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.

L’Huffington Post

Published  4 weeks ago

Dopo tutto Donald Trump non ha tradito gli Usa. Il procuratore speciale per il Russiagate, Robert Mueller, dopo mesi di inchiesta non ha trovato nessuna prova di collusione fra la campagna di Donald Trump e la Russia. Secondo quanto si legge nel documento finale: né il presidente Trump né nessuno dei suoi collaboratori si è coordinato con il governo russo per interferire sulle elezioni 2016. "Nessuna collusione, nessuna ostruzione, completa e totale assoluzione", twitta Donald Trump.

La conclusione si legge nella lettera inviata dal ministero delle Giustizia William Barr al Congresso per presentare in via sintetica le conclusioni del rapporto Mueller. Barr scrive: "Il procuratore speciale non ha rinvenuto che, durante la campagna elettorale di Trump, nessun associato con questa abbia cospirato o si sia coordinato con i numerosi tentativi del governo, nonostante le varie offerte giunte da individui affiliati con la Russia per sostenere la campagna di Trump".

Assolto dunque Trump dalla più infamante accusa, quella di tradimento del suo Paese. Il Presidente Usa parla di "un tentativo fallito" di abbatterlo in modo illegale. E chiede un'inchiesta per chiarire come sia partita questa investigazione sulla sua persona con i democratici che, al contrario, chiedono che si approfondisca ancora. "E' una vergogna che il paese e che un presidente debbano passare attraverso una cosa simile", sottolinea ancora Trump.

In merito al potenziale reato di ostacolo alla giustizia, il rapporto non prende invece una chiara posizione. Il reato in ogni caso sarebbe stato comunque funzionale all'esistenza del reato di collusione. Scrive il ministro della Giustizia Barr: "Per ogni rilevante azione investigata il rapporto Mueller presenta evidenze che potrebbero portare a una conclusione o a un'altra (a favore o contro l'ostruzione, ndr) e lascia così non risolte quelle che Mueller considera 'complesse questioni legali'.

"Il consigliere speciale Mueller - dice sempre Barr - sostiene che comunque se il rapporto non conclude che il presidente ha commesso un crimine, d'altra parte non lo esonera dall'averlo fatto".

Tuttavia il ministro Barr dice anche che sia lui e sia il suo vice Rod Roseinstein ritengono "che le evidenze raccolte durante l'inchiesta di Mueller non siano sufficienti a stabilire con certezza che il Presidente abbia commesso il crimine di ostruzione della giustizia".

tagesschau.de

Published  4 weeks ago

US-Sonderermittler Robert Mueller hat laut US-Medien keine Hinweise auf eine Verschwörung des Wahlkampfteams von Präsident Donald Trump mit Russland gefunden. Das geht aus einer Zusammenfassung seines Berichts hervor, die das Justizministerium dem Kongress überreichte. Mueller habe kein Urteil gefällt, ob Trump die Justiz behindert habe.

focus

Published  4 weeks ago

Aus einem Brief des US-Justizministers William Barr an US-Abgeordnete geht hervor, dass Sonderermittler Robert Mueller keine Hinwese darauf gefunden hat, dass Donald Trump sich einer Verschwörung mit Russland schuldig gemacht habe.

Robert Mueller ist in seinem Bericht zu dem Schluss gekommen, dass es im Präsidentschaftswahlkampf 2016 keine geheimen Absprachen zwischen dem Wahlkampflager Donald Trumps und Russland gegeben hat. Das geht aus dem am Sonntag veröffentlichten Brief von Justizminister William Barr an den US-Kongress hervor (hier der Brief in voller Länge).

Mehr in Kürze auf FOCUS Online.

Business Insider

Published  1 month ago

AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta

Larry Flynt, the founder of Hustler Magazine, bought a full-page ad in The Washington Post on Sunday, offering $10 million to anyone with information that could lead to President Donald Trump's impeachment.

The ad said there was a strong reason to believe the 2016 election was "illegitimate in many ways" because Trump lost the popular vote, and was voted in because of an Electoral College "quirk" and Republican gerrymandering.

"Trump has proven he's dangerously unfit to exercise the extreme power accrued by our 'unitary executive'," the ad read.

Best known for founding the sexually graphic Hustler Magazine, Flynt has used his fame to influence politics before, according to The Washington Post. He endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016, and took out similar ads offering monetary rewards worth millions of dollars for information on Mitt Romney's tax returns, and for evidence that members of Congress or government officials had illicit sexual encounters.

Apparently one of the ads led to the resignation of Republican Congressman Bob Livingston in 1998 after he admitted he had extramarital affairs, according to CNN.

Flynt's ad went on to say there were several reasons Trump warrants impeachment, including his decision to fire former FBI director James Comey, his controversial response and "racial dog-whistling" following the white nationalist riots in Charlottesville, the risk that he might launch a nuclear war with North Korea, and his decision to pull the US out of the landmark Paris climate deal.

Comey's firing is currently the basis of an obstruction-of-justice case that special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating as part of his probe into Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Mueller also looking into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow to tilt the election in Trump's favor.

Trump has also in recent weeks significantly ramped up his rhetoric against North Korea, which in turn has increased its nuclear aggression against the US.

The ad conceded that while impeachment would be a "messy, contentious affair," the alternative — another three years of a Trump presidency — was worse. Flynt also called for the release of Trump's tax returns, as well as other financial and business records, arguing that "there may be a smoking gun" and that "impeachment requires unimpeachable evidence."

The ad ended with Flynt saying that while he did not expect Trump's wealthy allies to turn on him, he believed that "there are many people in the know for whom $10 million is a lot of money."

Flynt said he could easily spend the $10 million on other things, "but what good would that do me in a world devastated by the most powerful moron in history?"

Business Insider

Published  1 month ago

The operation was run by a local restauranteur who was placed under US sanctions for attempting to interfere with US elections.

Newsmax

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump turned his frustration on New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday, saying he is now in a group of "harassers" as the state expands its probe into his background.

"New York State and its Governor, Andrew Cuomo, are now proud members of the group of PRESIDENTIAL HARASSERS. No wonder people are fleeing the State in record numbers. The Witch Hunt continues!"

New York Attorney General Letitia James issued subpoenas to two banks as she searches for loan applications, mortgages, and other documents tied to Trump's real estate business. She opened the probe after Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen accused Trump last week of exaggerating his wealth over the years.

James' investigation is civil in nature, not criminal.

Trump and his 2016 campaign are also the subjects of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation that is looking at whether the Russians lent a hand in Trump's defeat of Hillary Clinton.

Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

newsobserver

Published  1 month ago

North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis said he would vote with Democrats for a resolution of disapproval against President Donald Trump’s national emergency declaration, a move that has upset some NC Republicans.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Ivanka Trump. Eric Trump. Donald Trump, Jr. And Jared Kushner. Apparently, new Attorney General Bill Barr agreed with Special Counsel Robert Mueller that the first kids (and son-in-law) should be indicted. Claim Your Free Trump

Rantt

Published  1 month ago

New York Attorney General Letitia James has subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank and Investors Bank. According to multiple reports, the subpoenas are related to loans President Trump’s company received. This comes after Michael Cohen claimed Trump inflated his assets in an effort to try and obtain a loan from Deutsche Bank for the purchase of the Buffalo Bills – a loan he didn’t receive. Cohen also testified that Trump inflated his assets to insurance companies (also being probed by New York) and may have committed tax evasion.

In 2017, Robert Mueller also subpoenaed Deutsche Bank. According to reports, the Trump Organization owes Deutsche Bank $364 million and his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s company owes the bank $285 million. In November 2018, Deutsche Bank was raided in a money laundering investigation related to the Panama Papers (there is no evidence this was related to Trump).

This New York subpoena comes after the previous acting-New York Attorney General shut down the Trump Foundation amid the investigation into Trump’s illegal self-dealing. Just like the case of the Trump Foundation, the New York Attorney General has the power to dissolve the Trump Organization if fraudulent conduct is discovered – which there is a history of. Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump were nearly indicted for fraudulently misleading their customers when selling units of their Trump SoHo project. It’s also important to note that state crimes cannot be covered by a federal pardon.

Trump has a documented history of other shady behavior. The New York Times reported that Donald Trump received, at least, the equivalent of $413 million from his father’s real estate empire and used shady methods, sometimes constituting fraud, to funnel the money to himself. There are also allegations of money laundering for Russian oligarchs through the sale of overvalued properties. And one cannot forget that Donald Trump paid a $25 million settlement for defrauding customers with Trump University – a payment made after winning the presidency.

Almost every organization Donald Trump has led in recent years is under criminal investigation. The Trump campaign, the Trump administration, the Trump transition, the Trump Organization, the Trump Inaugural Committee, and the Trump Foundation. President Trump has already been implicated in two campaign felonies committed by his former fixer Michael Cohen. The Southern District of New York, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, House Democrats, multiple state attorneys general, and numerous lawsuits are still probing President Trump’s conduct. Given what we know about Donald Trump’s past, it won’t be surprising if more wrongdoing is discovered.

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.

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff admitted Wednesday that he would still pursue the impeachment of President Donald Trump if the report published by special counsel Robert Mueller contained no incriminating evidence.

“If there’s insufficient evidence in the Mueller report and we’re not able to produce sufficient evidence in our own investigation, that ends the inquiry,” Schiff responded in an interview on “Morning Joe” when asked if the Mueller report could stop any further conversation about a Trump impeachment. (RELATED: House GOP Leader Presses Adam Schiff Over Secret Meeting With Fusion GPS Founder)

“There may be grounds for removal from office or there may be grounds for indictment after he leaves office,” he concluded.

Schiff also discussed the Justice Department’s decision to not share information with his committee, calling the move “immunity.”

“I wholly concur with what the speaker said regarding impeachment,” Schiff said. “That does not let the justice Department off the hook. If the Justice Department takes the position you can’t indict a sitting president but we’re not going to share the evidence with Congress that it would need to determine whether impeachment is warranted, that amounts to immunity for the president.”

Pelosi recently announced that she would not be pursuing impeachment during this session because any proceedings would have to be bipartisan in order to clear the Republican-controlled Senate.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

The FBI wanted to charge Hillary Clinton with “gross negligence” in 2016.

The Department of Justice said, nope.

Claim Your Free Trump 2020 Hat – Just Cover Shipping

Remind me again…who was president in 2016?

From Washington Examiner:

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page testified last year that officials in the bureau, including then-FBI Director James Comey, discussed Espionage Act charges against Hillary Clinton, citing “gross negligence,” but the Justice Department shut them down.

Newly released transcripts from Page’s private testimony in front of a joint task force of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees in July 2018 sheds new light on the internal discussions about an investigation into Clinton’s emails. This goes back to the FBI’s “Midyear Exam” investigation, which looked into whether Clinton committed crimes when she sent and received classified information on her unauthorized private email server while serving as secretary of state.

Comey cleared Clinton of all charges in a press conference on July 5, 2016.

Page told the committee that the FBI “did not blow over gross negligence.” Responding to a question from Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Page testified the FBI, including Comey, believed Clinton may have committed gross negligence. “We, in fact — and, in fact, the Director — because, on its face, it did seem like, well, maybe there’s a potential here for this to be the charge. And we had multiple conversations, multiple conversations with the Justice Department about charging gross negligence,” she said.

Page further testified the DOJ put a stop to that: “The Justice Department’s assessment was that it was both constitutionally vague, so that they did not actually feel that they could permissibly bring that charge.” The specific statute being referenced, 18 U.S. Code § 793, deals in part with “gross negligence” in the handling of national defense information, which Clinton came under scrutiny for possibly violating.

Page said Comey and the FBI spoke with DOJ about a gross negligence charge for Clinton multiple times, but that the DOJ consistently pushed back on it. “We had multiple conversations with the Justice Department about bringing a gross negligence charge. And that’s, as I said, the advice that we got from the Department was that they did not think — that it was constitutionally vague and not sustainable,” she said.

Clinton wants Congress to keep digging for links to Russia collusion even if Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report comes up empty – as is widely expected.

SPECIAL OFFER: Free Trump 2020 Hat While Supplies Last

From Daily Wire:

Failed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doesn’t want Congress to give up on pursuing evidence of President Donald Trump colluding with Russian officials to impact the 2016 elections, even if Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report comes up empty.

In a podcast with former Daily Beast chief Tina Brown recorded earlier this week, Clinton was clear in delivering her marching orders to the Democratic Congress: keep digging.

“There is enough grounds in what has already been made public for the government, for Congress in particular, to be doing more with it,” Clinton said. “And I’m pleased that under Speaker Pelosi, the Democrats are beginning to hold hearings and try to connect some of these dots.”

She doubled down on her dismay at the Democrats’ annual Selma Unity Breakfast Sunday morning, telling a rapt audience that, “We are living through a full-fledged crisis in our democracy,” and that we are living through a time when “racist and white supremacist views are lifted up in the media and the White House.”

URGENT POLL: Does Trump have your vote in 2020?

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 month ago

Commentary Over the next several weeks, you're going to see desperate people struggling to explain why—after a two-year ...

Conservative Review

Published  1 month ago

Tuesday night on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin ripped into all the “loose talk” about impeaching President Trump being thrown around by politicians and media figures.

Levin took issue with the seemingly common idea that impeachment is merely a political process. “It’s not a criminal process; we know that, but it’s not a purely political process, either,” Levin explained. “It is a constitutional process.”

“This loose talk about impeachment, the inability of some conservatives to effectively engage, is troubling,” Levin added.

“There is absolutely no legitimate, historical, or constitutional basis to impeach this president,” Levin concluded, “yet they keep throwing the word around.”

Levin also explained the nature of impeachment as the Founders understood it, why president Bill Clinton was impeached, and what to really expect when special counsel Robert Mueller releases the findings of his investigation.

Are “Never-Trumpers” Really An Issue?

You won’t want to miss tonight’s show! https://t.co/jzsHUi8SXf pic.twitter.com/XMRWSr3MeA

— LevinTV (@LevinTV) March 8, 2019

Don’t miss an episode of LevinTV. Sign up today!

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 month ago

Testimony provided to Congress from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveals contradictions as to when she learned about former British spy Christopher Steele’s anti-Trump dossier, sheds light on the “insurance policy” and exposes the Obama Justice Department’s decision not to charge Hillary Clinton with allegedly violating the Espionage Act. Page’s testimony, which was delivered behind […]

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Judicial Watch announced on Tuesday they will file a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Justice for all records on Rod Rosenstein between May 8 and May 17, 2017 when FBI director James Comey was fired.

It was during this time that Rosenstein and top DOJ officials discussed secretly recording President Trump and removing him using the 25th Amendment.

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for all records of communications of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein between May 8 and May 17, 2017.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the DOJ failed to respond to a September 21, 2018, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00481)). Judicial Watch seeks:

Any and all e-mails, text messages, or other records of communication addressed to or received by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein between May 8, 2017, and May 22, 2017.

The time period referred to in the suit was a critical one. On May 8, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memo to President Trump recommending that FBI Director James Comey be fired. The next day, President Trump fired Comey. On May 17 Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Between May 8 and May 17, Rosenstein met with then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other senior Justice Department FBI officials and discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump and whether Rosenstein and others should wear a wire to secretly record conversations with the President.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, charged Friday that special counsel Robert Mueller is the real source of collusion that people should be focused on.

In a Fox News interview, Nunes said Mueller's team essentially colluded with Democrats to bring down President Trump, by accepting the Democrat-generated Steele dossier as evidence against Trump, and using it to further their investigation.

"These guys were meeting with the Democrats, they were taking in this Steele dossier, which was the dirt," said Nunes, R-Calif.

"So these guys were involved in this the whole time," he added. "They're part of it. The Mueller team is part of the collusion."

Nunes said related evidence was seen this week, when former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., before Cohen's public testimony before Congress. Nunes said that meeting was likely an effort on how to coach the witness.

"They met with Cohen, they clearly were trying to devise how they're going to roll out a new narrative. So the last two weeks was all about rolling out a new narrative," Nunes said.

"No matter how much witness tampering you do, you're not going to find collusion in this, unless you talk about the collusion that the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign were doing with Russians," he added.

[Also read: Jim Jordan: No evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, but 'all kinds' showing Clinton campaign did]

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted under questioning from Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe last summer that "the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information," Ratcliffe alleged in an incendiary social media post late Tuesday.

Judicial Watch

Published  1 month ago

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for all records of communications of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein between May 8 and May 17, 2017.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the DOJ failed to respond to a September 21, 2018, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00481)). Judicial Watch seeks:

Any and all e-mails, text messages, or other records of communication addressed to or received by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein between May 8, 2017, and May 22, 2017.

The time period referred to in the suit was a critical one. On May 8, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memo to President Trump recommending that FBI Director James Comey be fired. The next day, President Trump fired Comey. On May 17 Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

Between May 8 and May 17, Rosenstein met with then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other senior Justice Department FBI officials and discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump and whether Rosenstein and others should wear a wire to secretly record conversations with the President.

Judicial Watch previously filed a FOIA lawsuit seeking records of communication of former FBI Deputy Director McCabe, the Office of the Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or the Office of Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein discussing the 25th Amendment or presidential fitness. Additionally, that lawsuit seeks all recordings made by any official in the Office of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General of meetings in the Executive Office of the President or Vice President.

“These critical days in May, a scant three months into President Trump’s term, included extraordinary targeting of President Trump by Rod Rosenstein and other Deep State officials at the DOJ and FBI,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Judicial Watch’s focused FOIA lawsuit aims to uncover what exactly Mr. Rosenstein’s role was in any discussions to overthrow President Trump.”

NPR.org

Published  1 month ago

There's already sufficient evidence to support an indictment of President Trump even before the conclusion of the special counsel investigation, California Rep. Adam Schiff said on Tuesday.

The chairman of the House intelligence committee pointed to the case of Michael Cohen, the president's former personal lawyer, in which the government described how "Individual 1" directed and coordinated a campaign fraud scheme.

"Individual 1" is Trump and Cohen is set to begin a three-year prison sentence in part because of those crimes.

"It's very difficult to make the argument that the person who was directed and was coordinated should go to jail but the person who did the directing and did the coordinating should not," Schiff told reporters at a breakfast on Tuesday organized by the Christian Science Monitor.

The evidence therefore already in place argues "very strongly in favor of indicting the president when he is out of office," he said.

Trump says he never directed Cohen to violate the law and the actions in Cohen's case don't even amount to wrongdoing.

Trump and the White House also argue that Cohen's track record of lying means he can't be believed — that he'll say anything to save his image and try to get a lighter punishment for other crimes he's admitted.

Current Justice Department guidelines prohibit indicting a sitting president. But Schiff believes that the department should reconsider this position, or indict Trump if he loses re-election in 2020.

"The Justice Department policy against indictment is the wrong policy particularly when there is any risk that the statute of limitations may allow a president to escape justice," the chairman said.

Schiff stopped short of saying he thought the Congress should impeach Trump and remove him from office in order to prosecute what he called these offenses.

The chairman echoed the position of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from her interview on Monday and said that without buy-in from congressional Republicans — who control the Senate — embarking upon the process today would be "doomed for failure."

"I see little to be gained by putting the country through that kind of wrenching experience as I've often remarked in the past," he told reporters. "The only thing worse than putting the country through the trauma of an impeachment is putting the country through the trauma of a failed impeachment."

Democrats have been careful not to close the door entirely, however. Pelosi and others argue that Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller or other investigators could uncover evidence of wrongdoing by Trump so egregious that it may compel a bipartisan case for impeachment.

Committee priorities

As for the investigation that he is leading now in the House intelligence committee, Schiff said he'll seek new documents relating to an alleged conversation between Trump and his longtime confidant Roger Stone.

"We are going to be looking at any documentary evidence," he said, when asked by NPR whether he would be seeking phone records that could back up Cohen's allegation that Trump had a speakerphone conversation with Stone about a coming WikiLeaks dump that would be damaging to the Clinton campaign.

"That could take a number of forms, from phone records, to social media records, to other documentary evidence."

Schiff has placed great store in the past on the revelations that he said could be gleaned from phone records in the Russia investigation. He vowed to obtain phone records of Donald Trump Jr. because Democrats suspected they might entangle the elder Trump, but that did not prove to be so.

Ultimately the length of Schiff's investigation could depend on the Mueller investigation, and whether the Justice Department releases the underlying evidence that the Mueller team has gathered.

"If the Justice Department either attempts to conceal the Mueller report or the underlying evidence then requiring Mueller to testify to testify may very well be necessary," Schiff said. "A lot will be impacted ... by the degree to which the Justice Department makes us investigate everything Bob Mueller did all over again ... that will have the most direct impact on the length of our investigation."

Townhall

Published  1 month ago

We've heard, repeatedly, that Robert Mueller's probe into Russia would be coming to an end any day now. Then it's not. Then it is again. We've been hearing that mantra for months now. And, just as Americans are bracing for an end to this long, drawn out witch hunt, it's being reported that the Mueller probe has been financed through the end of September.

The announcement was made around the same time as President Donald Trump's 2020 budget proposal. The probe isn't included in the White House or Justice Department's general budget because the Special Counsel's Office is financed by the U.S. Treasury under special regulations issued by the Justice Department.

“The Special Counsel is funded by the Independent Counsel appropriation, a permanent indefinite appropriation established in the Department’s 1988 Appropriations Act,” a Justice Department spokesman said.

Ninety days before the beginning of a federal government fiscal year, which starts on Oct. 1, special counsels such as Mueller “shall report to the Attorney General the status of the investigation and provide a budget request for the following year,” according to the regulations.

Department officials said that under these regulations, a special counsel should request funding for the next fiscal year by the end of June. It is not known if Mueller is preparing such a request for fiscal year 2020.

Mueller's probe into whether or not Vladimir Putin and the Russians coordinated with the 2016 Trump campaign began in May 2017.

President Trump has called the entire probe a "witch hunt."

As of December 14th, Mueller's probe has cost taxpayers a whopping $12,287,852. There are no current spending figures for this fiscal year.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's decision not to impeach Donald Trump is the clearest indication possible that Democrats do not believe he colluded with Russia.

News Punch

Published  1 month ago

POTUS says Obama's surveillance abuse would be considered "treason."

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she now firmly stands against impeaching President Trump because it would be too divisive.

“I’m not for impeachment,” Pelosi told the Washington Post in an interview published Monday. “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

Despite her opposition to impeaching Trump, she called the president “ethically unfit,” "intellectually unfit,” and “curiosity-wise unfit.”

Other Democrats disagree with the their leader. For months, House Democrats have tried to impeach Trump with no success.

Most recently, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., a staunch critic of the president’s who famously vowed to “impeach the motherfucker,” said she was planning to introduce an impeachment resolution within weeks.

"Later on this month, I will be joining folks and advocates across the country to file the impeachment resolution to start the impeachment proceedings," Tlaib said last week.

Tlaib’s efforts follow those of Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman of California and Al Green of Texas.

Pelosi said at the beginning of the year that Democrats would have to wait and see what happens with special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation before moving on impeachment.

Mueller has yet to release his report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. So far none of the known indictments and plea deals that have come out of the inquiry have anything to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Palmer Report

Published  1 month ago

Here we go. If you’ve been waiting to figure out what role New York State would play in the demolition of Donald Trump, beyond serving as a safety net against federal pardons, you’re finally getting your answer. The Attorney General just took Michael Cohen’s testimony and used it to drop the subpoena hammer, in a way that’s going to have Trump howling in agony.

New York State just issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank for records regarding several specific transactions involving Donald Trump and the Trump Organization, according to a new expose from the New York Times. Why does this matter? Investigators ranging from Special Counsel Robert Mueller to Chairwoman Maxine Waters are already poking around in Trump’s fraudulent relationship with Deutsche Bank. But what makes this different is the specificity.

Instead of trying to seize all of the records and then figure out where the crimes might be hiding in them, New York State already knows precisely what it’s going after. For instance, Cohen publicly testified that Trump falsified his financial situation while attempting to secure a loan to buy the Buffalo Bills football team, and sure enough, that’s one of the transactions New York has just subpoenaed.

If you’re wondering where this is headed, these two sentences from the New York Times article offer a strong hint: “The inquiry by Ms. James’s office is a civil investigation, not a criminal one, although its focus and scope were unclear. The attorney general has broad authority under state law to investigate fraud and can fine — or in extreme cases, go to court to try to dissolve — a business that is found to have engaged in repeated illegality.” That’s right, New York State is looking to take away Donald Trump’s assets while he’s still in office, just as Palmer Report predicted.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Are you tired of the Robert Mueller-led Russia "witch hunt" against President Trump? Well, too bad! Claim Your Free Trump 2020 Hat - Just Cover Shipping It looks like the investigation may wind up going through September

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

A conservative watchdog group is suing the Justice Department for all of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's communications from around the firing of FBI Director James Comey and the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.

The Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Judicial Watch, filed last week in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, seeks all e-mails, text messages, and other records between May 8 and May 17, 2017.

Comey was fired on May 7 and Mueller was appointed by Rosenstein on May 17 to lead the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

That 10-day time span has come under increased scrutiny in recent weeks due to claims by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe during his book tour.

McCabe provided on-the-record corroboration of months-old reports that Rosenstein told Justice Department officials about wearing a “wire” to record conversations with Trump and that he had discussed invoking the 25th Amendment against the president to remove him from office in the days after Comey was fired.

The Justice Department claims his version of events was "inaccurate and factually incorrect" and stressed that Rosenstein never authorized the use of a wire to secretly record Trump.

“These critical days in May, a scant three months into President Trump’s term, included extraordinary targeting of President Trump by Rod Rosenstein and other Deep State officials at the DOJ and FBI,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement Tuesday. “Judicial Watch’s focused FOIA lawsuit aims to uncover what exactly Mr. Rosenstein’s role was in any discussions to overthrow President Trump.”

Judicial Watch previously sued the Justice Department in February for any recordings Rosenstein may have made while attending meetings in the White House. That lawsuit seeks all records of communications between Rosenstein, the office of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and McCabe about using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. That lawsuit also seeks all audio or visual recordings made by any official in the Office of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General of meetings in the executive office of the president or vice president.

Rosenstein reportedly plans to leave the department by mid-March. In recent weeks, Trump has accused Rosenstein and McCabe of planning to carry out an "illegal and treasonous" plan against him.

New York Post

Published  1 month ago

State Attorney General Letitia James said she subpoenaed Deutsche Bank and Investors Bank on Monday for records involving President Trump’s failed bid to buy the Buffalo Bills and other business dealings involving the Trump Organization.

A day after issuing the subpoenas, James, who took office in January, lobbied legislators in Albany to loosen the double jeopardy “loophole” that prohibits state prosecutors from bringing similar charges against individuals pardoned from federal charges.

“We do have an agreement in both houses, we anticipate that the bill we be passed in a couple weeks.”

The Deutsche Bank subpoena seeks loan applications, mortgages, lines of credit and other records of financial transactions in connection to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, the Trump National Doral in South Florida and the Trump International Hotel and Tower in Chicago, the New York Times reported on Monday evening.

Investors Bank, which is based in New Jersey, was asked for records connected to Trump Park Avenue.

The AG has also requested records linked to Trump’s attempts to buy the Buffalo Bills in 2014.

The deal fell apart after Terry Pegula, owner of the Buffalo Sabres hockey team, bought the NFL team for $1.4 billion.

James, who campaigned on investigating the president, initiated the civil inquiry after Trump’s former longtime lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen testified to a House panel last month about the president’s financial dealings.

A number of investigations are ongoing into Trump, his businesses, his campaign and his inauguration in Congress and by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Deutsche Bank confirmed to the Times that it had received the subpoena, but Investors Bank refused to comment.

The Trump Organization did not respond to requests for comment from the newspaper.

David Harris Jr

Published  1 month ago

A report from the Spectator says that Robert Mueller met with AG Bill Barr and asked for permission to indict Don Jr, Ivanka, Eric and Jared Kushner, but rebuffed the indictment of the president because the DOJ has a policy of not allowing an indictment of a sitting president. The source for the story is someone who was not in the room and is unnamed. You may want to take it with a grain of salt, but Barr and Mueller have been close friends for over 20 years and their wives have been in the same Bible study group. So the report could be true or could not.

Via Cockburn at The Spectator.

The story said members of President Trump’s family would be charged but also noted that it is Department of Justice policy not to indict a sitting President. However, there was no frenzy at the DoJ on Friday, no throng of reporters to make the tourists heading up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House stop and look. So what happened?

Several sources tell Cockburn that the Special Counsel has indeed completed his report. It is said to recommend indicting three of President Trump’s children – Don junior, Ivanka and Eric – as well as his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The Attorney General, William Barr, is said to have ‘silently assented’ to this. It’s also claimed that Mueller wants President Trump himself to be indicted. Barr is said to oppose this. The two men met on Friday but apparently could not agree and this was the reason for the delay in any announcement from the DoJ. At least this is what the sources say.

So who are these sources? Joseph Heller mocked Washington’s – and journalism’s — culture of ‘sources’ in his novel Good as Gold.

‘I believe I got that information about you from a reliable unnamed source.’

‘I’ve been doing a lot of work here as an unnamed source,’ Gold answered with nervousness and haste, ‘so it may have come from me. No truth to it at all.’

None of Cockburn’s sources was ‘in the room’ – as they say in Washington – for the (alleged) discussions between Mueller and Barr and their two staffs. And none of the sources was briefed by the people ‘in the room’. But they did talk to the people briefed by the people in the room and – twice removed from the original conversations – they all give the same account. It is that the older Trump children and Jared will be indicted for financial crimes while Mueller wants to charge Trump with obstruction of justice. The charges, Cockburn is told now, will not be about ‘Russia collusion’.

My book is here! And I personally handed a copy to our President at the White House!!! I hope you enjoy it @realDonaldTrump!

Follow David on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Patreon and YouTube @DavidJHarrisJr

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is ruling out impeaching President Donald Trump, arguing in an interview with the Washington Post Monday that “he’s just not worth it.”

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it,” Pelosi told the Post.

Pelosi’s remarks come as House Democrats are expanding their investigation into President Trump and his allies, requesting documents from over 80 individuals and entities regarding the president’s finances and communications. Some lawmakers are hopeful their findings will lead to uncovering an impeachable offense.

However, congressional investigators such as House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) are warning against calling for impeachment, urging caution until the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on his investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. “Let us see what the facts are, what the law is, and what the behavior is of the president,” Pelosi said when pressed on impeachment at a press briefing last Tuesday.

Yet their pleas have not deterred some Democrats from demanding President Trump’s ouster. Appearing on MSNBC’s All In last Monday, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) claimed President Trump’s actions have already “crossed the threshold of what was brought for impeachment” against President Richard Nixon. “[W]hat we know is that the president’s behavior has already crossed the threshold of what was brought for impeachment before the House in the Nixon administration and the Clinton administration. In fact, he crossed those thresholds in the first weeks or months of office. And so, that is another means, if these other means fail, to control this president,” he said.

Earlier this February, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) announced he will bring a vote on impeaching to the House floor for the third time, despite failing to hold a successful vote in 2017 and 2018.

The Texas Democrat said he will bring the measure to a vote “regardless” of the Mueller report’s findings, pledging to “act on Trump’s bigotry.”

“There will be a vote on impeachment regardless as to what the Mueller Commission says,” Green vowed in a recent House floor speech.

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said Tuesday Congress is investigating President Donald Trump over allegations that he “dangled pardons” in front of his former advisers involved in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

The frequent Trump critic tweeted his comments in response to White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders saying Trump has not made up his mind on a possible pardon for former campaign chair Paul Manafort, who was recently sentenced to 47 months in jail over tax and bank fraud charges. (RELATED: Manafort Judge: He’s Not Being Convicted Of Colluding With Russia)

“Congress is investigating reports that Trump and his legal team privately dangled pardons to obstruct investigations, including ours. Yesterday, the White House refused to rule out a pardon for Paul Manafort,” Schiff said. “That Trump does so in the open is no less corrupt.”

Congress is investigating reports that Trump and his legal team privately dangled pardons to obstruct investigations, including ours.

Yesterday, the White House refused to rule out a pardon for Paul Manafort.

That Trump does so in the open is no less corrupt. https://t.co/icT5i82tZs

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) March 12, 2019

Throughout Manafort’s trial, Trump was coy about possibly pardoning his former campaign chief, but has praised Manafort for his loyalty. (RELATED: Paul Manafort Found Guilty On Eight Counts Of Tax And Bank Fraud)

Trump also claimed last week that his former attorney Michael Cohen “directly asked” him for a pardon, contradicting Cohen’s testimony before Congress.

“Bad lawyer and fraudster Michael Cohen said under sworn testimony that he never asked for a Pardon. His lawyers totally contradicted him. He lied!” Trump said in a tweet. “Additionally, he directly asked me for a pardon. I said NO. He lied again! He also badly wanted to work at the White House. He lied!”

Bad lawyer and fraudster Michael Cohen said under sworn testimony that he never asked for a Pardon. His lawyers totally contradicted him. He lied! Additionally, he directly asked me for a pardon. I said NO. He lied again! He also badly wanted to work at the White House. He lied!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 8, 2019

Cohen was sentenced to 36 months in prison in December for tax evasion, bank fraud, and making an illegal campaign contribution to porn star Stormy Daniels who alleges that she had an affair with Trump in 2006. Cohen also admitted to lying to Congress in 2017.

Follow William Davis on Twitter

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

House Democrats aren’t giving up on attempting to impeach President Trump, even though Speaker Nancy Pelosi all but dismissed it in an interview published Monday.

“I happen to disagree with that take,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told the Washington Examiner Monday night, responding to the Pelosi interview. “But you know, she’s the speaker. … I think we’ll see.”

Pelosi told the Washington Post she doesn’t support the House trying to impeach Trump. “He’s just not worth it,” the California Democrat said in the interview.

Pelosi’s comments contradict the views of many House Democrats who are eager to pursue a path to impeachment, either from the findings of special counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing probe or new, broad House investigations that will examine Trump’s business dealings and potential conflicts of interest.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said her constituents are demanding that Congress investigate Trump and even attempt to remove him from office if the findings call for it.

Jayapal is definitely not abandoning impeachment, she told reporters.

“It’s not about whether or not it’s worth it,” Jayapal said. “It’s our obligation to the American people and the Constitution. That’s how I think about it.”

Jayapal said it’s too soon to decide Trump shouldn’t be impeached, in part because the House probe alone could take months. “We haven’t had done any investigation,” Jayapal said.

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said he did not interpret Pelosi’s comments to mean she is ruling out a vote to oust the president.

“I think we have to look at all the evidence in the report and where it will lead us, and not prejudge the issue,” Khanna said. ”I think she was making an off-the-cuff statement. I don’t think she was making a statement about Congress’ constitutional responsibility to look at evidence and look at where the hearings are. I think she even said it depends on what is in the reports.”

Ocasio-Cortez agreed that Pelosi’s impeachment views are not absolute.

Pelosi in many recent interviews has downplayed impeachment and said she wants House Democrats to focus on their agenda. Democrats will introduce bills to end pay discrimination and to legalize Dreamers in the coming days.

Pelosi has often said she is awaiting Mueller’s findings, Democrats said Monday.

“I wouldn’t say she’s completely concrete,” Ocasio-Cortez told the Washington Examiner. “She’s always demonstrated leadership that takes all kinds of factors into account. Should the Mueller report drop and we see something, I wouldn’t count anything out.”

Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, who has served in the House for 10 years and whose state voted for Trump, agreed with Pelosi that it would not be worth it to pursue impeachment.

“I don’t think the country has the stomach for any more divisiveness,” Fudge told the Washington Examiner. “So if we can find a way to get through this term and do what we need to do to run the right candidate, to do what we believe can be done in terms of flipping the White House, that is where we should focus our efforts. I believe in winning.”

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

In a stunning admission that the Mueller report is going to be a triple-decker nothingburger, Nancy Pelosi has just called off the impeachment dogs and cruelly snuffed out the hopes and dreams of the unhinged

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

House Judiciary Committee Republicans on Tuesday released hundreds of pages of transcripts from last year's closed-door interview with ex-FBI attorney Lisa Page, revealing new details about the bureau's controversial internal discussions regarding an “insurance policy” against then-candidate Donald Trump.

Page first entered the spotlight in December 2017, when it was revealed by the Justice Department inspector general that she and then-FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok exchanged numerous anti-Trump text messages. The two were involved in the FBI’s initial counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling and potential collusion with Trump campaign associates during the 2016 election, and later served on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team.

LISA PAGE TESTIMONY: COLLUSION STILL UNPROVEN BY THE TIME OF MUELLER'S SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTMENT

Among their texts was one concerning the so-called "insurance policy." During her interview with the Judiciary Committee in July 2018, Page was questioned at length about that text -- and essentially confirmed this referred to the Russia investigation while explaining that officials were proceeding with caution, concerned about the implications of the case while not wanting to go at "total breakneck speed" and risk burning sources as they presumed Trump wouldn't be elected anyway.

Further, she confirmed investigators only had a "paucity" of evidence at the start.

Then-Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., kicked off that section of questioning by asking about the text sent from Strzok to Page in August 2016 which read: “I want to believe the path you threw out in Andy’s [McCabe's] office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

The former FBI lawyer explained how the FBI was trying to strike a balance with the investigation into the Trump campaign—which agents called “Crossfire Hurricane.”

LISA PAGE 'COOPERATIVE,' 'CREDIBLE,' LAWMAKERS SAY AFTER 5-HOURS CLOSED-DOOR SESSION

“So, upon the opening of the crossfire hurricane investigation, we had a number of discussions up through and including the Director regularly in which we were trying to find an answer to the question, right, which is, is there someone associated with the [Trump] campaign who is working with the Russians in order to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton,” Page said. “And given that it is August, we were very aware of the speed and sensitivity that we needed to operate under.”

