Stories about
William Barr


William Pelham Barr (born May 23, 1950) is an American attorney who served as the 77th Attorney General of the United States. As a member of the Republican Party, Barr served as Attorney General from 1991 to 1993 during the administration of President George H. W. Bush.

Tichys Einblick

Published  3 weeks ago

Die Trump-Hasser, die Globalisten, die Haltungsjournalisten und immer wieder die NGOs, sie werden nach dem Platzen ihres Russland-Märchens nahtlos das nächste Narrativ durchs weltweite Mediendorf jagen.

Dushan Wegner

Published  3 weeks ago

[ 9 Min.] Trump-Hasser hofften, via Mueller-Report den demokratisch gewählten US-Präsidenten zu erledigen. Es ist gescheitert, doch sie werden nicht aufgeben. Das Weltbild der Linken ist auf Lügen gebaut – wenn eine implodiert, blasen sie die nächste auf.

web

Published  4 weeks ago

Mit Spannung hatte der politische Betrieb in Washington auf Details aus dem Bericht von US-Sonderermittler Mueller gewartet. Nun sind die Informationen da - und die haben es in sich.

US-Sonderermittler Robert Mueller ist nach Angaben des US-Justizministeriums 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 einem am Sonntag veröffentlichten Brief von Justizminister William Barr an den US-Kongress hervor. Mueller traf der Zusammenfassung zufolge zudem keine Festlegung, ob Trump die Justiz behindert habe, sondern er legte Indizien in beide Richtungen vor. Der Bericht komme nicht zu dem Schluss, dass der Präsident ein Verbrechen begangen habe, er entlaste ihn aber auch nicht, hieß es.

Mueller hatte seinen vertraulichen Bericht am Freitag zunächst an US-Justizminister William Barr übergeben - und seine Untersuchungen zur Russland-Affäre um Präsident Donald Trump damit nach fast zwei Jahren abgeschlossen.

Mehr als 30 Anklagen

Mueller hatte von Mai 2017 an dazu ermittelt, ob es bei den mutmaßlichen Versuchen russischer Einflussnahme auf den US-Präsidentschaftswahlkampf 2016 geheime Absprachen zwischen dem Trump-Lager und Vertretern Russlands gab - und ob Trump mit der Entlassung von FBI-Chef James Comey die Justiz behindert hat. Die Ermittlungen haben zu mehr als 30 Anklagen geführt, darunter gegen sechs Menschen aus Trumps Umfeld.

Trump war Muellers Untersuchung ein gewaltiger Dorn im Auge. Immer wieder bezeichnete er sie als "Hexenjagd". Der Präsident warf Mueller und seinem Team vor, den Demokraten helfen zu wollen.

Nach dem Ende der Ermittlungen hielt Trump sich aber zunächst auffällig zurück und äußerte sich nicht öffentlich. Der Präsident spielte am Samstag und Sonntag Golf in Florida, sein Twitterkonto blieb zunächst bis auf zwei eher belanglose Nachrichten stumm. Die Sprecherin des Weißen Hauses, Sarah Sanders, erklärte, nach der Übergabe des Berichts lägen die nächsten Schritte bei Barr.

(dpa/fra)

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".

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.

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

miamiherald

Published  1 month ago

A federal appeals court in Manhattan has moved to make public records the sealed records from a lawsuit involving the sexual abuse of underage girls by Palm Beach multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein.

miamiherald

Published  1 month ago

A federal appeals court in Manhattan has moved to make public records the sealed records from a lawsuit involving the sexual abuse of underage girls by Palm Beach multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 […]

NBC News

Published  1 month ago

The White House is refusing to hand the House Oversight Committee documents that the panel has requested in its probe into the administration's security clearance process, including for President Donald Trump's senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., blasted the White House on Tuesday for asserting that his panel has not properly justified its requests for documents in investigating the matter, setting up a possible subpoena battle.

"There is a key difference between a president who exercises his authority under the Constitution and a president who overrules career experts and his top advisors to benefit his family members and then conceals his actions from the American people," Cummings said in a statement.

"The White House’s argument defies the Constitutional separation of powers, decades of precedent before this Committee, and just plain common-sense," Cummings wrote. "The White House security clearance system is broken, and it needs both congressional oversight and legislative reform. I will be consulting with Members of the Committee to determine our next steps.”

In a letter to Cummings on Monday, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone slammed what he called the committee's "overly intrusive" requests and told Cummings that the panel had not "cited any legal authority" or provided a "constitutional or statutory basis" for its inquiry.

"Although we are prepared to continue negotiations in good faith, the Committee seeks unilateral concessions without any offer of accommodation on its part, and then complains that the White House has refused to simply tum over everything the Committee inappropriately seeks," Cipollone wrote.

"These actions suggest that the Committee is not interested in proper oversight, but rather seeks information that it knows cannot be provided consistent with applicable law," his letter continued. "We will not concede the Executive's constitutional prerogatives or allow the Committee to jeopardize the individual privacy rights of current and former Executive Branch employees."

Cummings announced in late January that his committee would probe the security clearance process after reports that more than 130 political appointees working in the Executive Office of the President did not have permanent security clearances as of November 2017, including Kushner and his wife, the president's daughter and senior adviser Ivanka Trump, among other top White House aides.

Kushner's clearance was downgraded in February of last year after reports surfaced that he failed to submit necessary information on his financial disclosure forms. He regained full clearance a few months later, however, despite the concerns of security officials and then-White House counsel Donald McGahn.

The president overruled those concerns and ordered the top-secret security clearance be given to his son-in-law, The New York Times reported last week. The newspaper, citing four people briefed on the matter, said Trump ordered John Kelly, then his chief of staff, to give Kushner a top-secret security clearance in May 2018, upsetting some senior administration officials and leading Kelly and McGahn to write internal memos about the incident.

Trump told the Times in January, however, that he had no role in his son-in-law getting the clearance. Kushner’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said that when the clearance was granted last year, Kushner's application went through the standard process, the newspaper reported. Lowell did not comment to NBC News for its January report.

Citing the Times' report report from last week, Reps. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., and Don Beyer, D-Va., sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday calling on him to open an investigation into the security clearance process for Kushner.

When asked about Kushner's security clearance on Tuesday, Trump instead criticized the House Judiciary Committee's just-announced probe into potential constitutional abuses and public corruption by Trump. Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., announced Monday that his panel was issuing a sweeping request for documents to the president’s family, businesses and administration.

