the department’s Office of Personal Responsibility announced.

The announcement came in a letter Wednesday from Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd in response to letters sent by Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) inquiring into details surrounding Epstein’s sweetheart plea deal with DOJ attorneys over his sexual abuse of hundreds of underage girls.

“OPR has now opened an investigation into allegations that Department attorneys may have committed professional misconduct in the manner in which the Epstein criminal matter was resolved,” Boyd wrote in his letter to Sasse.

“OPR will thoroughly investigate the allegations of misconduct that have been raised and, consistent with its practice, will share its results with you at the conclusion of its investigation as appropriate.”

Sasse released a statement confirming the announcement of the probe.

“Jeffrey Epstein is a child rapist and there’s not a single mom or dad in America who shouldn’t be horrified by the fact that he received a pathetically soft sentence,” he said.

“The victims of Epstein’s child sex trafficking ring deserve this investigation – and so do the American people.”

Epstein’s legal team, led by now Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta and also including Alan Dershowitz, struck a plea deal with DOJ attorneys that resulted in him serving a 13-month sentence at the Palm Beach County Stockade, and the privilege to leave for work each day.

Interestingly, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller had allowed other FBI investigations into Epstein to “shut down” at the time of sentencing as part of the terms of the sweetheart deal.

TheHill

Published  2 weeks ago

The FBI sin from two decades ago, which lingers over the Russia case, involves agents omitting material facts when applying for warrants.

Sara A. Carter

Published  2 weeks ago

Republicans with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence submitted a motion Tuesday to immediately publish dozens of witness transcripts in the Russia Trump investigation.

IJR - Independent Journal Review

Published  2 weeks ago

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz is calling for fairness in punishment to those who lie to Congress, singling out former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and several others.

Introducing a resolution this week, Gaetz pointed out a longtime ally to President Donald Trump, Roger Stone — who pleaded not guilty after he was arrested for five counts of lying to Congress — while others go unpunished, according to the Washington Examiner.

Watch the video below:

I thought Robert Mueller was supposed to be investigating #RussianCollusion, now he has become a glorified hall monitor enforcing the provisions of lying to #Congress. The problem is he is enforcing them unequally. So, I am introducing the Justice for all Act. @TuckerCarlson pic.twitter.com/HQUCYsGuIr

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) February 1, 2019

“Unfortunately, it often seems that we have a two-tiered justice system at work; certain people have the book thrown at them, while others face no consequences at all for their behavior,” Gaetz said, according to the Washington Examiner. “This is unfair and wrong, and I hope to correct this with my resolution.”

Gaetz’s “Justice for All” resolution, H.Res.97, calls for those lying to Congress to be “prosecuted equitably.”

“That stops today,” Gaetz wrote on Twitter, discussing his bill.

Lying to Congress is a serious offense. Unfortunately, it appears certain people have the book thrown at them while others face no consequences at all.

That stops today. My "Justice For All" bill requires equal punishment for those who lie to Congress. #Hillary #Comey #Clapper

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) February 4, 2019

According to the resolution, Comey claimed he never authorized anyone to leak information to the media, “despite reports from the Office of the Inspector General indicating his response was likely untrue.”

Clinton said “there was nothing marked classified on my e-mails, either sent or received,” but it was “proven untrue” by FBI and the Office of the Inspector General reports, according to the resolution.

Additionally, the resolution states that Holder “provided false information” about the “Fast and Furious” program, along with two other instances of providing false information.

Gaetz’s resolution also targets former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and former Director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the Internal Revenue Service Lois Lerner.

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

Newly confirmed congressional testimony reveals that Andrew Weissmann, now a top deputy in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, was briefed in August 2016 on the opposition research behind the anti-Trump dossier – underscoring how early and widely the Democrat-funded research was shared among senior FBI and Justice Department officials.

DOJ official Bruce Ohr was asked about such briefings during a closed-door interview with House lawmakers in August 2018. In the interview, details of which have only recently emerged, Fox News has learned that Ohr revealed he met with Weissmann and other DOJ officials shortly after a July 30, 2016 breakfast meeting with former British spy and dossier author Christopher Steele, in the run-up to the presidential election. Ohr told congressional investigators that his contact with Steele included “specific information related to the Russian Government’s attempt to interfere in the Presidential election,” as well as specific allegations “related to members of the Trump campaign and allegations of colluding with Russia.”

Question: “You’ve identified at the Department of Justice folks as early as August of 2016 or folks at the Department of Justice and FBI being aware of your involvement. At the Department of Justice, Mr. [Bruce] Swartz, Mr. [Andrew] Weissmann, and the third name, I didn’t get, Zainab [Ahmad]?”

Ohr: “Ahmad, Ms. Ahmad.”

Ohr was then asked about meeting with then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, as well as lawyer Lisa Page and agent Peter Strzok, all three of whom have since left the bureau.

Question: “Again, so the record is clear with respect to what the Department of Justice and the FBI knew about your involvement, those are the folks that were aware as of August 2016 that you had an involvement with Christopher Steele?”