Page continued that, “if the answer is this is a guy just being puffery at a meeting with other people, great, then we don’t need to worry about this, and we can all move on with our lives; if this is, in fact, the Russians have coopted an individual with, you know, maybe wittingly or unwittingly, that’s incredibly grave, and we need to know that as quickly as possible.”

Page explained that the text message reflected their “continuing check-in” as to “how quickly to operate.”

NEW STRZOK-PAGE TEXTS REVEAL OTHERS WERE 'LEAKING LIKE MAD' IN LEAD UP TO TRUMP-RUSSIA PROBE

“[W]e don’t need to go at a total breakneck speed because so long as he doesn’t become President, there isn’t the same threat to national security, right,” Page explained, while saying that if Trump were not elected president, the bureau would still investigate.

“But if he becomes President, that totally changes the game because now he is the President of the United States,” Page told lawmakers. “He’s going to immediately start receiving classified briefings. He’s going to be exposed to the most sensitive secrets imaginable. And if there is somebody on his team who wittingly or unwittingly is working with the Russians, that is super serious.”

Page made clear, though, that those involved did not think Trump would beat Clinton: “So this reflects: Let’s be reasonable, let’s not, you know, throw the kitchen sink at this because he’s probably not going to be elected, and so then we don’t have quite as horrific a national security threat than if we do if he gets elected.”

Page also spoke to how little information the bureau was starting with, saying the FBI “knew so little” about whether the allegations were “true or not true,” and had "a paucity of evidence because we are just starting down the path" of vetting the allegations.

She later said that all they needed was an allegation, and claimed “it is entirely common, particularly in a counterintelligence investigation, that you would only have—you would have a small amount of evidence” in launching a probe.

The transcripts were released as Mueller continues his investigation, which Trump assails as a "witch hunt" on a regular basis but could have an impact on where congressional Democrats go with their own investigations -- or whether they pursue impeachment, something House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has come out against for the time being.

Page, who served a short detail on Mueller’s team, returned to her post at the FBI in 2017, and ultimately left the bureau in May 2018. Strzok was removed from Mueller’s team after the texts were discovered and was reassigned to the FBI’s Human Resources Division before being fired in August 2018.

Former FBI Deputy Director McCabe, meanwhile, recently said he did not recall ever discussing the "insurance policy" with Strzok or Page.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Transcripts of former FBI lawyer Lisa Page’s private testimony to a joint congressional task force investigating potential bias in the Justice Department and the FBI were released Tuesday.

Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., the ranking member of the committee, released 370 pages of transcripts of testimony that took place over two days. Page answered questions for about 10 hours total on July 13 and July 16.

“The American people deserve to know what transpired in the highest echelons of the FBI during that tumultuous time for the bureau,” Collins said in a statement.

“Out of an abundance of caution, this transcript has a limited number of narrowly tailored redactions, relating only to confidential sources and methods, non-public information about ongoing investigations, and non-material personal information,” he said.

Last week, Collins began releasing the transcripts of private testimony given to a joint task force of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees when he asked that the unredacted transcript for Justice Department official Bruce Ohr from August 2018 be put on the record. Ohr acted as an unofficial back channel between the FBI and the author of the so-called Trump dossier.

Page and another FBI employee, Peter Strzok, came under fire last year when it was revealed they had exchanged text messages that displayed a bias against President Trump.

The pair worked on the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server and briefly were part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

Strzok was fired in August, and Page resigned from her position in May.

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department and James Comey’s FBI worked together with the Hillary Clinton campaign to entrap Donald Trump and associates — including his eldest son — prior to the 2016 presidential election, according to records and testimony of federal law enforcement insiders. One high ranking official in the Justice Department called it a sweeping…

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

A report at The Specator on Friday claims dirty cop Robert Mueller met with Attorney General Bob Barr and the two agreed that President Trump’s children should be indicted.

The report goes on to say that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his 13 angry Democrats also want President Trump to be indicted but that Barr pushed back on this.

Author and attorney Sidney Powell spoke about this during her interview on the Mark Levin Show on FOX News.

Sidney Powell is an expert of Department of Justice corruption and has followed the career of Democrat hatchetman Andrew Weissmann who has destroyed thousands of lives during his career as federal prosecutor only to see his cases overturned years later by superior court rulings.

Sidney Powell wrote LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice after seeing a core group of federal prosecutors break all the rules, make up crimes, hide evidence, and send innocent people to prison in the Enron case.

Sidney warned that the report, which will likely be authored by Andrew Weissmann, will destroy Trump. That is the goal and that is why Democrats are looking forward to its release.

Via Cockburn at The Spectator.

The story said members of President Trump’s family would be charged but also noted that it is Department of Justice policy not to indict a sitting President. However, there was no frenzy at the DoJ on Friday, no throng of reporters to make the tourists heading up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House stop and look. So what happened?

Several sources tell Cockburn that the Special Counsel has indeed completed his report. It is said to recommend indicting three of President Trump’s children – Don junior, Ivanka and Eric – as well as his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The Attorney General, William Barr, is said to have ‘silently assented’ to this. It’s also claimed that Mueller wants President Trump himself to be indicted. Barr is said to oppose this. The two men met on Friday but apparently could not agree and this was the reason for the delay in any announcement from the DoJ. At least this is what the sources say.

So who are these sources? Joseph Heller mocked Washington’s – and journalism’s — culture of ‘sources’ in his novel Good as Gold.

‘I believe I got that information about you from a reliable unnamed source.’

‘I’ve been doing a lot of work here as an unnamed source,’ Gold answered with nervousness and haste, ‘so it may have come from me. No truth to it at all.’

None of Cockburn’s sources was ‘in the room’ – as they say in Washington – for the (alleged) discussions between Mueller and Barr and their two staffs. And none of the sources was briefed by the people ‘in the room’. But they did talk to the people briefed by the people in the room and – twice removed from the original conversations – they all give the same account. It is that the older Trump children and Jared will be indicted for financial crimes while Mueller wants to charge Trump with obstruction of justice. The charges, Cockburn is told now, will not be about ‘Russia collusion’.

This is different from the story yesterday, which was that Mueller would ‘make the case for collusion’. It is different from what the former CIA director, John Brennan, said on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show on MSNBC this week. He thought that the children would be indicted and (like Cockburn) that it would happen on Friday.

Daily Intelligencer

Published  1 month ago

Casual conspiracy theorizing has become the new normal.

STAR POLITICAL

Published  1 month ago

President Trump has made it clear that declassifying damaging documents on top level Democrats is on the table should the Witch Hunt continue.

As reported by JoeforAmerica, Democrats are starting 81 more investigations before the Mueller report comes out because they already know there’s nothing there. To that point, a report by Marisa Schultz and Nikki Schwab reveals that;“President Trump said if House Democrats launched probes into his administration — which he called “presidential harassment” — they’d pay a heavy price.

FREE Trump 2020 Hat While Supplies Last – [Claim Yours]

Trump supporters should take heart that once Mueller’s investigation ends, the arsenal that President Trump has at his disposal to use against the D.C. swamp turns nuclear.

Simply put, President Trump has been holding – no pun intended – his trump cards close to the vest for a long time now, in the form of classified information, indictments, incriminating – possibly criminal – information against many, many in the Democrat and Deep State camps. Bottom line: Nobody who has been convicted or sentenced during the Mueller Investigation has had a damn thing to do with “collusion with Russia” and the Democrats are obviously getting desperate.

With these recent activities the Dems are treading on thin ice and should probably be very careful as noted by the President himself.

Trump stated: “If they go down the presidential harassment track, if they want go and harass the president and the administration, I think that would be the best thing that would happen to me. I’m a counter-puncher and I will hit them so hard they’d never been hit like that.”

While President Trump has the authority to order the declassification of documents that the president has characterized as “devastating” to the DOJ and FBI, the special counsel’s simple existence has blocked him from doing so. Up until Mueller issues his final report President Trump remains boxed in a corner by Rod Rosenstein, Roberts Mueller and his team of angry Democrats.

With Trump being the target of the investigation, Rosenstein warned the president that declassification could be viewed by a court as crossing the line into obstruction of the special counsel’s work, but now with the investigation coming to an end all bets are off.

Now that William Barr has been seated as the Attorney General, the leverage these corrupt elements have maintained over Trump appears to be coming to an end. With Barr now in charge of oversight of Mueller’s witch-hunt, Mueller is suddenly sending signals that he is wrapping up his investigation and all signs he is preparing to release his report as early as the end of this month.

Then Trump could declassify FISA warrant applications and other documents from Robert Mueller’s probe — and predicted the disclosure would expose the FBI, the Justice Department and the Clinton campaign as being in cahoots to set him up. Trump told The Post he wanted to save the documents until they were needed.

“It’s much more powerful if I do it then,” Trump said, “because if we had done it already, it would already be yesterday’s news.”[Read More]

Rantt

Published  1 month ago

While much of the media continued to focus on Rep. Ilhan Omar, new scandals arose for President Donald Trump that could prove to be quite damning.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

The 268-page Bruce Ohr interview transcript provides some clarity, some comfort, but also more concerns over the handling of the Russia investigation.

americanthinker

Published  1 month ago

The power-drunk House Democrats will not know what hit them.

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

Democrats and the media will face a “reckoning” if special counsel Robert Mueller finds no evidence of collusion involving the Trump campaign, ABC News’ Terry Moran argued in a panel discussion Sunday.

“How big a deal is it if they don’t find collusion for the president?” ABC “This Week” host Martha Raddatz asked Moran.

“Huge,” said Moran. “He’s cleared. If Robert Mueller comes back, Mueller became a folk hero in the United States.”

“The central and most serious question in this investigation, the reason Robert Mueller started it: Did the current president of the United States assist the Kremlin in an attack on our democracy? And if Mueller, after two years, comes back and says, ‘I don’t have the evidence to support that charge,’ that’s a reckoning,” he said. “That’s a reckoning for progressives and Democrats who hoped that Mueller would essentially erase the 2016 election. It’s a reckoning for the media. It’s a reckoning across the country if in fact after all this time there was no collusion.”

Mueller is expected in the near future to send a confidential report on the Russia probe to Attorney General William Barr. A former FBI director, Mueller was appointed special counsel on May 17, 2017.

While the special counsel has indicted nearly three dozen individuals over those 22 months, no Trump associates have been indicted for conspiring with Russians to influence the 2016 election. Several Trump associates have been charged or pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI and Congress, but none have been accused of collusion.

Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman, was found guilty of financial crimes related to work he did for Ukraine years before he joined the Trump campaign.

Trump has insisted since the beginning of the investigation that there is “no collusion.” Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen recently undercut one of the main sources of the collusion conspiracy theory: the Steele dossier.

Cohen testified under oath to the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Feb. 27 that he did not visit Prague during the 2016 campaign, as former British spy Christopher Steele alleged in his dossier. Steele claimed that Cohen visited the Czech Republic capital in order to meet with Kremlin insiders to discuss making secret payments to hackers. (RELATED: Michael Cohen Puts Dagger In The Heart Of Steele Dossier)

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr also dealt Democrats a setback on the collusion front when he said in an interview published on Feb. 7 that his panel has not found evidence of collusion.

“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 told CBS.

As the case for collusion has seemingly weakened, Democrats have shifted their focus to other potential Trump crimes, including his business dealings and his role in directing Cohen to pay Stormy Daniels, the porn star who claims she had an affair with Trump in 2006.

Cohen pleaded guilty on Aug. 21, 2018 to making an illegal campaign contribution in the form of a $130,000 payment to Daniels. The former Trump fixer claims that Trump instructed him to make the payment. During his congressional testimony, Cohen produced checks signed by Trump and Trump Organization executives that he said were reimbursement for the Daniels payment.

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.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

The bombshell discovery that Michael Cohen privately met with House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff for a whopping 10 hours prior to testifying to Congress late last month has some convinced that the congressman coached him on what to say during his testimony. “[T]hat’s not just talking to someone about the logistics of their testimony,” Republican […]

TheHill

Published  1 month ago

Conservative author and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi filed a defamation lawsuit against Infowars and its founder Alex Jones on Thursday.

Corsi and his lawyer, conservative activist Larry Klayman, filed the claim against Jones, Jones’s father David Jones and Infowars host Owen Shroyer for allegedly “defaming, intimidating and threatening” them.

The lawsuit notes that Alex Jones said Corsi “seemed to be extremely mentally degraded to the point of what I would call dementia” and that Infowars guests often impugned Corsi's and Klayman’s character. The plaintiffs claim that the allegations have hit them in their wallets, costing them “financial support and sales.”

The plaintiffs noted that Infowars has used its widespread reach, with “a radio audience of over two million people” and a sophisticated digital operation, to spread conspiracy theories, including that the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting was staged and that Hillary and Bill Clinton were running a high-profile pedophile ring out of a Washington, D.C., restaurant.

Corsi too was a promoter of conspiracy theories, often highlighting the “birther” claim that former President Obama was not born in the U.S. He used to work for Alex Jones as Infowars’s Washington bureau chief but left the show last June.

However, Alex Jones has used his show to attack Corsi as special counsel Robert Mueller seeks Corsi’s testimony in his probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Mueller is investigating if Corsi connected the Trump campaign with WikiLeaks during the 2016 election and whether Roger Stone, a Trump associate and Infowars host, facilitated the connection.

The lawsuit cites attacks Stone made against Corsi and Klayman while hosting the show, including when Stone said Corsi has a “feeble, alcohol-affected memory” and said Klayman is “an egomaniac, and he could be the single worst lawyer in America.”

Mueller recently indicted Stone on one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering.

American Greatness

Published  1 month ago

Post by @theamgreatness.

CNBC

Published  1 month ago

Prosecutors have described what they believed was a "scheme" to help former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort get "cash" for his pro bono work on Trump's campaign.

realclearpolitics

Published  1 month ago

Two days after then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe formally put President Trump under criminal investigation in May 2017, bureau officials reached out to the author of the controversial

MAGAMEDIA

Published  1 month ago

On June 22nd 2017 General Michael Flynn was sworn in as the 25th National Security Adviser for the United States; a prestigious and important position that Flynn had earned after 33 years of service. Flynn was a 3-star Lieutenant General who was applauded as an ‘intelligence officer mastermind” on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan by Democrats and Republicans alike

After all his years of service and the countless sacrifices he made he is rewarded by being entrapped by the FBI and Andrew McCabe.

Flynn spoke to McCabe via phone call, and McCabe clearly made it sound like it was an ordinary national security briefing that Flynn was use to having. Even though McCabe knew Flynn was a suspect, he intentionally dissuaded Flynn from having a lawyer present.

Shortly after agents arrived, they talked to General Flynn like it was a routine informal meeting and did not warn him on the possible punishment of making a false statement. The agents were told not to inform Flynn he was under investigation at the direction of Andrew McCabe, claiming he wanted Flynn to be relaxed.

McCabe crossed the line and if anyone is guilty of anything it is Andrew Mccabe and James Comey for entrapment.

Absolutely disgusting after 33 years of service crooked James Comeys FBI intentionally and deliberately entrapped a decorated military general.

Flynn is not an overly rich man after decades on a military salary, and he pled guilty to lying to the FBI, in part, to avoid his own son also becoming a legal target in the partisan witch hunt.

In an act of arrogance and out of desperation to sell books, Comey went on TV and said :

“something I probably wouldn’t have done or wouldn’t have gotten away with in a more organized administration,” Mr. Comey boasted on MSNBC this weekend. “In the George W. Bush Administration or the Obama Administration, if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel, there would be discussions and approvals and who would be there. And I thought, it’s early enough let’s just send a couple guys over.”

Comey is a 6’8″ fired and failed FBI director that Democrats and Republicans alike called for his resignation and/or firing. I didn’t know they piled shit that high, but Comey is proof they do; absolutely no integrity and a national disgrace.

General Flynn finally appeared in court on December 18th and was lambasted by an uninformed judge who was overzealous he was on TV. The judge tried to make a show of it by threatening Flynn with jail time.

After the judge was filled in, he slightly backtracked and delayed his sentencing.

Shame on James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Robert Mueller and the cast of characters in that disastrous FBI for railroading an American hero. It makes millions of Americans sick who have rallied to show support for Flynn daily in a very powerful online movement.

Follow the hashtags #AllinforGeneralFlynn #clearFlynn #IstandwithFlynn throughout the week on Twitter and you will see the overwhelming love and support this great military hero garners from real life American Patriots.

I think I can speak for all American Patriots when we say we are disgusted by what has happened to General Flynn. We respect and admire his service and are aware the only reason he is caught up in this with hunt is because he worked for Donald Trump. It is way past time to #clearFlynn

American Greatness

Published  1 month ago

Post by @theamgreatness.

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

Democratic New York Rep. Jerry Nadler is leading House Democrats’ latest probe into Russia and President Donald Trump, but one of his campaign aides is now representing a man who was the head of a Russian propaganda arm, according to a report from The Daily Beast.

The report states the man’s name as Erza Fiedlander, who ran Nadler’s campaign outreach to the Orthodox Jewish community. Fiedlander is reportedly lobbying on behalf of the wife of Kirill Vyshinski, who is the director of RIA Novosti, a Russian propaganda outlet that was forced to register as a foreign agent in the United States last year.

Vyshinski was arrested in Ukraine last year, and is currently awaiting trial for alleged treason. The Ukranian government alleges that Vyshinski used his position to “illegally fomenting support for the Russian annexation of Crimea.” (RELATED: Jerry Nadler Accuses Jim Jordan Of Anti-Semitism Over Tweet Criticizing Tom Steyer, An Episcopalian)

The report states:

“Ezra Friedlander is a lobbyist and political consultant who runs outreach to the Orthodox Jewish community of behalf of New York Rep. Jerry Nadler’s campaign. He’s also a public-relations executive, and his newest client is the wife of Kirill Vyshinsky, the head of Russian media outlet RIA Novosti’s Ukrainian arm.”

Nadler is the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and recently opened a new investigation into Trump and the Trump organization, even as special counsel Robert Mueller appears poised to conclude in the near future, without evidence of collusion. Trump administration sources told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Wednesday that they believe the purpose of the investigation is to delegitimize Trump’s presidency.

“This was never about Russian collusion. This was never about Mueller. This was never about truth or justice. This was about taking down President Trump and nullifying the election. They still can’t get over the fact that Trump won the election and that the American people voted for him over Hillary,” a senior administration official told TheDCNF.

Nadler claimed Sunday that Trump was guilty of having “obstructed justice,” despite the Mueller investigation having not yet concluded.

“It’s very clear that the president obstructed justice,” Nadler said on ABC’s “This Week.” “1,100 times he referred to the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt. He tried to protect Michael Flynn from being investigated by the FBI. He fired Comey to stop the ‘Russia thing’ as he told NBC News. He’s dangled pardons. He’s intimidated witnesses in public.”

Follow William Davis on Twitter

The Daily Beast

Published  1 month ago

Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Getty

After it claimed no such document existed, the Justice Department just unearthed a letter Matt Whitaker delivered to the Utah U.S. attorney directing a review of how the department handled the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One issues.

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote the letter on Nov. 22, 2017 for Utah U.S. Attorney John Huber. Matt Whitaker, who was Sessions’ chief of staff at the time, emailed the letter to Huber that day, writing, “As we discussed.” He also sent Huber a copy of a letter the Justice Department’s Congressional affairs chief sent to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Nov. 13 of that year.

The existence of a letter documenting Sessions’ directive that the DOJ revisit probes of Trump’s top political foe is a surprise because a department lawyer said in court last year that senior officials insisted it didn’t exist. The liberal nonprofit American Oversight obtained the letter through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request they filed on Nov. 22, 2017––the same day Whitaker emailed Sessions’ letter to Huber.

The request asked for documentation of the directions Sessions gave Huber about the review of the Clinton investigations. After DOJ failed to produce any written directions, American Oversight sued.

And on Nov. 16, 2018, Senior Counsel in the Office of Information Policy Vanessa Brinkmann, who handles FOIA Requests, said a lawyer in Sessions’ office told her no such letter existed. That lawyer spoke with Huber and Whitaker, she said in a declaration filed in federal court, and then told her that “when the Attorney General directed Mr. Huber to evaluate these matters, no written guidance or directives were issued to Mr. Huber in connection with this directive, either by the Attorney General, or by other senior leadership office staff.”

That wasn’t correct. On Wednesday of this week, a DOJ lawyer told American Oversight that they had found the document that kicked off Huber’s work.

The letter, which American Oversight provided to The Daily Beast, is consistent with what the DOJ’s chief of legislative affairs has told Congress: that Huber is scrutinizing the sale of a Canadian uranium mining company with interests in the United States to Rosatom, a Russian state-owned company. Republicans have long alleged that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declined to oppose the deal because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

BEAST INSIDE

The DOJ hasn’t brought any charges related to the foundation or the transaction. Some Hill Republicans and conservative media commentators have long argued this is because the Department hasn’t sufficiently investigated it. They have called for the appointment of a special counsel to scrutinize the transaction.

Sessions didn’t bite. Instead, he directed Huber to review what the Department had done regarding the matter. Huber’s work has drawn significant interest but—unlike Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian influence during the 2016 election—there is scant public information about what fruits, if any, it has borne.

Some Republicans say Huber’s work is too little, too late. Democrats, meanwhile, argue it’s evidence of the Trump administration weaponizing law enforcement to target its political rivals.

“‘Lock her up’ was wrong at campaign rallies, and it’s even worse coming from the Department of Justice,” said Austin Evers, who heads American Oversight. “Even after this long, it’s still deeply shocking to see the black and white proof that Jeff Sessions caved to President Trump’s worst authoritarian impulses and ordered a wide-ranging investigation of his political opponents based on demands from Congress instead of the facts and the law.”

“It strains credulity to believe that the Justice Department didn’t know about this letter when they swore under penalty of perjury that it didn’t exist–you don’t exactly forget about a formal directive to investigate Hillary Clinton signed by Jeff Sessions,” he added.

“The fact that they only ‘found’ it the same week Matthew Whitaker was heading for the exit makes it hard to see DOJ’s previous denial as anything but a deliberate attempt to conceal the extent to which President Trump’s authoritarian demands were being put into action. The authoritarian instinct in the Trump administration needs to be investigated. Sessions and Whitaker shouldn’t escape accountability by skipping town.”

Reached for comment, a DOJ spokesperson said Huber’s review is still underway.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Senior Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr told congressional investigators in August 2018 that his wife, Nellie Ohr, who worked for Fusion GPS and was tasked with obtaining opposition research against then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016, gave him a flash drive of her research on the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Ohr admitted to investigators, […]

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Trump's campaign chairman Paul Manafort received a light sentence of under four years because the judge was biased against special counsel Robert Mueller, according to a lawyer who defended a former congressman who was put away for 13 years for similar crimes.

Michael Fawer was an attorney for William Jefferson, the former Louisiana congressman in the infamous "cold cash" case. Jefferson, nicknamed "Dollar Bill," was found by the FBI with $90,000 stashed in his freezer and was found guilty of leveraging his public office to solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in West Africa.

In 2009, Jefferson, now 71, received a sentence of 13 years from Judge T.S. Ellis, who gave Manafort just 47 months. With nine months already served, Manafort could be out in less than two years if he is treated with similar leniency by Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is presiding over a separate case in Washington, D.C.

The light sentence for Manafort, 69 — federal guidelines indicated he would get between 19 and 24 years — prompted a wave of commentary that he had been treated with particular indulgence because he was a wealthy, white male living in the Washington, D.C., suburbs. Jefferson is black and represented impoverished New Orleans.

"How do you square Jefferson’s 13-year sentence with Manafort’s four years?" asked Fawer. "You can’t." Fawer, who represented Jefferson for most of his case, told the Washington Examiner: "I found the Manafort sentence inordinately light, to say the least. My view of Judge Ellis in the Manafort case is that he had antipathy toward the special counsel, and he took that out in the case."

During Manafort's trial last year, Ellis harshly questioned the motivation of the government's attorneys, representing Mueller, in his investigation which initially focused on whether there was collusion between Russia and the Trump but subsequently broadened into a range of other areas.

“You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud … What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment,” Ellis said at one point.

Fawer, who represented Jefferson for years before handing the case over when it reached trial before Ellis, said: "Ellis should’ve recused himself because of the comments he made during the trial. I think he went into the case with a predilection, and that showed up in the sentencing. He was either not a fan of this special counsel or of special counsels in general."

Jefferson represented Louisiana’s 2nd Congressional District from 1991 until he lost reelection in 2008 under a cloud of corruption. The FBI raided his home in 2005 and, controversially, his congressional office in 2006. Their investigations uncovered schemes involving extensive bribery efforts in West Africa, where the congressman was using his position to influence policies that would be favorable to businesses he was extracting bribes from.

In 2009, a jury convicted him on 11 charges, including conspiracy, bribery, wire fraud, and a RICO violation. The government’s sentencing guidelines called for “approximately 27 to 33 years of imprisonment” — but Ellis sentenced him to 13. This was still the biggest sentence that any congressman had ever received for reason for crimes committed while in office. Almost all of it would be reversed when a Supreme Court ruling pressured Ellis to vacate many of the convictions after Jefferson had been in prison for five years.

Manafort was convicted in Virginia on five tax fraud charges, two bank fraud charges, and one charge of hiding foreign bank accounts. The special counsel’s office claimed that Manafort’s financial crimes included more than $16 million in unreported income, $6 million in unpaid federal taxes, and $55 million hidden in foreign bank accounts.

During the sentencing for Jefferson in 2009, Ellis said that “public corruption is a cancer that needs to be surgically removed.” He also said he hoped the Jefferson ruling would serve as a “beacon” to prevent further public corruption — mirroring language he used in his Manafort ruling, saying: “I hope this ruling is a beacon to warn others not to hide income overseas to avoid paying taxes.”

In 2016, the Supreme Court overturned former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s conviction on public corruption charges, limiting the scope of what “official acts” by public officials meant. The Supreme Court's ruling encompassed many of Jefferson's convictions, forcing Ellis to reconsider the case. Taking the higher court ruling into account, Ellis ruled in 2017 that some of what he’d been convicted on no longer rose to the definition of “official acts.”

Ellis vacated most of Jefferson’s convictions in October 2017 and, following a new sentencing hearing in December 2017, the remaining charges. Jefferson would walk free after a five-year stint behind bars.

Fawer pointed out: "Ellis eventually reduced Jefferson's jail time and let him out of prison, which was nice. But when he reduced Jefferson’s sentence, he had no alternative. He was forced to reduce it unless he was going to go against the Supreme Court. What is more telling is the 13 years he originally gave Jefferson. Thirteen years for something the Supreme Court would rule was not even a crime."

Seeking to head off critics of his Manafort sentencing, Ellis said: “I think what I’ve done is sufficiently punitive — and anyone who disagrees should try spend a day in a federal penitentiary. And Mr. Manafort is spending 47 months there.”

Fawer said Manafort wasn't out of the woods, and the sentencing in D.C. next week by Jackson spelled trouble for him. "Ultimately, it’s Judge Jackson who is going to decide this. D.C. is where the story is really going to be told. And I don’t think four years in prison is all Manafort is going to get."

He was scathing about Ellis: "His original sentence for Jefferson was 13 years. What is it that Jefferson did that was somehow so much worse than what Manafort did?" And Ellis said that Manafort had led an 'otherwise blameless life' prior to all this? A blameless life as a long-time criminal? Come on. And I say this as a defense attorney."

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

If Hillary Clinton is not still bitter about losing the 2016 presidential election, she sure has a hard time concealing it. While in Norway, Clinton proclaimed to the crowd that the "entire world" has a

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley claimed that special counsel Robert Mueller quoted selectively from Trump campaign emails in court filings in the case against George Papadopoulos.

In a “statement of offense” in the Papadopoulos case, Mueller suggested the Trump campaign wanted a “low-level” campaign staffer to meet with Russian government officials.

Grassley claims other campaign emails provide additional context showing that the Trump team wanted a campaign aide merely to reject offers to meet with Russians.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley pressed special counsel Robert Mueller regarding the “selective use” of emails in court filings in the case against former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.

In a letter sent Friday to Attorney General William Barr, Grassley referred to a letter he sent Mueller on Nov. 16, 2017, two weeks after prosecutors revealed that Papadopoulos had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

Grassley said that prosecutors’ “statement of offense” against Papadopoulos quoted selectively from campaign emails in a way that suggested that the Trump campaign wanted a low-level staffer to meet with Russians.

“In addition, on November 16, 2017, the Committee wrote to Special Counsel Mueller regarding the selective use of emails in the George Papadopoulos Statement of Offense,” reads the letter from Grassley, who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee when he sent the missive to Mueller.

The Iowa Republican said other campaign emails showed that the Trump team merely wanted a campaign aide to reject offers to meet with Russia.

“As one example, in the absence of additional context, news outlets have seized on the fragment cited in the Statement’s footnote to suggest that a Trump ‘Campaign official suggested ‘low level’ staff should go to Russia,'” Grassley wrote in his letter Friday, citing a CNN article that interpreted the Papadopoulos filing as possible evidence that President Donald Trump’s campaign encouraged staffers to meet with Russians.

The statement of offense quoted from a May 21, 2016 email that Papadopoulos sent to Trump campaign official Sam Clovis with the subject line “Request from Russia to meet Mr. Trump.”

“Russia has been eager to meet Mr. Trump for quite sometime and have been reaching out to me to discuss,” wrote Papadopoulos.

According to Mueller’s filing, Clovis forwarded the email to another campaign official, writing: “Let[‘]s discuss. We need someone to communicate that [Trump] is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the campaign so as not to send any signal.” (RELATED: A London Meeting Before The Election Aroused George Papadopoulos’s Suspicions)

“In full context, the emails in question actually show that the Trump Campaign wanted someone ‘low level’ to decline these types of invitations,” Grassley wrote.

Papadopoulos, who was sentenced to 14 days in jail on Sept. 7, 2018 for making false statements to the FBI, did contact his Trump campaign bosses about potential meetings with Russians. He promoted the idea after meeting Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor who claimed to have links to the Russian government.

Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in the special counsel’s case on Oct. 5, 2017 to lying to the FBI months earlier about his interactions with Mifsud. Prosecutors said that Papadopoulos lied when he claimed to have met Mifsud before joining the Trump campaign in March 2016.

Papadopoulos did tell the FBI that Mifsud claimed during a meeting in London in April 2016 that he had learned that Russia had “thousands” of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The FBI would open its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign based on a tip about Papadopoulos that had been provided by the Australian government. Alexander Downer, the top Australian diplomat to the U.K., claimed that Papadopoulos told him during a meeting in London on May 10, 2016 that Russia had information that could harm Clinton’s campaign.

Papadopoulos’ light sentence in the Mueller probe has been widely interpreted as a clue that prosecutors do not believe he colluded with Russia or handled any of Clinton’s emails.

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.

The Daily Beast

Published  1 month ago

Mueller’s team and congressional investigators have looked into a meeting in the Seychelles between allies of Trump and Putin. Now we have the Russian read-out of what was said.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 month ago

Former prosecutor Glenn Kirschner warned Donald Trump on Saturday that Robert Mueller is about to drop a “collusion bomb” on the White House.

In an interview on MSNBC, Kirschner said his experience as a prosecutor combined with all the public reporting has convinced him that justice is coming for the president.

“Everybody has confused Mueller’s silence on the question of conspiracy and collusion with an absence of evidence of conspiracy,” the former prosecutor said. “The collusion bomb is coming.”

.@glennkirschner2 says people shouldn’t confuse Mueller’s silence with a lack of evidence. #ctl #p2 pic.twitter.com/7ZoYQvpq4D

— PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) March 9, 2019

Kirschner said:

After spending 30 years as a prosecutor, the evidence that I have seen, even in the public reporting, tells me that there was a conspiracy between the campaign and Russia. We’ve seen it over and over again, then there were all sorts of acts undertaken that obstructed justice, that tried to prevent the evidence of that conspiracy coming to light. So everybody has confused Mueller’s silence on the question of conspiracy and collusion with an absence of evidence of conspiracy. … The collusion bomb is coming and you know what? Mueller is so strategic in what he’s doing, I don’t think he wanted to tip his hands on collusion. I don’t think he wanted to, for example, indict one of the president’s children for some of the crimes they committed because that may have resulted in Trump trying to shut things down.

Glenn Kirschner’s bold prediction that Mueller still has a “collusion bomb” up his sleeve comes after he said on Twitter this week that he believes a “conspiracy indictment is coming.”

“Bank on it,” he said.

Don’t despair at today’s horrific injustice at the hands of Judge Ellis. The conspiracy indictment is coming, IMO. Don’t confuse Mueller’s silence on the conspiracy front with a lack of evidence of conspiracy. #JusticeIsComing. Bank on it. https://t.co/CpoB25jU5W

— Glenn Kirschner (@glennkirschner2) March 8, 2019

As many Americans wait for the Mueller report to be released – it could come as early as this week – they have grown impatient by its deliberateness and by the fact that the special counsel has kept its cards so close to the vest.

Trump supporters and critics alike have speculated that this means Mueller might not have much dirt related to collusion after all.

But as Kirschner said on Saturday, the silence coming from Mueller’s office and the fact that the special counsel hasn’t, for example, indicted any of Trump’s family members isn’t because they lack evidence.

Instead, a seasoned investigator like Mueller is likely holding his major bombshells until the end, when it would be too late for Trump to shut down the investigation, even if he wanted to.

Raw Story

Published  1 month ago

Senior White House advisor Jared Kushner was slammed on Saturday for being “the greatest domestic danger to America.” It started with a Twitter thread by University of New Hampshire professor and Newsweek columnist Seth Abramson. Legendary constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe saw the thread, and said, “I’m with Seth Abramson here.” “Smarmy, slimy, smiling Jared Kushner of 666 Fifth Avenue is the beating heart of this unprecedentedly corrupt and deeply evil administration,” Tribe charged. Professor […]

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Media coverage of longtime Democratic lobbyist Tony Podesta has disappeared completely an astonished Glenn Greenwald remarked last week.

"I'm still somewhat mystified about how Tony Podesta - intimately involved in many of Paul Manafort's slimiest and most unscrupulous practices (because K Street sleaze is 100% bipartisan) - has just vanished from the news cycle and, apparently, legal jeopardy," the Intercept journalist said along with the hashtag "MissingTonyPodesta."

Greenwald, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who broke the story of U.S. mass surveillance aided by former Central Intelligence Agency analyst Edward Snowden, has been highly critical of Russia investigation coverage and the Democrats' role in fueling it.

His Twitter observation about Podesta, the founder of the now-shuttered Podesta Group and brother to former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, came ahead of the widely covered sentencing of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who got less than four years behind bars for eight financial crimes, including bank fraud, tax fraud, and failure to disclose a foreign bank account.

Indeed reporting on fresh developments in the Podesta case have been sparse in recent months while the media's focus on the Russia investigation and inquires into President Trump remains intensive and widespread.

Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Manafort led to the review of Podesta and his work for his former firm, the Podesta Group, and other lobbyists. Manafort's and Podesta's firms worked together in a public relations campaign for the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU) nonprofit, which is believed to be backed by the pro-Russian and oligarch-funded Ukrainian political group, Party of Regions.

Podesta resigned from his lobbying company in October 2017 in response to the investigation of the firm, which closed by the end of that year.

In July 2018, CNN reported the cases involving the work of Podesta, former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig, and former Minnesota Republican Rep. Vin Weber were among those referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The inquiries involved whether lobbyists and operatives failed to register their work as foreign agents.

That followed an uncorroborated report from Fox News' Tucker Carlson earlier in July that Podesta had been offered immunity by Mueller to testify against Manafort.

T.S. Ellis III, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and serves on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, sentenced Manafort on Thursday to less than four years in prison, defying a requested prison term of 19 to 24 years by Mueller. Manafort's light sentence could be extended next week in a Washington, D.C., federal court in an illegal lobbying case.

The Intercept

Published  1 month ago

The controversial “super mercenary” arranged a secret meeting in Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. and apparently didn’t tell Congress.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Guest post by Joe Hoft The FBI leadership under the Obama Administration took many actions that deviated from standard practice and/or were corrupt and/or criminal in their efforts to exonerate Hillary from her crimes and then spy and frame candidate and then President Trump.  Today current members of the FBI are embarrassed to even turn […]

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

Former Trump aide Michael Caputo slammed the latest round of investigations by Democrats and said he is taking a stand against their “fishing expedition.”

The Republican strategist told Fox News’ Dana Perino on “The Daily Briefing” that he thought, with Robert Mueller’s report expected soon as he is reportedly wrapping up his Russia probe, he and his family could “hit play again” after having their lives on pause for two years.

“But now with Chairman Nadler’s fishing expedition, it looks like it’s all starting back up again,” he said, adding that he has over $200,000 in legal fees due to being “hauled in to testify before two other congressional committees and investigators working for Special Counsel Robert Mueller.”

Caputo is one of over 80 people and entities contacted by the House Judiciary Committee this past week in order to provide testimony or hand over documents as part of a sprawling investigation launched by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. to find anything on President Trump, targeting even the president’s family,

Caputo, who worked for Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016, told MacCallum that his legal team informed the committee that he had none of the documents requested.

“I had none of the documents they were looking for. I was nowhere near any of that stuff, if it happened, when it happened,” he said. “It’s not just a document request. Comply with the document request, I did, I think everybody will, but they intend to invite everyone to testify. This is going to be a long summer.”

“Everything on my document request and most of the document requests I read, because they’re all online, it was already discussed ad nauseum in the House Intelligence Committee when I testified there for $30,000,” he added.

Caputo also addressed the Nadler investigations in an opinion piece for Fox News, calling out “yet another bogus Russia investigation, this time by the new Democratic majority in the House.”

“I know the signs of a sideshow,” he wrote, “and delivering demand letters to reporters before they go to the person being asked to produce documents is one of the chief signs.”