"The witch hunt continues," Trump said. "The fact is that I guess we got 81 letters. There was no collusion. That was a hoax. There was no anything."

"It's a disgrace to our country," Trump added. "I'm not surprised that it's happening. Basically, they've started the campaign. So the campaign begins."

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.

dcclothesline

Published  1 month ago

Attorney Alan Dershowitz has requested that media be banned from the Jeffery Epstein hearing to protect “sensitive information.”

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 month ago

If you are a journalist looking for a copy of The Mueller Report, Amazon got news for you. They claim that the report will be out on March 26.

It’s not clear if Attorney General William Barr has cleared the released of the full Mueller report. But Amazon announced today the pre-order of “The Mueller Report”, with an introduction by constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz.

As CNN has previously reported, Barr has been closely consulting with top Justice Department officials on the outlines of plans to handle the highly anticipated report, including to what extent it should be shared with Congress, and by extension the public.

Could this be a trick from Dershowitz to sell a book about the report or would it be the full report, this we will have to wait and see. Amazon also list Robert Mueller III as author of the book.

The boook will be offered in both e-book and paperback editions.

This is a developing story that will be updated.

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.

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.

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.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 month ago

Why did Donald Trump’s Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta give a very lenient plea deal to Donald Trump’s friend, serial child rapist Jeffrey Epstein, when Acosta was a federal prosecutor?

Why did Trump reward Acosta a few years later by giving him a position in his cabinet?

These are questions that many people want answers to, and now it looks like we’re finally going to get those answers.

Earlier this month the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation into the Epstein-Acosta case. The DOJ is looking into whether federal attorneys, including Acosta, committed professional misconduct in Epstein’s criminal case.

And now House Democrats have also asked new Attorney General William Barr to reopen the criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, based on a recent ruling by a federal judge that Epstein’s plea deal was illegal.

“Fourteen Democratic members of Congress have asked the U.S. attorney general to reopen the criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, the 66-year-old Palm Beach hedge fund manager accused of sexually trafficking underage girls.”

“The group, led by Florida Democrats Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Lois Frankel, and Jackie Speier of California, asked President Donald Trump’s new attorney general, William Barr, to reopen the controversial non-prosecution agreement under which Epstein and a group of unidentified co-conspirators received federal immunity for sex trafficking crimes.”

“The deal, negotiated by then-Miami U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta — who is now President Donald Trump’s labor secretary — allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court to two felony prostitution charges. He served 13 months in the Palm Beach County jail, but had his private driver pick him up at the jail six days a week to go to his downtown office in West Palm Beach as part of an unusual work-release arrangement.”

William Barr’s response to this request will tell us a lot about how he will do his job as Trump’s attorney general. But this new development is about something much more important than just William Barr.

If the Epstein case is now brought back into the public eye we’re about to learn the details of Donald Trump’s involvement with Epstein’s sex parties with young teenage girls — and also about the president’s involvement in the coverup of Epstein’s crimes.

There is no question Jeffrey Epstein should go to prison for the rest of his life. But it’s not clear that House Democrats or the DOJ can make that happen.

But we do know this: House Democrats have decided to focus on the Epstein-Acosta-Trump scandal. If William Barr and the Department of Justice don’t give them the information they’ve requested they will start holding hearings.

If they do, the Democrats are likely to subpoena Labor Secretary Acosta and grill him in public during televised hearings.

Democrats — and the American people — want to know why Acosta gave such a sweetheart deal to a serial child rapist that was no more than a slap on the wrist.

They also want to know why Donald Trump rewarded Acosta with a cabinet job.

If these public, televised hearings show that Donald Trump was involved with Epstein’s multiple rapes of underage girls, then this is entire affair about to get much more ugly, and much more politically dangerous for the president.

It may even be enough for him to lose support among Evangelical Christians. But that remains to be seen.

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.

100PercentFedUp.com

Published  1 month ago

“I, regretfully, was one of the folks who would only wear it the days I didn’t have the time or energy to fix my hair”

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.

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

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Thursday that his committee will take a “long hard look” at social media censorship of conservative and alternative voices during a speech at CPAC.

Sen. Graham said that the Senate Judiciary Committee will take a look at social media companies’ censorship of conservative and alternative voices on the Internet.

In a speech ranging from destroying ISIS and confirming Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Graham asked the crowd how they felt about social media companies’ censorship of conservatives. The South Carolina senator said that his committee will investigate the committee.

“Social media, how many of you are worried about your content being taken down? The person making that decision may not have the same world view that you do,” noting that Silicon Valley companies might have a more leftist bias.

“The bottom line is social media companies have got a lot of power, they’re pretty unregulated, and we’re going to take a long hard look at that because I’m the chairman,” Graham said.

The Senate Judiciary Committee also features two prominent conservative critics of Facebook, Google, and Twitter’s ability to censor conservative voices–Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Josh Hawley (R-MO).

During the confirmation hearings for then-Attorney General nominee William Barr, Graham mentioned that he will take a look at social media censorship during his tenure as Senate Judiciary Committee.

Barr said during those hearings that he was interested in reassessing” or learning more about the Department of Justice’s anti-trust policies and in regards to the Silicon Valley “behemoths.”

Barr said:

Yes, I mean generally that’s where I stand that is the purpose of anti-trust law obviously is to protect competition and competition ultimately that rebounds to consumer benefits. At the same time, I’m sort of interested in stepping back and reassessing or learning more about how the anti-trust division has been functioning and what their priorities are. I don’t think big is necessarily bad, but I think a lot of people wonder how such huge behemoths that now exist in Silicon Valley have taken shape under the nose of anti-trust enforcers.

“And you can win that market share without violating anti-trust laws, but I want to find out more about that dynamic,” Barr added.

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 month ago

House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., wrote a letter Thursday to the Attorney General William Barr, citing evidence that Cohen “committed perjury” during his hearing before the committee on Wednesday.

“While testifying under oath, Mr. Cohen made what appear to be numerous wil-ffully and intentionally false statements of material fact contradicted by the record established by the

Justice Department in United States v. Cohen, 18-cr-602 (S.D.N.Y) (WHP). Mr. Cohen’s

testimony before the Committee at times was in direct contradiction to assertions contained in pleadings authored by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). There are other instances in which Mr. Cohen’s statements to the Committee were

immediately contradicted by witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the subject matter.” they wrote.