Ohr: “Those are the people that I knew that I had told.”

Fox News previously reported Ohr told House investigators as part of the Republican-led probe that shortly after the July 30, 2016 meeting, his “first move” was to reach out to senior FBI officials McCabe and Page. He then shared the information with other DOJ officials including Weissmann, he said.

Question: "The information that Mr. Steele relayed to you in 2016, did you share this information with Federal law enforcement officials?"

Ohr: "Yes, I did."

It's not clear from the transcript exactly what information was shared and the timing. In his transcribed interview, Ohr seemed careful not to rule out the likelihood the Russia information went further. As for the substance, Ohr said Steele had provided him with information related to Russia’s attempts to interfere in the U.S. presidential election.

Weissmann is now a lead prosecutor on Mueller’s team handling the case of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. At the time in 2016, he was chief of the DOJ Criminal Division’s Fraud Section. According to online bios, Swartz was deputy assistant attorney general at the time. According to a May 2017 New Yorker profile, Ahmad worked at the U.S. attorney’s office in the Eastern District of New York and took leave to work at the Justice Department’s Washington headquarters. Ahmad is now assigned to the special counsel's investigation.

Fox News recently asked the FBI, Justice Department and special counsel's office whether the meetings with Ohr over Steele and the dossier were consistent with -- or in conflict with -- existing DOJ or FBI rules, including chain-of-custody procedures for handling evidence. In addition, the special counsel's office was asked whether Weissmann and Ahmad had fully disclosed their contacts with Bruce Ohr and others over the dossier. The FBI and special counsel declined to comment; the DOJ did not immediately respond.

The Ohr testimony and timing, meanwhile, seem to conflict with a 2018 memo from Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, on the surveillance warrant application for Trump campaign aide Carter Page, which relied heavily on the dossier. While Ohr’s testimony indicated he met with senior FBI leadership in August 2016 shortly after his meeting with Steele, the Democrats' memo stated “the Majority mischaracterizes Bruce Ohr’s role, overstates the significance of his interactions with Steele, and misleads about the timeframe of Ohr’s communications with the FBI,” saying Ohr told the bureau in November 2016 about his earlier communications with Steele.

During his testimony, Ohr said he stressed during the 2016 meetings -- many of which took place before the Page surveillance warrant was obtained -- the potential bias and conflicts associated with Steele and the dossier, which was commissioned by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign and handled by opposition-research firm Fusion GPS. The surveillance warrant application drew on the unverified Trump dossier.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 weeks ago

After two years of investigating, Senate Intel Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) told CBS on Thursday that “based on evidence” his committee has seen there is nothing to suggest Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians during the 2016 election.

Senate Intel investigators, House Intel investigators and Mueller’s team have found NOTHING to suggest Trump colluded with the Russians, yet Democrat lawmakers led by Adam Schiff continue to harass President Trump.

“We’ll be judged at the end of this on the product that we produce,” Burr said. “We’ll also be judged on the process that we chose … None of us ever anticipated that this would be two years.”

Senator Burr said, “If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia.”

“If I can finish tomorrow, I would finish tomorrow,” Burr said, adding, “We know we’re getting to the bottom of the barrel because there’re not new questions that we’re searching for answers to.”

The Senate Select Committee has been coordinating with Robert Mueller’s team and their previous interview with Michael Cohen led to his indictment and prison time.

The Senate Intel Panel has interviewed over 200 witnesses and poured over hundreds of thousands of documents as part of their investigation into whether Trump’s camp colluded with Russia — the investigation started over two years ago in January of 2017.

The House Intel Panel also began a parallel ‘Trump-Russia’ probe at the same time but concluded in April of 2018 that they found zero evidence of collusion.

Mark Warner, the Democrat working along side of Senator Burr as Vice Chairman of the Senate Intel Panel has made numerous media appearances over the last two years complaining about Russian Twitter trolls and vaguely suggesting there are new developments in his committee’s Russia probe as evidence Trump may have conspired with Russia.

Although Senate Intel Chairman Burr doesn’t speak to the media too often, he publicly stated over the summer his committee still had found no evidence of Russian collusion and reiterated that statement once again in the Fall.

Burr’s remarks to CBS come as House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff launched a massive investigation into President Trump’s finances and personal life.

Trump has had it with endless investigations into his campaign, inauguration, finances and personal life and unleashed on his Twitter account Thursday, calling it “presidential harassment.”

PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT! It should never be allowed to happen again!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 7, 2019

President Trump thanked Richard Burr Thursday evening in a tweet.

Highly respected Senator Richard Burr, Chairman of Senate Intelligence, said today that, after an almost two year investigation, he saw no evidence of Russia collusion. “We don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia.” Thank you!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2019

Fox News

Published  2 weeks ago

After a tense back-and-forth between congressional Democrats and the Justice Department, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler announced Thursday evening that Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, likely in his final days as the country's chief law enforcement officer, will appear Friday as scheduled before the panel.

TheHill

Published  2 weeks ago