“This Russia Collusion Delusion has gone on long enough,” Caputo tweeted Friday with a link to a video from Scott Adams, the author and creator of the Dilbert comic strip.

I’m humbled to have the support of @ScottAdamsSays, a guy I deeply respect. This Russia Collusion Delusion has gone on long enough. I’ve testified 3 times. Somebody has to be the first to take a stand. For the sake of my family – for 81 families – it might as well be me. #MAGA pic.twitter.com/lpNE29Pjul

— StillStandingPodcast.com (@MichaelRCaputo) March 8, 2019

“I always say there’s no such thing as a slippery slope. At some point, resistance appears,” Adams said. “Maybe this is it. Maybe Caputo’s stand is what gives other people a little backbone.”

Caputo maintained, “I’ve witnessed nothing. I have no documents,” exposing the latest move by Democrats for what it is.

“The Judiciary Committee investigation is designed for one result: to produce evidence to help impeach the president of the United States,” Caputo wrote, slamming the “perjury trap” game being played.

Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano noted this week that Democrats are “looking for anything they can find” on Trump and are engaged in what is “almost literally a witch hunt.”

Fox News’ Judge Napolitano sides with Trump on Dem mega-probe: it’s ‘almost literally a witch hunt’ https://t.co/NgnFomNMmr pic.twitter.com/41hBe8eq6y

— Conservative News (@BIZPACReview) March 6, 2019

“After enduring six-figure legal costs that I was only able to pay with GoFundMe donations from 8,500 people – no big donor aid, no campaign help, no Patriot Fund assistance – I am reticent to stand alone in defiance of the committee and rack up far more legal bills. But I might, if others among the 81 join me,” Caputo declared.

“This charade has gone on long enough. Somebody has to be the first to take a stand,” he concluded. “For the sake of my family – for 81 families – it might as well be me.”

U.S.

Published  1 month ago

Only a small number of Americans have not yet made up their minds about whether Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign coordinated with Russian officials, according to new Reuters/Ipsos polling, w...

Gingrich 360

Published  1 month ago

Speaker Nancy Pelosi – and the old guard Democrats at large – are in a very difficult position.

The radical young voters the Democrats have been courting for years have finally elected like-minded radical young representatives – and Pelosi and her leadership team has no control over them.

A big reason why, as I mentioned on Hannity this week, is that there is a wide generational gap between Democratic House leadership and freshmen Democrats, such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and others.

The median year of birth for the 59 Democrats who assumed office this year is 1973. Sixteen of these members were born on or after 1980. Nancy Pelosi was born in 1940. The average age of Democratic leadership as a whole is 71. To the new Democrats, the members of leadership are like the grandparents. I don’t mean this in a positive way that could foster an opportunity for maternal or paternal mentorships. To the new Democrats, Pelosi’s team represents an outdated, backward way of thinking about government. How many 30-somethings do you know who share the same point of view as their 80-year-old grandparents?

The result is, these new Democrats are throwing a party – and the grandparents aren’t invited. Pelosi and members of Democratic leadership are simply trapped in a cycle of responding to headlines. This is how you end up with the so-called Green New Deal, which is a work of complete legislative fantasy that would utterly bankrupt the country. It’s also how the House got to a second forced public condemnation of the new Democrats’ flagrant anti-Semitism. Pelosi simply can’t control the young, radical, progressive wing, which is ardently socialist, anti-Israel, and contemptuous of America and its history.

This gap will continue to create massive cross-pressure in the party. For the Democrats who represent moderate districts – perhaps districts that voted for President Trump – the radical left-wing of the party is terrifying. Meanwhile, those who represent radical districts are going to continue having their party and continue to ignore the old guard.

This is not at aberration. The new class of Democrats despise Pelosi and the grandparents. The old guard has failed to create the radically progressive, socialist America that the new guard wants. This phenomenon has some similarities with conservative voters who widely rejected establishment Republicans and the liberal voters who rejected Hillary Clinton in the 2016 primary.

Already, because of Pelosi’s inability to control her caucus, the Democrats can’t do anything positive. It’s making them desperate. The most they can do is focus their efforts on their shared vendetta against President Trump and everyone in his orbit.

The 81 subpoenas that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler levied against Trump allies – many of whom are private citizens who never intended or wanted to become public figures – is a perfect example of this desperation. Democrats are slowly realizing – with dawning horror – that Robert Mueller is not likely to provide them anything close to a smoking gun in their crusade against the President, so they are resorting to punishing his political campaign, family members, and longtime private sector employees in a vindictive public display. They are seeking to hurt anyone and everyone who has helped President Trump in any way. At best, it’s a gross political circus. At worst, it’s callous abuse of power.

These divides in the Democratic Party are only going to become more pronounced as Pelosi’s grip slips further. The new Democrats’ private party will become increasingly raucous until it has lost all touch with normal Americans. Moderate Democrats will have to continue answering for their colleague’s radicalism. Pelosi and the grandparents will not be invited along, but they will still be left cleaning up the mess.

National Review

Published  1 month ago

He is a scoundrel, but he was never a Kremlin operative.

the Guardian

Published  1 month ago

Creators of firms that donated revealed by Guardian as Indian financier, lobbyist with links to Taiwan and Israeli real estate developer

Heavy.com

Published  1 month ago

T. S. Ellis III is a federal judge based in Virginia who questioned special prosecutor Robert Mueller's scope in the Paul Manafort case.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reignited the investigation into alleged Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse on Thursday, demanding from the Justice Department a wide array of documentation related to the surveillance of Carter Page and other members of the 2016 Trump campaign.

The latest salvo in a long-running fight for access to documents, the GOP-led, bicameral effort was weakened when the Democrats ensnared control of the House with no intention of continuing the hunt. But Republican leaders see new hope in new Attorney General William Barr.

In a letter addressed to Barr, who took over the DOJ last month, Graham made targeted document requests that he said will help his committee determine whether proper procedure was ignored when the FBI made its case for FISA warrants to wiretap Page and other Trump campaign officials.

"[T]he Committee is concerned that the Woods procedures and a full presentment of material and relevant facts may not have occurred with regard to the applications for FISA warrants for (and the opening of the underlying investigations on) Carter Page and other individuals associated with the presidential campaign of Donald Trump,” Graham wrote.

Enacted in 2001, the Woods Procedures were intended to protect U.S. citizens from improper surveillance by the government, seeking to "ensure accuracy with regard to the facts supporting probable cause."

Graham expressed optimism in Barr during the confirmation process after meeting with him, saying in January, “I'm going to do a deep dive into the FISA issue, I think he'll be part of it."

Graham, along with other Republicans, have been engaged in a push for documents on the FISA process for years, pointing to the use of the so-called Trump dossier, which contained unverified claims about Trump's ties to Russia, by government officials to gain spy authority.

In the summer of 2017, Graham and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, asked DOJ and FBI leaders for all applications by the FBI to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court regarding its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections. That followed a report by The Guardian in January of that year that said the FBI applied for a FISA warrant to monitor four members of Trump's then-campaign team "suspected of irregular contact with Russian officials" that was then turned down by the court.

Last February, the House Intelligence Committee, then led by Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., released a memo asserting the so-called Trump dossier, which contained unverified claims about Trump's ties to Russia, was used by the FBI to help obtain the FISA warrants to spy on Page, but key information, including its author's anti-Trump bias and Democratic benefactors, was left out. Democrats argued in a rebuttal memo that the FISA process was not abused and the GOP allegations were meant to discredit special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

In declassifying the GOP memo that same month, the White House said it "raises serious concerns about the integrity of decisions made at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and the FBI to use the government’s most intrusive surveillance tools against American citizens."

Among Graham's demands in his letter to Barr are the disclosure of documents related to the “Woods file” in the Page case, efforts to verify the various claims in the dossier, and the extent of the dossier's role in the FBI's FISA applications to spy on Page.

The author of the dossier, British ex-spy Christopher Steele, also is mentioned. Graham seeks all documents and communications related to Steele's contacts with the media.

The letter additionally targets "302" interview reports with DOJ official Bruce Ohr, who has emerged as being Steele's backchannel to the FBI in supplying the contents of his research, and any other official who received information from outside the government that appeared in the Page FISA applications.

Rounding out Graham's nine-point list is a push for records about any defensive briefings offered and given to 2016 presidential candidates as well as documents shared with the "Gang of Eight" in May 2018 related to the federal Russia investigation.

Graham's letter, which is copied to Judiciary ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and FBI Director Christopher Wray, says the deadline for the documents is March 21.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 month ago

Former prosecutor Glenn Kirschner tore into Republican-appointed judge T.S. Ellis III on Thursday for ignoring Robert Mueller’s sentencing guidelines and instead of giving Paul Manafort a light sentence of just 47 months.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, Kirschner slammed Ellis, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, for ignoring the big picture – that Manafort was essentially using his position with the Trump campaign to “get whole with the Russians” – and letting him off with a light sentence.

“As a former prosecutor, I’m embarrassed. As an American, I’m upset,” Kirschner said. “It’s an outrage and disrespectful of the American people.”

.@glennkirschner2 says he is shocked by the light sentence given to Paul Manafort. #ctl #p2 pic.twitter.com/MdZhDRMoa9

— PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) March 8, 2019

Kirschner said:

As a former prosecutor, I’m embarrassed. As an American, I’m upset. Because what did we hear Paul Manafort say after he landed the position as Trump’s campaign chairman? ‘How do I use this to get whole with the Russians?’ And a Judge Ellis will basically throw that out the window in favor of giving him a sentence that is so far below the guidelines that it is an outrage. Just as proud as I was to be in the courtroom when Judge Emmit Sullivan called out Mike Flynn for being a traitor to the country and disrespecting everything the flag stands for, I am just as disappointed with Judge Ellis who apparently knows better than the guidelines sentencing commission who said for these crimes this man deserves 19 to 24 years and he said 47 months. It’s an outrage and disrespectful of the American people.

Not only is Manafort’s sentencing disappointing, but it highlights the two justice systems that exist in America depending on wealth and race.

Public Scott Hechinger highlighted the disparities in the U.S. justice system in a tweet posted after Manafort’s sentence was announced:

For context on Manafort’s 47 months in prison, my client yesterday was offered 36-72 months in prison for stealing $100 worth of quarters from a residential laundry room.

— Scott Hechinger (@ScottHech) March 8, 2019

While the light sentence comes as a shock to most people following this case, justice can still be adequately served for Paul Manafort.

As I noted a short time after Manafort’s sentencing, the former Trump campaign manager will not face such a sympathetic judge next week when Judge Amy Berman Jackson of Washington D.C. sentences him for two conspiracy charges which face a combined maximum of 10 years in prison.

And while Thursday’s sentence was far too light, it’s hard to call it good news for the White House.

As MSNBC producer Kyle Griffin said on Thursday, this shouldn’t be reported as a win for Donald Trump when tomorrow’s headlines will read that his former campaign manager was sentenced to nearly four years in prison and could face even more next week.

Rantt

Published  1 month ago

Judge T.S. Ellis’s lenient sentencing highlights the disparities between how white collar crime is treated and crimes committed by those less privileged.

Today, Judge T.S. Ellis sentenced former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort to 47 months in prison. Manafort’s crimes included 8 counts (5 tax fraud, 2 bank fraud, and 1 of hiding foreign accounts). Special Counsel Robert Mueller recommended 19-24 years in prison given the nature of the crimes, which involved lobbying for foreign dictators and committing financial fraud. In spite of decades of criminal conduct, Judge Ellis claimed that Manafort lived “an otherwise blameless life.”

Paul Manafort also violated his plea agreement in his DC trial. The charges are conspiracy against the U.S. and conspiracy to obstruct justice. Judge Amy Berman Jackson will rule on this next week and Manafort could face an additional 10 years. Manafort showed no remorse for his crimes and later witness tampered to try and cover them up.

Legal experts consider Manafort’s sentencing for fraud charges of this nature to be incredibly lenient. Brooklyn Public Defender Scott Hechinger outlines just how lenient Paul Manafort’s sentence is by comparing it to other crimes:

For context on Manafort’s 47 months in prison, my client yesterday was offered 36-72 months in prison for stealing $100 worth of quarters from a residential laundry room.

— Scott Hechinger (@ScottHech) March 8, 2019

3 years ago, in the court in which I work, a Brooklyn teenager was sentenced to 19 years (15 more than Manafort) for setting a mattress on fire that inadvertently lead to the death of a responding officer for smoke inhalation. https://t.co/WAbvwG4mxp

— Scott Hechinger (@ScottHech) March 8, 2019

15 years in prison for drug possession. You shouldn’t need more info than that to be outraged. But then learn: Juanita is a mother of 6. Her 18 year old is now head of household. Raising 5 kids. Crime is not even a felony in Oklahoma anymore. pic.twitter.com/nybkR9jHnY

— Scott Hechinger (@ScottHech) March 8, 2019

Manafort was sentenced to less than a woman who voted while on probation without knowing she wasn’t allowed to. She was sentenced to 5 years. https://t.co/oDyhH8K0bJ

— Scott Hechinger (@ScottHech) March 8, 2019

16-year-old Kalief Browder was jailed on Rikers for 3.5 years, *pretrial,* for allegedly stealing a backpack. Committed suicide when released. City just settled for a paltry $3.3 million. Meanwhile cash bail still exists, Rikers still open, & 89% jailed there are Black or Latino. pic.twitter.com/cFFoUOCVvo

— Scott Hechinger (@ScottHech) March 8, 2019

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.

Opinion // Criminal Justice / Paul Manafort / Special Counsel

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Christopher Steele (L), Bruce Ohr (C), Fusion GPS’s Glenn Simpson (R) Once again Judicial Watch is doing the heavy lifting. Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Thursday it obtained 339 pages of very heavily redacted records from the DOJ that show former top Justice Department official Bruce Ohr regularly communicating with former British spy and […]

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Old guard House Democrats and radical Democratic lawmakers young enough to be their grandchildren are locked in a power struggle.

Truthdig: Expert Reporting, Current News, Provocative Columnists

Published  1 month ago

Corporate media are towing a dangerous propaganda line about the Trump administration's intentions in Venezuela. When will we learn?

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on Thursday was sentenced to 47 months in prison after a federal jury in Virginia convicted him on eight counts of bank and tax fraud last year.

Manafort’s conviction in August made him the first campaign associate of Trump found guilty by a jury as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis emphasized ahead of sentencing that the Manafort case is not about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

HOW PAUL MANAFORT IS CONNECTED TO TRUMP, RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

Manafort, who has been dealing with health issues, looked unwell as he entered the courtroom in a wheelchair. He told Ellis the last two years have been the most difficult he and his family have ever experienced, and appeared to choke up a bit as he told the judge he appreciated the trial that has been conducted.

Prosecutors said Manafort, 69, hid income earned from political work overseas from the IRS while fraudulently obtaining millions in bank loans. Manafort had pleaded not guilty to all 18 counts in the case.

He is still facing additional years in prison from another case: After his conviction in Virginia, Manafort pleaded guilty in Washington to foreign lobbying violations and witness tampering as part of a plea deal with prosecutors. He has not yet been sentenced in that case, and Mueller’s team recently asked a federal judge to sentence him to 24 years in prison and order him to pay as much as a $24 million fine.

But his hopes for a reduced sentence in the Washington case may be in jeopardy after a federal judge recently found that he lied to Mueller’s team in response to some, but not all, of their inquiries. The ruling voids his plea deal and exposes Manafort, at a minimum, to a harsher sentence.

There’s been speculation that the president, who has expressed sympathy for Manafort, could pardon him former campaign chairman. “I feel very badly for Paul Manafort,” Trump said in August.

Defense attorneys for Manafort have suggested that Mueller’s team had improperly ensnared their client in its probe, as the case did not have anything to do with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

The prosecution’s star witness, Rick Gates — Manafort’s former business partner who struck a plea deal to cooperate with the government — testified during the trial that he and Manafort committed bank and tax fraud together.

Fox News’ Jake Gibson and Meghan Welsh contributed to this report.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Prosecutors in a case brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team asked a federal judge on Thursday to withhold 3.2 million "sensitive" documents from the Russian company Concord Management LLC because of national security and law enforcement concerns.

During a court hearing in Washington, U.S. government prosecutors told U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich there are about 3.2 million documents that no employee or officer of Concord Management LLC should be allowed to view outside of the United States as part of the discovery process.

RUSSIAN COMPANY, ACCUSED IN MUELLER PROBE OF BEING TROLL FARM, PLEADS NOT GUILTY

Tuesday's hearing was chiefly an argument over how to handle millions of documents the government considers "sensitive" to national security and law enforcement matters.

Mueller has indicted Concord Management, and a number of its employees, for attempting to meddle in the 2016 presidential election.

Mueller's office said much of the discovery information they have provided to lawyers for Concord so far in the case has ended up on the internet as part of a "disinformation campaign" against Mueller’s Russia investigation. But the special counsel's office stopped short of accusing Concord of leaking the discovery information to the Russian-linked twitter accounts behind the disinformation campaign.

Prosecutor Jonathan Kravitz told Friedrich it would be permissible for individual documents among the 3.2 million to be viewed by employees of Concord Management. But he argued the entire set of documents could reveal the investigation techniques the government used to acquire them.

Friedrich said the burden is on the government to cull the documents and provide the defense with a subset of documents they could share with their client in an effort to mount a defense.

"It's hard for me to weigh competing interests about documents in the abstract," Friedrich said, noting the government has only provided the defense about 500 documents so far. "Five hundred versus three point two million... this is heavily on the government's side."

Another complicating factor is that one of Concord's senior officers, Yevgeny Peigozhin, is under indictment and would likely be arrested if he set foot in the United States.

Government prosecutors are insisting that the only way anyone from Concord should be allowed to view any of the sensitive documents would be at the Washington offices of Reed Smith, the defense attorney's law firm.

Defense attorney Eric Dubelier called that provision a "non-starter" and alluded to a plan he had proposed in a sealed filing.

At another point in the proceedings the idea of showing the evidence to certain employees of Concord via a videoconference between Washington and Russia was floated, but government prosecutors strongly resisted that scenario.

The rest of the hearing was sealed and the public was removed from the courtroom.

No trial date has been set in the Concord case and Dubelier hinted that there may be much more "complicated evidentiary issues" to get through before trial.

A federal grand jury last year indicted 13 Russians and three Russian companies for allegedly interfering in the election, in a case brought by Mueller that detailed a sophisticated plot to wage “information warfare” against the U.S.

Concord Management was among those entities.

When Concord Management pleaded not guilty last year, Dubelier said in court, “The government has indicted the proverbial Ham sandwich.”

Jake Gibson is a producer working at the Fox News Washington bureau who covers politics, law enforcement and intelligence issues.

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

'Thanks for that, old friend... Hoping that important firewalls will hold'

Diamond & Silk

Published  1 month ago

Republican Senator Lindsay Graham wants Americans to know the truth about actions which mostly happened behind the scenes for the FBI to secure a FISA warrant into President Trump and his campaign associates. As the Daily

RedState

Published  1 month ago

A bold and necessary action

SARAH PALIN

Published  1 month ago

Republican Senator Lindsay Graham wants Americans to know the truth about actions which mostly happened behind the scenes for the FBI to secure a FISA warrant into President Trump and his campaign associates. As the Daily

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham is resuming an investigation of potential surveillance abuse by the FBI with an expansive request for records related to the bureau’s vetting of the Steele dossier.

In a letter sent Thursday to Attorney General William Barr, Graham asked for all FBI and Justice Department documents related to investigators’ attempts to verify allegations made in the dossier, which was authored by former British spy Christopher Steele and funded by Democrats.

The FBI relied heavily on Steele’s report to obtain four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

Republicans investigated whether the FBI misled the FISA court by relying on the dossier even though its allegations about Page were unverified. They also asserted the FBI failed to tell surveillance court judges that Steele was working on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign on an investigation of Donald Trump. (RELATED: DOJ Releases Carter Page FISA Applications)

Graham also indicated in the letter that he is investigating the FBI’s decision to open up investigations of Trump campaign associates in 2016.

He said the Judiciary Committee is concerned vetting proper vetting procedures and the full presentation of facts to the FISA Court “may not have occurred with regard to the applications for FISA warrants for (and the opening of the underlying investigation on) Carter Page and other individuals associated with the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.”

The FBI formally opened counterintelligence investigations on four campaign associates on July 31, 2016. The first FISA against Page was granted Oct. 21, 2016.

Graham is seeking all documents provided to the Gang of Eight in May 2018 regarding the Russia probe. He is also requesting the so-called “Woods file,” which would include any materials used to verify the allegations against Page included in FISA applications.

The dossier alleges Page served as the Trump campaign’s backchannel to the Kremlin. He is also accused of coming up with the idea of providing stolen DNC emails to WikiLeaks and of meeting with two Kremlin insiders during a trip to Moscow in July 2016.

Page has vehemently denied the allegations. He has testified to special counsel Robert Mueller’s grand jury, but has not been charged in the investigation.

The dossier suffered a heavy blow last Wednesday when Michael Cohen, the former Trump attorney, undercut one of Steele’s main collusion allegations. Cohen denied under oathever visiting Prague, where Steele alleges Cohen met with Russian hackers in August 2016.

Graham also wants all documents with the FISA Court “relating to any FISA applications associated with Carter Page or other individuals on or associated with Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.”

Page is the only former Trump aide known to have been targeted with FISA warrants.

It remains to be seen how Barr will handle the document requests. Republicans battled throughout 2017 and 2018 with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who had final say on document production because he oversaw the special counsel’s investigation.

Republicans accused Rosenstein of slow-rolling or ignoring document requests. Rosenstein is leaving the Justice Department in March.

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.

Axios

Published  1 month ago

Only Watergate or the Teapot Dome scandal might come close.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

(Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib)

Freshman Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib appeared to clash with party leadership on Wednesday after joining protesters to say she'd introduce a resolution this month urging the Judiciary Committee to move forward with impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

Tlaib, D-Mich., joined protesters on Capitol Hill to described what she called an “emergency” conveyed to her by her constituents.

"We want to be able to work on these economic justice issues, racial justice issues and everything. But guess what? There is a wall there, and a constitutional crisis that is not going to be able to have us be able to do our jobs as American Congress members to push a lot of these agendas forward."

DEMOCRATIC FRESHMAN LAWMAKER TLAIB RAISES SPECTER OF RACISM DURING COHEN TESTIMONY

Tlaib was pressed by reporters over Democratic leadership’s message that unfounded calls for impeachment could spell trouble for the party in 2020.

“This last election was a calling, I mean we saw record turnout in an election year where people wanted to elect the jury that would begin the impeachment proceedings to Donald Trump.”

She continued: “This is not to say that we disagree. I think that every single colleague of mine agrees there are impeachable offenses. That’s one thing we all agree on. We may disagree on the pace. We may disagree that we have to wait on certain hearings, but at the same time, I think they all know the dangers of allowing President Trump to continue to violate our United States Constitution.”

RASHIDA TLAIB’S CAMPAIGN PAID HER $17,500 IN SALARY AFTER ELECTION DAY, IN POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF FEC RULES: REPORT

House Majority Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has shied away from impeachment talks, particularly with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in th4 2016 election grinds on.

"When the facts are known, then we can make a judgment," Pelosi said last week.

Tlaib faced backlash early this year after she was captured on video, just hours after being sworn in, recalling a conversation with her son where she told him, "We’re gonna impeach the motherf----r.”

“This is the largest class since Watergate,” Tlaib said Wednesday speaking of the newly elected members of Congress. “This is a class, a diverse class that comes again with the sense of urgency to act, to act to hold corporations accountable, to act in holding President Trump accountable, to act to really try to see real reforms within even our congressional process.”

Tlaib said on Twitter that she plans to introduce a resolution later this month that would call on the House Judiciary Committee to “move on investigative grounds for impeachment.”

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe is expected to come to an end soon.

Republicans believe, regardless of the outcome, Democrats will still say he colluded with Russia.

Many more investigations into Trump will come before the 2020 presidential election.

Special counsel Robert Mueller is expected to wrap up the Russia probe into President Donald Trump and his campaign within the coming weeks, but Democrats will still say Trump’s presidency is illegitimate regardless of the findings and will continue to investigate him and anyone close to him before 2020, current and former Trump administration officials told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Republicans close to Trump believe Democrats have already made their minds up about Trump and collusion with Russia, saying the entire investigation was never truly about colluding with Russia but bringing down Trump by any means possible. Republicans also say they expect a number of investigations to stem from the probe, but nothing that will have to do with collusion with Russia.

“This was never about Russian collusion. This was never about Mueller. This was never about truth or justice. This was about taking down President Trump and nullifying the election. They still can’t get over the fact that Trump won the election and that the American people voted for him over Hillary,” a senior administration official told TheDCNF.

“The truth is all this talk about voter integrity and voting rights that we always hear from them, it pales in comparison to their Democrats desire for power in their inability to recognize Republican victories or conservative victories. They did the same thing to Bush. They called him illegitimate. They hounded him for eight years, saying Al Gore was the true president,” the senior administration official continued.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler requested a number of documents Monday from the White House and is sending letters seeking information from people and organizations close to Trump.

Nadler will be sending the requests to 81 groups, people and organizations, searching for constitutional abuses and corruption by Trump. The New York Democrat said Sunday the requests for documents are to “begin investigations, to present the case to the American people about obstruction of justice, about corruption and abuse of power.”

The 81 names, groups and organizations who will receive letters from the committee include former White House communications director Hope Hicks; Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.; The Trump Organization and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Republicans close to Trump, such as American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp, believe Democrats will continue to call for random investigations into Trump even after Mueller’s probe is finished. Schlapp pointed out that the special counsel was created to protect Republicans at the Department of Justice from getting bad press from the “left wing dominated media, who will attack them for covering up the crimes of a president.”

“So now we’ve had two years of a special counsel. They’ve got not a scintilla of evidence of collusion. Now they’ve used that two years to try to soften President Trump up, to weaken him, to give the appearance that somehow shady dealings have taken place in the Trump companies and now they’re going to just transition as if nothing’s happened away from collusion to just destruction,” Schlapp told TheDCNF.

A former deputy assistant to the president, Sebastian Gorka, slammed Democrats and predicted Mueller will find no wrongdoing by Trump. Democrats like Nadler and California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff will continue to attack and investigate Trump for as long as they possibly can, Gorka said.

“The Mueller farrago is a bust. The most expensive taxpayer-funded oppo research in US history had fizzled out with no proof of collusion. Now the Democrats have already moved to a KGB-like search for anything the President, his family, or his friends may have done wrong. Stalin and Beria would have been proud of the un-American tactics Schiff and Nadler are using against the American President and his team,” Gorka told TheDCNF.

Meanwhile, Nadler has already said Trump has “obstructed justice,” without speaking with Mueller or waiting for his report to be released, showing how Democrats will ignore the results of the Mueller probe unless there is substantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.

“Democrats have already decided to impeach Trump. This is not an ‘investigate and see where the evidence leads’ operation. The decision has already been made, and these hearings and investigation are going toward a predetermined conclusion,” a former Hill staffer told TheDCNF. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Trump Says He Will Leave Mueller Report Decision To DOJ)

Other Republicans say the Mueller probe helped cover up Hillary Clinton’s questionable actions as secretary of state as well as other officials who worked under former President Barack Obama.

“The special counsel successfully covered up the Clinton machine’s collusion with foreign agents and Obama officials’ crimes, but it failed to substantiate their conspiracy theories about the president. So now Democrats are going to spend even more taxpayer money trying to justify impeachment, because they still can’t accept the results of the 2016 election,” a senior Republican aide told TheDCNF.

Not one of six Democrats in Congress contacted by TheDCNF would respond when asked if they would accept the results of the Mueller 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.

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  1 month ago

NEW YORK—Republican lawmakers scorched their Democratic counterparts for launching new investigations into President Donald Trump, saying the probes are overly broad, lack the necessary evidence, and are meant to harass the commander in chief.

The Republicans levied their criticism on the heels of a large-scale document request by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). The Democrat-led committee contacted 81 people and entities as part of a newly launched investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice and abused power. The list includes the president’s family members, businesses, and former attorney, among others.

“Presidential harassment is real,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said on Twitter. “We should be focusing on running the country, not playing the Democrats’ political games against the duly elected President of the United States.”

Nadler launched the committee investigation as expectations heightened for an imminent release of the final report by special counsel Robert Mueller. Two major publishers are already pre-selling books that will feature a full copy of the report, with a placeholder release date of March 26.

Mueller has investigated allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and whether the president obstructed justice, since May 2017. The special counsel hasn’t charged any U.S. citizen with collusion and isn’t expected to fault Trump for obstruction.

Meanwhile, inquiries by both the House and Senate intelligence committees have concluded that there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. As a result, the Republicans view the new investigations by House Democrats as fishing expeditions meant to hamstring Trump and his allies ahead of the 2020 election.

The House Intelligence Committee is running a parallel investigation, looking into the same set of crimes long-scrutinized by Mueller. The committee held its first hearing with convicted liar and felon Michael Cohen on the same day as Trump’s second meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Vietnam for denuclearization talks. Cohen testified that he had no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

“They couldn’t even wait a week. Last Wednesday, Democrats brought Michael Cohen to tell new lies but came up short on facts,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) wrote on Twitter. “So today they launched an 81-letter fishing expedition.”

Republicans ran investigations concurrent to the special counsel probe that found no evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign, while simultaneously uncovering a large-scale, potentially illegal operation funded by the Clinton campaign.

Congressional investigators found that the Clinton campaign paid for an opposition research dossier on Trump, which was prepared by a former foreign spy who paid sources with ties to the Kremlin for information. The FBI and Obama-era Justice Department (DOJ) used the dossier to obtain a warrant from a secret court to spy on the Trump campaign. Top FBI and DOJ officials signed off on the warrant application, even though it failed to mention to the court that the Clinton campaign funded the dossier and that the foreign spy who compiled the document abhorred Trump, among a battery of other issues.

“On the eve of the special counsel’s report, the Democrats’ ‘Russian collusion’ narrative is fading for one reason: because there was no collusion,” Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) wrote on Twitter. “It was a political conspiracy theory. To say the case ‘fell apart’ would be kind—because there never was a case from the beginning.”

“Two years, millions of dollars spent, and zero evidence of collusion—but that apparently won’t stop Adam Schiff and Democrat investigators,” Meadows added. “This is a conspiracy machine desperately in search of a crime.”

Trump has always denied all allegations of collusion and obstruction, calling the special counsel probe a “hoax” and a “witch hunt.” The president, nonetheless, complied with Mueller’s investigators and said he will do the same with requests from House Democrats.

The White House issued a scalding rebuke after Nadler released the investigation, calling it “disgraceful and abusive.”

“Democrats are harassing the president to distract from their radical agenda of making America a socialist country, killing babies after they’re born, and pushing a ‘green new deal’ that would destroy jobs and bankrupt America,” White House press secretary Sara Sanders said in a statement.

“The Democrats are more interested in pathetic political games and catering to a radical, leftist base than producing results for our citizens.

“The Democrats are not after truth, they are after the president.”

In an interview aired March 3, Nadler said that he expects quick compliance with the initial round of requests because the committee asked for documents each person has already provided to the special counsel and Congress. The chairman admitted he doesn’t have enough evidence of obstruction and that it’s his personal opinion that the president broke the law.

“We don’t have the facts yet,” Nadler told CNN. “But we’re going to initiate proper investigations.”

Blunt Force Truth

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Maxine Waters is slowly coming to terms with the fact that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may not have found any evidence for Democrats to use to impeach President Donald Trump.

During an appearance Saturday on MSNBC’s “AM Joy,” the chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee began by claiming that Trump is not acting in the best interest of the country.

She also argued that Americans should trust Congress, not Mueller, to determine whether Trump has violated any laws because she believes the president “may be compromised in the way that he’s dealing with other countries.”

“I believe in the Constitution, and the Constitution gives us the authority and the responsibility to decide whether or not a president is acting in the best interests of this country. This president is not. As far as I’m concerned, he has enough violations, he’s been involved in a lot of activity that we believe needs to be made apparent,” Waters said.

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 Federalist

Published  1 month ago

Democrats want to interview 81 people as their desperate search for collusion with Russia continues. Try this list instead.

Sean Hannity

Published  1 month ago

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was sentenced to 47 months in prison Thursday evening after being convicted on eight counts of tax and bank fraud charges last year.

“Manafort’s conviction in August made him the first campaign associate of Trump found guilty by a jury as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis emphasized ahead of sentencing that the Manafort case is not about Russian interference in the 2016 election,” reports Fox News.

“Ellis said that the guidelines of sentencing Manafort to between 19 and 24 years in prison were ‘excessive for this case,’” adds the article.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Spectator USA

Published  1 month ago

Cockburn hears that Mueller wants to indict the President but Barr doesn’t – while the two men agree that Trump’s children should be charged

A good rule in journalism is, or ought to be: Never predict. (Just report.) So Cockburn has some explaining to do, having quoted one source saying that Robert Mueller would hand in his report yesterday. The story said members of President Trump’s family would be charged but also noted that it is Department of Justice policy not to indict a sitting President. However, there was no frenzy at the DoJ on Friday, no throng of reporters to make the tourists heading up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House stop and look. So what happened?

Several sources tell Cockburn that the Special Counsel has indeed completed his report. It is said to recommend indicting three of President Trump’s children – Don junior, Ivanka and Eric – as well as his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The Attorney General, William Barr, is said to have ‘silently assented’ to this. It’s also claimed that Mueller wants President Trump himself to be indicted. Barr is said to oppose this. The two men met on Friday but apparently could not agree and this was the reason for the delay in any announcement from the DoJ. At least this is what the sources say.

So who are these sources? Joseph Heller mocked Washington’s – and journalism’s — culture of ‘sources’ in his novel Good as Gold.

‘I believe I got that information about you from a reliable unnamed source.’

‘I’ve been doing a lot of work here as an unnamed source,’ Gold answered with nervousness and haste, ‘so it may have come from me. No truth to it at all.’

None of Cockburn’s sources was ‘in the room’ – as they say in Washington — for the (alleged) discussions between Mueller and Barr and their two staffs. And none of the sources was briefed by the people ‘in the room’. But they did talk to the people briefed by the people in the room and – twice removed from the original conversations — they all give the same account. It is that the older Trump children and Jared will be indicted for financial crimes while Mueller wants to charge Trump with obstruction of justice. The charges, Cockburn is told now, will not be about ‘Russia collusion’.

This is different from the story yesterday, which was that Mueller would ‘make the case for collusion’. It is different from what the former CIA director, John Brennan, said on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show on MSNBC this week. He thought that the children would be indicted and (like Cockburn) that it would happen on Friday. He also thought that the issue of Russia would be ‘addressed’ by Mueller with further indictments.

O’Donnell: ‘What makes you believe that he has more indictments?’

Brennan: ‘He hasn’t addressed the issue of criminal conspiracy as well as any individuals…’

O’Donnell: ‘Criminal conspiracy involving the Russians?’

One theory is that Mueller will deliver only an interim report. ‘Russia collusion’ would be saved for another day. But whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with Russia is specifically what the Office of the Special Counsel was set up to investigate. And as Brennan said on MSNBC, if Mueller were to ask for indictments of Trump’s family, he would know this would have to be his ‘final act’. ‘That would basically be the death of the Special Counsel’s office, because I don’t believe Donald Trump would allow Bob Mueller to continue in the aftermath of those types of actions.’ That would go double for any indictments of Trump himself. It might be now or never for Mueller to set out the case for collusion.

But wait! Surely a sitting president can’t be indicted? All that Mueller would – or could – do is pass the evidence and the accusations to the House of Representatives. It would fall to the House to charge – or impeach – the President.

It is true that DoJ policy says you can’t indict a sitting President. But as Cockburn has written before, that’s policy, not law. The DoJ has at various times issued different opinions on this. There may not be a constitutional prohibition on laying criminal charges against a sitting President and using the courts or a grand jury to do it.

If this is really the debate going on in the Attorney General’s office, it’s no wonder there’s a delay. As one veteran of Washington tells Cockburn: ‘There is a strange silence around town. Like the weird calm before a major hurricane.’ Weather reports – like journalists’ predictions – are notoriously unreliable but there’s still reason to think that the coming weeks will be a testing time in the history of the Republic.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

President Trump often complains that he is the victim of "presidential harassment" -- or, as he sometimes puts it, "PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!"

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) want more information about what the Obama administration knew regarding Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

The coverage of Russian meddling in the 2016 election has been steady since President Donald Trump took office, with much of the focus being on alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, which prompted an investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.

However, there is not much public information about the response from former President Barack Obama while this alleged collusion was supposedly happening. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report showing that Russians had interfered with the 2016 election and even notified states following the 2016 election that they had been targeted by Russians.

Now, the Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee want to know what the Obama administration knew and when it knew it.

In a letter to current DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Jordan and Meadows pointed to a few meetings held between Congress and several members of the Obama administration. During the meeting, the Obama administration “assured members that it was adequately addressing any attempted interference in the election.”

Obama’s team also was asked to brief members of the campaign staffs for both Trump and Hillary Clinton about the situation. – READ MORE

The Atlantic

Published  1 month ago

“He has lived an otherwise blameless life,” said Judge T.S. Ellis, as he sentenced Paul Manafort to just 47 months in prison on Thursday.

In an otherwise blameless life, Paul Manafort lobbied on behalf of the tobacco industry and wangled millions in tax breaks for corporations.

In an otherwise blameless life, he helped the Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos bolster his image in Washington after he assassinated his primary political opponent.

In an otherwise blameless life, he worked to keep arms flowing to the Angolan generalissimo Jonas Savimbi, a monstrous leader bankrolled by the apartheid government in South Africa. While Manafort helped portray his client as an anti-communist “freedom fighter,” Savimbi’s army planted millions of landmines in peasant fields, resulting in 15,000 amputees.

In an otherwise blameless life, Manafort was kicked out of the lobbying firm he co-founded, accused of inflating his expenses and cutting his partners out of deals.