Click below to read full letter: 2019-02-28-JDJ-MM-to-Barr-re-Cohen-DOJ-Referral

Dan Bongino

Published  1 month ago

Republican Congressmen have referred former Trump attorney and convicted liar Michael Cohen to the Department of Justice for alleged perjury, Fox News reports.

House Oversight Committee ranking member Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr claiming Cohen committed perjury during yesterday’s hearing on Capitol Hill.

The lawmakers cite numerous instances where Cohen issued false statements throughout his congressional testimony, including when the disgraced former attorney said he “never defrauded any bank” and never wanted to work at the White House.

“We write to refer significant evidence that Michael D. Cohen committed perjury and knowingly made false statements during his testimony before an Oversight and Reform Committee hearing,” they wrote. “While testifying under oath, Mr. Cohen made what appear to be numerous willfully and intentionally false statements of material fact contradicted by the record established by the Justice Department in United States v. Cohen.”

They added: “Mr. Cohen’s testimony before the Committee at times was in direct contradiction to assertions contained in pleadings authored by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY.) There are other instances in which Mr. Cohen’s statements to the Committee were immediately contradicted by witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the subject matter.”

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

Michael Cohen's ship is sinking faster than the Titanic and there's no block of ice for him to sit on. President Trump's former attorney, the rat snitch, is going down hard and some of the top

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.

Sean Hannity

Published  1 month ago

GOP Representatives Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows officially referred the President’s former lawyer to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution Thursday; saying Michael Cohen committed perjury during Wednesday’s congressional hearing.

The scathing letter labeled Cohen’s appearance a “spectacular and brazen attempt to knowing and willfully testify falsely and fictitiously to numerous material facts.”

“Mr. Cohen’s testimony before the Committee at times was in direct contradiction to assertions contained in pleadings authored by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York,” stated the letter sent to recently-confirmed Attorney General William Barr.

“We write to refer significant evidence that Michael D. Cohen committed perjury and knowingly made false statements during his testimony before an Oversight and Reform Committee,” adds the statement.

Read the full letter here.

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

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.”

TheHill

Published  1 month ago

These are not the opinions of random, fly-by-night government employees — they are high-level U.S. intel officials.

Rantt

Published  1 month ago

President Trump’s authoritarian tendencies become the bedrock of his presidency.

POLITICO

Published  1 month ago

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sunday threatened to call Robert Mueller to Capitol Hill and subpoena his investigative findings if Attorney General William Barr does not make the special counsel’s highly anticipated report public.

“We will obviously subpoena the report. We will bring Bob Mueller in to testify before Congress. We will take it to court if necessary,” Schiff told host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”

“In the end, I think the department [of Justice] understands they’re going to have to make this public. I think Barr will ultimately understand that, as well,” Schiff said.

Six Democratic House committee chairs urged Barr in a letter Friday to publicize Mueller’s report. The lawmakers also requested that the Justice Department provide parts of the report that are not made public to Congress, and asked that the department explain its reasoning for any redactions.

“We write to you to express, in the strongest possible terms, our expectation that the Department of Justice will release to the public the report Special Counsel Mueller submits to you — without delay and to the maximum extent permitted by law,” the committee chairs wrote in the letter. Besides Schiff, the letter was signed by House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.).

“We are going to get to the bottom of this,” Schiff said Sunday. “We are going to share this information with the public. And if the president is serious about all of this claims of exoneration, then he should welcome the publication of this report.”

Schiff’s Intelligence Committee is scheduled to hear testimony from Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney and fixer, behind closed doors Thursday. Cohen will also provide closed-door testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, followed by a public hearing before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.

“We think he has a lot to offer,” Schiff said.

Homeland Security

Published  1 month ago

What are we to make of the ISIS bride who now wants to return to America? Hoda Muthana left her home in Alabama in 2014 to join the terrorist "caliphate" of ISIS in Syria. Now, reportedly thrice-married to ISIS terrorists, twice-widowed, and recently arrived with her 18-month-old son at a Kurdish-run refugee camp in northern Syria, she says she "deeply regrets" joining ISIS, and wants to come back to the United States.

How this plays out under U.S. law is likely to be decided by the legal wranglers in court, based on technicalities of dates and documents. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has called her a terrorist, described her as having inflicted "enormous risk" on Americans, and released a statement that she is not a U.S. citizen and does not have any legal basis to travel to the United States. President Trump has tweeted that he has instructed Pompeo "not to allow Hoda Muthana back into the Country!" Hoda's father, Ahmed Ali Muthana, a naturalized U.S. citizen, is now suing Trump, Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr to have Hoda and her son "declared to be U.S. citizens and returned to the United States," which, according to the complaint, is what she wants, even if that could mean facing criminal prosecution.

The issue of Hoda's citizenship -- and whether she might be legally entitled to reenter the country -- apparently turns on the timeline of her father's diplomatic status at Yemen's Mission to the United Nations in New York, where he served as a Yemeni diplomat in the early 1990s, before becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. Hoda was born in New Jersey, in October 1994. The U.S. does not consider children born to foreign diplomats in the U.S. as entitled to American citizenship; but if her father's diplomatic status was terminated before she was born, then she would have been a U.S. citizen from birth. By her father's account, he lost his diplomatic status shortly before she was born, ergo she's a citizen. The State Department said otherwise, in a letter dated Jan. 15, 2016, sent to Hoda at her family's Alabama address, more than a year after she'd gone to join ISIS in Syria. According to State, U.S. authorities were not officially notified of the termination of her father's diplomatic status until February 1995, some four months after Hoda was born, ergo she was not born a U.S. citizen, has never been one, and should never have been issued a U.S. passport. It could take a while before we see a court ruling one way or the other.

But there's another timeline that ought to matter here. Not for legal purposes, but in the broader context of how Hoda Muthana's story is now playing to the American public. What about the timeline of high-profile ISIS atrocities -- the context in which she made her choices?

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 month ago

By Jonathan Landay and Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – In what is likely to be their first public use of subpoena power since taking over the U.S. House of Representatives in January, Democrats were set to vote on Tuesday on subpoenaing documents on the Trump administration’s migrant family separation policy.

If approved, the subpoenas by the House Oversight Committee would show Democrats beginning to invoke the investigative clout they obtained when voters in November handed them majority control of the House and took it away from Republicans.