In an otherwise blameless life, he spent a decade as the chief political adviser to a clique of former gangsters in Ukraine. This clique hoped to capture control of the state, so that it could enrich itself with government contracts and privatization agreements. This was a group closely allied with the Kremlin, and Manafort masterminded its rise to power—thereby enabling Ukraine’s slide into Vladimir Putin’s orbit.

In otherwise blameless life, Manafort came to adopt the lifestyle and corrupt practices of his Ukrainian clients as his own.

In otherwise blameless life, he produced a public-relations campaign to convince Washington that Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was acting within his democratic rights and duties when he imprisoned his most compelling rival for power.

In an otherwise blameless life, he stood mute as Yanukovych’s police killed 130 protesters in the Maidan.

In an otherwise blameless life, he found himself nearly $20 million in debt to a Russian oligarch, Instead of honestly accounting for the money, he simply stopped responding to the oligarch messages.

In an otherwise blameless life, he tried to use his perch atop the Trump campaign to help salvage his sorry financial situation. He installed one of his proteges as the head of the pro-Trump super-PAC, Rebuilding America. His friend allegedly funnelled $125,000 from the super-PAC to pay off one of Manafort’s nagging debts.

In an otherwise blameless life, Manafort was found guilty of tax evasion on an industrial scale. Rather than paying his fair share to help fund national defense and public health, he kept his cash in Cyprus and wired it home to buy over $1 million in bespoke clothing.

In an otherwise blameless life, he disguised his income as loans, so that he could bamboozle banks into lending him money.

In an otherwise blameless life, he attempted to phone a potential witness in his trial, so that they could align their stories.

In an otherwise blameless life, he systematically lied to Robert Mueller’s prosecutors, after he promised them his full cooperation.

In an otherwise blameless life, he acted with impunity, as if the laws never applied to him. When presented with a chance to show remorse to the court, he couldn’t find that sentiment within his being. And with Ellis’s featherweight punishment, which deviated sharply downward from the sentencing guidelines, Manafort managed to bring his life’s project to a strange completion. He had devoted his career to normalizing corruption in Washington. By the time he was caught, his extraordinary avarice had become so commonplace, that not even a federal judge could blame him for it.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Guest pot by Mike LaChance at American Lookout:

Former Trump aide Michael Caputo is done with the Democrats and their endless investigations. They want to drag it out but he has consulted his lawyer and he is done playing.

He writes at FOX News:

Dems want my testimony in Trump investigation – but I have nothing to say or give them

I got a text from a reporter Monday telling me I am on the list of 81 associates of President Trump receiving document production requests from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. That was news to me.

I didn’t receive the letter from the newly installed Democratic leader of the most powerful committee in the House of Representatives. I got it from a reporter. My attorney also didn’t get the letter from Nadler – I had to send him the letter the reporter gave me.

This inauspicious beginning signaled the start of yet another bogus Russia investigation, this time by the new Democratic majority in the House.

After directing broadcast media coverage for seven House committees, I know the signs of a sideshow – and delivering demand letters to reporters before they go to the person being asked to produce documents is one of the chief signs…

But this isn’t new to my family and me. After working for the Trump presidential campaign for eight months, I’ve been hauled in to testify before two other congressional committees and investigators working for Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Scott Adams is sticking up for him:

I'm humbled to have the support of @ScottAdamsSays, a guy I deeply respect. This Russia Collusion Delusion has gone on long enough. I've testified 3 times. Somebody has to be the first to take a stand. For the sake of my family – for 81 families – it might as well be me. #MAGA pic.twitter.com/lpNE29Pjul

You can’t blame Caputo for fighting this. The legal battle has already cost him a fortune.

The Hill reported in May of last year:

Ex-Trump aide decries Senate Russia probe over high legal bills: report

Michael Caputo, a former communications adviser to President Trump’s campaign, blasted the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, saying that its Russia probe has him racking up high legal bills.

“Your investigation and others into the allegations of Trump campaign collusion with Russia are costing my family a great deal of money — more than $125,000 — and making a visceral impact on my children,” Caputo told the committee in a prepared statement read during a closed-door interview.

Good for him for standing up now.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Newly revealed emails show Trump dossier author Christopher Steele was uneasy when President Trump fired Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in January 2017.

In a brief correspondence between Steele and Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, Steele pressed for a back-up plan to be put in place if his backchannel to the FBI was ever placed in jeopardy.

"B, doubtless a sad and crazy day for you re-SY [Sally Yates]. Just wanted to check you are OK, still in situ and able to help locally as discussed, along with your Bureau colleagues, with our guy if the need arises? Many Thanks and Best as Always, C," Steele wrote to Ohr on Jan. 31.

Ohr replied: "Bruce: Yes, a crazy day. I’m still here and able to help as discussed. I’ll let you know if that Changes. Thanks!"

"Thanks. You have my sympathy and support," Steele wrote back. "If you end up out though, I really need another (Bureau?) contact point/number who is briefed. We can’t allow our guy to be forced to go back home. It would be disastrous all round, though his position right now looks stable. A million thanks. C."

Ohr said in return: "Bruce: Understood. I can certainly give you an FBI contact if it becomes necessary."

The email exchange was obtained by Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information lawsuit that led to the conservative watchdog group obtaining 339 pages of heavily redacted records from the Justice Department concerning Ohr's communications with Fusion GPS and Steele.

Ohr created an unofficial back channel between the FBI and Steele, a British ex-spy who was hired by Fusion GPS and provided agents with opposition research on President Trump, even after Steele was dropped as an FBI source for providing confidential information to the media.

Ohr, formerly the associate deputy attorney general and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, was demoted after it came to light he met with Steele and Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson. His wife, Nellie Ohr, had done Russia research for Fusion GPS and also passed along her work to her husband to give to the FBI.

Steele's work is central to the GOP-led effort to investigate possible surveillance abuse by the U.S. government targeting members of the 2016 Trump campaign.

Last February, the House Intelligence Committee, then led by Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., released a memo asserting Steele's dossier, which contained unverified claims about Trump's ties to Russia, was used by the FBI to help obtain the FISA warrants to spy on onetime Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, but key information, including its author's anti-Trump bias and Democratic benefactors, was left out. Democrats argued in a rebuttal memo that the FISA process was not abused and the GOP allegations were meant to discredit special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

Yates was fired by Trump while serving as acting attorney general in late January 2017 after she refused to defend his initial travel ban, but not before she signed off on at least one of the FISA warrant applications to spy on Page.

Yates has been critical of Trump ever since her departure from office. Last summer, for instance, she warned that the rule of law in the U.S. could dissipate after Trump called on then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to put an immediate end to the federal Russia investigation.

Of particular concern to Republican lawmakers was a previously revealed text Ohr sent to Steele, saying, "very concerned (abt) about [former FBI Director James] Comey's firing -- afraid they will be exposed." Comey was fired in May 2017.

Ahead of testimony Ohr gave to a GOP task force looking into alleged bias by the FBI and DOJ last year, Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, a key member of a GOP task force that looked into alleged bias by the FBI and DOJ, said there were other "equally troubling" texts that "relate to the firing of Sally Yates and the impact that that may have and that leads to some questions."

At the time, he said the House Oversight and Judiciary committees were interested in bringing Yates in for questioning, along with Comey and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to find out whether a possible bias campaign against Trump led even further up the power chain in the Obama administration than Ohr.

It's unclear whether Yates was ever brought in, and after the Democrats took control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections, the task force ended their inquiry.

Red Journalists

Published  1 month ago

Adam Schiff, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has added a new member to the team that is investigating Trump: former NBC and MSNBC analyst Daniel Goldman.

Daniel Goldman is a frequent critic of Trump on Twitter and is often participating in hashtags campaigns such as “#TrumpResign.”

Schiff has brought him on, with several other hires, as senior adviser and director of investigations.

Before he became a political commentator at MSNBC, Goldman served as an assistant U.S. Attorney in New York and was part of the prosecution in multiple mob cases, including Russian mobsters, a fact which he has referenced in relation to Trump.

“Having prosecuted mob bosses, it’s unfair to compare them to Trump. Mob bosses are far smarter and way more savvy and discrete than Trump.” – he tweeted back in December.

Goldman’s experience specifically with the Russian mob is obviously directly in line with Schiff’s stated goal of continuing to pursue investigations into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, outside of and not limited by Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s probe.

“I am excited to announce the recent addition of a number of capable individuals to the HPSCI leadership team, as we continue our important work of strong and effective oversight of the nation’s intelligence agencies,” said Adam Schiff in his statement announcing several new hires, including Goldman.

“I look forward to working with them to perform important oversight and investigative work to ensure the security of our country and its institutions.”

What are your thoughts on this? Please share and comment:

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday to discuss the ongoing Russia witch hunt. Schiff told NBC host Chuck Todd that Mueller is making a mistake by not having President Trump testify under oath. In November, the President provided written answers to the special counsel about so-called ‘Russian […]

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

  House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes claimed Wednesday that he and his Republican colleagues are on the verge of submitting a bevy of criminal referrals to Attorney General William Barr regarding everything from the FISA abuse scandal to the notorious Trump dossier. Listen: “We are preparing a criminal referral that we will present to […]

Judicial Watch

Published  1 month ago

Ohr Repeatedly Thanked Steele for ‘Updates’ and Assures Steele he will ‘Pass this [Information] along to my Colleagues’   (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it received 339 pages of heavily redacted records from the U.S. Department of Justice which reveal that former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr remained in regular contact with former...

realclearpolitics

Published  1 month ago

Former CIA Director John Brennan said that, "not knowing," he would not be surprised if indictments produced by special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation were delivered this Friday. In an interview Tuesday night with MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, Brennan said if a Trump family member is indicted that would signal the end of Mueller's investigation because Trump would probably fire him.

"I wouldn't be surprised if for example this week on Friday, not knowing anything about it, but Friday is the day the grand jury indictments come down and also this Friday is better than next Friday because next Friday is the 15th of March, which is the Ides of March," Brennan said. "And I don't think Robert Mueller will want to have that dramatic flair of the Ides of March when he is going to be delivering what I think are going to be are his indictments, the final indictments as well the report."

"I do think also if anybody from the Trump family, extended family is going to be indicted, it would be the final act of Mueller's investigation because Bob Muller and his team knows if he were to do something, indicting a Trump family member or if he were to go forward with indictment on criminal conspiracy involving U.S. persons, that would be that would basically be the deathknell of the special counsel's office because I don't believe Donald Trump would allow Bob Mueller to continue in the aftermath of those types of actions," Brennan said on MSNBC's 'The Last Word.'

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, MSNBC HOST 'LAST WORD': Are you one who's willing to, at this stage of the game, venture a guess about where Robert Mueller is and isn't in this process and how close he is to filing a report? And beyond that, what would you would expect from such a report?

JOHN BRENNAN, FMR. CIA DIRECTOR: I think Robert Mueller wants to be able to conclude his work and turn over the investigative threads to the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia, and other jurisdictions as appropriate as we're coming up to two years. So I think he does want to conclude that.

I wouldn't be surprised if for example this week on Friday, not knowing anything about it, but Friday is the day the grand jury indictments come down and also this Friday is better than next Friday because next Friday is the 15th of March, which is the Ides of March. And I don't think Robert Mueller will want to have that dramatic flair of the Ides of March when he is going to be delivering what I think are going to be are his indictments, the final indictments as well the report he gives to the Attorney General.

O'DONNELL: What makes you believe that he has more indictments?

BRENNAN: Because he hasn't addressed the issues related to criminal conspiracy as well as individuals --

O'DONNELL: A criminal conspiracy involving the Russians?

BRENNAN: Yes. I think it was very --

O'DONNELL: That's an area you know something about. That was developing while you were still on the job.

BRENNAN: Well, it was in terms of looking at what was going on with the Russians and whether or not U.S. persons were actively collaborating, colluding, cooperating and involved in a conspiracy with them or not but also if there is going to be any member of the Trump family --

O'DONNELL: Did you see enough at that stage to believe that there would now, that that would result in indictments once investigated?

BRENNAN: I thought at the time there was going to be individuals who were going to have issues with the Department of Justice. Yes. And I think we've already seen a number of individuals who have been indicted, either have plead guilty or have been convicted now.

So again, I don't have any inside knowledge. I'm not talking with anybody in the special counsel's office.

O'DONNELL: Yes, you do. You have the inside knowledge of what began it all.

BRENNAN: Not about the status of the investigation now but I do think also if anybody from the Trump family, extended family is going to be indicted, it would be the final act of Mueller's investigation because Bob Muller and his team knows if he were to do something, indicting a Trump family member or if he were to go forward with indictment on criminal conspiracy involving U.S. persons, that would be that would basically be the deathknell of the special counsel's office because I don't believe Donald Trump would allow Bob Mueller to continue in the aftermath of those types of actions.

New York Post

Published  1 month ago

In a wide-ranging, exclusive interview with The Post, President Trump said Wednesday that if House Democrats launched probes into his administration — which he called “presidential harassment” — they’d pay a heavy price.

“If they go down the presidential harassment track, if they want go and harass the president and the administration, I think that would be the best thing that would happen to me. I’m a counter-puncher and I will hit them so hard they’d never been hit like that,” he said during a 36-minute Oval Office sitdown.

The commander-in-chief said he could declassify FISA warrant applications and other documents from Robert Mueller’s probe — and predicted the disclosure would expose the FBI, the Justice Department and the Clinton campaign as being in cahoots to set him up.

“I think that would help my campaign. If they want to play tough, I will do it. They will see how devastating those pages are.”

But Trump told The Post he wanted to save the documents until they were needed.

“It’s much more powerful if I do it then,” Trump said, “because if we had done it already, it would already be yesterday’s news.”

Trump revealed his playbook just as Democrats are set to take over House committees in January where they are poised to investigate his potential business conflicts of interests, tax returns, Russia dealings and more.

With the GOP losing power in January, its congressional investigations into alleged Department of Justice misconduct in launching the Russia probe is expected to fizzle out.

In September, a group of Trump allies in the House – led by Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York – called on Trump to declassify scores of Justice Department documents they believe undercut the start of the Russia investigation and show bias against Trump.

The documents include Justice officials’ request to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and memos on DOJ official Bruce Ohr’s interactions with Christopher Steele, the author of a controversial dossier that alleged Trump ties with Russia.

Trump initially agreed to declassify the documents, including text messages sent by former FBI officials James Comey, Andrew G. McCabe as well as Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Ohr. Trump allies believe the revelations will show favoritism toward Hillary Clinton and a plot to take down Trump.

Trump then reversed course, citing the need for further review and concern of US allies.

Trump added Wednesday that his lawyer Emmet Flood thought it would be better politically to wait.

“He didn’t want me to do it yet, because I can save it,” Trump said.

The president also pushed back on the notion that all the Justice Department documents should eventually be released for the sake of transparency.

“Some things maybe the public shouldn’t see because they are so bad,” Trump said, making clear it wasn’t damaging to him, but to others. “Maybe it’s better that the public not see what’s been going on with this country.”

Zero Hedge

Published  1 month ago

"Nadler and Schiff don’t want to explain that their narrative has been debunked. They do not want Americans to look too close because in the end what will be discovered is that the crimes they are accusing others of committing are the ones they themselves have committed."

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Former Trump lawyer and felon, Michael Cohen, asked his attorneys last summer about receiving a potential pardon from the President according to his spokesman Lanny Davis. This news contradicts what Cohen stated during his testimony to

The Washington Times

Published  1 month ago

Opinion polls consistently reveal that voters are weary of negative politics and a gridlocked Congress. That's been a given for years. But wait. This week, they also do not appear to approve of the in

USA TODAY

Published  1 month ago

Former White House attorney Ty Cobb called special counsel Robert Mueller an "American hero" in an ABC News podcast interview.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 month ago

By Nathan Layne and Mark Hosenball

(Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee said on Tuesday it had hired a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan with experience investigating Russian mobsters and white-collar crime to lead its probe into the Trump administration.

The hiring of Daniel Goldman is the latest move by the House’s new Democratic majority to add legal firepower to an expanding list of investigations into the affairs of Republican President Donald Trump and his associates.

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Jerrold Nadler, recently announced that he had retained Barry Berke, a prominent criminal trial lawyer, and Norman Eisen, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, to work on his expansive probe into Trump and other issues.

Representative Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, announced that Goldman joined the panel in February as senior adviser and director of investigations. Schiff also named a new budget director and three other people for various roles.

Goldman, who until recently was a frequent TV commentator on the special counsel’s Russia investigation, said he was “excited” to join the committee’s probe.

“Under Chairman Schiff’s leadership, we intend to run a professional investigation designed to uncover the facts and the truth,” Goldman said in an emailed statement.

The committee’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign has taken on new life since the Democrats took control of the House in November elections. The panel is set to hear testimony from Michael Cohen, the president’s onetime “fixer,” for a second time on Wednesday since he turned on his former boss.

Goldman was an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York for a decade through 2017, serving as the lead prosecutor in the conviction of Las Vegas sports gambler William “Billy” Walters for insider trading.

But likely more relevant to the committee’s probe is Goldman’s tenure as deputy of the Southern District’s Organized Crime Unit, where he oversaw a major Russian mob case against more than 30 individuals for money laundering and racketeering.

Goldman had been working as a legal analyst for NBC News and MSNBC, commenting on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 22-month-old investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russia. A spokeswoman for MSNBC confirmed Goldman was no longer an analyst for either network.

Goldman attended last summer’s trial of former Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort and was at the December sentencing of Cohen, who is due to start a three-year sentence in May for violating campaign finance laws and other crimes.

In other recent hires by the Democrats, the House Financial Services Committee enlisted the help of Bob Roach, a longtime investigator of complex financial and money laundering issues for the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Russia has denied meddling in the 2016 election. Trump has said there was no collusion between his campaign and Moscow, and has called the Mueller probe a “witch hunt.”

(Reporting by Nathan Layne and Mark Hosenball in Washington; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Tom Brown)

POLITICO

Published  1 month ago

Chelsea Manning, the former Army intelligence analyst convicted of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks, faces a contempt hearing and possible jail time for refusing to testify in front of a grand jury this week, she said in a statement Thursday.

Manning said she invoked her fourth, fifth and sixth amendment rights Wednesday while appearing before a grand jury that asked questions about her public disclosure of diplomatic cables and military logs in 2010, a crime for which she served more than six years in prison. She said she will return to federal court for a closed contempt hearing Friday.

Supporters of Manning believe the proceedings to be part of a federal investigation into WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The subpoena Manning received in January from the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., did not specify any crimes, but it was issued at the request of a federal prosecutor assigned to handle the fallout from a federal court filing in an unrelated case that named Assange, suggesting the existence of prepared charges against the WikiLeaks founder under seal.

Manning railed against the closed-door proceedings, claiming the secrecy makes those testifying susceptible to abuse.

“In solidarity with many activists facing the odds, I will stand by my principles,” Manning said in the statement she tweeted Thursday. “I will exhaust every legal remedy available. My legal team continues to challenge the secrecy of these proceedings, and I am prepared to face the consequences of my refusal.”

Manning said that she was given immunity for her testimony before the grand jury but still did not offer details to federal prosecutors.

“All of the substantive questions pertained to my disclosures of information to the public in 2010 — answers I provided in extensive testimony, during my court-martial in 2013,” she said.

Assange was not — and could not — be charged in Manning’s case in 2013 since it was in a U.S. Army court with no jurisdiction over civilians. He was discussed during the trial, however, and evidence suggested Manning was in online discussions with the WikiLeaks founder, though Assange’s involvement was never definitively established.

Since 2012, Assange has taken refuge at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London under a grant of asylum, though he has not been publicly charged with a crime in the United States. For almost a decade, he has been the subject of U.S. investigators, including special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Foreign Policy

Published  1 month ago

The State Department offered a Finnish journalist an award for international women in courage. Then the award was revoked after her anti-Trump social media posts.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Justice Department Friday for records about the agency’s involvement convincing President Trump to reverse his September 2018 decision to declassify Carter page docs and other pertinent Russia records.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the DOJ failed to respond to a September 18, 2018, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00507)). Judicial Watch seeks:

Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the proposed declassification of certain Department of Justice records as ordered by President Trump on September 17, 2018. The request includes, but is not limited to, any and all related records of communication sent by or addressed to any official, employee, or representative of the Department of Justice.

Any and all emails or other records of communication sent by or addressed to DOJ official Bruce Ohr between September 16, 2018 and September 18, 2018.

On September 17th, President Trump issued an immediate declassification order of Carter Page FISA docs and other Russia related records.

The same day, President Trump also directed the DOJ and FBI to release all text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction, of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Bruce Ohr.

According to House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes there is exculpatory evidence in the 20 redacted pages of the Carter Page FISA docs.

It is also important to note that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein signed the June 2017 FISA renewal –one month after he appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Trump-Russia collusion.

A few days later, President Trump announced he met with the DOJ concerning the unredacted documents and the agency [Rosenstein] persuaded him not release the docs.

TRUMP: I met with the DOJ concerning the declassification of various UNREDACTED documents. They agreed to release them but stated that so doing may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe. Also, key Allies’ called to ask not to release. Therefore, the Inspector General…

I met with the DOJ concerning the declassification of various UNREDACTED documents. They agreed to release them but stated that so doing may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe. Also, key Allies’ called to ask not to release. Therefore, the Inspector General…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 21, 2018

TRUMP…has been asked to review these documents on an expedited basis. I believe he will move quickly on this (and hopefully other things which he is looking at). In the end I can always declassify if it proves necessary. Speed is very important to me – and everyone!

….has been asked to review these documents on an expedited basis. I believe he will move quickly on this (and hopefully other things which he is looking at). In the end I can always declassify if it proves necessary. Speed is very important to me – and everyone!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 21, 2018

“We have little doubt the Deep State DOJ is improperly trying to cover-up FISA abuse and other Russia hoax documents that President Trump initially ordered declassified. President Trump should immediately declassify these documents in order to expose any other abuses by the DOJ and FBI. Regardless, Judicial Watch will continue to press for the truth through the courts in the ongoing Deep State scandal,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

You can support Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch by clicking here.

Philly.com

Published  1 month ago

Last week's news that special counsel Robert Mueller had the goods on 12 high-level Russian spies whose job was to hack computers and muck up America's 2016 presidential election was a political bombshell — but also a resounding vindication for a 26-year-old Georgia woman with the wonderfully poetic name of Reality Winner.

In the spring of 2017, with public concern mounting about the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, federal officials still sought to assure people that there'd been no major success in penetrating electronic voting systems. But Winner, a commended Air Force veteran with a top-secret security clearance, then working for a government contractor, had seen evidence that federal officials weren't telling the whole truth.

And so Winner did what Daniel Ellsberg, Mark Felt, and others whose difficult decisions made in real time have long since been vindicated by history had done: She blew the whistle. In sending her evidence to the news media, Winner took down a cover-up of information that the Russians had, in fact, been far more aggressive — and successful — in targeting voting systems. Indeed, one major electronic voting-records vendor, later identified as VR Systems, had been hacked into, and Russians then used that information to target voting officials in the critical swing state of Florida with "spear-phishing" emails aimed at compromising their computer networks.

But to say that the vindication of Reality Winner was bittersweet would be a gross understatement.

When the indictments came down, the young Air Force vet still sat in a Lincoln County, Ga., jail cell, awaiting formal sentencing after she decided in June to plead guilty to one count of felony transmission of national defense information, an inevitable outcome in a federal prosecution that was ridiculously stacked against Winner from Day One. Under her plea agreement, Winner will spend 5 years and three months in prison — until late 2022, if time served is included.

Winner's arrest and the aggressive prosecution of her under a federal law — the Espionage Act — intended for spies, not whistle-blowers, came just four months after President Trump and then-FBI director Jim Comey sat in the Oval Office and spoke about jailing journalists and the need to put a leaker's (in Comey's acknowledged words) "head on a pike." They both laughed about that.

Winner, who won an Air Force Commendation Medal for her work in identifying "high-value targets" for American drone strikes, is clearly a woman with a strong notion of right and wrong, who wanted America to do better. For that, she was punished under a law aimed at traitors and forced to surrender 63 months of her freedom, the longest sentence, if it's not commuted, that will ever be served by an American whistle-blower. Her unconscionable punishment shows how a national-security state can devolve into a police state when the issue becomes who owns the truth: the government or the governed.

"Far from a criminal, she should be considered a hero," Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which supported Winner during her prosecution, told me. Timm is also a little dumbfounded (and so am I) that Winner's case didn't get more attention, in a time when the Trump-Russia story is often the lead item on cable TV news. Or why she didn't get more support from mainstream news orgs in a time when the White House has all but declared war on journalism.

After all, Trump's expressed passion for jailing journalists and his Justice Department's zeal in prosecuting Winner to the fullest extent of the law may be appalling, but it's also the culmination of a long-standing war on whistle-blowers that's accelerated with the security-state obsessions of post-9/11 America, under presidencies and Congresses run by both parties.

America's obsession with valuing its secrecy over doing the right thing led to utter absurdities. Not a single high-ranking government official spent one day behind bars for the unlawful torture of terrorism suspects, arguably the greatest moral stain on our nation during the George W. Bush years, but a CIA analyst who blew the whistle on torture named John Kiriakou was locked up for two years in a federal prison here in Pennsylvania.

So far, history is repeating itself. The nightmare of a foreign power like Russia trying to tip the scales of a weakened American democracy and install Donald Trump in the White House is the political scandal of the century, and yet two years into it, the only person convicted of a felony and sitting in a jail cell is the woman seeking to expose part of the cover-up.

Yet, as Timm noted, the perversions of the American justice system when it comes to government secrecy made it essentially impossible for Winner to defend herself. Under the Espionage Act, defendants aren't able to present evidence about their motive, that a leak of documents was in the public interest and didn't actually harm national security, as seemed true here. A motion by Winner's lawyers to allow testimony from the state election officials who were grateful to learn about the security flaws exposed by the leak was shot down by the federal judge who also refused to grant bail to the Air Force veteran.

If America wants to emerge from the current quagmire, we need a system that will encourage responsible truth-tellers, not deprive them of their liberty. Let's be honest: Those things aren't going to happen with a president who's at war with the First Amendment or a Congress brainwashed to do his bidding. But if citizens do succeed in flipping the government over the next couple of cycles, how can a new generation of leaders keep the promise that Barack Obama broke a decade ago, and make America safe for the next Reality Winner?

Timm said any solution would start with rewriting the Espionage Act, to make it clear that the law is targeting treasonous spies, not patriotic whistle-blowers. Likewise, he said federal law could also be reformed to allow whistle-blowers like Winner or Kiriakou to present evidence on whether their leak was motivated by the public interest or whether national security was, in fact, harmed.

What's more, we need more big shots in Big Media with the biggest megaphones to help remind people that it was leaked information that let the public know about the depths of Watergate, the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib, and the Vietnam War lying that was laid bare in the Pentagon Papers. In fact, it's a little crazy — and maybe revealing — that while the journalism world was going ga-ga over the Pentagon Papers-era defiance in the movie The Post, very little ink was spilled in defense of Reality Winner.

All of us, true political leaders, the media, everyday citizens, need to fight for courage and for truth-telling and to speak out in its defense, or else we will continue to stumble through our current nightmare, where reality is a loser.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

A federal judge known for his impatience in court sentenced former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on Thursday to less than four years behind bars, defying a requested prison term of 19 to 24 years by special counsel Robert Mueller.

T.S. Ellis III, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and serves on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, called Mueller’s recommended sentence “excessive.” Instead, the former U.S. Navy aviator, who piloted an F-4 Phantom before heading to Harvard Law School and then Oxford University, handed down a 47-month sentence.

“To impose a sentence of 19-24 years on Mr. Manafort would clearly be a disparity. In the end, I don’t think the guidelines range is at all appropriate,” Ellis said.

“I think what I’ve done is sufficiently punitive, and anyone who disagrees should spend a day in a federal penitentiary,” he said, adding that he wants Manafort to receive credit for the nine months he’s already served behind bars.

The 78-year-old judge, who presided over the trial in which Manafort was convicted of eight financial crimes, including bank fraud, tax fraud, and failure to disclose a foreign bank account, seemed swayed by his attorneys' argument for a sentence "substantially below" the federal guidelines.

The sentence was in contrast with a sentencing memo from Mueller’s team.

"Manafort acted for more than a decade as if he were above the law, and deprived the federal government and various financial institutions of millions of dollars," prosecutors wrote in a court filing last month.

“Manafort chose to do this for no other reason than greed, evidencing his belief that the law does not apply to him,” they wrote.

But Manafort's attorneys had hit back at the special counsel in their own sentencing memo, claiming prosecutors were trying to "vilify Mr. Manafort as a lifelong and irredeemable felon" and "spreading misinformation about Mr. Manafort to impugn his character in a manner that this country has not experienced in decades."

Ellis was often curt during the case. At a pre-trial hearing, he questioned why the special counsel’s office had charged Manafort with crimes unrelated to their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Ellis argued that prosecutors ultimately wanted to pressure Manafort to give them information “that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever.”

He also intervened throughout the trial, disparaging the special counsel’s evidence and telling prosecutor Greg Andres to not roll his eyes.

When prosecutors focused on Manafort’s lavish lifestyle, such as his expensive taste in clothing, Ellis interrupted: “The government doesn’t want to prosecute somebody because they wear nice clothes, do they? Let’s move on.”

The judge, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, is known for his harsh rebukes from the bench and recounting of his youth.

In a case before him last year, Ellis told a defendant who had violated his parole, “You have to make up your mind whether you are an honest, law-abiding person or not.”

He then described his own experience with adversity, telling of how he had been called an ethnic slur because he could speak Spanish when he moved from Latin America as a child to a Chicago suburb. He also said he had run away from home.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Jerrold Nadler says Congress can impeach President Trump for non-crimes and acts before presidency, rejecting constitutional limits.

Conservative News Today

Published  1 month ago

Former Trump aide Carter Page is not surprised by much from Democrats these days but vowed he will “absolutely” be suing many of them for what they have put him through. Page is among a vast list of over 80 entities and individuals who have been requested to turn over documents by House Judiciary Committee Chairman […]

WSJ

Published  1 month ago

In the small favors department, Donald Trump can be thankful for how his renegade lawyer Michael Cohen chose to oblige committee Democrats by fanning the dying embers of Russiagate.

His tale about Roger Stone was refuted before it left his mouth thanks to Robert Mueller’s indictment, which strongly indicated that Mr. Stone’s alleged WikiLeaks connections were so much vaporware that Mr. Stone peddled to the Trump campaign to make himself appear important.

POLITICO

Published  1 month ago

The Democrats’ Dilemma

03/05 10:55 am

What Ilhan Omar and Dean Phillips tell us about the future of the Democratic Party.

MAGAMEDIA

Published  1 month ago

The Second Witch Hunt

03/05 8:00 am

And so it begins, The second witch hunt of the Trump Administration by the Democrats.

According to NPR.org, the House Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Rep. Jerry Nadler (Democrat) has launched a broad investigation into President Trump’s inner circle. The investigation targets figures who have worked in his administration (past/present) and for the Trump Organization businesses.

The committee said the investigation would focus on whether the president obstructed justice by interfering with criminal investigations; potential corruption such as violation of campaign and financial reporting laws, as well as possible misuse of office for personal gain; and abuses of power to include misuse of the pardon power and attacks on the press, judiciary and law enforcement agencies.

The committee has requested documents from over 81 individuals and entities associated with President Trump his family and federal agencies. A deadline of March 18 has been given to receive the information.

While Democrats are saying it is their duty to investigate whether or not the President obstructed justice or broke the law, it seems they are setting a framework to impeach the president and not to believe Robert Mueller’s Russia collusion report should it not come back with a smoking gun of collusion.

Buoyed by a seemingly biased liberal media, many Democrats on the Hill were initially hoping Robert Mueller’s report would give them the silver bullet needed to take out President Trump. However, after nearly two years of innuendos, leaks, and fake news the likelihood of Mueller being able to deliver the goods is waning and doesn’t seem likely.

Even Some members of the Democrat Party have gone on record to say there is no collusion.

Now that the Democrats control the House and chair many of its committees, they will use this power to investigate everything they felt the Republicans didn’t look into when they controlled both Houses during Trump’s first two years.

From now until the election of 2020, America will witness something it has never witnessed. Hold on tight it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Daily Intelligencer

Published  1 month ago

Members of the House Judiciary Committee have an opportunity to provide an important service to the American public – as long as they don’t blow it.

On Monday, the committee opened a sweeping investigation into “obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power” relating to President Donald Trump by requesting documents from 81 sources. The committee’s probe could potentially uncover more misconduct than Special Counsel Robert Mueller ever will. Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler vowed to “hold hearings for the public to have all the facts.” The challenge will be to conduct the investigation effectively without compromising Mueller’s work.

In many ways, the congressional investigation offers advantages that Mueller’s probe lacks. According to the mandate issued by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Mueller has been investigating links between Russia and the Trump campaign relating to interference with the 2016 presidential election, matters arising in that investigation, and any obstruction of justice that might occur along the way. The House Judiciary Committee, on the other hand, has the power to investigate a much broader scope of possible misconduct. Congress can investigate anything over which it has power to legislate, and committees may explore matters that do not amount to crimes. As Nadler pointed out, his committee is charged with a number of responsibilities, including the duty to investigate “abuses of executive power.”

In addition to the broader scope of its powers, the congressional inquiry also differs from Mueller’s probe in its transparency. While Mueller is bound by grand jury secrecy rules and Department of Justice policies to prevent public disclosure of matters under investigation, congressional committees operate largely in the public. In fact, one purpose of the Judiciary Committee’s probe may be to avoid a scenario in which Mueller ends his investigation without any further public disclosure of his findings, as the special counsel regulations seem to permit. The Committee’s document requests stated that the recipient could limit his initial production to documents already disclosed to the special counsel, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, law enforcement, other congressional committees, or in civil or other litigation. By collecting the same material that Mueller has already gathered, Nadler’s committee may be seeking to replicate Mueller’s investigation, but with materials that can be shared with the public.

With this opportunity before them, the Judiciary Committee needs to avoid missteps that could interfere with Mueller’s work or harm the effectiveness of its own investigation. To that end, here are three pieces of advice for Nadler.

First, hire professional help to conduct questioning. How many more hearings must we endure in which members of Congress take turns grandstanding to make political points, only to be parodied on Saturday Night Live? Asking questions in five-minute bursts provides no opportunity for effective follow-up and allows the witness to filibuster away the allotted time. House Democrats should hire counsel with the training and experience to conduct effective questioning. They should also pool their time so that the questioner can proceed as a prosecutor would at a grand jury session by methodically asking the essential who, what, when, where, and why of important matters, demanding explanations and details along the way, and pinning down witnesses to establish facts from which they cannot later walk away.

Second, be careful whom you immunize. Congress has the power to grant immunity to witnesses who invoke their Fifth Amendment rights not to incriminate themselves. By granting immunity, the Committee can then legally compel the witness to testify because their statements may not be used against them. As we saw in the case of Oliver North, however, immunity granted by Congress can prevent prosecutors from using the witness’s statements, or any leads derived from their statements, against them in criminal proceedings. After the former Marine Corps. lieutenant colonel was convicted for his role in obstructing the investigation of the Iran-Contra affair, North’s conviction was vacated because it was tainted by the use of information derived from his immunized congressional testimony.

If the House Judiciary Committee wants to question witnesses, it should avoid immunizing anyone who might be a target of Mueller’s investigation. Donald Trump Jr., for example, has reportedly not met with Mueller, a sign that he may be a target of the special counsel’s investigation. Offering him immunity to testify before Congress could make it much more difficult for Mueller to charge him criminally. Instead, the Judiciary Committee might focus on witnesses who have already been convicted by Mueller, such as Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos, and even Paul Manafort. Congress could also call as witnesses people who were in positions to have committed less egregious misconduct, yet possess valuable information, such as Trump’s former communications director Hope Hicks or his longtime assistant Rhona Graff. These witnesses are unlikely to be high priorities for criminal charges. Or, better yet, the committee should clear with Mueller any witness that the committee might want to immunize.

Third, don’t just copy Mueller’s work, create your own roadmap. The evidence that Watergate Independent Counsel Leon Jaworski turned over to Congress is sometimes referred to as a roadmap for impeachment. While Nadler appears interested in obtaining and memorializing Mueller’s work, he should not end there. Mueller is limited to looking for federal crimes. But just because conduct does not amount to a violation of the criminal code does not mean that Congress should permit it to occur unchecked. For example, while lying to the public is not a crime, if the lie is egregious enough, it might be sufficient to disqualify a president from office. Additional lines of inquiry outside of Mueller’s mandate would be well within the scope of proper congressional inquiry, such as foreign influence on the president’s businesses, profits from his businesses that may constitute prohibited emoluments or use of the presidency to enrich family members and associates. Were Jared Kushner or Erik Prince attempting to form back channels of communication with Russia and the UAE? And if so, why? The House Judiciary Committee can find out the answers to all of these questions, even if they are outside the realm of potential criminal misconduct.

Nadler has a job to do, but he must do it well. The stakes of this investigation are high because the House Judiciary Committee has one power that all other entities lack – the power to initiate impeachment proceedings.

Leave a Comment

Dan Bongino

Published  1 month ago

New Attorney General William Barr will not recuse himself from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia collusion investigation.

Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement, “Following Attorney General Barr’s confirmation, senior career ethics officials advised that Attorney General Barr should not recuse himself from the Special Counsel’s investigation. Consistent with that advice, Attorney General Barr has decided not to recuse.”

Some Democrats urged Barr to step aside from overseeing the Mueller investigation, citing a memo Barr sent last June to the Justice Department and the White House criticizing the special counsel’s inquiry into whether Trump obstructed justice.

Barr’s views in support of executive power and his refusal to commit to publicly releasing the full report at the conclusion of Mueller’s investigation also contributed to Democratic opposition to his appointment.

For the full story, click HERE.

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

Nearly four months ago, Houston-based attorney Kevin Fulton filed, on my behalf, a motion to unseal records in a case headed by Andrew Weissmann, who is now a member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. Late Thursday, a federal district court judge in Texas granted (with one exception), the motion to unseal, making some of those documents publicly available for the first time.

The sealed records involved the Enron case Weissmann oversaw prior to his abrupt departure from the Enron Task Force in the middle of jury deliberations. Given Weissmann’s current role as Mueller’s “pit bull,” revisiting the allegations of misconduct leveled against the prosecutor—with the benefit of the entire unsealed record—promotes transparency and the public’s interest in trusting the integrity of the special counsel’s team.

The now unsealed records expose efforts by Weissmann, and the Enron Task Force he led, to intimidate witnesses and to interfere in the attorney-client relationship of a cooperating witness. Several affidavits unsealed last week catalogued veiled threats made to witnesses the Enron defendants sought to interview. However, because many of the attorneys would speak only off the record to Enron’s attorneys, the courts refused to consider the affidavits sufficient to prove prosecutorial misconduct.

Two attorneys, however, were willing to testify. In a just-unsealed affidavit, one lawyer stated that an FBI agent working for the Enron Task Force overseen by Weissmann warned his client against talking to the Enron defense team because “those are bad guys.” The second attorney stated that an FBI agent had made veiled threats against his client in a separate Enron trial.

Still more troubling, though, was an email Weissmann sent to William Dolan, one of the two attorneys representing a cooperating witness, Ken Rice, concerning Rice’s second attorney, Dan Cogdell. Weissmann’s email accused Cogdell of having a conflict of interest because Cogdell was seen talking with another defense lawyer. In the email, Weissmann suggested Cogdell’s supposed conflict left Rice two options: “instructs his lawyers who they can speak to and who they cannot;” [or] determine[] that his attorney has not acted in Rice’s best interests and gets rid of him.”

The Enron defendants believed Weissmann’s email sought to silence Rice, but because Rice’s attorney testified that the email did not “affect Rice’s decision on whether to cooperate with the defense,” the court refused to find “the email was an improper threat.” Nonetheless, a federal appellate court noted that “Weissmann would have done well to have brought the issue to the court’s attention instead of emailing Rice’s lawyer.”

While the Enron defendants believed Weissmann’s email sought to silence Rice, Rice’s attorney, Cogdell, saw Weissmann as instead attempting to force him off the case. In a three-page letter Cogdell sent in response to Weissmann’s email—the entirety of which is worth a read, both for the sake of clarity and amusement—Cogdell wrote: “You conclude, with absolutely no basis whatsoever, that I have ‘violated client confidences of Rice.’ Nothing could be further from the truth and any suggestion is not only without merit it is nothing more than a transparent attempt on your part to ‘disqualify’ a lawyer whom you dislike because of the result your task force suffered in the Barge case. I will state what you lack the candor to put in writing—you do not like me. Rest easy, the feeling is mutual.”

(The “Barge case” referred to the first criminal trial brought by the Enron Task Force—and one that ended in an embarrassing defeat for the government when a jury acquitted Cogdell’s client.)

In addition to Weissmann’s inappropriate attempt to push Cogdell off the case, a 17-page report unsealed on Thursday by expert witness Michael Tigar detailed many more vagrancies. Especially troubling to Tigar was the Enron Task Force’s use of “multiple grand juries working over several years” not to “return fresh indictments or start new cases, but to make the threat of indictment real and tangible” to the nearly 90 unindicted co-conspirators.

In its reply to my motion to unseal the documents, the Department of Justice downplays these facts, by stressing that the Fifth Circuit held that the Enron Task Force’s conduct did not violate the defendants’ constitutional rights. In fact, the DOJ spent nearly one-third of the approximate 30-page brief defending Weissmann’s conduct even though that discussion was entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the documents should be unsealed—something the DOJ agreed was appropriate.

In any event, although it is true that Weissmann’s conduct in the Enron case did not reach the level of a constitutional violation, that doesn’t mean it was appropriate. Nor was Weissmann’s disconcerting behavior isolated: Weissmann has demonstrated a “reckless win-until-reverse modus operandi that has destroyed countless lives. Weissmann’s tactics sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison, until a federal appellate court overturned their convictions and freed the men—but not before upending their lives.”

Weissmann also destroyed the former accounting giant Arthur Andersen by pushing a phony criminal case. The Supreme Court eventually overturned it unanimously, but only years later, after the damage had been done.

Given Weissmann’s past, as demonstrated by the recently unsealed court documents, and the politically charged nature of the special counsel’s investigation, Mueller would have been wise to have selected individuals beyond reproach for his team. And that is clearly not Weissmann.

American Greatness

Published  1 month ago

By all accounts, even from his most devoted propagandists in the news media, Special Counsel Robert Mueller soon is expected to release a report that will devastate Trump antagonists who have been convinced his investigation would result in the president’s removal from office. They are bracing themselves to hear two words from the special counsel that just a few months ago seemed inconceivable: No collusion.

The idea that a nearly two-year long probe conducted by a team of partisan, Trump-hating prosecutors empowered with an unending supply of public resources and shielded from any legitimate scrutiny will come up empty-handed is causing great angst in the Acela Corridor. The List of Shame—journalists, editors, cable news contributors, Democratic lawmakers, and NeverTrump operatives who’ve foisted this outrageous farce on the American people—is long and ignominious.

One man who in many ways sits at the center of this manufactured storm is Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire founder of eBay. After Trump won the election, an outcome Omidyar tried to prevent by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars against Trump in 2016, the Hawaiian-based mogul ratcheted up his opposition to the president through a network of nonprofits.

One of his missions has been to stoke the Trump-Russian collusion conspiracy in an effort to derail Trump’s presidency. “Over the past two years, I have seen alarming and sometimes unprecedented violations of our country’s democratic norms,” wrote Joe Goldman, president of Democracy Fund, one of Omidyar’s well-funded foundations, last summer. “For an organization committed to strengthening democracy on behalf of the American people, this isn’t just disturbing—it’s humbling.”

Goldman disclosed that Democracy Fund has awarded $100 million in grants to dozens of politically oriented groups in just the past four years. (Omidyar’s net worth is about $10 billion.) Several Omidyar-backed outlets have been instrumental in shaping positive news coverage about the Mueller investigation, as well as fueling the notion that Russia somehow poses the most dire threat to the future of the republic and that Trump is a willing agent of Vladimir Putin.

Among Omidyar’s shrewdest moves was to co-opt a number of outcast Republicans who were bitter that Trump won the presidential election over their strong objections. This list includes once-influential Republican officials and lawmakers, as well as conservative opinion-makers and consultants. Since Trump’s surprise election, they have aided the Left in attempting to drive Trump from office. Their greatest hope has been Robert Mueller.

Omidyar’s most dependable stooge on that score has been Bill Kristol, the founder of the now-defunct Weekly Standard. Last year, one of Omidyar’s funds gave $600,000 to an outlet Kristol created to pimp for the Mueller probe. That group, Defending Democracy Together, aired several television ads to tout Mueller’s alleged sterling reputation and to urge lawmakers to protect the special counsel from Trump. (The Bulwark, Kristol’s latest media venture, is a project of Defending Democracy Together’s nonprofit. Charles Sykes, The Bulwark’s editor, sits on the advisory committee for Omidyar’s Democracy Fund.)

As a regular contributor to both CNN and MSNBC, Kristol routinely has warned that Mueller’s various inquiries into Trump family member and associates would spell doom for the president.

“I do think things have changed, the reality has changed,” Kristol opined in August after Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to a number of non-Russia related crimes. “How do we know it’s not Russia? Michael Cohen seems to be cooperating . . . he may well know about the Trump Tower meeting. He has contemporaneous knowledge and probably documentary evidence . . . on the collusion side.”

Kristol also is an advisor for the Alliance for Securing Democracy, which also has received $600,000 from Omidyar since 2017. Other Mueller fanboys including former Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff and David Kramer, a John McCain associate who helped disseminate the infamous Steele dossier in late 2016, also worked with Kristol on that project.

Several NeverTrumpers are aligned with the Niskanen Center, a nominally libertarian D.C.-based think tank that has received at least $200,000 from Omidyar. Board members include vocal Trump-haters on the Right, including David Frum, Tom Nichols, Mindy Finn, and Eliot Cohen, all of whom have vouched for the credibility of the Mueller probe and predict it will doom Trump’s presidency.

In an op-ed for USA Today in January, Nichols hilariously claimed the Russians must have compromising material on the president, called the deep state “nonsense” and blasted Republicans for “attacking the men and women of the FBI.” Writing for The Atlantic in August 2018, Frum concluded that “collusion itself is above all a threat to national security: the installation of a president beholden to some greater or lesser degree to a hostile foreign power.”

In November 2017, the Niskanen Center posted a public letter signed by more than two dozen NeverTrumpers demanding that congressional Republicans prevent any White House interference with Mueller’s work. “It is morally imperative that the Republican Party and the conservative movement stand as bulwarks of the rule of law, not enablers of its erosion and violation. Now is the time for choosing,” they warned. Other signers included Max Boot, Mona Charen, and Evan McMullin. (Finn and McMullin are the beneficiaries of other Omidyar projects as well.)

All have appeared on cable news shows, on political websites, and in national newspapers since May 2017 to insist that Mueller and/or congressional investigators will soon expose the nefarious links between Trump and the Kremlin. “It has become an article of faith in some quarters on the right—well, most—that Robert Mueller’s investigation has found no evidence of collusion with Russia and has accordingly shifted gears to process crimes like lying to the FBI or obstruction of justice,” Charen, a National Review contributor, wrote in December. “Having decided that this must be true, many have called for Mueller to wrap it up. But this requires a lot of wishful thinking.”

The R Street Institute received $650,000 in 2017 from Omidyar’s Democracy Fund. The nonprofit is a conservative/libertarian think tank with offices across the country. The group criticized as “rank politics” the February 2018 memo by then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) that exposed the political roots of the fabricated collusion story and claimed the memo was an attempt to undermine “the basis for the Mueller investigation.”

Paul Rosenzweig, a senior fellow at R Street, is also an outspoken defender of Mueller and an avowed Trump foe. Rosenzweig joined George Conway, the husband of Trump confidant Kellyanne Conway, and other “conservative” lawyers last year to form yet another group opposed to the president. “If there were a conspiracy, then the order to reach out to Roger Stone might be an overt act that would make the conspiracy complete,” Rosenzweig told Vice News last month.

Protect Democracy houses a glittering array of NeverTrump cheerleaders for the collusion hoax; Charen, Linda Chavez, McMullin, Finn, Matthew Dowd, and Watergate relic John Dean are among a cast of characters that “engage in specific projects” for the outlet, which received $400,000 in 2017 from Omidyar. Dean, an advisor to Michael Cohen, told CNN last week that Trump’s former lawyer would tell Congress that Trump committed crimes while in the Oval Office. Dowd predicted right before Mueller’s appointment in May 2017 that calls for Trump’s impeachment will build.

Omidyar’s reach also extends to left-leaning think tanks, media outlets and policy groups, which will be outlined in a forthcoming story. But his craftiest move was to enlist gullible, if not dishonest, mouthpieces in the NeverTrump movement to bolster the special counsel, admonish Americans that doomsday was coming, and help do inestimable damage to the country in the process. Their reputations deserve to suffer the same embarrassing fate as the Mueller investigation itself.

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: Brian Harkin/Getty Images

Newsweek

Published  1 month ago

Robert Mueller's highly anticipated report on alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible collusion between Russia and the President Donald Trump's campaign team is expected to be published in a book by The Washington Post.

According to the American Booksellers Association, customers can now place pre-orders for two "upcoming titles" featuring Mueller's closely watched report, which is believed to be nearing completion, on the IndieBound.org website.

The first is the Department of Justice’s own The Mueller Report: The Final Report of the Special Counsel into Donald Trump, Russia, and Collusion, which is being published by Skyhorse Publishing and has an introduction by U.S. lawyer Alan Dershowitz. The full report can be purchased for $12.99 and has a release date of March 26.

The second publication is The Washington Post's The Mueller Report, which is priced at $15 and is also set to be released on March 26.

"One of the most urgent and important investigations ever conducted, the Mueller inquiry focuses on Donald Trump, his presidential campaign, and Russian interference in the 2016 election, and draws on the testimony of dozens of witnesses and the work of some of the country’s most seasoned prosecutors," a description of the book on Indiebound.org states. "The special counsel’s investigation looms as a turning point in American history. The Mueller Report is essential reading for all citizens concerned about the fate of the presidency and the future of our democracy."

In addition to relaying the findings of Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, the Post's book is also expected to include exclusive analysis by reporters who have covered the story since it came to light.

According to the IndieBound.com description, the book will include an introduction by The Washington Post titled "A President, a Prosecutor, and the Protection of American Democracy." It will also contain a timeline of the major events of Mueller's investigation from 2017, when he was appointed, to the present day.

The book is also expected to contain a guide for readers on all the major players involved in the investigation, including those within the Special Counsel's Office, the Department of Justice, and the FBI, as well as within the Trump campaign team, the White House, Trump's legal team and key Russians.

It will also incorporate integral documents in the special counsel's probe, including "filings pertaining to General Michael T. Flynn, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, and the Russian internet operation in St. Petersburg," with each document being accompanied with a breakdown of its contents by Washington Post reporters.

A description on IndieBound.org's website of Skyhorse's upcoming publication says Mueller's investigation "will join Watergate, and the Mueller report will join the Starr Report as one of the most important in American history."

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

In an article written in the FLA News, former presidential candidate Herman Cain released the "10 Questions Every Democrat Candidate Should Answer." This article, which was so impressive that President Trump even shared it on his

TheHill

Published  1 month ago

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Monday issued document requests to 81 individuals and entities as part of a sweeping investigation into President Trump’s campaign, business and administration.

NBC News

Published  1 month ago

The book is currently No. 9 in all books about politics and No. 1 in all books about “Censorship,” one slot ahead of Ray Bradbury’s “Farhenheit 451,”

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Democrat Senator Ron Wydon (D-OR) ripped CNN contributor and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Wednesday for continuing to lie about his famous lie to the American public. In March 2013 Director of National Intelligence James Clapper went before the US Senate and lied about government spying. Senator Ron Wydon asked Clapper if […]

NBC News

Published  1 month ago

The book is currently No. 9 in all books about politics and No. 1 in all books about “Censorship,” one slot ahead of Ray Bradbury’s “Farhenheit 451,”

Zero Hedge

Published  1 month ago

Former MI6 spy Christopher Steele has suddenly backed out of a planned video appearance at a pro-democracy gathering in Baltimore next week for a group founded by Trump-hating chess champ Garry Kasparov, according to Politico.

The author of the largely unverified Trump-Russia dossier had been scheduled to discuss disinformation on a panel moderated by Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum, which is set to include Atlantic Council fellow Evelyn Farkas - a former deputy assistant secretary of defense who notably slipped up on live TV and admitted in March 2017 that the Obama administration had been spying on the Trump campaign.

Applebaum said that Steele had gotten "cold feet" last week and canceled on the advice of his legal counsel. As the Daily Caller's Chuck Ross notes, this would have been Steele's first public remarks in the nearly two years since BuzzFeed published his dossier.

Perhaps Steele was 'spooked' by testimony last week from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who debunked a key claim in the dossier that he traveled to Prague in August 2016 to meet with Kremlin officials in order to arrange clandestine payments to hackers who stole emails from the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

Cohen only denied the Prague allegation during his open testimony, but GOP California Rep. Devin Nunes suggested on Monday that the former Trump fixer disputed all of the dossier’s allegations during a closed-door hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence last Thursday. -Daily Caller

Steele's dossier was commissioned by Hillary Clinton's campaign through law firm Perkins Coie, which paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS, which in turn commissioned Steele to assemble the collection of reports which relied heavily on Kremlin officials.

The dossier was used by the US intelligence community to obtain a FISA surveillance warrant on Trump campaign aide Carter Page - along with anyone he was in communication with. Steele's report claimed that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation" between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

The reports, which circulated among U.S. intelligence officials beginning in the summer of 2016 and were later published by BuzzFeed, helped set off a chain of events that led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller. In the years since Steele authored his reports, evidence has emerged of extensive contacts between Trump’s aides and various Russian state-aligned actors, while many of the most salacious allegations in Steele’s reports remain unconfirmed or at least partially debunked. -Politico

The conference Steele backed out of will continue without him - and "will examine and wrestle with the underlying threats to liberal democracy and propose strategies to reinvigorate it," according to promotional materials.

Also in attendance will be Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), former Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and former undersecretary of defense for George W. Bush Paul Wolfowitz, per Politico. It is being organized by the Renew Democracy Initiative chaired by chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov.

The New Yorker

Published  1 month ago

Representative Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has hired a veteran prosecutor with experience fighting Russian organized crime to lead his investigation of the Trump Administration. Last month, according to a committee source, Daniel Goldman, who served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 2007 to 2017, joined the committee’s staff as a senior adviser and the director of investigations.

The hiring of Goldman, who will be joined by three other former federal prosecutors on Schiff’s staff, underlines Schiff’s decision to conduct an aggressive investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia during the 2016 Presidential campaign. In the rough division of labor among the various committees in the House of Representatives, Schiff’s panel is tackling the most provocative and, so far, most elusive subject related to the President: whether so-called collusion occurred between the Trump campaign and Moscow. In public comments, Schiff has suggested that Trump’s interest as a private citizen in building a tower in Moscow led him to curry favor with Vladimir Putin, the Russian President. American intelligence agencies long ago concluded that the Russian government made significant efforts, through the hacking of e-mails and use of social media, to help elect Trump over Hillary Clinton. The question of whether the Trump campaign facilitated, assisted, or knew about these efforts has been at the heart of the investigation by the special counsel, Robert Mueller—and will also be central to Schiff’s inquiry.

Goldman seems well suited to lead this effort. As deputy chief of the organized-crime section of the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office, Goldman supervised the prosecution of more than thirty defendants accused of racketeering, gambling, and money laundering. During his decade in the office, Goldman convicted individuals associated with Russian organized crime of securities fraud and health-care fraud, and convicted leading figures in the Genovese crime family of racketeering and murder.

One of Schiff’s previous committee hires drew a critical comment from the President. Last month, Schiff hired Abigail C. Grace, who served as an Asia policy staffer on the National Security Council during the early part of the Trump Administration. In response, President Trump tweeted that the Democrats were going “nuts” and that Schiff was “stealing people who work at the White House.” In response, Schiff pointed out that congressional committees often employ individuals with experience in the executive branch.

The conflict between Trump and Schiff dates back to well before the Democrat took over as chair of the Intelligence Committee, after the midterm elections. In a tweet, Trump once rendered Schiff’s name as “Schitt,” and in his recent speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the President bestowed the congressman with the nickname Shifty Schiff.

Goldman’s hiring comes amid a flurry of investigative activity by Democrats on Capitol Hill. Schiff and Representative Maxine Waters, the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, have agreed to coördinate an investigation of Trump’s long-standing ties to Deutsche Bank, which has paid multimillion-dollar penalties for facilitating the work of Russian money launderers. Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee, led by Representative Jerrold Nadler, revealed that it had demanded testimony and documents from eighty-one people and entities close to Trump relating to the issues of obstruction of justice and abuse of power. And, of course, Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, gave damning testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, last week. All of these investigations appear to be much closer to the beginnings of their efforts than their ends.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

House Democrats opened a huge new avenue Monday in their investigations into President Trump, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee began firing off document requests to dozens of figures from the president's administration, family and business.

The White House confirmed Monday it had received a letter from Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., pertaining to his pursuit of documents related to potential obstruction of justice and corruption.

“The House Judiciary Committee’s letter has been received by the White House,” Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a Monday statement. “The Counsel’s Office and relevant White House officials will review it and respond at the appropriate time.”

NADLER ANNOUNCES SWEEPING DOCUMENT REQUESTS, SAYS TRUMP OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE

The White House did not detail the specific requests, but they come on the heels of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's dramatic House testimony last week in which raised questions about the president's personal finances, his charity and more even as he testified he had no evidence of collusion with Russia.

Nadler, who would oversee any impeachment proceedings against Trump, on Sunday first announced the document requests and said the goal of the probe was "to present the case to the American people about obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power" within the Trump administration.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Nadler said they were “issuing document requests to over 60 different people and individuals from the White House to the Department of Justice, Donald Trump, Jr., [Trump Organization CFO] Allen Weisselberg.”

Congressional Democrats have repeatedly promised to exercise tight oversight of the Trump administration since securing a majority in the House of Representatives in last November's midterms. But Nadler's comments signaled that Democratic leaders are not counting on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's forthcoming report on possible Russia collusion to mark the end of such investigations.

Nadler, in recent weeks, hired two veteran lawyers and Trump critics as the committee gears up to investigate the department and review Mueller's final conclusions. The lawyers, Barry Berke and Norman Eisen, have been retained on a consulting basis.

Nadler's committee has also called in the former acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, and plans to question him again in the coming weeks. Whitaker is a close Trump ally who had criticized the Mueller report before he was appointed. William Barr has since been confirmed as attorney general.

The Judiciary Committee isn't the only House panel planning to look into Trump aggressively. Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Richard Neal, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is expected to eventually try to obtain Trump's tax returns, which the president has refused to release. But for now, Neal is taking it slow.

Without naming Nadler, Trump tweeted Sunday that he was being "persecuted by some very bad, conflicted & corrupt people in a Witch Hunt that is illegal & should never have been allowed to start - And only because I won the Election!"

Meanwhile, Axios reported Monday that House Democratic leaders are hoping to use a series of hearings to effectively put Trump on trial.

Leaders are planning to roll out a “slow-bleed strategy with lengthy public hearings and scores of witnesses to methodically pick apart Trump's finances and presidency,” the outlet reported. A House leadership source told Axios the push is designed to avoid giving Trump a boost in 2020 by going the impeachment route, though it's unclear whether rank-and-file members eying impeachment would be satisfied with mere hearings.

“Many in leadership believe impeachment could help Trump get re-elected,” the leadership source said.

Fox News’ Jenny Buchholz and Liam Quinn and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

David Axelrod, who served as senior adviser to former President Barack Obama, criticized House Democrats on Monday for their blanket demand for documents from more than 80 people associated with President Trump, warning it could play into the characterization of a witch hunt.

“Maybe I’m missing something, but the hazard of an omnibus document demand by House judiciary versus discreet, serial ones is that, however legitimate the areas of inquiry, the wide-ranging nature of it is too easily plays into the ‘witch-hunt’ meme,” he tweeted.

Maybe I’m missing something, but the hazard of an omnibus document demand by House judiciary versus discreet, serial ones is that, however legitimate the areas of inquiry, the wide-ranging nature of it is too easily plays into the “witch-hunt” meme.

— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) March 4, 2019

Axelrod’s warning came after House Democrats sent letters to more than 80 people who have worked for President Trump, his administration, and his campaign.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) said in a statement that Democrats would “gather this information, assess the evidence, and follow the facts where they lead with full transparency with the American people.”

The Democrats’ investigation is launching as Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s is winding down, so far without any revelations of collusion with Russia.

The document demand is related to everything from Trump’s business dealings with Russia, whether he obstructed justice by firing former FBI Director Jim Comey, and payments his former lawyer made to women who alleged affairs with Trump.

It is not clear whether Democrats can hold Trump accountable for any actions taken before he became president.

Trump was asked Monday afternoon whether he would cooperate with the Democrats’ demands.

“I cooperate all the time with everybody,” he said, adding that the collusion claims are a “hoax.”

Later he tweeted that Democrats were trying to switch from collusion to some other reason to impeach him.

“Now that the Dems are going to try & switch from Collusion to some other reason, it makes them continue to look like sore losers who didn’t accept the WILL OF THE PEOPLE in the last election – they will do anything to get rid of the President.” @AriFleischer It will never work!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2019

“There is no Collusion. All of these investigations are in search of a crime. Democrats have no evidence to impeach President Trump. Ridiculous!” @DevinNunes @FoxNews

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2019

Trump mocked the Democrats’ determination to find something on him during his speech at Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Sunday.

“They fight so hard on this witch hunt, this phony deal that they put together; this phony thing that now looks like it’s dying,” he said.

“So they don’t have anything with Russia. There’s no collusion. So now they go and morph into, ‘Let’s inspect every deal he’s ever done. We’re going to go into his finances. We’re going to check his deals. We’re going to check…’ These people are sick. They’re sick.”

TheHill

Published  1 month ago

For two years, most of the national news media has been building the case that Donald Trump somehow colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election. Countless editorials, roundtables, and segments all fed the perception that “Russia collusion,” an imprecise shorthand for a nonexistent offense, would inevitably be proven. The anti-Trump left promised that the puppet of Vladimir Putin would get his comeuppance in due time.

The problem is that this was all a lie. The biggest anti-Trump “bombshells” on Russia collusion reported so far have all been either duds or outright fakes. The special counsel has yet to, and almost certainly will not, file any charges that prove Trump took part in Russia collusion. The overwhelming likelihood is that, at worst, the final report will contain unflattering information about the president and some of his senior advisers.

Whatever Robert Mueller has, it will not be the coup de grace to end the administration and avenge Hillary Clinton that the mainstream media has assured us was coming since November 2016. Now, with the special counsel investigation supposedly ending in a matter of weeks, if not days, the collusion theorists are scrambling to deal with this reality.

In a sane world, a lot of prominent voices on the left, in both politics and media, would be held accountable for stoking such partisan mass hysteria. How can the same Democrats and journalists that have been alleging, without evidence, that the president of the United States is a criminal and a traitor now come to terms with the reality of the hoax they have perpetrated out of petty partisan spite? The answer is they will not.

They already plan to move on to the next narrative con. This is where “obstruction” comes into play. Democrats have made it clear that, unable to prove the primary charges they used to hobble a presidency for two years, their follow on act will be to open new investigations and chase other charges around obstruction. Without a hint of self-reflection or a twinge of good faith, they will pretend that all along the real problem with President Trump has been his machiavellian interference in the justice system.

This is as preposterous as it is dishonest. If Trump corrupted the Justice Department in his favor, he had a bizarre way of doing it. He never interfered with the special counsel investigation, despite its partisan bias and shady origins. He did not fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, despite him richly deserving it. Trump did fire James Comey, which Rosenstein explicitly endorsed in writing. That of course led to the retaliation of appointing a special counsel. It is really the Justice Department that obstructed Trump.

Are supposed to ignore the convenient tactic of the Democrats moving right past collusion to obstruction? No serious person really believes that, while Mueller so far has failed to uncover illegal interference in government actions, some decidedly oleaginous characters in Congress like Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell will. Mueller showed no hesitation in prosecuting peripheral figures in the Russia collusion drama for the most minor process crimes. Those who suddenly refuse to believe the special counsel was thorough enough have no interest in finding the truth. They never did to begin with.

The Democratic playbook all along has been obvious. They are merely weaponizing the investigative and prosecutorial functions of government for partisan ends. This is anti-Trump lawfare under the guise of “congressional oversight.” Once Democrats tire of sermonizing under the capitol dome about the threat of obstruction, they will move along to his tax returns, business dealings, dangerously ample girth, or whatever else they can dream up.

Whatever one thinks of Trump, the machinations to take him down are not without cost. For anyone paying attention, it is hard to overstate the damage done to the credibility of our institutions like the Justice Department in the scorched earth effort to end his presidency. While Congress is no stranger to low approval ratings, the circus like hearings that the Democrats plan to continue will do nothing to enhance the faith of the American people in it.

It is clear that the left has an unhealthy hatred for Trump, and they would leap at any excuse to remove him from office instead of waiting for the 2020 election results. They neither respect the decision of the American people in the 2016 election, nor their ability to make up their own minds the next time around. Democrats are hellbent on finding some way, any way, to take down Trump. They could care less what they have to obstruct, corrupt, or destroy in the process.

Buck Sexton is the cohost of the morning show “Rising” on Hill TV and the host of “The Buck Sexton Show” on radio and podcast. He is both a former officer at the Central Intelligence Agency and a former analyst at the New York City Police Department. You can follow him on Twitter @BuckSexton.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders went nuclear on Monday night and revealed the real reason why Democrats are leading witch hunts into President Donald Trump. Sanders released a scathing statement in response to House

dailycaller

Published  1 month ago

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has vamped up his investigation of President Trump with the hire of a former federal prosecutor and MSNBC analyst who has already determined that Trump committed numerous felonies.

Daniel Goldman, who served as assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, will oversee the Intelligence Committee’s investigation of Trump, according to NBC News.

Goldman joined NBC and MSNBC as a legal analyst after leaving government in 2017.

As a pundit, Goldman has made his thoughts about Trump clear, repeatedly asserting, without evidence, that Trump and his campaign associates colluded with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.

“We already now know that the president has committed a felony in order to obtain the office of the presidency,” he said in a Dec. 14, 2018 segment on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Goldman was seemingly referring to the case involving Michael Cohen, the former Trump attorney who pleaded guilty to several crimes, including making illegal campaign contributions in the form of payments to porn star Stormy Daniels.

Trump is identified in court filings in that case as “Individual-1.” Cohen has claimed that Trump directed him to make payments to Daniels in October 2016 in order to keep her from revealing an affair she had with Trump in 2006.

Goldman also endorsed a now-debunked McClatchy report as evidence of “collusion!!” with Russia.

a few reax points:

1) If Mueller knows this, and Cohen came clean (as they say he did), why not plead to lying to Congress about this?

2) critical corroboration of Steele Dossier. Nothing has been undermined thus far.

4) big cover-up. https://t.co/QRhBnnHvbU

— Daniel Goldman (@danielsgoldman) December 27, 2018

The article cited by Goldman claimed that special counsel Robert Mueller has received evidence that Cohen’s cell phone pinged off of a tower near Prague. If true, the story would have seemingly verified claims made in the Steele dossier. Cohen is accused in that report of meeting in Prague in August 2016 with Kremlin officials to pay off Russian hackers. (RELATED: Michael Cohen Puts Dagger In The Heart Of Steele Dossier)

But in congressional testimony last Wednesday, Cohen said that he had never been to Prague or the Czech Republic. He disputed other claims made about him in the dossier during a closed-door deposition with the House Intelligence panel on Thursday.

Schiff has said that he is expanding an investigation into possible collusion, as well as into whether Trump’s business dealings opened him up to being compromised by foreign governments. The investigation will focus heavily on Trump’s finances.

Republicans on the committee released a report on April 28 that found no evidence of collusion. GOP California Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the committee, led an investigation into the FBI’s handling of the dossier.

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.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Newly-confirmed Attorney General Bill Barr will not recuse himself from Mueller’s Trump Russia witch hunt.

Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said Monday in a statement that Bill Barr was advised by senior DOJ officials not to recuse himself from overseeing Mueller’s investigation.

“Consistent with that advice, General Barr has decided not to recuse,” Kupec said.

Bill Barr was confirmed as President Trump’s new Attorney General by the Senate last month in a 54-45 vote.

During the Senate confirmation hearings, Barr revealed he has been best friends with Robert Mueller for over 20 years and their wives even attend Bible study together.

Bill Barr said during his confirmation hearings that it is “vitally important” that Mueller be allowed to finish his investigation.

Mueller is reportedly winding down his Trump Russia witch hunt and preparing a report.

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.

When asked what he will do with Mueller’s report, Bill Barr said during his confirmation hearings that he wants to be as transparent as possible “consistent with the rules and the law.”

GOP lawmakers have criminally referred Michael Cohen to the DOJ and Mueller’s report is almost finished, which means it’s in Bill Barr’s court to do something.

We will soon find out if Bill Barr has the mettle to stand up to the Deep State and drain the swamp or if he’s Jeff Sessions 2.0.

Diamond & Silk

Published  1 month ago

The final report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller will end President Trump, Democrats claimed. Since Trump first won the 2016 presidential election, Democrats have repeatedly claimed that Trump was guilty of foul play and that he’ll one day see justice. Right? That’ll be the day, Democrats claimed, when Trump is hauled away in cuffs for conspiring and colluding with Russian President Vladimir Putin. These lines and more are what conservatives and others have been hearing echoed from mainstream media and from seemingly countless Democrats.

But, their tone has changed considerably.

Check it out…

“Mueller’s report will almost certainly disappoint you, and it’s not his fault,” Renato Mariotti, a CNN legal analyst wrote.

He continued: “It’s your fault for buying into Trump’s false narrative that it is Mueller’s’ job to prove ‘collusion,’ a nearly impossible bar for any prosecutor to clear.”

Wait—didn’t Democrats say Mueller spell doomsday to the Trump administration? What happened?

Check it out, via TIME:

After endless hype, special counsel Robert Mueller may be about to submit his report. It is impossible to know what his conclusions will be. But after so much speculation, one outcome seems likely: Mueller will disappoint just about everyone — especially President Trump’s critics. And it won’t be his fault.

This is due in part to Trump’s successful disinformation crusade, which has worked to raise a nearly impossible and definitely illogical bar for Mueller to clear: proving “collusion” and charging a grand criminal conspiracy involving the Trump campaign and the Russian government. But it is also due to Trump’s critics, who have responded to Trump’s “No collusion!” mantra by shouting back, “Yes, collusion!”

The word collusion appears nowhere in the order authorizing Mueller’s investigation. There is not even a relevant crime called “collusion.” What Mueller is tasked with is investigating “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with” the Trump campaign.

If “links and/or coordination” also don’t sound like crimes, that’s because they aren’t. While Mueller is directed to charge and prosecute crimes he discovers, his is primarily a counterintelligence investigation — not a criminal one — the purpose of which is to identify threats to our national security, potentially including the President of the United States and his associates.

Mariotti tried to still give Democrats hope that Trump is guilty of something.

“The focus on whether Mueller can prove ‘collusion’ is taking away attention from crimes can be readily proven: Trump has obstructed justice in plain sight and has been implicated in breaking campaign finance law. He also faces significant legal jeopardy for financial crimes,” the legal analyst tweeted.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

The White House issued a fiery response Monday to Democrat demands for over 80 people connected to President Donald Trump to hand over documents for investigation.

“Chairman Nadler and his fellow Democrats have embarked on this fishing expedition because they are terrified that their two-year false narrative of ‘Russia collusion’ is crumbling,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement on Monday evening.

Sanders dismissed the investigation into “tired, false allegations” that she said were already part of the Special Counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller.

She criticized Democrats for trying to distract from their disastrous policies like economic socialism, infanticide, and the Green New Deal rather than work to fix the country’s problems.

“The American people deserve a Congress that works with the president to address serious issues like immigration, healthcare, and infrastructure,” she said.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler appeared on CNN Monday night to discuss his investigation.

“For two years, the Trump administration has been attacking the core functions of our democracy and the Congress has refused to do any oversight,” he said.

But Sanders dismissed the Democrat effort as a partisan exercise.

“The Democrats are more interested in pathetic political games and catering to a radical, leftist base than on producing results for our citizens,” she wrote. “The Democrats are not after the truth, they are after the President.”

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Attorney General William Barr will not recuse himself from special counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing Russia investigation.

"Following General Barr's confirmation, senior career ethics officials advised that General Barr should not recuse himself from the Special Counsel's investigation,” Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “Consistent with that advice, General Barr has decided not to recuse.”

Barr, who was confirmed last month, attracted scrutiny from Democrats due to a 19-page memo he wrote last June that outlined why he thought President Trump didn’t obstruct justice when he ousted former FBI Director James Comey in 2017. The memo argued it was "fatally misconceived" to probe obstruction of justice charges against Trump and said “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.”

Meanwhile, some conservatives expressed concern over Barr’s relationship with Mueller. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he was caught off guard when he was informed Mueller was a guest at Barr’s daughters’ weddings and that their wives are involved in the same Bible study.

Barr did not commit to recusing himself from the Russia investigation in light of the backlash and instead said he would confer with ethics officials.

Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin. He is also looking at whether Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey. Trump has repeatedly denounced the investigation and called it a “witch hunt.”

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the investigation due to meetings with Russia’s ambassador, paving the way for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to oversee the investigation as its acting attorney general. Rosenstein then appointed Mueller to lead the investigation.

After Sessions’ departure, former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker refrained from recusing himself, even though the Justice Department told Congress that ethics advisers believed he "should recuse himself ... because it was their view that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts likely would question [his] impartiality." Whitaker had previously been critical of Mueller.

Tablet Magazine

Published  1 month ago

To date the investigation into the Fusion GPS-manufactured collusion scandal has focused largely on the firm itself, its allies in the press, as well as contacts in the Department of Justice and FBI. However, if a sitting president used the instruments of state, including the intelligence community,...

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Corrupt Obama-appointed Judge Amy Berman Jackson signaled she may revoke Roger Stone’s bail because his book calling precious King Mueller “crooked” is still on sale despite the full gag order she imposed on Stone. Amy Berman Jackson trampled on Roger Stone’s First Amendment rights when she imposed a total gag order on Stone on February 21st […]

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 month ago

The document request sent to Eric Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Jared Kushner all has a common theme. They are related to the Russia cover-up and obstruction of justice.

“Over the last several years, President Trump has evaded accountability for his near-daily attacks on our basic legal, ethical, and constitutional rules and norms,” said Chairman Jerrold Nadler.”

“Investigating these threats to the rule of law is an obligation of Congress and a core function of the House Judiciary Committee. We have seen the damage done to our democratic institutions in the two years that the Congress refused to conduct responsible oversight. Congress must provide a check on abuses of power. Equally, we must protect and respect the work of Special Counsel Mueller, but we cannot rely on others to do the investigative work for us. Our work is even more urgent after senior Justice Department officials have suggested that they may conceal the work of the Special Counsel’s investigation from the public.”

Chairman Nadler puts the pieces together.