Democrats are initiating a series of investigations of President Donald Trump, his personal finances and business interests and his 25-month-old administration, including controversial policies such as family separation.

The House Oversight Committee will vote on a resolution from Chairman Elijah Cummings to issue subpoenas to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Attorney General William Barr, and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, according to committee documents reviewed by Reuters.

The resolution is likely to pass as the committee’s Democrats outnumber Republicans, 24-18.

As part of a crackdown on illegal immigration, the Trump administration separated thousands of children from their immigrant parents who crossed from Mexico into the United States, placing many in detention camps.

Immigration advocates and Democratic lawmakers say many traumatized children, having fled their home countries, were held in institutionalized settings for too long under the policy. The Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general said in a January report that the administration began ramping up separations in 2017. They accelerated in 2018 after Trump implemented a “zero tolerance” policy to criminally prosecute and jail all illegal border crossers.

Outrage over the policy led Trump to sign an executive order on June 20, 2018, reversing course.

In a Feb. 22 letter to Cummings, top Oversight Committee Republican Jim Jordan said the three departments “have been working expeditiously” to provide documents and information to the panel and that it was premature to vote on subpoenas.

An Oversight Committee official said the documents to be subpoenaed are the same as those requested from the departments in a July 2018 letter signed by Cummings, when the Democrats were in the minority, and Republican Representative Mark Meadows.

After the departments refused to hand over the documents, the panel’s then-Republican chairman Trey Gowdy declined Cummings’ request to issue subpoenas and refused to hold a vote, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

(Additional reporting by Ginger Gibson; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Daniel Wallis)

I Love My Freedom

Published  1 month ago

"We'll subpoena you! No, we'll SUE you!" Is that the juvenile voice of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Nope, as odd as it may sound, this is actually coming from California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff. Get Your FREE 'Build

thepatriotnewsreport

Published  1 month ago

The father of the Alabama woman begging to be let back into the U.S. after leaving years ago to join ISISS is now launching a legal campaign against President Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr.

Attorneys from the Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America have filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ahmed Ali Muthana arguing his daughter Hodaa and her 18-month-old son should be allowed to return to America, and her citizenship – which the U.S. government disputes – should be recognized.

The lawsuit also seeks a judgment that Muthana’s father is “entitled to send his daughter money to ensure the survival of his daughter and grandson, and enable them safe passage home, without subjecting himself to criminal liability” under U.S. law.

Muthana currently is living at a refugee camp in northeast Syria and she “is willing to pay whatever debts she has to society” – even if it means serving a lengthy prison sentence, her family’s lawyer told Fox News on Thursday.

In 2015, Muthana allegedly operated a Twitter account that, on at least one occasion, tried to incite Americans to commit acts of violence on national holidays.

Pompeo though has said Muthana is not an American citizen and Trump has vowed not to let her back into the country.

“In Ms. Muthana’s words, she recognizes that she has ‘ruined’ her own life, but she does not want to ruin the life of her young child,” the attorneys who filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia told AL.com in a statement. “Citizenship is a core right under the Constitution, and once recognized should not be able to be unilaterally revoked by tweet—no matter how egregious the intervening conduct may be.”

But Zuhdi Jasser, the Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy — a group that describes itself as a “Muslim-led organization working on the front lines for reform at all levels of the Muslim community” — told Fox News yesterday the government shouldn’t even bother with Muthana.

“She became, not only a terrorist, she became an enemy of our country and if she did believe in the citizenship oath…she abandoned it and actually violated it and became an enemy combatant,” he said on “America’s Newsroom.”

Fox News

Published  1 month ago

House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff vowed on Sunday to take the Justice Department to court over Special Counsel Robert Mueller's forthcoming report on the Russia investigation, which sources tell Fox New is in its final stages.

Lawfare

Published  1 month ago

Editor’s Note: This article is available in audio format on the Lawfare Podcast Shorts:

It seems to be real this time—if perhaps a bit late for the prediction by former presidential lawyer Ty Cobb in the summer of 2017 that Robert Mueller’s investigation would be over by Thanksgiving of that year.

While Cobb was off by more than a year and a half, there are now clear signs that the special counsel’s office really is close to concluding its work. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has set a departure date of mid-March, after reports surfaced that he would leave the Justice Department only after Mueller finished the probe. As of Feb. 20, CNN has reported that Attorney General William Barr may announce as early as next week that Mueller has completed his investigation—and that Barr plans to shortly thereafter send a confidential summary of the report to Congress. NBC’s Pete Williams likewise announced that a report from the special counsel’s office may head to the Justice Department as early as next week. And the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department is preparing for Mueller to issue a confidential report, and that Trump administration officials are concerned the report will contain information that is “politically damaging” but falls short of alleging criminal conduct.

Of course, no one outside the Department of Justice knows for certain precisely when the investigation will conclude. But perhaps more important, no one outside the Department of Justice knows what the report will contain. Nobody knows whom it will vindicate. Nobody knows whether it will conclude that the President Trump was a Russian agent or whether it will, to quote Trump himself, “totally clear the president”—or whether it will find that he obstructed justice or abused power or acted wholly within his legitimate Article II powers. Nobody knows whether it will describe conduct far worse than that which has so far come to light or whether it will debunk allegations that have unfairly haunted the president.

All of which makes the present a good moment to articulate some principles for how folks should read Mueller’s findings when they do emerge. Because the nation still remains behind what the philosopher John Rawls described as the “veil of ignorance,” it is an excellent time to set some ground rules regarding how people should engage this material, regardless of their political affiliations or view of the Russia scandal. In Rawls’s theory, people should craft rules for how to fairly set up a society behind the “veil,” when they don’t know what social advantages or disadvantages they’ll have under those rules when the veil is lifted.

A couple of caveats at the outset: We assume here for purposes of argument that the Mueller report will be factually rich, that it will both lay out detailed factual findings and analyze those factual findings under applicable law. That point, we emphasize, is actually no certainty. The regulation under which Mueller is operating does not say much about what sort of report he needs to file, as several articles on Lawfare have noted. The following analysis does not apply if Mueller’s report is more skeletal and does not show its work.

Moreover, the following assumes that the Mueller report actually becomes available in substantial part and that people are thus able to assess it. If the public or Congress receives only a summary of Mueller’s findings written by a different Justice Department office, or by the attorney general, that would raise an additional set of questions about how one should read the summary. But assuming the report gives a full accounting of the conduct at issue in the investigation and assuming we actually get to see the material at issue, the following are four principles toward reading it fairly—offered without knowing whose political views the application of those principles will help or hurt.

First, in the absence of some glaring or obvious reason to reject them, people should be prepared to accept Mueller’s prosecutorial judgments. Mueller and his team are not 13 angry Democrats today, and they will not be 13 corrupt Republicans tomorrow. They are professionals who have had access to the best factual record anyone is likely to see. The determination of whether to charge—or not to charge—a given person is an informed professional judgment entitled to the presumption of regularity. The indictments that the special counsel has brought to date are all cases in which other reasonable prosecutors in Mueller’s shoes would have likewise pursued charges. To the extent the cases have been litigated, Mueller has prevailed; there is no indication that he has brought cases that were not substantially merited. That means that if Mueller declines prosecution as it relates to other potential defendants, onlookers should presume that those decisions also reflect reasonable prosecutorial judgments.

Declinations in a politically sensitive matter of this type may happen for a variety of reasons. The facts may not be adequate to support a given prosecution. Particularly with respect to the president, there are major legal impediments to prosecution—both with respect to the application of specific statutes to the exercise of Article II powers and with respect to the threshold question of whether the president is amenable to indictment while he remains in office at all. There are also prudential factors that may counsel against bringing a given case; for example, a witness who has some exposure to possible prosecution may provide essential cooperation and prosecutors may, as a consequence, forgo charges. All of these factors are legitimate. And people should be prepared to accept the legitimacy of outcomes that don’t involve prosecutions.

Second, people should also accept the factual record described in the report in the absence of specific reason to doubt it. This does not mean that Mueller is some kind of deity, whose word on factual matters is infallible. It is, however, a recognition that Mueller has had the benefit of an elite staff of lawyers and investigators who have had access to an array of witnesses and documents and intelligence available to nobody else. This means, quite simply, that he knows more than everyone else does and is thus in a position to change the working factual record dramatically, whereas onlookers can only argue about the existing record or—in the case of investigative reporters and congressional committees—inch it forward at the margins.

As a consequence of this reality, if Mueller concludes based on the evidence he has collected that a meeting took place, the working presumption should be that the meeting took place. If he says two individuals communicated with one another on a particular subject on a particular day, let’s take that as presumptively true unless and until it is rebutted.

This principle gets slightly trickier for stories that Mueller is effectively debunking. His report, after all, is very unlikely to offer conclusions in the negative. For example, the Mueller report likely will not say that “Michael Cohen never traveled to Prague,” but might conclude instead that the investigation had not turned up any evidence that Cohen had traveled to Prague. In such a case, it might be tempting to seize on the distinction and conclude that because Mueller didn’t say that Cohen didn’t travel to Prague, the possibility that he did so is still there.

Resist this temptation; that way lies madness. If a matter has been investigated thoroughly, and the special counsel has not found evidence to support an accusation, we should consider the matter closed unless and until new information arises to support it. The basic principle, in short, is that people should take as the factual record those facts the special counsel affirmatively finds and not supplement that record with facts they wish he had found. Only if he specifically leaves a question open as unresolved should it be treated as unresolved.

Third—and this point significantly qualifies the previous one—the report only covers what it covers. There may be many lines of inquiry the public feels are relevant to L’Affaire Russe, or to ethical and legal questions about the president and his family more generally, that are not within the scope of the Mueller report. The report itself will likely address a far narrower set of questions. Mueller, after all, has clear jurisdictional limits. While countless news reports have contended that he is investigating this, that or the other thing, the investigation almost surely has behaved in a disciplined fashion that focuses on some things and leaves the rest for other actors. So while the Mueller report can be considered an authoritative record on those questions that it addresses, that it does not address some particular issue cannot be taken as evidence that Mueller investigated that issue and found it without merit.

Fourth, a decision not to prosecute does not necessarily resolve questions of morality, ethics or impeachability. It might, of course. If Mueller concludes as a factual matter that there was “NO COLLUSION!” or that there is no evidence of any sort of collusion, people should be prepared to consider not merely the criminal matter closed but the moral matter closed as well. But conversely, if Mueller finds a series of facts and concludes that those facts either do not amount to a prosecutable case or that some law bars his bringing that case, people are free to judge those facts. Fact patterns that Mueller may choose not to prosecute, or may be barred from prosecuting, may nonetheless warrant the opprobrium of all decent people. They may warrant impeachment and removal from office—the standards for impeachment being quite different from the standards of the criminal law. They may warrant civil liability.

Consider, for example, the matter of obstruction of justice. Since the dawn of the obstruction probe, the problems of bringing a criminal case against the president have been apparent. Even without accepting the broad conception of Article II authorities that William Barr advocated, there is no doubt that Article II limits to some degree the application of the obstruction statutes to the president. Moreover, indicting the president would independently violate the Justice Department’s view of his temporary immunity from criminal process. So nobody should be surprised if Mueller concludes that he cannot bring a criminal case. Such a finding that no case is plausible, however, in no sense answers the question of whether the president’s conduct is acceptable. That is a judgment for other actors, the body politic and Congress, who get to take Mueller’s factual findings and use them in their own assessments, which may legitimately proceed under altogether different standards.

In many ways, the question of criminal prosecution is not the most important one before the public. The most important question is the president’s fitness for office, both as a political matter that will be before voters once again in less than two years and, in the interim, as a potential matter of impeachment. These are not questions a prosecutor should answer, nor questions a prosecutor is even capable of answering. So while people should accept Mueller’s prosecutorial judgments, they should not transform declinations into character references or otherwise transform prosecutorial judgments into political judgments of propriety.

Over the past two years, President Trump and some of his allies have carried out a relentless public relations campaign against the Mueller investigation—calling it a “Witch Hunt” and asserting that it is run by “Angry Democrats” and is “totally compromised and conflicted.” This campaign seems to be aimed at ensuring that there is not a political will to act on the report if it includes information that damages the president. Last year, the president’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani stated as much, saying that the efforts to paint the investigation as a “witch hunt” were “for public opinion …. Because eventually the decision here is going to be impeach or not impeach. Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, are going to be informed a lot by their constituents. And so our jury—and it should be—is the American people.”