For example, Eric Trump’s document request covers everything from the Trump Tower meeting with Russians to the firing of James Comey, Robert Mueller, and the recusal of Jeff Sessions.

Read the document request to Eric Trump:

Nadler also wants any documents related to the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels.

Rep. Nadler also wants documents on Trump Tower Moscow, Emoluments Clause violations, and any discussions about lifting Russian sanctions.

Read the document request to Donald Trump Jr.:

Jared Kushner’s document request contains a request for any communications between himself and Russia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE:

Nadler is laying the groundwork for impeachment

One look at these document requests to Trump’s kids, a.k.a. the people on the inside of the inner circle, and it becomes clear that this investigation is laying the foundation for impeachment. Rep. Nadler is leaving no area of Trump corruption unexplored. The House Judiciary Committee is where any impeachment process would begin. Rep. Nadler is correct when he says that impeachment is a long way off, but this investigation is the first step on the path toward impeaching Donald Trump.

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

The Federalist

Published  1 month ago

New e-mails show former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe was surprisingly knowledgeable about CNN's understanding of and deliberation about a dossier briefing given to Donald Trump days before CNN ever reported on the matter.

Newly revealed e-mails show that former Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) deputy director Andrew McCabe was keenly aware of CNN’s internal understanding of a secret briefing about the infamous Steele dossier, days before CNN published any stories on the matter. The e-mails, which were obtained by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), also reveal that top officials used coded language to refer to the salacious and unverified allegations made by Steele.

Former FBI director James Comey briefed then-President-Elect Donald Trump on January 6, 2017, on at least one unproven allegation contained in Steele’s dossier, which was jointly funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. CNN broke the story about the dossier briefing on January 10, 2017, touching off a firestorm of hysteria that culminated in not just the firing of Comey by Trump, but the eventual appointment of Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Robert Mueller.

Comey claimed that he was compelled to brief Trump on the dossier because “CNN had [it]” and was “looking for a news hook.”

Hours before Comey briefed Trump, FBI chief of staff James Rybicki e-mailed staff that Comey “is coming into HQ briefly now for an update from the sensitive matter team.” Just as the same officials dubbed the Clinton e-mail investigation the “mid-year exam” and the anti-Trump counterintelligence investigation “Crossfire Hurricane,” they also used various phrases using “sensitive” to refer obliquely to the dossier.

Two days after the briefing, on January 8, 2017, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, who earlier this year was fired and then referred for criminal prosecution by the DOJ inspector general for repeatedly lying about media leaks, wrote an e-mail to top FBI officials with the subject, “Flood is coming.”

“CNN is close to going forward with the sensitive story,” McCabe wrote to Comey, Rybicki, and two others. “The trigger for them is they know the material was discussed in the brief and presented in an attachment.” He did not detail how he came to know what CNN’s “trigger” was for publishing the dossier briefing story.

Although the January 10 story from CNN also claimed that Trump was presented with a two-page summary of the dossier, which was not part of the official intelligence community assessment given to Trump, Comey himself later claimed that he did not give the two-page document to Trump, raising questions about whether McCabe himself was a source for CNN’s assertion that Trump had been given the entire two-page document during the briefing.

Shortly after sending his e-mail to Comey and other FBI officials, McCabe e-mailed then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and her deputy, Matthew Axelrod. McCabe used the subject line “News” in his e-mail to the DOJ officials.

“Just as an FYI, and as expected,” McCabe wrote, “it seems CNN is close to running a story about the sensitive reporting.” It is not clear how McCabe came to be so familiar with CNN’s understanding of the dossier, its briefing, or how close CNN was to reporting on the matter.

In a Monday letter to FBI director Christopher Wray, Sen. Johnson, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, asked the director to provide a list of all members of the “sensitive matters team” referenced by Rybicki in his January 6 e-mail. Johnson also requested that Wray provide all details about how FBI officials “first learned that media outlets, including CNN, may have possessed the Steele dossier.”

To date, there is no public evidence that the FBI ever investigated the leaks to media about the briefing between Trump and Comey. When asked in a recent interview by Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier, Comey scoffed at the idea that the FBI would even need to investigate the leak of a secret briefing with the incoming president.

“Did you or your subordinates leak that?” Baier asked.

“No,” Comey responded. “I don’t know who leaked it.”

“Did you ever try to find out?” Baier asked.

“Who leaked an unclassified public document?” Comey said, even though Baier’s question was about leaking details of a briefing of the incoming president, not the dossier. “No,” Comey said.

Johnson requested a response from Wray by 5:00 p.m. on June 4.

realclearinvestigations

Published  1 month ago

Two days after then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe formally put President Trump under criminal investigation in May 2017, bureau officials reached out to the author of the controversial

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 month ago

The House Judiciary Committee's Democratic Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler is a man in search of a crime, with an endgame to impeach Trump.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler, who would oversee any impeachment proceedings against President Trump, announced that he will more than 60 document requests to the White House and Justice Department on Monday -- a barrage that Nadler called the opening salvo in wide-ranging investigation.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., on Sunday said there are "enormous amounts of evidence" linking the Trump campaign to Russia — the same day House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said there's "direct evidence" of collusion between the two.

The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee disputed on NBC's "Meet the Press" recent remarks by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C. claiming that the committee hasn't found "factual evidence" of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.

DONALD TRUMP JR. SAYS FAMILY HAS NO FEARS OVER MUELLER INVESTIGATION REPORT

Warner, referring to "the litany of what we know," said, "the ongoing negotiations about Trump Tower, well into the campaign, I believe the fact that Mr. Trump knew about the dump of the Wikileaks material, the fact that clearly the meeting at Trump Tower meeting which was not described appropriately, in terms of offering dirt," were all evidence.

"To me, that's all evidence," he said. "There’s no one that could factually say there’s not plenty of evidence of collaboration or communications between Trump Organization and Russians."

Warner, however, did note that he'd be withholding full judgment until the Senate Intelligence Committee finishes its investigation into the 2016 presidential campaign.

Meantime on Sunday, House Intel Chair Schiff said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that he believes "there is direct evidence in the emails from the Russians through their intermediary offering dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what is described in writing as the Russian government effort to help elect Donald Trump."

“They offer that dirt. There is an acceptance of that offer in writing from the president’s son, Don Jr., and there is overt acts and furtherance of that… That to me is direct evidence," Schiff added.

The Senate committee's investigation is separate from that of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is also probing Russian election interference, questions of collusion and possible obstruction of justice by the Trump campaign.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

True Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Potentially troubling news in the quest to drain the Swamp.

Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker has left the Department of Justice.

A Justice Department spokesman told The Hill that Whitaker’s last day was Saturday but did not expand on the circumstances surrounding his departure or his plans after leaving. It is unclear where Whitaker might go, including whether he might seek another role in the Trump administration.

Whitaker served as the chief of staff for former attorney general Jeff Sessions until last November, when President Trump tapped him to lead the department temporarily following Sessions’ ouster. Sessions resigned at Trump’s request the day after the November midterm elections, after enduring months of criticism from the president over his decision to recuse himself from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

Whitaker’s departure comes less than three weeks after Bill Barr was confirmed as Trump’s next attorney general. Barr was widely expected to bring new blood to top leadership roles in the department, raising questions about Whitaker’s tenure.

Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney in Iowa, quickly emerged as a controversial figure as a result of his past criticisms of Mueller’s investigation, which he began overseeing when he took the reins at the Justice Department. Democrats and other Trump critics feared that Whitaker would take steps to impede Mueller’s probe.

Whitaker endured a contentious appearance before the House Judiciary Committee last month, during which he was grilled on the Mueller investigation and his communications with Trump. READ MORE:

TheHill

Published  1 month ago

Former acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker has left the Department of Justice.

A Justice Department spokesman told The Hill that Whitaker’s last day was Saturday but did not expand on the circumstances surrounding his departure or his plans after leaving. It is unclear where Whitaker plans to go, including whether he might seek another role in the Trump administration.

Whitaker served as the chief of staff for former attorney general Jeff Sessions until last November, when President Trump tapped him to lead the department temporarily following Sessions’ ouster. Sessions resigned at Trump’s request the day after the November midterm elections, after enduring months of criticism from the president over his decision to recuse himself from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

Whitaker’s departure comes just weeks after Bill Barr was confirmed as Trump’s pick to serve as attorney general. Barr was widely expected new blood to top leadership roles in the department, raising questions about Whitaker’s tenure.

Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney in Iowa, quickly emerged as a controversial figure as a result of his past criticisms of Mueller’s investigation, which he began overseeing when he took the reins at the Justice Department. Democrats and other Trump critics feared that Whitaker would take steps to impede Mueller’s probe in his role.

Whitaker endured a contentious appearance before the House Judiciary Committee last month during which he was grilled on the Mueller investigation and his communications with Trump. Whitaker insisted he did not interfere with the investigation and that Trump did not ask him to make commitments or promises with respect to Mueller’s probe or other investigations. But he angered Democrats by refusing to directly answer several inquiries during the public testimony.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said last week that Whitaker would return to clarify his testimony before the committee voluntarily, after alleging that his answers were “unsatisfactory, incomplete or contradicted by other evidence.”

Since Whitaker’s testimony, the New York Times reported that Trump at one point asked Whitaker whether the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey Berman could be put in charge of an investigation there related to campaign finance violations stemming from a scheme to pay off women who alleged affairs with Trump before the 2016 election. Trump has denied doing so and the Justice Department said Whitaker stood by his testimony before the Judiciary Committee.

Lydia Wheeler contributed.

POLITICO

Published  1 month ago

Christopher Steele, the British spook who authored a largely unverified dossier about President Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, has backed out of plans to speak by video at a pro-democracy gathering in Baltimore next week, according to conference organizers.

The planned speaking engagement, which had not previously been reported, would have marked his first public appearance since the publication of the explosive dossier aside from brief statements he made to the media in March 2017.

Steele, a former MI6 officer, had been scheduled to speak about disinformation next Thursday at the Reawakening the Spirit of Democracy Conference at the George Peabody Library in Baltimore.

Steele was scheduled to speak on a panel moderated by Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum. The panel also features Evelyn Farkas, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia under Barack Obama, and Ed Lucas of the Center for European Policy Analysis, Epshtein said.

Though Steele is listed as a speaker in promotional materials, Applebaum said that he had gotten “cold feet” last week and cancelled. An email sent to Steele’s private intelligence firm, Orbis, was not immediately returned.

Steele’s reports, commissioned by Hillary Clinton’s campaign via the private Washington research firm Fusion GPS, consisted of anonymously sourced reporting that alleged a “well-developed conspiracy of co-operation” between Trump, his lieutenants and the Kremlin.

The reports, which circulated among U.S. intelligence officials beginning in the summer of 2016 and were later published by BuzzFeed, helped set off a chain of events that led to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller. In the years since Steele authored his reports, evidence has emerged of extensive contacts between Trump’s aides and various Russian state-aligned actors, while many of the most salacious allegations in Steele’s reports remain unconfirmed or at least partially debunked.

In October, Steele made rare on-the-record comments to an editor for Vanity Fair, writing in an email, "In these strange and troubling times, it is hard to speak unpalatable truths to power, but I believe we all still have a duty to do so."

Steele’s abortive reemergence in the spotlight comes at a time when Mueller is reportedly close to wrapping up his investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Next week’s conference, which will continue without Steele, “will examine and wrestle with the underlying threats to liberal democracy and propose strategies to reinvigorate it,” according to promotional materials.

The conference features several establishment mainstays from both political parties, including Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), former Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and former undersecretary of defense for George W. Bush Paul Wolfowitz. The conference is being organized by the Renew Democracy Initiative, which is chaired by chess grandmaster turned Russian opposition leader Garry Kasparov.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

When investigators announce before the investigation even begins that they already know what happened – but they can’t prove it yet – then you know what that means. The pursuit of the evidence that proves the preconceived conclusion will go on forever. If the first hundred documents don’t prove it, no problem. Subpoena 500 more.…

TheHill

Published  1 month ago

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Monday that Democrats would be introducing a net neutrality bill to replace the set of open internet rules that were repealed in 2017.

Mediaite

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump railed against Special Counsel Robert Mueller, his team of investigators and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions during a lengthy and profane tirade at CPAC on Saturday.

During an extensive improvised riff, Trump praised his own election victory in 2016, calling it “the greatest of all time.”

“You put the wrong people in a couple of positions…and all of a sudden, they are trying to take you out with bullshit!” Trump said, which drew rapturous applause and chants of “Bullshit!” from inside the hall, per reports.

“Robert Mueller never received a single vote,” Trump said, of the investigator appointed to lead a probe into his campaign’s ties with Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Trump then turned his ire to Sessions, who served as attorney general through several years of presidential Twitter abuse, after he recused himself from the Russia investigation given his work on the 2016 campaign.

“I’m gonna recuse mahself,” Trump said, mocking Sessions’s Alabama accent.

“Robert Mueller put 13 of the angriest Democrats in the history of our country on the commission,” Trump continued. “All killers.”

Watch above, via C-SPAN.

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump treated CPAC crowds with a speech that lasted over two hours on Saturday, just outside of Washington, DC.

Daily Torch

Published  1 month ago

“I’ve never been to Prague. I’ve never been to the Czech Republic.”

That was Michael Cohen, one-time lawyer for President Donald Trump, stating once again for the record before the House Oversight Committee that allegations by former British spy Christopher Steele that in August or September of 2016 Cohen was in Prague meeting with Russian agents could not possibly be true.

Those Steele allegations, paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, stated that the supposed purpose of the meeting was to, according the Steele dossier, “in order to clean up the mess left behind by western media revelations of Trump ex-campaign manager [Paul] Manafort’s corrupt relationship with the former pro-Russian [Viktor] Yanukovych regime in Ukraine and Trump foreign policy advisor, Carter Page’s secret meetings in Moscow with senior regime figures in July 2016” where the Trump campaign according to Steele allegedly coordinated with Moscow to put the Democratic National Committee emails on Wikileaks.

And, it was to “cover up and damage limitation operation in the attempt to prevent the full details of Trump’s relationship with Russia being exposed” and the “overall objective had been to ‘to sweep it all under the carpet and make sure no connections could be fully established or proven’”.

But, if Cohen was never in Prague, then he very well could not have been there mopping up the fallout of the Trump campaign coordinating with Russia on the DNC email hacks and Wikileaks publication. Because the meeting never happened.

Meaning, Steele might have been taking what he thought were Steele’s travel records — Jake Tapper reported in Jan. 2017 that there was another Michael Cohen who was in Prague at the time — and either he or his sources filled in the blanks with garbage.

Not only that, but Cohen says he has no knowledge of such a conspiracy. Cohen stated before the committee, “Questions have been raised about whether I know of direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia. I do not…”

Other parts of Cohen’s testimony also appeared to confirm that President Trump had no advance knowledge of the DNC hacks, contradicting another key Steele allegation that Russia hacking the DNC had been with “the full knowledge and support of Trump and senior members of his campaign team.”

According to Cohen, he alleges that Trump found out about the emails just days before the Democratic National Convention in July 2016 when Roger Stone called Trump indicating there would be, in Cohen’s description, “a massive dump of emails [on Wikileaks] that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” Cohen testified that Trump’s reaction was to say, “Wouldn’t that be great?”

But by then, that the DNC had been hacked and the emails given to Wikileaks were already public knowledge. On June 11, 2016 Julian Assange told ITV that Wikileaks had emails related to Hillary Clinton: “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton … We have emails pending publication, that is correct.” This was an apparent reference to the John Podesta emails that would publish later that year.

Then, on June 14, 2016, the Washington Post had published its story on the DNC hack by Russia.

On June 15, 2016, seven days prior to when Special Counsel Robert Mueller alleges Wikileaks contacted Guccifer 2.0, the WordPress blog by Guccifer 2.0 appeared, taking credit for the DNC hack, and saying everything had already been given to Wikileaks. Guccifer 2.0 claimed, “The main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails, I gave to Wikileaks. They will publish them soon.”

In his indictment of Russian intelligence officers for the DNC and John Podesta hacks, Special Counsel Robert Mueller laid out the timeline for when the government says the hacks took place. The Podesta emails were hacked in March 2016, and the DNC emails were hacked in May and June 2016 and then delivered to Wikileaks in July 2016.

So, if Trump did not learn about the emails until they were about to be published, in July 2016, when the fact that they were going to be published was already public knowledge for a month, then he couldn’t have known about the hacks before they happened and in concert with Russia, as Steele had alleged.

Attorney General William Barr should be cleaning house at the Justice Department. This investigation — which is tearing this country apart — was just wrong. A national disgrace.

There was no advance knowledge of the hacks. No clandestine meetings in Prague. No conspiracy by Trump with Russia.

Oh, and as an aside, Trump never directed Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow real estate deal. Readers will remember the breathless reporting on that subject, only to be debunked by none other than Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office. Cohen put that allegation to rest, saying, “Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress.”

The bottom line is that the FBI took the Steele dossier as gospel when it launched the investigation into the Trump and his campaign, using it to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants and carrying over the investigation into the transition and then after Trump was inaugurated. None of it is panning out. Because it was a lie.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.

Time

Published  1 month ago

Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, is a practicing lawyer and the host of the On Topic podcast.

After endless hype, special counsel Robert Mueller may be about to submit his report. It is impossible to know what his conclusions will be. But after so much speculation, one outcome seems likely: Mueller will disappoint just about everyone — especially President Trump’s critics. And it won’t be his fault.

This is due in part to Trump’s successful disinformation crusade, which has worked to raise a nearly impossible and definitely illogical bar for Mueller to clear: proving “collusion” and charging a grand criminal conspiracy involving the Trump campaign and the Russian government. But it is also due to Trump’s critics, who have responded to Trump’s “No collusion!” mantra by shouting back, “Yes, collusion!”

The word collusion appears nowhere in the order authorizing Mueller’s investigation. There is not even a relevant crime called “collusion.” What Mueller is tasked with is investigating “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with” the Trump campaign.

If “links and/or coordination” also don’t sound like crimes, that’s because they aren’t. While Mueller is directed to charge and prosecute crimes he discovers, his is primarily a counterintelligence investigation — not a criminal one — the purpose of which is to identify threats to our national security, potentially including the President of the United States and his associates.

Mueller’s investigation is already successful. He has laid bare connections between key members of Trump’s campaign and Russian operatives, including the recent revelation that former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort allegedly shared internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, who Mueller has alleged is a former Russian intelligence officer. Along the way, Mueller has charged 34 people and three companies with committing serious crimes.

But all the while, partisans and legal analysts on TV and Twitter have inflated expectations for the investigation. For instance, after former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress, one analyst, whom I respect, tweeted that Mueller is “preparing to lay down a royal flush.” To some members of the public, that could be interpreted to mean we can be confident Mueller will prove that Trump conspired with Moscow — something we cannot yet know. Even when Mueller obtained significant guilty pleas, people focused on what could be next — instead of the perhaps truer threats to the Trump presidency, like the campaign-finance crimes discussed at length by Cohen in court filings and his Feb. 27 testimony. This feeds into the seemingly insatiable public desire not for what has happened but for what could happen.

While there can be value in explaining potential outcomes, speculation about what Mueller could do has so far exceeded even his substantial accomplishments — and some developments suggest Mueller’s investigation may not prove a grand conspiracy.

For example, Mueller’s sentencing memorandum for Manafort, released on Feb. 23, contained no new revelations, and relatively little material was redacted. Yet Mueller is obligated to make the judge aware of all of Manafort’s “history and characteristics” that could be relevant at sentencing; if Mueller was sitting on a mountain of additional evidence against Manafort, he needed to tell the judge. Similarly, Mueller did not charge informal Trump adviser Roger Stone with conspiracy, which indicates he did not have sufficient evidence to do so when Stone was arrested in January.

There are other, broader reasons it appears unlikely that Mueller will charge a grand conspiracy. One is that it is not easy to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly for white collar crimes that require prosecutors to prove a defendant’s intent. Another is that federal sentencing law also gives prosecutors incentives to charge narrow crimes that are easier to prove.

Mueller’s report in fact could change very little. If Senate Republicans stand firm behind Trump, he will remain in office and the public will be left to speculate about the result of the many ongoing investigations of Trump’s campaign, his businesses and his Inaugural committee for years to come, as federal prosecutors investigate. Current Attorney General William Barr may be required by law not to release certain portions of the report or may try to hide the bulk of it from the public, though the latter seems just about politically impossible now.

We do not know what Mueller will do. But especially given these indicators and constraints, any outsize expectations seem misguided. And despite being fueled by Trump’s critics, they will make it easier for Trump to declare a win even if there is compelling evidence he committed crimes.

Trump has obstructed justice before our very eyes, from the firing of then FBI Director James Comey to the public pressure he put on now former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign after recusing himself, among many other examples. The public’s obsession with crimes that may never be charged has taken the focus away from that serious offense (which, for what it’s worth, is arguably a form of “collusion”).

As the Mueller investigation ends and, ideally, becomes public, it is an opportunity to refocus on what has actually happened: Trump campaign officials have committed crimes, the President has obstructed justice in plain sight, and Trump has been implicated in breaking campaign-finance law. At last, we can address reality instead of what may be fantasy.

Contact us at editors@time.com.

This appears in the March 11, 2019 issue of TIME.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary on events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

Reason.com

Published  1 month ago

It's way too early to be thinking this, much less saying it, but what the hell: If Donald Trump is able to deliver the sort of performance he gave today at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the annual meeting of right-wingers held near Washington, D.C., his reelection is a foregone conclusion.

There is simply no potential candidate in the Democratic Party who wouldn't be absolutely blown off the stage by him. I say this as someone who is neither a Trump fanboy nor a Never Trumper. But he was not simply good, he was Prince-at-the-Super-Bowl great, deftly flinging juvenile taunts at everyone who has ever crossed him, tossing red meat to the Republican faithful, and going sotto voce serious to talk about justice being done for working-class Americans screwed over by global corporations.

In a heavily improvised speech that lasted over two hours, the 72-year-old former (future?) reality TV star hit every greatest hit in his repertoire ("Crooked Hillary," "build the wall," "America is winning again," and more all made appearances) while riffing on everything from the Green New Deal to his own advanced age and weird hair to the wisdom of soldiers over generals. At times, it was like listening to Robin Williams' genie in the Disney movie Aladdin, Howard Stern in his peak years as a radio shock jock, or Don Rickles as an insult comic. When he started making asides, Trump observed, "This is how I got elected, by going off script." Two years into his presidency and he's just getting warmed up.

First and foremost, Trump was frequently funny and outre in the casually mean way that New Yorkers exude like nobody else in America. "You put the wrong people in a couple of positions," he said, lamenting the appointment of Robert Mueller as a special prosecutor, "and all of a sudden they're trying to take you out with bullshit." He voiced Jeff Sessions in a mock-Southern accent, recusing "muhself" and asked the adoring crowd why the former attorney generally hadn't told him he was going to do that before he was appointed.

Democrats backing the Green New Deal (GND) "are talking about trains to Hawaii," he said. "They haven't figured out how to get to Europe yet." He begged the Democrats not to abandon the GND because he recognizes that the more its details and costs are discussed, the more absurd it will become. "When the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your energy," he said at one point. "Did the wind stop blowing, I'd like to watch television today, guys?" "We'll go back to boats," he said, drawing huge laughs when he added, "I don't want to talk [the Democrats] out of [the GND], I just want to be the Republican who runs against it."

He railed against Never-Trump Republicans: "They're on mouth-to-mouth resuscitation," he said, adding "they're basically dishonest people" that no one cares about. He joked about being in the White House all alone on New Year's because of the government shutdown. "I was in the White House and I was lonely, so I went to Iraq," he said, recounting that when his plane was approaching the U.S. airstrip in Iraq, all lights had to be extinguished for landing. "We spend trillions of dollars in the Middle East and we can't land planes [in Iraq] with the lights on," he said, shaking his head in disbelief. "We gotta get out." He then riffed on the generals he met there who, contrary to the Pentagon brass he dealt with, said they could vanquish ISIS in a week. He claimed to have talked with a general named "Raising Cane," which might be Brigadier Gen. J. Daniel Caine, but Trump is the farthest thing from a details guy, right? "Sometimes I learn more from soldiers than I do generals," he said, deftly moving from jokes to more-substantive discussions of policies or issues.

In all seriousness, this is quite a performance from Trump: he is just about two hours into this speech and shows no signs of flagging. And far as I can tell, the CPAC crowd is still with him.

— Alexander Nazaryan (@alexnazaryan) March 2, 2019

You can cover a huge amount of material in two-hours-plus, and Trump certainly did that. After speaking sympathetically of immigrants who want to come to the United States and saying that we need more people because the economy (well, his economy, as he takes credit for it) is doing so well, he immediately dismissed the Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and Hondurans traveling north in caravans across Mexico. In a bizarre display of simultaneous empathy and contempt, he talked at length about how female migrants are being systematically "raped" but also how the caravans were filled with criminals and drug dealers. It was "sad to see how stupid we've become" to think that the caravans are filled with good people. As he has been doing since his State of the Union address, he has been laying out a partial, inchoate case for a skills-based immigration program. He explained walking away from the table with North Korea even as he noted yet again that he has a great relationship with the dictator Kim Jong Un. In a long riff on trade policy, he invoked the "Great Tariff Debate of 1888" and how China "and everyone else" had been taking advantage of us until he started pushing back. He took time to talk about how no, really, the crowd at his inauguration was in fact historically large despite all publicly available evidence.

All in all, it was, in the words of Daniel Dale, the Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star, "one of the least-hinged speeches Trump has given in a long time." It was indeed all over the place but like the weirdly wide-ranging and digressive speech in which he declared a national emergency, it was also an absolute tour de force, laying out every major point of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats (abortion, the Second Amendment, and taxes, among other things) while tagging the latter aggressively as socialists who will not only end the private provision of health care but take over the energy sector too. Those charges take on new life in the wake of the announcement of the GND and comments, however short-lived, by Democrats such as Kamala Harris, who at one point recently called for an end to private health care. And over 100 House Democrats have signed on to a plan that would end private health insurance in two years. For all the biting criticism and dark humor in today's speech, Trump has mostly ditched the "American Carnage" rhetoric that marked his first Inaugural Address, pushing onto liberals and Democrats all the negativity and anger that used to surround him like the dust cloud surrounds Pigpen in the old Peanuts cartoons. "We have people in Congress right now who hate our country," he said. "We can name every one of them. Sad, very, very sad."

At moments, he seemed to be workshopping his themes and slogans for 2020. "We believe in the American Dream, not the socialist nightmare," he averred at one point. "Now you have a president who finally standing up for America." The future, he said "does not belong to those who believe in socialism. The future belongs to those who believe in freedom. I've said it before and will say it again: America will never be a socialist country." That's a line that may not work forever, but it will almost certainly get the job done in 2020.

None of this is to suggest that this speech wasn't as fact-challenged as almost every utterance Trump has given since announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination (go to Daniel Dale's Twitter thread for a running count of misstatements of fact). He hammered trade deficits in a way that will remind anyone with an undergrad economics course under their belt that he fundamentally doesn't know what he's talking about. He misrepresented both NAFTA and the new trade bill he crafted with Mexico and Canada, and at the exact moment that hundreds of wearied listeners started leaving the ballroom at The Gaylord Resort and Convention Center, he claimed that not a single person had left their seat.

But the 2020 presidential race is not going to be decided based on which candidate is more tightly moored to reality. It's going to be decided, like these things always are, by the relative health of the economy and the large vision of the future the different candidates put forward. As the economy continues to expand (however anemically compared to historical averages) and he continues to avoid credible charges of impeachable offenses, Trump is becoming sunnier and sunnier while the Democrats are painting contemporary America as a late-capitalist hellhole riven by growing racial, ethnic, and other tensions.

Trump isn't the creator of post-factual politics in America, he is merely currently its most-gifted practitioner (oddly, his ideological and demographic counterpart and fellow New Yorker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may become a challenger to him on precisely this score). Trump may have next to no credibility in profoundly disturbing ways, but American politics has been drifting away from reality for the entire 21st century, when the 2000 election was essentially decided by a coin flip, the United States entered the Iraq War under false premises, and Barack Obama took home Politifact's 2013 "Lie of the Year" award and dissembled unconvincingly in the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations.

That Trump didn't invent the current situation doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about it, but if he can continue to perform the way he did today at CPAC, it remains to be seen what Democratic rival can rise to that challenge.

Spectator USA

Published  1 month ago

Jared Kushner had his security clearance restored last month. He can, once again, read classified documents, such as the President’s Daily Brief, or PDB, which contains some of the nation’s most sensitive secrets. Many American commentators said this must mean Kushner is out of danger with the special counsel’s inquiry into the Trump campaign and Russia. If the special counsel, Robert Mueller, had turned up anything really bad, they argue, he would have told the FBI agents doing Kushner’s background check. One legal expert told the New York Times that Kushner could breath a sigh of relief. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Kusher, Trump’s son in law, had been working in the White House for a year under a temporary top secret clearance. This was pulled by the chief of staff, John Kelly in February in what a memo leaked to the Washington Post portrayed as a general tightening of procedures. Kelly acted after the White House staff secretary, Rob Porter, was fired for failing to mention that two ex-wives had accused him of beating them. The US media reported that Kushner’s temporary clearance was revoked, and the full clearance was taking so long, because he’d failed to mention meetings with the Russian ambassador and with the head of Russia’s state investment bank during the transition. To some of Trump’s enemies, those meetings were evidence that the conspiracy with Russia was real. Others have asked if Kushner was trying to get the Russian bank to take some of the debt on his family’s disastrous real estate investment, 666 Fifth Avenue in New York.

A retired member of a US intelligence agency tells Cockburn there was another reason for revoking the temporary clearance. This source, having spoken to former colleagues still serving, says Kushner would habitually put in a stream of RFIs – Requests For Information – after he had seen the PDB or other briefings. These RFIs often related to places where his family or the Trump Organisation had business interests, or wanted to have them. There were instances, our source says, when this sensitive information was echoed back in US monitoring of calls between senior figures in the Middle East. One prince would be telling another prince secrets that the US intelligence agencies had only just gathered and passed to the White House. This was felt to be evidence that Kushner was carelessly leaking. If so, was this simple inexperience, an effort to bolster relationships that might help his family business, or – the most innocent explanation – to do with his role as Middle East envoy? Regardless: ‘It was driving the intelligence community crazy.’

It could be that – in the matter of the security clearance, and much else – Kushner is labouring under the curse of 666 Fifth Avenue, or 660 as the family have, rather desperately, renamed it. This was possibly the worst commercial real estate purchase in history, at the time certainly the most expensive, bought at the top of the market and now half empty, compounding debt in a way that threatens to wipe out the Kushner family finances. Shortly after President Trump’s election victory, Kushner met Wu Xiaohui, chairman of a vastly wealthy Chinese conglomerate, Anbang, to discuss a $4bn bail out. That deal fell through and then, last month, Wu was convicted of corruption by a Chinese court, receiving an 18-year sentence. This was not a coincidence, according to one senior former White House official. Wu is Communist nobility, married to a granddaughter of Deng Xiaoping, the kind of personage that China’s anti-corruption drive would not normally touch. ‘No one is connecting the dots,’ said the former official: ‘Wu was put on trial for failing to succeed in mounting a Chinese influence operation [against Kushner].’

Manoeuvring to get out from under the crushing debt on 666, various Kushners have also met with various Qataris to secure finance. Before the election, Jared met several times with Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani, one of the country’s richest men. After the election, his father, Charlie, had talks with Qatar’s minister of finance. ‘None of us knew the rules of government or what we should do,’ Charlie explained. ‘But we realized after that meeting, that it was a wrong thing to do.’ Coincidentally, this realisation came after the talks failed to secure the hoped for Qatari bounty.

The deadly, but unproven allegation against Jared is that he used his government position as Middle East envoy to advance his family’s private interests. One participant in West Wing meetings tells Cockburn that while the 666 negotiations were going on, Kushner argued vehemently against supporting the current blockade of Qatar by its neighbours. This was something our informant interpreted as motivated by the family’s need for Qatari money. Coincidentally, the blockade was imposed – with American support – shortly after the Kushner family’s negotiations with the Qataris on 666 fell through. The Qataris believed they were being extorted, according to sources close to the royal family.

This story may, however, have a happy ending. Last month, an investment fund part owned by Qatar was in negotiations to take on some of the 666 debt. Coincidentally, an official in one of the Gulf countries enforcing the blockade tells Cockburn that the ruler there has just received a ‘very rude’ letter from President Trump saying it’s time to make friends with Qatar.

Allegations about wrongdoing by Kushner remain just that. At the very least, though, the tangled history of 666 shows how complicated his background check would be. The many meetings with foreign companies and banks – often with state links – would have to be exhaustively checked by the FBI. This would take time. Presumably then, all the checks turned up nothing, now that Kushner has his permanent clearance? That may be the case but even here the truth is hard to make out. Former officials who dealt with these issues in government say that a president can insist, over the heads of the intelligence community, that an aide is granted so called TS/SCI clearance, standing for Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information.

This is a logical extension of the view that a president can classify or declassify intelligence at will, one instance where Nixon’s statement that “If a president does it, it’s not illegal” really is true. Sadly for Kushner, and for President Trump – both under scrutiny by the special counsel – this principle may not apply more widely.

Funnily enough, Jared Kushner’s office did not reply to Cockburn’s Request For Information or any of the allegations contained within this article.

David Harris Jr

Published  1 month ago

The illicit prosecutions taken on by Mueller and Weissmann have affected 80,000 people just at one company, who were all thrown out of work. People who committed no crimes went to prison, some for decades before being found innocent after exculpatory evidence was withheld by Mueller and Weissmann. Taxpayers footed the bill for these illegal prosecutions by paying out $108 million dollars. People’s lives were turned upside down and some went bankrupt from the hefty legal fees. These are the people who have been investigating President Trump. They are corrupt and sent people they knew were innocent to prison.

1 Audit firm Arthur Andersen and its 80,000 plus employees –

Sydney Powell recently was on with Mark Levin on his show on FOX News and she described the actions taken by former FBI Head Robert Mueller during the Enron case in the early 2000’s. Powell wrote LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice after seeing a core group of federal prosecutors break all the rules, make up crimes, hide evidence, and send innocent people to prison in the Enron case. When she saw them promoted to the top of the US legal system at the DOJ and FBI she had had enough.

Powell discusses how Mueller hand picked Weissmann wanting this corrupt attorney on his team –

Mueller and Weissmann made up a crime that resulted in the complete destruction of Arthur Andersen and the loss of more than 80,000 jobs for those employed by this corporation. This crime was eventually overturned by the US Supreme Court unanimously but it was far too late for all involved because the company was totally destroyed years before the Supreme Court decision.

2. Four Merrill Lynch employees –

Next, according to Powell, Mueller and Weissmann created crimes to indict four Americans at Merrill Lynch. They put these four individuals through ten years of “unmitigated hell”. Putting at least one of the four in solitary confinement.

3. General Mike Flynn and his lies that never occurred –

Move forward more than a decade and Mueller and Weissmann joined hands again but this time in the corrupt and unconstitutional Mueller Special Counsel team. Because of this, none of the crimes or corrupt actions taken against the President and those closest to him are legal or just.

This is of no concern to Mueller and Weissmann however. The first person they targeted was President Trump’s former National Security Advisor. Flynn was set up by former FBI Agent Peter Strzok and another corrupt agent in the White House. The notes they took as a result of their interview with the General were altered and the final notes (form 302’s) have not yet been uncovered. General Flynn was set up.

4. Paul Manafort’s crimes that were not crimes just years prior –

Paul Manafort was indicted on a number of crimes by corrupt Mueller and his gang. The problem with their initial indictment was that the actions under indictment were reviewed by the FBI previously and not considered crimes. The FBI interviewed Manafort in 2014 for the same crimes they indicted him on a few years later but neglected to press charges then because Obama gang members were involved.

Currently corrupt Obama appointed Judge Amy Berman Jackson has Manafort in solitary confinement for months now after putting a gag order on Manafort and then throwing him in jail. It’s a wonder what Manafort knows because Judge Jackson and the Mueller team want him dead.

5. Made up crime against numerous Russians and Russian companies –

Four out of five of the made up indictments in the Mueller investigation are Russians. As of mid-October, the total number of individuals indicted was 37 individuals and three companies. We really don’t know and doubt that the Russians are even real. The individuals were indicted for posting stories on Facebook in Russian that Mueller says swayed the 2016 election towards Trump. The number of posts in Russian were less than a percent of a percent of posts recorded on Facebook during the period stated, part of which was after the 2016 election.

In the one case with Russians that has come to trial, with Russian Company Concord Management, is under indictment for a crime that the judge had to ask the Mueller team to define, because the so called crime is again made up.

In December in the Concord Management case it was uncovered that Mueller has a nude selfie on someone – we don’t know who, and his gang won’t tell how they got it, while running along with a special investigation created on a made up crime, where the individuals prosecuted aren’t even real.

There are probably dozens more but these are the main five cases. I have already written about the foiur innocent men who were convicted of murder in which exculpatory evidence was withheld. Two dies in prison and the families of the two men and the two survivors won $101 million for wrongful prosecution.

My book is here! And I personally handed a copy to our President at the White House!!! I hope you enjoy it @realDonaldTrump!

Follow David on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Patreon and YouTube @DavidJHarrisJr

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Former Trump attorney and convicted liar Michael Cohen testified before Congress this week. Congressional Republicans including Rep. Jim Jordan are seeking new perjury charges against Cohen following his testimony.

Rudy Giuliani piled on.

Mueller prosecuted General Flynn for a false statement when the FBI thought he was telling the truth. Well Cohen’s perjury about seeking a WH job is proven by his own words. Must be prosecuted? https://t.co/3Ibi5FMACb

— Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) March 1, 2019

On Friday President Trump weighed in on liar Michael Cohen.