Those who have insisted on the necessity and integrity of the investigation need to be careful not to fall into a similar trap if the Mueller report is anti-climactic or does not shed significant additional light on the conduct of the president and his associates. It is the discipline of actually believing in apolitical law enforcement that, if the report reveals “no collusion” (or no evidence of collusion), opponents of the president must be prepared to accept that result and not do as the president and some of his supporters have done: impugn the integrity of the investigators. At the same time, it is critical to remember that Mueller is a prosecutor with a limited mandate; that means there are a lot of questions his report will not answer and judgments he will not render. These questions his report might well tee up. And the judgments will be left for others.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  1 month ago

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) is not a person to trifle with. He has already taken steps to hold Donald Trump and his administration accountable since taking charge of his committee on January 3. And there is no reason to think that in the coming months he will let up and go easy on the president or any of his appointees.

In a radio interview on Sunday, Nadler made very clear where he stands on the current occupant of the White House when he called Trump the “greatest threat” to U.S. democracy since “the Civil War.”

Speaking with radio host John Catsimatidis on AM 970 in New York Nadler said:

“I view this president and his conduct as the greatest threat to the democratic system and to the constitutional government since the Civil War.”

“Whether it’s threatening the newspapers or threatening the judiciary or calling people who criticize him treasonous.”

Nadler is one of the key Democratic committee chairmen who will soon begin to investigate many different aspects of the Trump administration.

This morning he said that the his committee will soon be holding hearings into “abuse of power” and “obstruction of justice.”

“Clearly…there have been major abuses of power, major obstruction of justice, obvious violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution,” Nadler said. “All of these have to be looked at.”

He also make clear that his hearings would look at all actions, including those conducted in a “noncriminal manner,” to determine of governmental norms have been violated. He said he will investigate whether Trump administration policies have threatened the U.S. democratic system.

Nadler also said that Democrats in the House will introduce legislation which requires that special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report be made public.

As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Nadler will be in charge of an impeachment investigation if Democrats pursue that course of action.

In public comments last week Nadler stated that if Attorney General William Barr tries to stop Congress from using Mueller’s work for its own probes, he will have a major fight on his hands. He also said that he will not hesitate to subpoena the Mueller report if necessary.

Nadler also plans to continue to investigate former acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker for possible perjury committed during his sworn testimony before Nadler’s committee. During his testimony Whitaker was nonresponsive, rude and evasive in all of the questions posed to him by Nadler.

Washington Examiner

Published  1 month ago

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., says his panel plans to bring in special counsel Robert Mueller to testify on the Russia investigation if the Justice Department does not release his entire report to the public.

“We will obviously subpoena the report. We will bring Bob Mueller in to testify before Congress. We take it to court if necessary,” the California Democrat said during an interview on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday when asked about about transparency of any underlying evidence if someone has not been prosecuted.

Attorney General William Barr assured Democrats in his confirmation hearing that he would make as much of Mueller’s report public as possible. However, as "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos mentioned, officials have said that Justice Department regulations do not require the release of underlying evidence.

Schiff said the Justice Department has already “violated” that policy in the last two years.

“I have had this conversation with [Deputy Attorney General] Rod Rosenstein and others on down at the Justice Department, as they turned over thousands and thousands of pages of discovery in the Clinton email investigation and there was no indictment in that investigation, that this was a new precedent they were setting and they were going to have to live by this precedent whether it was a Congress controlled by the Democrats or Republicans,” Schiff said.

Mueller is required to submit a confidential report to the attorney general after he wraps up his investigation. In the report, Mueller must explain why he decided to bring charges against or not prosecute any matters under investigation. Rules do not require the report to be shared with Congress or be made public, but Barr is required to inform Congress if the Justice Department prevented Mueller’s team from taking any action.

Six Democratic chairmen in the House, including Schiff, wrote to Barr in a letter Friday, saying they expect he will make Mueller’s report public “without delay and to the maximum extent permitted by law" and to explain why any information is redacted.

Under new Democratic leadership this term, the House Intelligence Committee is embarking on a sweeping investigation into President Trump’s financial transactions and Russia, and Schiff has adamantly stressed that his panel will continue its work unimpeded regardless of what Mueller's report says.

National Review

Published  1 month ago

D.C. has been delusional about the Kremlin since the 1990s.

Conservative Tribune

Published  1 month ago

President Trump called for Robert Mueller's 'witch hunt' to end pointing to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Burr's conclusion there was no collusion.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 months ago

President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced this week that the woman who left Alabama to join ISIS in Syria and now wants to return to the United States is not an American citizen and therefore cannot return to the nation.

Now, her father is suing Trump, Pompeo, and Attorney General William Barr for stripping her citizenship.

The Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America filed the suit on behalf of Hoda Muthana’s father Ahmed Ali Muthana on Thursday in federal court in Washington.

“Muthana’s suit asks the U.S. government to recognize Hoda’s citizenship and make good faith efforts to return her and the son, to whom she gave birth while in Syria, to the United States,” Fox 10 reports.

Appearing on Fox Business, Pompeo said “this is a woman who has inflicted enormous risk on American soldiers and American citizens. She’s a terrorist.”

The Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America released a statement following the lawsuit in which they acknowledge that she will likely be charged with providing material support of terrorism if she returns.

“Ms. Muthana has publicly acknowledged her actions and accepted full responsibility for those actions. In Ms. Muthana’s words, she recognizes that she has ‘ruined’ her own life, but she does not want to ruin the life of her young child,” the statement said.

Muthana’s child was not born in the United States.

When asked during her ABC interview if she would be open to jail time for joining the terrorist organization, the ISIS bride said she would be willing to go to “therapy lessons,” she added, “Jail time, I don’t know if that has an effect on people.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is also supporting her and providing her with a pro bono attorney.

The mainstream media has been attempting to paint a “heartbreaking” and sympathetic portrait of Muthana, despite the fact that the 24-year-old married four ISIS fighters in Syria. Muthana also infamously used social media to call for Americans to join the fight with ISIS.

Sean Hannity

Published  2 months ago

The father of the Alabama-born ‘ISIS wife’ hoping to return to the United States is suing the Trump administration to allow his daughter to come back to the country, reports Fox News.

“The father of the Alabama woman begging to be let back into the U.S. after leaving years ago to join ISIS is now launching a legal campaign against President Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr,” writes Fox.

Legal representatives from the Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ahmed Muthana -father of Hoda Muthana- claiming her U.S. citizenship should be recognized despite her defection to the Islamic State.

I have instructed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and he fully agrees, not to allow Hoda Muthana back into the Country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2019

“I have instructed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and he fully agrees, not to allow Hoda Muthana back into the Country!” tweeted the president Wednesday.

Read the full report at Fox News.

toresays

Published  2 months ago

We can all thank Laura Loomer who is in Minneapolis right now and  determined that Ilhan Omar was “missing” with

POLITICUSUSA

Published  2 months ago

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

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

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

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

— PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) February 21, 2019

The exchange between Melber and Dean:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative Media

Published  2 months 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.

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.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newsmax

Published  2 months ago

For close to 110 years, the FBI has been considered the premier law enforcement agency in the United States, known for its honesty, integrity, and credibility, and as an independent, objective, and non-biased federal investigative agency. However, that reputation has been shattered in the past two years as a result of the findings of numerous Congressional hearings and investigations, and according to their own internal watchdog, the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Justice.

Throughout these hearings and investigations, we have witnessed an FBI director, James Comey, admit that he leaked a confidential memo to The New York Times through a personal friend, with the sole intent of forcing an independent special counsel to investigate possible Russian collusion between President Trump and Russia, when we now know that there was no evidence of collusion in the first place, and that Comey’s release of this classified document was retribution for being terminated by the president.

The Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Justice found that the Deputy Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, made false statements on four separate occasions to government investigators and members of Congress while under oath. We’ve heard from several sources that the U.S. Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, discussed with senior members of the FBI the possibility of him wearing a wireless transmitter to covertly intercept communications between him and President Donald Trump, in an attempt to use that to remove the president from office under the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

We’ve also heard statements through public testimony, and seen reports, that members of the FBI’s national security division possibly provided deceptive and false information to a federal judge in a FISA application, to intercept Americans conversations, and that those names of the Americans intercepted, were then illegally leaked to the press and general public in violation of U.S. federal law.

Throughout this two year period, President Trump has aggressively criticized the Justice Department and the FBI for leading a politically motivated investigation, which he has called a witch-hunt, knowing full well that their allegations where misleading, false, and a politically motivated attack to destroy the president in the court of public opinion, and remove him from office.

Given what we know today, and based on fact, public testimony, and statements, the president — and his frustration and anger — has been more than justified from the very beginning. This was a selective and political prosecution by politically motivated leaders in the FBI and Justice Department, who used their official power and capacity, first to try to prevent Donald J. Trump from being elected president, and then to do everything in their power to remove him from office once he was elected.

There is no greater threat to our sovereignty as a republic, than a government that abuses its authority to politically target its citizens, and that is exactly what happened in this case.

This isn’t assumption or conjecture or political rhetoric. These are conclusions based on real testimony, statements, and facts that have been revealed through a series of government investigations, and unfortunately, when the smoke clears and history is written, this will be one of the most devastating scandals in the history of the FBI and U.S. Justice Department.

On February 15, 2019, William Barr was sworn in as the 85th U.S. Attorney General. He will oversee the United States Justice Department, which has a number of federal agencies… the FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshals Service, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons, just to name a few.

His first priority should be to remove every and all senior ranking holdover executives in the department, particularly the Justice Management Division (JMD), the National Security Division (NSD), and those assigned to the Asset Forfeiture Section.

By doing so, he can have a fresh and new set of eyes looking at why two years into this administration, clearances for the president’s cabinet have still not been fulfilled, and how and why the ethical and criminal conduct took place in the FISA court.

However most importantly, the AG must implement an internal system of accountability to ensure that politically motivated prosecutors and investigators are removed from the department.

He needs to ensure that there are performance measures created to meet the goals and objectives of the department, and then create an accountability system to ensure that those performance measures are met successfully.

Selective and political prosecutions must stop, and those responsible for ethical and criminal misconduct, must at all cost, be held accountable.

Throughout the Mueller probe, numerous people have been convicted or pled guilty to making false statements to federal investigators or Congress, yet we have had the most senior level executives in the FBI that have not been charged with the a crime, for the same thing. In fact, their conduct is much worse, because their false statements were an abuse of power, with which they attempted to influence an election and an investigation, in an attempt to overthrow a sitting, constitutionally elected president.

There is nothing more important that Attorney General William Barr can do in the next two years than to hold accountable those that have destroyed and impugned the integrity and credibility of the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI. Just because you have the power of the entire government behind you, that does not mean you can break the law to enforce it.

Without accountability, there will never again be integrity and credibility within our federal criminal justice system. It’s time for the Attorney General to ensure that the reputation it once earned is rightfully returned.

As New York City’s 40th Police Commissioner, Bernard Kerik was in command of the NYPD on September 11, 2001, and responsible for the city’s response, rescue, recovery, and the investigative efforts of the most substantial terror attack in world history. His 35-year career has been recognized in more than 100 awards for meritorious and heroic service, including a presidential commendation for heroism by President Ronald Reagan, two Distinguished Service Awards from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, The Ellis Island Medal of Honor, and an appointment as Honorary Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.

The writer is author of the following: "The Grave Above the Grave," "From Jailer to Jailed," and "The Lost Son, A Life in Pursuit of Justice."

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  2 months ago

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

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

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

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

— PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) February 21, 2019

Maddow said:

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

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

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

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

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

— Matt Schlapp (@mschlapp) February 14, 2019

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

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

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

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

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 months ago

CNN jumped on the Jussie Smollett hate hoax without any concern that the bizarre story was some weird stunt by an unhinged attention-seeking actor. Last night after police announced charges against Jussie Smollett CNN host Don Lemon was totally distraught. Lemon told his guests he doesn’t think it’s Jussie Smollett’s fault that he already lost […]

Daily Torch

Published  2 months ago

By Robert Romano “I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency and won the election for the presidency and who might have done so with the aid of the government of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage. And that [...]

RedState

Published  2 months ago

In physics, a tipping point refers to the point at which an object is no longer balanced, and adding a small amount of weight can cause it to topple. In general, a tipping point is defined as...

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 months ago

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

The Independent

Published  2 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show all 17 Created with Sketch. Created with Sketch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POLITICUSUSA

Published  2 months ago

Rachel Maddow explained how the Southern District of New York could indict and prosecute Trump for felony obstruction of justice while he is president.

Maddow said:

What Mr. Whitaker did after this was unclear. There is no evidence he took any direct steps to intervene in the Manhattan investigation. He did tell associates that the justice department that prosecutors in New York required quote adult supervision.