Oh’ I see! Now that the 2 year Russian Collusion case has fallen apart, there was no Collusion except bye Crooked Hillary and the Democrats, they say, “gee, I have an idea, let’s look at Trump’s finances and every deal he has ever done. Let’s follow discredited Michael Cohen…..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 1, 2019

…and the fraudulent and dishonest statements he made on Wednesday. No way, it’s time to stop this corrupt and illegally brought Witch Hunt. Time to start looking at the other side where real crimes were committed. Republicans have been abused long enough. Must end now!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 1, 2019

Trump wants Congress to look at Cohen’s book manuscript that was written last year.

Michael Cohen’s book manuscript shows that he committed perjury on a scale not seen before. He must have forgotten about his book when he testified. What does Hillary Clinton’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, say about this one. Is he being paid by Crooked Hillary. Using her lawyer?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 1, 2019

President Trump is right.

A new report at The Daily Mail reveals former attorney Michael Cohen enthusiastically praised Donald Trump in his latest book just weeks before the Dirty Cop Robert Mueller’s FBI raid on his office and home.

President Donald Trump is not crazy. Nor is he dumb or paranoid. Certainly he is not in over his head. Is he a liar? Nope. And he is not addicted to TV either.

Who says so? None other than Michael Cohen, the president’s former lawyer and fixer who eviscerated Trump in three days of testimony before Congressional committees this week.

Cohen’s comments were in a book proposal that the jail-bound disbarred attorney was shopping around in the weeks before the FBI raided his offices last year. DailyMail.com has reviewed a copy of that proposal.

At the time he had nothing but good things to say about his boss who had entered the White House a little more than a year earlier.

POLITICO

Published  1 month ago

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) called Friday for full transparency from special counsel Robert Mueller if his final report on Russian election interference is made public, demanding that any release include every piece of evidence that Mueller used to compile the report.

The California Republican, in an appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference alongside Tom Fitton, president of the right-wing activist group Judicial Watch, prefaced his proposal by saying he doesn’t believe “Mueller has any report to put out that would be worthwhile, with anything new.”

But, he argued, “If he does put out a report, you're gonna see people claiming, 'Oh we have to have this public, it's got to be made public.' That's fine. But I want everything that Mueller did made public. I want email, I want everybody that they wiretapped, every warrant that they got, every single thing that Mueller used needs to be made public for all of America to see."

He contextualized his argument by saying that he didn’t necessarily disagree with Fitton, who had just told the audience that “this Justice Department has no business writing reports on the president’s conduct as president.”

Fitton claimed without evidence that Mueller’s investigators are “anti-Trumpers,” saying that they don’t need to be writing “another shady dossier.”

The release of Mueller’s final report on his nearly two-year investigation has been the subject of intense speculation in recent weeks.

Some media outlets reported that Attorney General William Barr would announce the conclusion of the special counsel's investigation as early as this week, and that Barr could send a summary report to Congress soon after.

The conclusion of the investigation will likely initiate a clash between Congress, where many Democrats are calling for the full report to be made public, and the Justice Department, where Barr has been noncommittal about doing so. Democrats warned they could subpoena the report or Mueller himself.

While Nunes on Friday said he wanted all of Mueller’s evidence disclosed, he seemed to acknowledge that the Justice Department probably wouldn't do so willingly, based on their reluctance to meet his previous demands to declassify certain documents in the probe.

“I think the White House is going to ultimately have to get involved in declassifying all documents,” he said.

Nunes oversaw the House Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation as chairman in the last Congress, an investigation that fell apart amid partisan bickering on the committee.

He has frequently taken up Trump's mantle on the committee, arguing that the federal Russia investigation has been tainted by anti-Trump bias within the Justice Department and calling for the declassification of documents pertaining to the surveillance of Trump campaign aides.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump delighted Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) activists with another off-script speech on Saturday, criticizing the ongoing investigations of his businesses, his campaign, and his presidency.

After beginning his speech reading off of teleprompters, he soon pivoted to other topics in a speech that lasted over an hour.

“You know I’m totally off script right now, and this, you know, is how I got elected, by being off script,” he said. “And if we don’t go off script our country is in big trouble, folks.”

Trump lashed out at the ongoing Mueller investigation and the work behind the scenes at the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to investigate him for connections to Russia.

“Unfortunately you put the wrong people in a couple of positions, and they leave people for a long time that should not be there,” he said. “All of a sudden, they are trying to take you out with bullshit.”

Trump made it clear whom he blamed by mocking the southern accent of his former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recused himself from the investigation.

“Robert Mueller never received a vote, and neither did the person that appointed him,” Trump said, referring to the unelected bureaucrats investigating him.

Trump praised conservative Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Mark Meadows (R-NC) for defending him against the ongoing attacks.

He expressed frustration with the Democrats in Congress that were attacking him, including Rep. Adam Schiff (CA), whom he referenced as “Little Shifty Schiff.”

“These people are sick!” Trump said.

He warned that Democrats were already shifting the investigations to his personal and business deals.

“Where did that come from?” Trump asked. “He always talked about Russia. The collusion delusion.”

Trump recalled how the fake news took his jokes out of context, reminding the crowd of when he mockingly asked Wikileaks to find Hillary Clinton’s emails.

At the mention of Clinton, the crowd roared, “Lock her up, Lock her up!”

He also mocked Clinton’s former campaign manager John Podesta as “still not over getting his ass kicked.”

Trump explained to the crowd that it was “easy” to give extended speeches in rooms full of love and appreciation for what they had done.

“We’re all in love together,” he said.

The crowd chanted, “Four more years! Four more years!”

Trump joked that he should have saved some of his CPAC speech for next year when he ran in 2020.

“We’re in the swamp of Washington, DC, but you know what?” he asked. “We’re winning and they’re not.”

MarkPantano.com

Published  1 month ago

American colleges and universities have become little more than leftist indoctrination camps. Many people understand this, but most fail to realize just how bad it is.

So how does the indoctrination work? Do professors really have that much persuasive power over these ignorant little meat suits? The answer is no, professors are not as influential as we are led to believe. They are a serious problem to be sure, but they are not the only problem.

When you raise the issue of the far-left bent of higher education, most normal-thinking Americans roll their eyes in agreement and offer a comment about “liberal professors.” What most people fail to understand is that the professors are the least of the problem. True, most professors are hardcore Leftists, and many use their classes to push their personal politics on students, regardless of the subject matter. (If you think students will be spared from hearing “Republicans are Nazis” in their Organic Chemistry class, then you are badly mistaken.) However, most students don’t pay attention in class anyway, so their English Literature professor’s ever-so-persuasive lecture on the benefits of a single-payer socialized healthcare system will be lost on them. Even if they do pay attention because they forgot to charge their iPhone and because the cops busted up the keg party the night before so they actually went to sleep before 3:00 a.m. and are thus well-rested, the truth is that these students only spend about 3 hours per week for 4 months in any particular class.

What has far more mind-altering influence on students is the crushingly overwhelming Leftist culture of the typical undergraduate residential campus. There is no escaping it. It is everywhere. And it is pushed constantly by college administrators outside of the classroom.

Indoctrination by the Administrative Overlords begins the moment they step on to campus. Every new student must go through an “orientation program.” These orientations convey some important information; student services offered and how to access them, getting your school ID, dining hall hours, how to join clubs and participate in rec sports, upcoming events and other things that actually make sense. However, these orientations are also used to get students’ minds right. After all, they are leaving the world of normal people and entering The Bubble.

The rules of normal society do not necessarily apply inside The Bubble, and The Bubble has many rules of its own. The rules of The Bubble are designed to control not just students’ behavior, but also their thoughts.There is also a class hierarchy within The Bubble. Certain classes of people are more important, and have greater inherent value than others based upon characteristics such as skin color, genitalia, sexual orientation and with which of the 97 school-recognized genders students choose to identify themselves as on any particular day. The preferred classes of students are given power over the others. They are empowered to dictate what other students, and even faculty and staff, may or may not do by claiming that certain things are “offensive” to them. Once a member of a preferred class claims offended status, they are empowered to dictate changes to remedy the damage caused to their delicate sensibilities. It is in this way that they wield their given power.

There are also thuggish enforcement officials inside The Bubble whose job it is to find students who act, speak, or think in ways which can be said to violate the prevailing and ever-changing group think that all campus members are required to embrace. Armed with their vaguely-worded”code of conduct,” these enforcement thugs, with Orwellian names such as “Bias Response Teams,” spend their time waiting to stamp-out any unapproved expression of independent thought and to crush the offending thought-criminals. That an alleged “bias incident” is merely an innocent mistake or misunderstanding is not a defense for the accused inside The Bubble. May God save the unfortunate soul who innocently refers to the act of sitting cross-legged on the ground as “Indian style,” the one who is seen entering a KFC on MLK Day, the one who says “God bless you”to an atheist who sneezed in class, the one who refers to a female professor as”she” when her preferred pronoun for the day is “Xi,” or the one who accidentally drops a shoe lace in the hallway which is then interpreted as being a noose meant to intimidate and harass Black students, as recently happened at Michigan State University.

Indeed, almost every aspect of a student’s life is subject to regulation inside The Bubble. Interactions between students are controlled by a litany of strictly-enforced Bubble rules. Even intimate encounters between students are subject to the school’s regulation. Many campuses have official “Affirmative Consent” policies that prescribe the only institution-approved manner in which amorous physical interplay may ensue. There is virtually no area of a student’s life over which the student has control. They may exercise their own free will, but only if their free will comports with the dictates of The Bubble. If not, then their free will must be crushed. After all, the rules of The Bubble must be followed.

Students must learn these rules, and they must learn their place. Only students who submit themselves to The Bubble are allowed to stay.Students that resist will be beaten down and forced into compliance by the student conduct process, or they will be expelled. Nearly all will eventually comply because, as we are told constantly in modern American society, a person’s life is worthless without a college degree. So students do what they must in order to get their degree and have their lives validated. They submit.They comply. They become part of The Bubble. After 4+ years of submission they will no longer be independent, free-thinking people (to the extent they ever were). Rather, they will have become creepy little Bubble Drones. They will be fully-indoctrinated automatons. They will leave college having become fully infected by The Bubble. They will then be set loose upon the real world to infect the rest of us and, most importantly, to vote for Democrats.

Destroying Trump: The Left’s Obsession To Take Down the President and What it Means for America

Written before Robert Mueller was even appointed, this short book got it right from the beginning.

Learn about impeachment, prosecuting a President, what is really motivating the Left and more!

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

President Trump, in an expletive-laden speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Saturday, accused FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team of trying to take him out with “bulls---” and accused a top Clinton aide of not having recovered “from getting his a-- kicked.”

Trump accused his opponents of moving away from a narrative of Russian collusion as Mueller prepares to file his report on the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He said that the report was being produced “by people who weren’t elected.”

TRUMP SAYS COHEN'S NEWLY REVEALED BOOK PROPOSAL BLOWS UP TESTIMONY: 'TOTALLY DISCREDITED!'

“Unfortunately you put the wrong people in a couple of positions and they leave people for a long time that shouldn't be there and all of a sudden they're trying to take you out with bulls---,” he mused to the delighted crowd in Maryland, as he mocked “the collusion delusion.”

Trump’s remarks come just days after former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified to a House committee, and appeared to partially shut down some of the claims surrounding theories about the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Moscow -- including denying that he traveled to Prague in 2016, and saying he has no knowledge of any compromising material Russia may have on Trump.

In his speech, Trump pointed to alleged hypocrisy from Democrats who he said wanted to fire former FBI Director James Comey, only to change tune when Trump fired him in 2017. He pointed in particular to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and former Hillary Clinton campaign Chair John Podesta.

“Podesta, I believe that day, because he still hasn’t gotten over getting his a-- kicked in the election, the great genius of campaigns, he called for Comey’s resignation.”

He went on to say he told First Lady Melania Trump that the move would be popular.

“And I fire a bad cop, I fire a dirty cop and all of sudden the Democrats say 'How dare he fire him? How dare he do this?'” he said. “That's where we are. In this swamp of Washington D.C. but you know what? We are winning and they're not.”

The rip into the Russia probe marked only one aspect of a lengthy speech, where he regularly went off-script to josh and joke with the audience, as well as to wax lyrical on the issues of the day, on everything from media bias (“These people are sick”) to his “Never Trump” opponents within the GOP (“They’re on mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.”)

He saved some of his barbs for Democratic policies like The Green New Deal -- a comprehensive overhaul of America’s economy and a shift to 100 percent renewable energy.

“When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric: ‘Darling, is the wind blowing, I’d like to watch television,” he quipped.

But he jokingly encouraged them to keep on pushing the Green New Deal, apparently sensing that the policy may be unpopular and lead to Trump's re-election.

“I like the Green New Deal, I respect it greatly, it should be part of the dialogue of the next election," he said to laughter from the audience.

He also used anecdotes to promote his policies at home and abroad, particularly pulling back troops from the Middle East. At length he talked about how he flew it into Iraq over Christmas and was told to kill the lights on Air Force One as it came into land.

"We spent $7 trillion and we can’t land a plane with no lights on,” he said.

As Trump spoke at length, the crowd appeared to eat up everything he had to say. Ahead of the speech, audience members stood on chairs, craning their necks to get a glimpse as the Rolling Stones' "Time Is On My Side" blared through the speakers -- indicating the president's imminent arrival."

Fox News' Liam Quinn contributed to this report.

Zero Hedge

Published  1 month ago

"...the FISA warrant that escalated the Russia probe just before Election Day was flawed and the judges [were] misled" 

Washington Press

Published  1 month ago

The powerful House Ways and Means Committee just announced it is ready to do anything it takes to get ten years’ worth of President Trump’s taxes directly from the IRS, including litigation.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) instructed its lawyers to prepare the formal request after consulting with investigators from four other House panels looking into Trump’s foreign influence, improprieties and crimes.

Now that the President’s convicted former personal lawyer Michael Cohen has spilled the beans on a wide variety of crimes by his family business, NBC News reports that Democrats have initiated the process which was previously on hold for the results of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe:

There are several key pieces of information Cohen, Trump’s former personal “fixer” and attorney, provided in his testimony that strengthen the case for Congress to obtain the returns, according to the aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The U.S. tax code authorizes the Ways and Means Committee to obtain any U.S. taxpayers’ returns. Yet committee lawyers are expected to craft a request as precise as possible, aides said, in order to short circuit an all-but-certain legal challenge by the president that could draw the process out.

Aides to the Ways and Means Committee indicated to NBC that they’ll also seek Trump’s correspondence with the IRS to determine if he was really under audit after Michael Cohen said he wasn’t to the House Oversight panel this week.

They also plan to determine if Trump wrote off his illegal hush money payments to a Playboy playmate and a porn star as a business expense, which would be a tax crime.

The last time House Democrats tried to pry Trump’s taxes loose two years ago it became a literal “oh sh*t” moment for Republicans, whose party inspired the 1924 anti-corruption law Congress enacted to investigate President Warren Harding’s corrupt GOP administration.

Trump’s blindly loyal House GOP allies blocked that request two years ago in their first major show of blind loyalty to their criminally inclined party leader.

Ten of the twenty-three Republicans who voted to keep Trump’s taxes secret have either resigned office or been voted out since the last time Democrats forced a vote on the issue.

Congress put restrictions on who can obtain a taxpayer’s returns after former Republican President Nixon’s disastrous term of office, in which he tried to use his access to the IRS to torment his foes while simultaneously committing tax crimes, for which he was later pardoned. Ironically, Nixon’s tax preparers got convicted while he walked free.

The IRS Code allows both the House and Senate to obtain a copy of any individuals tax returns, but the GOP majority in the upper house guarantees that they’ll continue to stick their head in the sand.

A poll by Harvard last December indicated that 63% of Americans want House Democrats to retrieve Trump’s taxes since he bucked the tradition that started after Nixon, where major party candidates release their returns during the election.

House Democrats have a lot of work to do once they obtain copies of Trump’s tax returns, but now that the American people have spoken in favor of a Congress that oversees and checks the President, we will finally find out why Donald Trump was so determined to hide his financial history from voters.

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

Dan Bongino

Published  1 month ago

Ranking House Intelligence Committee member Devin Nunes (R-CA) is calling for “everything” from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation to be made public.

Speaking with the Washington Examiner’s Byron York at CPAC, Nunes said Mueller won’t have anything new or “worthwhile” to report.

“I want everything that Mueller did made public. I want every email, everybody that they wiretapped, every warrant that they got,” he said. “Every single thing that Mueller used needs to be made public for all of America to see.”

Nunes said the Trump administration never had control of the Department of Justice and that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ biggest mistake was recusing himself from the Russia investigation.

The Washington Examiner reports:

Nunes said he was pinning his hopes on [Attorney General William] Barr to not only clear the Justice Department and FBI for alleged bias at their highest levels, regarding which he is expected to make several criminal referrals in the near future, but also for the sake of transparency.

Barr said in his confirmation hearing he wanted to be as “transparent” as possible in terms of whether a report would be released to Congress and the public.

For the full report, click HERE.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Guest post by Joe Hoft The country focused on a dishonest attorney from New York City this week but they should be focused on the the real criminals – the men and women of the Mueller team who put him in this situation. Mueller and his corrupt and dishonest attorney cohort Andrew Weissmann have invented […]

NBC News

Published  1 month ago

WASHINGTON — Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker left his position at the Justice Department on Saturday, a department spokeswoman said.

Whitaker had been serving as a senior counselor at the Justice Department since Attorney General William Barr was sworn in last month.

His next career move is unknown, but Whitaker has told friends that he will remain in Washington because there are "many opportunities here," according to sources who have spoken with him in recent days.

Whitaker previously served as former Attorney General Jeff Session’s chief of staff. He was accused by some within the Justice Department of being more loyal to the White House than to Sessions as President Donald Trump grew frustrated with his attorney general.

Trump publicly criticized Sessions for recusing himself from the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, a move that allowed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to appoint special counsel Robert Mueller to lead the probe. Sessions was eventually forced to resign after the November midterms.

When Whitaker took over Sessions’ position last November, Democrats expressed concerns that he would hamper the Mueller probe. Whitaker, who had previously questioned the scope of the special counsel investigation, ultimately decided not to recuse himself from the probe.

Barr now holds oversight power in the Mueller probe and with that, has the job to decide what portions of the probe, which is reportedly in its final stages, to share with Congress.

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Here are eight reasons why Michael Cohen's congressional testimony did President Trump a whole lot more good than harm.

American Greatness

Published  1 month ago

Post by @theamgreatness.

rasmussenreports

Published  1 month ago

Most voters say top Justice Department and FBI officials are likely to have acted criminally when they secretly discussed removing President Trump from office and think a special prosecutor is needed to investigate.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe senior federal law enforcement officials are likely to have broken the law in their discussions in May 2017 to oust Trump, with 37% who say it is Very Likely. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 36% consider that unlikely, with 19% who say it’s Not At All Likely that they broke the law. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Fifty-one percent (51%) think a special prosecutor should be named to investigate the discussions among senior Justice Department and FBI officials in May 2017 to remove the president from office. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree, but 11% are undecided.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters said in April of last year that a special prosecutor should be named to investigate whether senior FBI officials handled the investigations of Trump and Hillary Clinton in a legal and unbiased fashion.

Only 36% say no disciplinary action should be taken against the senior law enforcement officials who discussed removing the president from office. Twenty-one percent (21%) say they should be fired, while even more (25%) think they should be jailed. Twelve percent (12%) are calling for a formal reprimand of these officials.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on February 17-18, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

By a 50% to 40% margin, voters think it’s likely senior federal law enforcement officials broke the law in an effort to prevent Trump from winning the presidency. As in virtually all surveys related to Trump, however, there is a wide difference of opinion between Democrats and Republicans.

For example, while 77% of Republicans - and 52% of voters not affiliated with either major party - think senior law enforcement officials are likely to have broken the law in their secret discussions to remove Trump from office, just 40% of Democrats agree.

GOP voters feel much more strongly than the others that the officials in question should be fired or reprimanded.

Seventy-nine percent (79%) of voters who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing say it’s Very Likely senior law enforcement officials broke the law in their discussions to remove the president from office. Among voters who Strongly Disapprove of Trump’s job performance, just 12% agree.

Sixty percent (60%) of voters who think it’s Very Likely senior law enforcement officials broke the law say they should go to jail.

The high-level discussions by Justice Department and FBI officials about removing Trump from office followed the president’s firing of FBI Director James Comey. But voters don’t rate Comey’s FBI performance too highly. Nearly two-out-of-three Republicans (65%) and a plurality (46%) of unaffiliated voters said Comey should be prosecuted for leaking to anti-Trump media while serving as FBI director. Just 29% of Democrats agreed.

Fifty percent (50%) of voters still say it is likely that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election, a matter that is the subject of investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a former FBI director. But 51% think it’s unlikely that Mueller’s investigation will result in criminal charges against the president.

Democrats are hopeful that they can impeach Trump if election collusion with the Russians is proven, but just 27% of Democrats - and 16% of all voters - think the new Congress should focus first on impeachment.

Additional information from this survey and a full demographic breakdown are available to Platinum Members only.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

NBC News

Published  1 month ago

WASHINGTON — The top tax-writing committee in the House is readying a request for years of President Donald Trump’s personal tax returns that is expected to land at the Internal Revenue Service as early as the next few weeks, NBC News has learned. And Democrats are prepared to "take all necessary steps," including litigation, in order to obtain them.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., has asked the committee’s attorneys to prepare the request, according to two aides involved in the process. Neal has also contacted the chairs of several other House investigative committees, including Oversight and Government Reform, Financial Services, Intelligence and Judiciary, asking them to provide detailed arguments for why they need the president’s tax returns to conduct their probes.

"Every day the American people and Congress learn more about President Trump’s improprieties, from conflicts of interest to influence peddling, potential tax evasion and violations of the Constitution — all roads leading back to President Trump’s finances," said Ashley Etienne, spokeswoman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"These improprieties, and the lack of transparency around them, give the House legitimate legislative, oversight and legal reasons to review the President’s tax returns. We will take all necessary steps, including litigation, if necessary, to obtain them." Etienne confirmed that the committees are working together to "ensure the House is able to present the strongest possible case."

Ways and Means is the only congressional committee with the authority to directly make the request for Trump’s returns. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, whose department has authority over the IRS, will decide whether or not to grant the request.

Neal had earlier said he might wait for the conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia before making the request. The case to draw in multiple committee stakeholders was bolstered after Michael Cohen’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee earlier this week, the aides said.

There are several key pieces of information Cohen, Trump’s former personal “fixer” and attorney, provided in his testimony that strengthen the case for Congress to obtain the returns, according to the aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Among other things, Cohen testified that Trump, as head of the sprawling Trump Organization before his election in 2016, had at times deflated the value of his properties to lower his tax bill and called the government “stupid” for giving him a $10 million tax refund in 2008. Under questioning from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Cohen also said Trump had provided inflated assets to an insurance company.

In a break with modern tradition, Trump has steadfastly refused to disclose his returns, suggesting they are under audit. Every U.S. president dating back to Richard Nixon has voluntarily disclosed his tax returns to the public.

The U.S. tax code authorizes the Ways and Means Committee to obtain any U.S. taxpayers’ returns. Yet committee lawyers are expected to craft a request as precise as possible, aides said, in order to short circuit an all-but-certain legal challenge by the president that could draw the process out.

Specifically, the committee is likely to focus on Trump’s personal returns versus his business filings, given the complex nature of the Trump Organization. According to his latest financial disclosure, the Trump Organization includes more than 500 different limited liability companies (LLCs) and shell companies that might take years to obtain and analyze.

Trump uses LLCs to house and manage his assets, as many wealthy individuals and businesses do, particularly in real estate. Under this arrangement, business income can also "pass through" the LLC to the owner's individual tax returns.

The committee believes 10 years of his personal returns “can give a good sense of whether there is any evidence of tax fraud and numerous items of interest,” an aide said.

Importantly, the aide said the committee also believes it also has the authority to obtain any correspondence between Trump and the IRS, including whether he’s been audited and the results of the audit, that might provide additional information. Cohen, for his part, testified that he didn't actually think Trump's tax returns were under audit during the 2016 election, contrary to what Trump has long claimed.

Democrats will also use Trump’s tax returns to explore whether he sought to write off as a business expense the hush money payments Cohen said he made on behalf of the president to porn star Stormy Daniels.

At a hearing Neal called last month laying the groundwork to request the president’s taxes, tax expert Steven Rosenthal said Trump had 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.

“There is a lot to find,” said Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center who scrutinized portions of Trump’s 1995 and 2005 returns last year in partnership with the New York Times.

The Times reported in October that the president received at least $413 million in today’s dollars from his father’s real estate empire, much of it by skirting U.S. tax laws.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

President Trump on Friday blasted Michael Cohen over a newly reported book proposal that apparently painted the president in a positive light, saying his former lawyer's pitch contradicts this week's congressional testimony and renders him “totally discredited.” 

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Congress and the corrupt Washington Establishment set a new low for abuse of power Wednesday with the testimony of Michael Cohen before the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

TheHill

Published  1 month ago

Two lawmakers have asked the Justice Department to investigate Cohen for lying while testifying this week to the House Oversight Committee.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Asked by Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., how he sees himself, President Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen responded Wednesday that he sees himself as “a fool.” At least we know he told the truth in answering that question.

In a pointless hearing in which Cohen testified before the House Oversight and Reform Committee making multiple unproven accusations against President Trump, the public got to see what Special Counsel Robert Mueller apparently saw: no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election.

What we all saw instead was a fool.

DAVID BOSSIE: MICHAEL COHEN SPENDS A DAY LYING ABOUT TRUMP TO AID DEMOCRATIC WITCH HUNT

We witnessed exactly what Mueller and his team ultimately concluded after spending about $25 million and almost two years on this investigation: Cohen is a liar, untrustworthy, crooked and in violation of the law. The Justice Department was right to prosecute him. He deservedly lost his law license and he will deserve his time in the federal penitentiary.

Yet after all the time and money spent, all the lies and all the deception, Cohen is not being prosecuted for helping the Trump campaign collude with Russia. If Mueller had evidence to support such a charge, no doubt the Mueller team would have pursued it.

Furthermore, if Michael Cohen had provided valid evidence of collusion, certainly Mueller would have saved Cohen to bolster his case against the president or someone close to the president.

Wednesday's hearing simply confirmed what we already knew: there was no such evidence, because there was no collusion. Mueller and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York see no value using Cohen as a witness in other cases. Instead, Cohen is headed to prison.

Cohen is a liar, untrustworthy, crooked and in violation of the law. The Justice Department was right to prosecute him.

So far the only person who seems to think he has seen any actual evidence of collusion is House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. Schiff claimed as early as March 2017 to have seen more than "circumstantial evidence of collusion." A year later, he reported seeing "ample evidence."

Yet almost two years into the investigation, the first major oversight hearing led by the new House Democratic majority turned up no evidence of collusion. The more than five-hour Cohen hearing was void of any allegation or evidence of the core issue the special counsel was authorized to spend millions of dollars investigating.

The hearing did show us a lot of name calling and airing of frustration by a disgraced Cohen. While President Trump should be credited for not bringing Cohen into the administration, it is disheartening and bewildering why Trump would surround himself with a person of such low standards as Cohen.

Ultimately, the hearing was likely a disappointment to Democrats. Nevertheless, it served its intended purpose – an opportunity to flog the president and distract from the historic summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Vietnam.

The Never-Trumpers may have found the testimony illuminating and accurate, but Cohen is going to prison for being the opposite.

Trump supporters saw in Cohen a liar and convicted felon testifying before Congress. A serious investigation would have demanded probing questions for the man who instigated the whole investigation – Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Ironically, House members also saw the mirror image of Cohen in Hillary Clinton’s long-time friend Lanny Davis, who was orchestrating a made-for-television event with the personal benefit of trying to delegitimize the man who cost Hillary Clinton the presidency.

The one thing we can all agree on is that in watching the hearing Wednesday we saw what Michael Cohen sees when he looks in the mirror: a fool.

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."

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Lynne Patton, who works under Ben Carson at HUD, revealed the real reason President Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, turned on his boss. Apparently, Special Counsel Robert Mueller threatened to toss Cohen's wife in prison -

GOPUSA

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Maxine Waters tore into President Trump in a late-night tweetstorm Monday, calling him the “most prolific, consistent, good for nothing liar” the country has ever seen.

Mrs. Waters, a California Democrat who has repeatedly called for Mr. Trump’s impeachment, first took aim at the president’s meeting last week with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in Hanoi, which ended without an agreement on denuclearization.

“Lying Trump came away from fake summit with terrorist & killer Kim Jong-un w/ nothing because Kim never intended to offer anything. Don the con man got conned! Hey number 45, are you still in love w/ Kim?” Mrs. Waters wrote. “Lying Trump said he believes killer Kim Jong-un, that he didn’t know what happened to #ottowarmbier. Now he wants to flip the script. No one can believe this unworthy president. He is the most prolific, consistent, good for nothing liar this country has ever experienced.”

Mrs. Waters then accused Mr. Trump of “siding” with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who reportedly ordered the killing of Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate in Turkey last year.

“The killing with the chainsaw & dismemberment of #JamalKhashoggi by the Saudis is the most gruesome & heartless act imaginable!” Mrs. Waters wrote. “Now we learned his body parts were burned in a giant oven! Trump, God will never forgive you for siding w/ MBS on this murder.”

Mrs. Waters continued her attacks against the president by turning her sights onto the Robert Mueller investigation, claiming that “impeachment is the only answer.”

“Obstruction of justice reality show: Firing Comey, sending coded messages to Manafort & others that he has the power to pardon; lying abt Trump Tower meeting; threatening Cohen’s in-laws; attempting to destroy Mueller. What more do we need to know? Impeachment is the only answer,” the congresswoman wrote.

“Lying Trump, so you said you did nothing to force security clearance for Kushner, huh? Who do you think will believe that lie? Must give you credit. You are the boldest, most daring liar I’ve ever heard of. A pox on all your houses,” she continued. “Trump, you have screamed no collusion and no obstruction of justice so many times, trying to influence others, that I think you really believe your own lies. Just stop it. No honesty. No truth. No trust. No patriotism.”

Mrs. Waters ended her diatribe by calling on members of Congress to “demonstrate your patriotism” by supporting impeachment.

© Copyright (c) 2019 News World Communications, Inc.

This content is published through a licensing agreement with Acquire Media using its NewsEdge technology.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Michael Cohen answered questions for the House Oversight Committee in an attempt to provide "dirt" on President Trump. This testimony came on the same exact day as President Trump's summit in Vietnam with Kim Jong

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

Lanny Davis, the former Clinton attorney representing ex-Trump attorney Michael Cohen reportedly established a GoFundMe account for Cohen’s legal and other expenses last August after Cohen pled guilty in federal court to eight federal crimes. The account is named the Michael Cohen Truth Fund. Cohen told Congress at a hearing Wednesday that Cohen is representing […]

Talking Points Memo

Published  1 month ago

Sun Sentinel/Tribune News Service

A D.C. federal judge rejected a motion Wednesday from GOP operative Roger Stone claiming that special counsel Robert Mueller’s team tipped off CNN before his Jan. 25 morning arrest.

Stone had petitioned Judge Amy Berman Jackson to hold a hearing demanding that prosecutors “show cause” for why they were not in contempt of court for allegedly leaking a copy of the indictment to the press. A CNN news crew captured Stone’s arrest on video, after having a team stake out the spin artist’s Florida home.

But exhibits Stone provided “supplied no reason to believe that any contempt of court had occurred,” Berman Jackson wrote in the order, adding that evidence and filings he introduced into the record “demonstrate that there is no basis” to issue a contempt order.

Berman Jackson addressed the allegations around CNN directly in the filing, as well. The theory has taken root in conservative media over the past month, with former hot tub salesman and onetime acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker giving some credence to it in Feb. 8 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

“Defendant’s recitation of the events reflects nothing more than the fact that the reporter had the indictment in hand after the defendant was arrested, and there is no evidence that the reporter had it earlier,” the judge wrote.

Stone faces charges of obstruction, witness tampering, and lying to Congress. Berman Jackson strengthened a gag order on Stone last week after he posted a picture of her on Instagram with what appeared to be crosshairs next to her head.

In Wednesday’s order, Berman Jackson also noted that Stone’s argument had shifted from the initial allegation that prosecutors leaked a copy of the indictment to CNN.

As the dispute wound on, Stone’s attorneys began to argue instead that special counsel prosecutors released the indictment before an unsealing order came down in the case.

“The defendant misapprehends the clear purpose and the intent of the sealing order,” she wrote. “The OSC’s publication of the indictment after the defendant’s arrest was not unauthorized.”

Rantt

Published  1 month ago

Two years ago today, Katy Tur didn’t hold back when questioning Donald Trump about his request to Russia. It turns out, Russia was listening.

On July 27, 2016, Russians began spearphishing campaigns targeting Clinton’s personal office emails for the first time and also targeted Clinton’s campaign, according to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s hacking indictment. This was the same day Donald Trump publicly called for them to do just that: “Russia if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.

At the press conference, one journalist was fully aware of the consequential nature of this request. It was MSNBC’s Katy Tur, who has since written a book about her time covering Trump on the campaign trail.

When referencing Trump’s request to the Russian government, Tur asked: “does that not give you pause?”

Trump responded by telling her to “be quiet” and explained why it gave him no pause, saying even if Russia has them, he’d love to see them.

Then-candidate Donald Trump’s request for a foreign adversary to hack his political opponent was widely panned at the time. But now, within the context of the revelations proving Russia was apparently listening, it is likely circumstantial evidence in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference and potential collusion with the Trump campaign

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.

News // Donald Trump / Katy Tur / Russia

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

I don’t think I know what the point of this hearing was.

Apparently Michael Cohen really really dislikes Donald Trump, and wanted to say so in exhaustive detail on national television. I guess it helped him to assuage his conscience over whatever legal work he did for Trump that he now regrets.

I get what Cohen wanted to do it. What I don’t get is why it was something Congress needed to indulge. We learned nothing new of any significance. I guess Democrats see an opportunity to use some of it as impeachment fodder, and of course they always welcome the opportunity to humiliate the president.

Oh, and by the way, Cohen is just like the rest of the Beltway crowd in that he’s really, really suspicious about Trump’s connections to the Russians . . . but no, he has no proof there is anything untoward about it:

Cohen testified that Trump approved hush payments to cover up extra-marital sexual relationships in violation of campaign finance laws, and directed negotiations for a real estate project in Moscow during the White House race even as he publicly said he had no business interests in Russia.

TRENDING: Wisconsin liberals say judicial candidate is unqualified . . . because he’s a Christian

He stopped short of saying that Trump or his campaign directly conspired with Russia, although “I have my suspicions.”

“I wouldn’t use the word colluding,” Cohen said of Trump’s dealings with Russia, but he added there was “something odd” about the president’s good relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“There are just so many dots that seem to lead in the same direction,” he said.

Well, except for two things:

First, we’ve had a former FBI investigator for two years trying to connect those dots, and he’s failed to do so. So something can seem a certain way if you really want it to, but when you really look into it, if you can’t really show that it’s true, then it’s probably not true.

Second, if anyone would know such a thing had happened, it would seem to me to be Michael Cohen. This is the guy who’s telling us he was Trump’s hatchet mat and fixer, managing all his dirty dealings. Yet there was this elaborate scheme to collude with Moscow, and Cohen was kept in the dark?

This is a guy who had access to all Trump’s financial records and was one of his closest advisers. Yet he sounds like he has a little clue as you or me or Robert Mueller. How is that possible if all the dots point to it?

He knows about the hush money payments. He supposedly knows things Trump said driving around in the car. He supposedly knows Trump didn’t even want to win the election.

But a major collusion with an enemy foreign government? Oh yeah, he’s really suspicious.

If this is the best Cohen can do – and Mueller hasn’t done any better – then there is no collusion, which has been obvious for quite some time now. The Beltway/left/media don’t want to wrap this up and admit there was nothing to it because they’re making such good use of the narrative, but when even Trump’s vaunted fixer has no real evidence, then there’s no evidence to be had.

But now we know that Michael Cohen thinks Donald Trump is a really, really, really bad man. I guess we’ll file that away for whatever good it’s doing to do us. By the way, is anyone else a little skeeved out by the idea that a lawyer turns tail on a former client and gives away his financial records and other such things? I’m sure there are many lawyers who think their clients are scumbags, but there’s a reason they usually honor confidentiality regardless. It basically becomes impossible for the legal profession and its clients to confide in each other when this sort of thing becomes OK.

Is it now OK? And those of you who are cheering it because you hate Trump, are you sure you’re OK with the precedent it may have set?

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.

BuzzFeed News

Published  1 month ago

WASHINGTON – Roger Stone pushed back against Michael Cohen's claims that Stone told Trump in July 2016 that he had spoken to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange about an email dump that would hurt Hillary Clinton's campaign, saying in a text message to BuzzFeed News: "Mr. Cohen's statement is not true."

Stone's text, which he made clear was a "statement," was just the one sentence, and he did not explain what exactly about Cohen's testimony he maintained was false. Stone, who is facing criminal charges for lying to Congress, is under a gag order not to publicly comment on his case, special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, or any "participants" in his case or the investigation.

A spokesperson for the special counsel's office declined to comment on whether they believe Stone's statement complies with the judge's order.

Cohen is testifying Wednesday before the House Oversight Committee. Cohen told members in his opening statement Wednesday that Trump knew in advance that WikiLeaks planned to release emails in July 2016 that would harm Clinton's presidential bid. On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released tens of thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee — emails that Mueller's office has charged Russian nationals with hacking and providing to WikiLeaks. Over the next few months leading up to the election, WikiLeaks would also release emails stolen from the chair of Clinton's campaign, John Podesta.

Cohen told Congress that in July 2016, shortly before the Democratic National Convention, which began on July 25, he was in Trump's office when Stone called.

"Mr. Trump put Mr. Stone on the speakerphone," Cohen said in his statement. "Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that, within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign."

Cohen said that Trump replied "to the effect of, 'wouldn't that be great.'"

Stone is charged with lying to Congress about his contacts with WikiLeaks. The indictment doesn't allege that Stone personally communicated with Assange or anyone else associated with WikiLeaks, but it accuses him of lying about directing associates to contact the group, and about telling Trump campaign officials about WikiLeaks and "intended future releases."

Wikileaks and Stone have denied direct communications between Stone and Assange. In a Feb. 15 tweet responding to reports that federal prosecutors had communications between Stone and Wikileaks, the group published a screenshot of a direct message exchange between Stone and the group in October 2016, with Stone criticizing Wikileaks for "attacking" him, and Wikileaks accusing Stone of making "false claims of association."

The Lutchman Review

Published  1 month ago

Hillary Clinton just doesn’t know when to stop. She’s like a bad case of bed bugs.

She like many of her supporters have always said that Trump somehow cheated his way into office.

Me and many other people know that it was a rigged election from the start, and Hillary cheated her way to the top of the polls.

Thankfully though, Trump pulled through whether it be by God’s will or whatever the case is, he won. Fair and square.

From Fox News:

Hillary Clinton is calling for public hearings on Robert Mueller’s Russia report while slamming Congress for not taking stronger action based on already-known information.

The defeated 2016 presidential candidate gave a wide-ranging interview on Wondery’s “TBD with Tina Brown” in which she discussed Mueller’s Russia investigation, President Trump’s North Korea talks, and the unique challenges facing women running in 2020.

Speaking about the Russia investigation, Clinton said: “There hasn’t really been that kind of solemn, somber laying of facts and information before the public and the press that should happen in our democracy.

“There is enough grounds in what has already been made public for the government for Congress, in particular, to be doing more with [the Mueller report]. I’m pleased that under Speaker Pelosi, the Democrats are beginning to hold hearings and try to connect some of these dots.”

The former secretary of state also offered up some insight into her campaign, describing it as “kind of Obama 2.0,” and pointed the finger at Trump and the Russians for that campaign ultimately coming up short.

“I mean I obviously had hired a lot of Obama’s people. They were incredibly able, they did a great job, but Trump, the Russians, Cambridge Analytica, all of his assorted allies, were running a campaign in an entirely different arena,” Clinton told Tina Brown.

“I don’t think I or my people understood that, you know, we would see a little pop-up story that some idiot says that Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump. Who is going to believe that, how ridiculous.”

USA TODAY

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, says he "looks forward to" a public hearing before lawmakers on capitol hill tomorrow. (Feb. 26) AP

WASHINGTON – When Michael Cohen entered the first in a series of guilty pleas last summer, President Donald Trump didn't hesitate to snipe at his his former personal attorney, "strongly" warning prospective clients to look somewhere else for legal representation.

"If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen!" Trump tweeted after learning that his longtime fixer had acknowledged – among other things – making payments to silence two women who had claimed affairs with his former boss.

Now, New Yorkers don't have to rely on the president's Twitter feed for advice about lawyers.

A panel of state Supreme Court judges formally disbarred Cohen, removing the former Trump lawyer from the state attorney rolls.

Cohen's days as an attorney were numbered even before Tuesday's action because lawyers face automatic disbarment for a felony conviction under New York law.

The decision was issued as Cohen was testifying before a Senate Intelligence Committee about his dealings with Trump, the first of three potentially explosive meetings with congressional committees this week.

Tracking the milestones in Robert Mueller's investigation can be tough, but if you've got three minutes, we've got a wrap-up of Michael Cohen for you. Hannah Gaber Saletan, USA TODAY

"(Cohen) ceased to be an attorney upon his federal conviction of making false statement to the United States Congress," the court found, referring to testimony in which Cohen lied about the Trump Organization's pursuit of a tower project in Moscow during the 2016 campaign.

Cohen can file for reinstatement in seven years (or sooner if pardoned) if he isn't convicted of anything else in that time, but there is no guarantee his request would be granted.

A federal judge last year sentenced Cohen to three years in prison; he must turn himself in on May 6.

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

To say that the left is getting increasingly antsy over special counsel Robert Mueller's sweeping investigation that has so far failed to produce "evidence" that President Trump colluded with the Kremlin is an understatement. For nearly

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

Michael Cohen is heading to prison after pleading guilty to lying to the IRS, financial institutions and Congress. But now he wants us to believe his accusations against President Trump are the truth.

Rantt

Published  1 month ago

Michael Cohen delivered historic testimony alleging years of criminal activity by Donald Trump and signaled there is much more to come.

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

President Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, said Tuesday that the American people can decide "exactly who is telling the truth" when he testifies Wednesday to the House Oversight and Reform committee -- but in a remarkable social media post on the eve of the hearing, a top Republican suggested that lurid details of Cohen's private life may instead take center stage.

Big League Politics

Published  1 month ago

Former Trump attorney and future jailbird Michael Cohen put on quite the performance today before Congress. Speaking to the House Oversight Committee, the disbarred lawyer painted the picture that he was the victim of a master manipulator and sleazy con artist. Cohen did all he could to back up the Democratic talking points, given to him by his Clintonista attorney Lanny Davis, with various baseless statements.

“Donald Trump is a man who ran for office to make his brand great, not to make our country great. He had no desire or intention to lead this nation, only to market himself,” Cohen said.

“I know what Mr. Trump is. He is a racist. He is a conman. He is a cheat,” he added, deriding the “platform of hate and intolerance” that his former long-time boss supposedly used to win the presidency.

While Cohen acts as if he is above the frey and somehow more reputable than Trump, it was widely reported that he once pined for a major role in the administration.

After he was kept on the outside looking in due to his evident lack of competency, Cohen’s bitterness combined with lack of business ethics caused him to flip. This is coming directly from Trump’s own sons.

Nailed it. It really was the biggest joke of the entire transition. The beginning of his bitterness was when he realized that was never going to happen. #Delusional. https://t.co/ddizWugguU

Cohen maintained that he never wanted a role in the administration during the hearing as he was being grilled by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and other conservative lawmakers annoyed by the histrionics of this shameless liar.

“I can tell you a story of Mr. Trump reaming out [former White House Chief of Staff] Reince Priebus because I had not taken a job where Mr. Trump wanted me to, which is working with Don McGahn at the White House General [sic] Counsel’s office,” Cohen said.

“I brought a lawyer in who produced a memo as to why I should not go in because there would be no attorney-client privilege and in order to handle some of the matters that I talked about in my opening, it would be best suited for me not to go in and that every president had a personal attorney,” Cohen added.

Best-selling conservative author and Trump confidant David Bossie is calling foul on Cohen’s assertions. Bossie maintains that Cohen in a delusion of grandeur lobbied him thinking he could be chief of staff while Bossie served on Trump’s presidential transition team.

If this allegation is true, this would mean that the serial liar Cohen perjured himself yet again while on the stand today.

Michael Cohen asked me to support his effort to be Chief of Staff when I helped run the Presidential Transition Team. He perjured himself today.

— David Bossie (@David_Bossie) February 28, 2019

House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) ultimately bears responsibility for this farce, trotting around this lowlife who will soon be behind bars to score cheap partisan political points as FBI spook Robert Mueller’s special investigation on Russian collusion fizzles out. Cummings attempted to paint Cohen in a sympathetic light during his closing statements.

Rep. Elijah Cummings delivers an emotional closing statement as the Michael Cohen hearing ends: "Hopefully this portion of your destiny will lead to a better … Michael Cohen, a better Donald Trump, a better United States of America, and a better world" https://t.co/ij0AmYP27T pic.twitter.com/byzwpQzqlT

With Democrats in Congress hell bent on destroying President Trump no matter what the cost, the rule of law will continue to be under attack until at least next year’s presidential election. Cohen is just the first of many scumbags who the Left will ruthlessly exploit at the expense of justice and sanity in a desperate attempt to regain their lost power.

The Independent

Published  1 month ago

Donald Trump threatened his high school and college with legal action in order to prevent them releasing his exam scores, according to explosive testimony Michael Cohen is due to deliver before

The New Republic

Published  1 month ago

The U.S. government wanted someone to blame for foreign interference in the 2016 election. Maria Butina was the perfect scapegoat.

gellerreport

Published  1 month ago

Jihad in Congress. The Congressional ISIS caucus.

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 month ago

Michael Cohen's testimony isn't exactly the bombshell Democrats professed it to be but one in which "speculation" by a convicted liar takes precedence.

americanthinker

Published  1 month ago

The defining characteristic of today’s Democrats is that most unattractive of human failings, hypocrisy. Since Donald Trump’s improbable election, Dems and their media mouthpieces have been demanding that the rest of us recognize the existential threat he poses to the nation. Their demands are based on a litany of accused authoritarian character traits and fascistic conduct that Trump obviously doesn’t hold and in fact never committed. The reality is the Democrats are projecting -- accusing Trump of the very outrages that they themselves practiced in their obsession to prevent and then overturn his election.

The most ridiculous of these accusations is that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election. Setting aside for the moment the massive economic damage Trump’s energy policies have inflicted on Russia’s fragile economy, let’s examine the Democrat’s actions to protect us from the Russian Bear.

The fictitious dossier, written by a foreign spy citing unnamed Russian intelligence sources, was deployed to smear Trump. When the dossier failed to defeat him, it was used to justify endless investigations, congressional hearings, and ominous news coverage that hobbled his presidency, wrecked his efforts to improve relations with Russia and greatly diminished voters’ confidence in our democracy. Only after this witch-hunt was set in motion was it revealedthat the bogus dossier was a product of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

In classic KGB style, Obama’s administration deployed our nation’s intelligence agencies to infiltrate and spy on their political opponents. Using paid informants -- believed to include, at minimum, Joseph Mifsud, Stefan Halper, Henry Greenberg and Felix Sader -- the political appointees heading our FBI and CIA attempted to entrap Trump’s campaign with monetary enticements and promises of Russian kompromat on Hillary Clinton.

Fearful of being held accountable and panicked after Trump’s long-shot election, the deputy attorney general and acting FBI director then conspired to unconstitutionally remove the incoming president using the 25th Amendment, which was intended to facilitate succession in the event of presidential physical or mental incapacitation. Since Trump suffered no such incapacity, and it was never the DOJ or FBI’s role to allege that he did, this conspiracy is rightly seen as an attempted administrative coup d’etat similar to those against Soviet leaders Nikita Khrushchev and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Having failed, the same Deep State actors that committed these outrages then appointed a former FBI director to cover up their unconstitutional misdeeds. Robert Mueller organized a team of zealous Democrat partisans who promptly began a series of selective, political prosecutions -- of matters unrelated to collusion -- designed and conducted to terrorize and silence Trump associates. Under threat of financial ruin to their families and spending decades in Mueller’s gulag, many of the targets of these selective prosecutions predictably negotiated guilty pleas.

While these outrages have gone on, our very own American Pravda -- the Democrat’s mouthpieces in the mainstream media -- have published a steady stream of disinformation and propaganda designed to turn reality on its head and portray Trump as Vladimir Putin’s puppet instead of the target of Soviet-inspired tactics employed by Obama’s police state. Long after Russiagate has been debunked by the emerging alternative media, the legacy media and leftwing cable outlets continue to perpetrate this hoax.

As important as propaganda to the Soviet’s control of their citizens was suppressing dissident voices. Silicon Valley’s Democratic tech titans are engaged is a similar effort to silence opposing opinions. Using their near-total control of internet search, Google and YouTube are downranking content that they deem noncompliant with leftist dogma. On social media, Facebook, and Twitter now regularly deplatform and censor users who speak verboten right-wing thoughts. All the while the Democrat’s media “watchdogs” orchestrate well-funded campaigns to scare advertisers away from conservative broadcasters and internet sites.

When all else failed, the Soviets engaged in violence to punish and suppress political opposition. In America today we have a domestic terror group, Antifa, organized in all our major cities, and boasting scores of Facebook groups, assaulting Trump supporters in the streets. Far from condemning their actions, the Democrats and their media shills have justified and even encouraged Antifa. In the 2016 election, as documented on hidden camera by Project Veritas, Democrats sent paid provocateurs into Trump rallies to incite violence.

In their win-at-all-costs war against Trump, the Democrats have unduly divided America, created fear and loathing among her citizens and torn at the fabric of our democracy. Soviet-styled totalitarianism is indeed a great danger to our free republic, but contrary to what you’re being told, that threat is coming from the Democrats and not from President Trump.

The author would like to thank Russia historian Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor for the information presented on their seriesTales of the New Cold War on the John Batchelor Show.

The author hosts Right Now with Jim Daws, a webcast on news, politics and culture from and American nationalist perspective https://twitter.com/RightNowJimDaws

Praying Medic

Published  1 month ago

Q reminds us that we at war with corruption worldwide.

The Daily Beast

Published  1 month ago

Photo Illustration by Lyne Lucien/The Daily Beast/Reuters

Twitter banned notorious Trump supporter Jacob Wohl from its platform on Tuesday, alleging that Wohl broke the site’s rules against creating fake accounts.

Wohl’s ban came hours after he boasted in a USA Today interview about his plans to create fake accounts on Twitter and Facebook, which he said would be used to manipulate the 2020 election.

“The account was suspended for multiple violations of the Twitter Rules, specifically creating and operating fake accounts,” a Twitter spokesperson told The Daily Beast. (Wohl didn’t respond to a request for comment.)

Wohl, 21, had amassed more than 180,000 followers on Twitter before his ban, thanks in large part to his frequent, enthusiastic replies to Donald Trump’s tweets.

The Twitter ban marks the latest setback for Wohl, who originally made his name in finance, becoming the youngest person to ever be banned from futures trading.

In 2018, Wohl attempted to smear Special Counsel Robert Mueller by attempting to recruit a woman to accuse Mueller of sexual assault. But Wohl’s scheme, which is under FBI investigation, fell apart after the alleged victim failed to show up for a disastrous press conference with Wohl. In the USA Today story published Tuesday, the woman claims that Wohl tricked her and lied about the entire incident.

Wohl’s signature move on Twitter — claiming that he had overheard liberals praising Trump at a “hipster coffee shop” in a series of obviously fake anecdotes — became a popular meme.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 month ago

Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on Tuesday that Democrats will not allow the Department of Justice to sit on any information that could warrant Donald Trump’s impeachment.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, Schiff said, “If the department is to maintain a policy that you can’t indict a sitting president, they cannot also say … we’re not going to share with Congress the evidence that would allow you to consider whether other remedies are necessary.”

Rep. Adam Schiff says he won’t let the Trump Justice Department have a double standard when it comes to releasing evidence to the public. #ctl #p2 pic.twitter.com/8k7DHyGgor

— PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) February 27, 2019

Rep. Schiff said:

You have the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, suggesting that maybe they shouldn’t share with Congress or the country the full report and what it has to say about people not indicted. Well, the Justice Department was sharing hundreds of thousands of pages of discovery in the Clinton email investigation and we are not about to allow them to have some kind of a double standard, particularly when there is such intense public need to know and in addition to that if the department is to maintain a policy that you can’t indict a sitting president, they cannot also say and we’re not going to share with Congress the evidence that would allow you to consider whether other remedies are necessary.

As Rep. Adam Schiff noted, Republicans were eager to see all the non-evidence surrounding the non-scandal of Hillary Clinton’s personal email use at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Now, when the president of the United States may have conspired with a foreign adversary to win an election, they are working to bury any legitimate dirt that special counsel Robert Mueller may have turned up.

Donald Trump may not be able to be charged while he’s in the White House, but that doesn’t mean the Justice Department can sit on any potential evidence of wrongdoing in Mueller’s final report.

Instead, as Rep. Schiff noted, Congress and the American people deserve to know all the facts so they can explore other remedies to hold him accountable – aka impeachment.

Dan Bongino

Published  1 month ago

Hillary Clinton is calling for public hearings on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report.

In an interview on Wondery’s “TBD with Tina Brown,” Clinton discussed the Russia investigation and said, “there hasn’t really been that kind of solemn, somber laying of facts and information before the public and the press that should happen in our democracy.”

“There is enough grounds in what has already been made public for the government for Congress, in particular, to be doing more with [the Mueller report]. I’m pleased that under Speaker Pelosi, the Democrats are beginning to hold hearings and try to connect some of these dots,” she continued.

Clinton also discussed the 2020 female presidential candidates and lamented how they would have to face the challenge of being “likeable.”

“This is still a problem for women on the public stage,” she said.

“How does a woman stand up for herself on the biggest stage in the world without No. 1 looking aggressive, maybe a little bit angry, that somebody is behaving like that, being willing to go toe to toe when there are so few memories embedded in our collective DNA where women do that?,” she asked.

For the full story, click HERE.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

President Trump took aim at his former lawyer-turned-rat Michael Cohen all the way from Vietnam.

President Trump is currently in Vietnam for an historical summit with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un to continue negotiating the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The Democrats and Deep State perfectly timed the Michael Cohen dog-and-pony show to take place while President Trump is on foreign soil.

Michael Cohen, a convicted liar who was just disbarred, testified in a public Congressional hearing on Wednesday.

Mr. Cohen also testified that Donald Trump knew Roger Stone had spoken to Julian Assange ahead of the Wikileaks drop of the DNC emails.

“I was in Mr. Trump’s office when his secretary announced that Roger Stone was on the phone,” Cohen said.

“Mr. Trump put Mr. Stone on the speakerphone. Mr. Stone told Mr. Trump that he had just gotten off the phone with Julian Assange and that Mr. Assange told Mr. Stone that, within a couple of days, there would be a massive dump of emails that would damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Mr. Trump responded by stating to the effect of ‘wouldn’t that be great.'”

Of course this is a lie because Roger Stone never spoke to Julian Assange and he had no advance knowledge that WikiLeaks was going to disseminate Hillary Clinton’s campaign emails.

Robert Mueller even made this clear in his indictment of Roger Stone — if anyone had evidence that Roger Stone spoke to Julian Assange, it would be Robert Mueller and the special counsel would have clearly stated it in their indictment of Roger Stone.

Cohen also told the Oversight Committee on Wednesday that he has no direct evidence Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia.

“I do not. I want to be clear. But, I have my suspicions,” Cohen said.

Media was set ablaze after Politico published Michael Cohen’s opening statement late Tuesday night — and the President responded.

President Trump fired off a tweet ahead of the hearing, accusing Michael Cohen of lying in order to reduce his prison time. ‘Using Crooked Hillary’s lawyer [Lanny Davis]! Trump added.

TRUMP: Michael Cohen was one of many lawyers who represented me (unfortunately). He had other clients also. He was just disbarred by the State Supreme Court for lying & fraud. He did bad things unrelated to Trump. He is lying in order to reduce his prison time. Using Crooked’s lawyer!

Michael Cohen was one of many lawyers who represented me (unfortunately). He had other clients also. He was just disbarred by the State Supreme Court for lying & fraud. He did bad things unrelated to Trump. He is lying in order to reduce his prison time. Using Crooked’s lawyer!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 27, 2019

Hill Reporter

Published  1 month ago

As the internet learns that Jacob Wohl has been banned from Twitter, there is a

Diamond & Silk

Published  1 month ago

Democrats in the House may stop at nothing to get their hands on the final report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff is even threatening to go to court as some people are speculating the final report may not be released.

It is being reported that Mueller may soon conclude his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. At this point, he has said he would hand over a final report to his superiors at the Justice Department.

While newly confirmed Attorney General William Barr has promised to release the report or as much as he can without jeopardizing national security, it is unclear if the final report will reach the public eye so Democrats are taking action.

From the Daily Wire:

In the surest sign yet that Democrats are concerned the final report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller won’t bring down the Trump presidency, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff has vowed to go to court if the report isn’t made public. He also said he would haul Mueller before congress for questioning if the report wasn’t released.

While appearing on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Schiff said he was “absolutely” prepared to sue the Trump administration if FBI Director William Barr didn’t release the full report.

“We will obviously subpoena the report. We will bring Bob Mueller in to testify before Congress. We will take it to court if necessary,” the California Democrat said.

According to the report, Schiff may not stop at a subpoena of the report of itself, but may call Mueller in for questioning or continue their own investigation into Trump.

Check it out:

Schiff last month said he would continue to investigate a debunked detail of Mueller’s investigation, paving the way for the House Democrat to continue investigating Trump even if Mueller finds no wrongdoing. Democrats besides Schiff have also vowed to continue investigating Trump until they find something they can use to impeach him.

Prior to Schiff’s threat on Sunday, the House Intelligence Committee chairman criticized the allegedly limited scope of the special counsel’s investigation — in what appears to be a clear sign that Schiff doesn’t believe Mueller will find anything.

“If the special counsel hasn’t subpoenaed Deutsche Bank, he can’t be doing much of a money laundering investigation,” Schiff said two weeks ago. “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.”

Daily Intelligencer

Published  1 month ago

Cohen has provided the final link in the chain of conspiracy between Trump and Russia.

Axios

Published  1 month ago

President Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen is expected to present evidence of alleged "criminal conduct" by Trump during his time as president to the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday that was "stumbled across ... within the last 48 hours," a source familiar with Cohen's testimony told Axios.

The big picture: Cohen is set to accuse Trump of criminal misconduct linked to reimbursements he received in 2017 for hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels regarding her alleged affair with Trump toward the end of the 2016 campaign, as first reported by the Wall Street Journal. The source said Cohen will describe "in granular detail" the scheme to pay off Daniels, which Cohen is set to say was orchestrated by Trump.

The state of play: Cohen and his legal team are expected to provide the committee with a slide containing several of Trump's private financial statements, which they claim reveals how Trump inflated his assets for business and personal reasons. The source said the statements — which were not provided to Axios — will show Trump's assets, liabilities and net worth, but cannot be independently verified without Trump’s tax returns.

Cohen will also explain how long Trump remained involved in discussions regarding a plan to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. He's also expected to detail the conversations he had with Trump about the project. His prior false statements about the project to the Senate Intelligence Committee are the source of his guilty plea in the Mueller investigation.

If asked about the bombshell BuzzFeed News article — later disputed by special counsel Robert Mueller's office — that alleged Trump directed Cohen to lie about the extent of the Moscow project, the source said Cohen will explain that Trump never speaks in direct language: "It’s always code words."

Lanny Davis, Cohen's attorney, declined to discuss details about Cohen’s testimony.

The other side: In a statement, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said it's "pathetic" Cohen is being given an opportunity to testify.

"Disgraced felon Michael Cohen is going to prison for lying to Congress and making other false statements. Sadly, he will go before Congress this week and we can expect more of the same. It’s laughable that anyone would take a convicted liar like Cohen at his word, and pathetic to see him given yet another opportunity to spread his lies."

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Attorney Lanny Davis suggested Wednesday his client Michael Cohen has more to reveal about President Trump.

After Trump’s former fixer was sentenced to three years in prison Wednesday for his role in a hush-money scandal during the 2016 campaign, Davis, who serves as an adviser to Cohen, said “Trump’s repeated lies cannot contradict stubborn facts.”

“At the appropriate time, after Mr. Mueller completes his investigation and issues his final report, I look forward to assisting Michael to state publicly all he knows about Mr. Trump — and that includes any appropriate congressional committee interested in the search for truth and the difference between facts and lies,” Davis said in a statement.

A federal judge in Manhattan sentenced Cohen, 52, to 36 months in prison. Cohen pleaded guilty in August to bank and tax fraud charges, as well as campaign finance violations.

Cohen admitted he arranged payments to two women who alleged they had affairs with Trump years ago. In pleading guilty, Cohen implicated the president, saying he made the payments at the direction of Trump “for the principal purpose of influencing the election.”

Special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, charged Cohen last month in a separate case with lying to Congress about negotiations for a Trump Tower in Russia. Cohen also pleaded guilty in that case.

“Michael has owned up to his mistakes and fully cooperated with special counsel Mueller in his investigation over possible Trump campaign collusion with Russian meddling in the 2016 election,” Davis said. “While Mr. Mueller gave Michael significant credit for cooperation on the ‘core’ issues, it is unfortunate that [Southern District of New York] prosecutors did not do the same. To me, their judgment showed a lack of appropriate proportionality.”

David Harris Jr

Published  1 month ago

Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib have made plenty of headlines in recent weeks since they took their seats in the House of Representatives. They, along with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, almost seem to be in competition to see who can support the most outrageous and unconstitutional measures being thrown against the wall by the radical left of ...

Rantt

Published  1 month ago

After Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation ends, President Donald Trump’s legal troubles are just beginning.

1. President Trump is preparing for a perilous legal road ahead: The Daily Beast reported that President Trump is well aware of the fact that after Special Counsel Robert Mueller ends his investigation and submits his report, the battle is just beginning. Trump reportedly told his lawyers late last year that he would like them to stay on even after Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference and Trump’s potential obstruction of justice ends. President Trump’s most immediate concern was reportedly the Southern District of New York’s (SDNY) investigations. This makes sense given the fact President Trump has taken a great interest in who would lead the SDNY in the earliest days of his administration. Trump reportedly also asked then-Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to re-install a Trump ally to lead the office. The Wall Street Journal just reported tonight that the House Judiciary Committee believes they have evidence indicating that was indeed the case.

The SDNY led the investigation which uncovered Michael Cohen’s hush money payments on behalf of Trump that garnered a prison sentence for Cohen and an unindicted co-conspirator status for Trump. The SDNY is also probing the Trump Inaugural Committee to determine whether or not Russian oligarchs or other foreign entities illegally funneled money into the committee. There is also the emoluments probe investigating Trump International Hotel. And last, but certainly not least, the Democratically-controlled House Committees are going to use Mueller’s report as a roadmap for their investigations and run their own in a manner that will not be restricted by the Justice Department. The House plans on leaving no stone unturned, diving into Trump’s lifetime of corruption. What the result will be is unknown, but what we do know is they have plenty of material to work with already if their plan is to draft Articles of Impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee.

This is only a partial version of our Rantt Rundown newsletter covering Day 767 of Trump’s presidency. 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.

Rundown // Donald Trump / Obstruction Of Justice / Robert Mueller / Russia Investigation

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

Former Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen is scheduled to appear before three congressional committees this week before he heads to jail to serve a sentence for tax evasion and lying to Congress. On Tuesday, Cohen will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. On Wednesday, he will go before the House Oversight Committee. And on Thursday, he will testify before the House Intelligence Committee.

It would be a great service if the Cohen appearances helped increase the store of public information on the Trump-Russia furor. But even though Cohen is a key figure in the matter — his name is mentioned 24 times in the so-called Trump dossier — the hearings appear designed to prevent the public from learning anything new about the Russia matter.

First, two of the three hearings will be held in secret; both the Senate and House Intelligence committees plan to question Cohen behind closed doors. Those are the hearings that will delve into Russia. The hearing that is public, before House Oversight, is specifically structured not to touch on the Russia matter.

There is good reason for all the questioning to be public. Cohen is not a government official and has no classified information to share. His 24 mentions in the dossier have been publicly available for two years. His conviction on lying to Congress — specifically, his falsehood about the timing of Trump Tower Moscow discussions — is also public. His own case is over and done with, and he will soon be behind bars.

Furthermore, Cohen has already answered questions from the House Intelligence Committee, and all members, Democrat and Republican, voted to make those answers public. "There's no reason to prevent him from testifying publicly since he previously spoke to us in an unclassified setting, and the Democrats supported our motion in the last Congress to publish our interview transcripts," said Intelligence Committee ranking Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, a former chairman of the committee. (The Cohen transcript has still not been publicly released; GOP lawmakers say the intelligence community is dragging its feet on a routine pre-release review.)

Some might argue that with the investigation of Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller not yet closed — although there are reports that is coming soon — Cohen should not speak publicly about an ongoing investigation. But the fact is, on Feb. 6, Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff announced a new Russia investigation that will, if carried through, recover much of the same ground as Mueller. That means what Cohen has to say about the Russia affair is now the subject of an ongoing House investigation — the Schiff investigation — and the House owes it to the public to conduct the probe in public.

Instead, Schiff will keep Cohen's answers under wraps.

Over at the Oversight Committee, the one that will be open, Chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings has ruled the hearing will not be about Russia. "The scope of the Oversight Committee's open public hearing will not include questions relating to the Intelligence Committee's investigation of efforts by Russia and other foreign entities to influence the U.S. political process during and since the 2016 U.S. election," Cummings wrote on Feb. 20. Also off the table, Cummings said, is "the counterintelligence threat arising from any links or coordination between U.S. persons and the Russian government, including any financial or other compromise or leverage foreign actors may possess over Donald Trump, his family, his business interests, or his associates."

That's pretty much the whole Russia story, and it won't be told in Cummings' hearing room. "The Cohen hearings are designed to keep the Russia collusion narrative alive by keeping key witness testimony hidden," Oversight Committee Republican Rep. Mark Meadows told me in a text exchange.

What will the public Cohen hearings be about? After consulting with the Justice Department and with Schiff, Cummings released a list of topics that might be damaging or embarrassing to the president but would reveal little or nothing about the allegation that the Trump campaign and Russia conspired to fix the 2016 election. Among the approved topics: the Stormy Daniels payments; Trump's compliance with campaign finance laws; Trump's compliance with tax laws; Trump's "business practices"; the Trump International Hotel in Washington; the "accuracy of the president's public statements"; potential fraud by the Trump Foundation, and more.

Of course, Cummings is the chairman of the committee, and he can pick any topic he likes. And Congress can investigate the president's business dealings as much as it chooses. But the combination of Cummings' anything-but-Russia topic list and Schiff's secrecy means that the public's only chance to hear from Cohen will not touch the topic that has dominated the Trump presidency and American politics for more than two years.

The only people who might throw a wrench in the works are Oversight Committee Republicans. They are free to ignore Cummings' directive and ask Russia-related questions. Cohen has long denied key dossier allegations, but what can he add today? What about the infamous Trump Tower meeting? The Trump Tower Moscow matter? Any other Russia issues?

"We're going to ask whatever we want to ask," said one committee Republican late Monday.

Cohen might not answer the questions, and the chairman might take Cohen's side, but Republicans can at the least remind viewers that the Democrats who run the House, after talking Russia nonstop for two years, now don't want to talk publicly about the subject, even with a star witness sitting in front of them.

The Lutchman Review

Published  1 month ago

Kamala Harris is running for president in 2020 and it’ll probably be the funniest thing to watch in the world.

She recently just made a total fool out of herself when asked what kind of president this country needs. It’s hilarious.

From Daily Caller: Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris said the U.S. needs a president who knows how to prosecute President Donald Trump, citing her former job as state attorney general Sunday.

Harris, a 2020 presidential candidate, was in Bettendorf, Iowa, speaking to a group of supporters, when she said, “we’re gonna need a fighter, and we’re going to need somebody who knows how to prosecute the case against this president,” pitching herself as the ideal candidate to defeat Trump in 2020 to the audience of around 500.

Harris was the attorney general of California from 2011 to 2017 before being elected to the Senate. Now, she hopes to take on Trump in the 2020 election, but will have to get through a crowded Democratic primary first.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report into Trump and Russian Collusion, about which Harris was speaking, will not be delivered to the Department of Justice as soon as previously reported by CNN.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  1 month ago

The Deep State is once again set to spoil President Trump’s historic foreign summit with North Korean tyrant Kim Jong-un. Dirty cop Robert Mueller indicted 12 more Russians in July in his ongoing witch hunt to discredit and bring down the Trump administration in a phony collusion scandal. Mueller and accomplice Rosenstein waited to announce the junk charges until […]

NBC News

Published  1 month ago

Last month, Michael Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, confirmed to NBC News a report that Cohen would be willing to tell special counsel Robert Mueller that the president was told in advance about the now-infamous 2016 Trump Tower meeting between members of the Trump campaign team and Russians. But on Tuesday, Davis said he was wrong, and apologized.

After CNN reported that Cohen alleged Donald Trump Jr. notified the president about the meeting in advance, Davis confirmed to NBC News that Cohen would be willing to tell the special counsel just that. But Davis was not willing at the time to be identified by name as a source.

Davis now says that his confirmation was erroneous. "I regret not being much clearer in saying I'm not sure about this story," Davis now tells NBC News. "It's a major mistake for which I am 100 percent sorry. Period. I never should have done it unless I was certain and could prove it."

Davis has said Cohen's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, during which Cohen said he was unaware of the Trump Tower meeting before it was made public in the press last summer, is accurate.

That meeting in June 2016 involved the president's son, his son-in-law, his convicted former campaign manager, and several Russians who claimed to have incriminating information on the president's opponent, Hillary Clinton. It has emerged as a focal point for investigators examining Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

President Trump has insisted he knew nothing about the meeting at the time, tweeting earlier this month, "This was a meeting to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics - and it went nowhere. I did not know about it!"

In a statement to the Washington Post, a CNN spokeswoman said, "We stand by our story, and are confident in our reporting of it."

Breitbart

Published  1 month ago

Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) are the first members of Congress to sign on to a pledge launched by a progressive advocacy organization to impeach President Donald Trump.

ABC News producer Ben Siegel on Tuesday morning reported that the freshman congresswomen were first to back the pledge, which was organized by “By the People,” which bills itself a grassroots group that “came together because we saw that millions of Americans want the Trump Administration removed from office.”

Inbox: @RepRashida and @IlhanMN are first members of Congress to sign on to @by_the_ppl pledge to impeach President Trump: https://t.co/2RYQMCAplM

“We are committed to ending this administration and creating a country that lives up to its founding ideals,” the group’s About Us section reads.

Tlaib made national headlines for remarks she made at a reception organized by progressive advocacy group MoveOn.org hours after being sworn in as a member of Congress, in which she vowed to remove President Trump from office, stating: “[W]e’re going to go in there and we’re going to impeach the motherfucker.”

Several top Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), criticized Tlaib’s coarse language but stopped short of bringing another sort of punishment against the Michigan Democrat.

Addressing the Michigan Veterans Foundation days after the incident, Tlaib refused to apologize for her profanity-laden pledge to impeach, instead expressing regret that the remark became a political “distraction.”

“I understand I am a member of Congress. And I don’t want anything that I do or say to distract us. That is the only thing I apologize for, is that it was a distraction,” she said. “We have a course that we have to stick to, and nothing I say should distract us from that. The shutdown has to be at the forefront, that’s what I am here for, to shift to. This is so much more important.”

In an interview with CNN’s New Day, then-Rep.-elect Omar said she believes President Trump gets “closer to being impeached” each passing day. “We know that this president, this administration, every day has gone a little bit closer to being impeached,” Omar told co-anchor John Berman.

Asked if she will demand the president face impeachment upon taking office, Omar replied: “If [special counsel Robert Mueller’s] report comes out and we keep having the breaking headlines every single day, I’m pretty sure that [impeachment] is going to call for itself.”

Omar and fellow freshman congresswoman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) defended Tlaib’s profanity-laced pledge to impeach the president on Showtime’s late-night talk show Desus & Mero last Thursday.

“I hit up Rashida. I sent her a text, and I was like, ‘Don’t worry about it. Who cares?’” Ocasio-Cortez told the comedians.

“The double standard in that is [Trump] never gets in trouble for all the booboo words he uses,” Omar chimed in.

Appearing on NBC News’ Today last month Pelosi echoed past statements on impeachment talk, telling host Savannah Guthrie that the Mueller report must first be released before any action is taken to remove the president.

“We have to wait and see what happens with the Mueller report. We shouldn’t be impeaching for a political reason, and we shouldn’t avoid impeachment for a political reason. So we’ll just have to see how it comes,” she said.

Omar and Tlaib have faced accusations of anti-Semitism since taking office, a charge the two deny despite their repeated offenses. Earlier February, Omar, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, set off a firestorm of criticism for suggesting Republican lawmakers are bribed by the pro-Israel advocacy group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in exchange for supporting the Jewish state.

In 2012, the Minnesota Democrat tweeted: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

Tlaib came under fire in January for suggesting senators backing an anti-boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) bill hold dual loyalties., tweeting: “They forgot what country they represent.” Days later, a photo emerged of Tlaib posing with Abbas Hamideh, a Hezbollah-backing activist, during her swearing-in reception in Detroit.

Both their remarks and ties to anti-Israel groups have left some Jewish leaders on edge.

“We are very concerned about some of the currents in the body politic, especially on the democratic left,” Malcolm Hoenlein, the CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told the Times of Israel.

realclearpolitics

Published  1 month ago

Journalist Sharyl Attkisson, the host of "Full Measure," interviews former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell about her allegation that the "entire Russia collusion narrative was made up" by anti-Trump political partisans in the FBI and Department of Justice:

SHARYL ATTKISSON, FULL MEASURE: 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 to former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, and ex-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, the Trump-Russia probe has indicted or convicted 34 people so far. And although Special Counsel Robert Mueller has yet to publicly pinpoint illegal Russia collusion on Trump’s part he’s still looking. Meantime, former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell is making an explosive allegation. She’s among those who believe there’s now compelling evidence pointing to a parallel scandal.

In the simplest of terms if possible, what do you think is the story that's been uncovered in the past two years?

SIDNEY POWELL: That the entire Russia collusion narrative was made up. That the FBI and the intelligence community and the Department of Justice began an investigation against four American citizens simply because they worked for the opposition political candidate, that being Donald Trump.

Powell, who calls herself politically independent, served as an assistant prosecutor under nine U.S. Attorneys, both Democrats and Republicans. Where many see “Russia collusion” she sees systemic corruption inside the Justice Department and intelligence community. A topic she writes about in “License to Lie.” Crucial evidence, Powell claims, lies within these little-reported court documents— where our intel agencies get lambasted— not by partisans, but by the lead judge in the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

SIDNEY POWELL: —A 99-page opinion, in which she is taking the FBI to task for having given unlimited, unsupervised access to raw intelligence, that means the database of everythin