So as I mentioned, we’ll have more tonight but this is potentially trouble for Matt Whitaker who is no longer acting attorney general but staying at the Justice Department now that the new attorney general William Barr has been sworn in. This is potentially trouble for Whitaker if his adult supervision comment means he did try to influence that prosecution in New York at the behest of the White House. It’s also trouble for Whitaker obviously if he did lie about those interactions under oath to Congress. It’s also potentially trouble for the President if he was going after a federal criminal case, right? If he was trying to hand pick a prosecutor to try to protect himself. That’s the kind of thing that theoretically could be prosecuted as a felony obstruction charge against a defendant even potentially against a defendant who is a president if the Southern District of New York was in fact inclined to try to pursue something like that.

Rachel Maddow suggests that the SDNY could prosecute Trump for felony obstruction of justice while he is president. https://t.co/IZZbYOCNvP pic.twitter.com/P5UB3zRiEH

— Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) February 20, 2019

There Is No Law Saying That Trump Can’t Be Prosecuted

There is a Justice Department guideline saying that a sitting president can’t be indicted or prosecuted, but there it is unsettled law as to whether this is the case. If Trump was indicted and there was an attempt to prosecute him, the case would certainly end up before the Supreme Court, because since no has ever tried to prosecute a sitting president, no one knows if Trump could be indicted and prosecuted while in office.

If the SDNY wanted to try, and they are the prosecutors that have come the closest to indicting Trump, it would set up a round of legal challenges, and doom Trump’s reelection campaign. It is not a given that Trump would win in court. This scenario proves that Trump’s greatest personal legal jeopardy isn’t in the Mueller investigation, but the Southern District of New York.

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

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 months ago

Disgraced FBI official Andrew McCabe sat down with CBS’s “60 Minutes” which aired Sunday night. McCabe told CBS that he ordered two investigations into President Trump because he wanted to know if Trump fired FBI Director Comey to impede the Russia investigation and was Trump acting on behalf of the Russian government. There was ZERO […]

NaturalNews.com

Published  2 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And maybe next time they’ll be successful.

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

Sources include:

The Federalist

Published  2 months ago

McCabe played fast and loose with the facts, fully playing into the media narrative about Trump's Russia collusion. Unfortunately, he went unchallenged.

The Federalist

Published  2 months ago

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

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is expected to leave his role at the Justice Department by mid-March, a senior DOJ official told Fox News on Monday.

Fox News reported in January that Rosenstein was expected to step down in the coming weeks to ensure a smooth transition for Attorney General William Barr, who was sworn in on Thursday.

This is a developing story; please check back for updates.

Conservative News Today

Published  2 months ago

Fox Business host Lou Dobbs is furious that Republicans aren’t demanding the arrest of former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe after he admitted in a shocking “60 Minutes” interview that he had plotted to overthrow President Trump. “Why is the establishment in Washington D.C. not screaming for the arrest of Andrew McCabe and all of his […]

The Washington Times

Published  2 months ago

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Lee Smith is a columnist at Tablet Magazine.

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

The Federalist

Published  2 months ago

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

Praying Medic

Published  2 months ago

After William Barr was confirmed as Attorney General nervous chatter began among the deep state as they made plans to avoid prosecution.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

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

Washington Examiner

Published  2 months ago

Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, on Thursday demanded accountability in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process to deal with the "terror" in the FBI and Justice Department.

In an interview with Fox News, Nunes, R-Calif., was asked to comment on “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump," the new book by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who is engaged in an explosive media tour.

The book title, Nunes quipped, has the source of the "terror" mixed up.

"I had not heard the name of the book until you said it. It's interesting they talk about in an 'Age of Terror.' What I think most Republicans agree with ... the terror came from the FBI and Department of Justice who used a document, dirt, dug up by the Clinton campaign to start an investigation," he said.

Nunes was referring to longstanding concern that there may have been rampant bias in the upper levels of the FBI against President Trump. The "dirt" is the infamous dossier, compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele. When Nunes was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee last year, the GOP majority of the panel released a memo that asserted 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 onetime Trump campaign aide Carter Page, but key information, including its author's anti-Trump bias and Democratic benefactors, was left out.

McCabe was one of the top officials who signed off one of these FISA applications.

"We know for a fact the FBI knew at the time of the appointment of the special counsel from the lead investigators that there was no there there. Meaning they had nothing on Trump," Nunes said, referring to testimony by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page. "They had no collusion. They never did. Why? Because it was propaganda from the Russians given to the Clinton campaign, picked up by our FBI. It's an embarrassment and it is a terror. And they did try to attempt a coup and it should never have been done and this needs to be righted. It's a wrong that needs to be righted."

Nunes said "all of them that were involved in the development of the FISA" should be held accountable when shown a clip of Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham saying with certainty his committee would speak with McCabe about what transpired during the 2016 election. "Whether it was a conspiracy or not, whether it was abuse of power, I don't know. But they should be held accountable," he added.

Nunes also said the FISA Court, which granted the surveillance warrants, should hold the FBI accountable for misleading them about the dossier. The congressman warned that not doing so would do further damage to the credibility of the FISA process.

In his first TV interview since getting fired last year, McCabe told CBS News that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein talked about secretly using a “wire” to record conversations with Trump after the president fired FBI Director James Comey in May 2017. He also claimed Rosenstein told Justice Department officials he could convince Cabinet members to help invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from the White House.

In the ensuing fallout, several top Republicans and at least one Democrat in Congress have called for McCabe to come in for testimony. Some have pressed for Rosenstein to also face questions. The Justice Department responded to McCabe's "60 Minutes" interview, claiming his version of events were "inaccurate and factually incorrect."

Nunes said the Justice Department and FBI can "clean house," and William Barr needs to take command as attorney general. Barr was just confirmed by the Senate Thursday afternoon.

Once Barr is in place, Nunes has said in recent days he plans to make criminal referrals as part of a congressional investigation into alleged political bias in the FBI.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

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

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NaturalNews.com

Published  2 months ago

It is widely reported today that President Trump is declaring a national emergency over the continued migrant invasion of the United States of America that's taking place via a largely [...]

Dan Bongino

Published  2 months ago

Disgraced Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is expected to leave the Department of Justice by mid-March according to a senior official who spoke with Fox News.

Newly appointed Attorney General William Barr could announce Rosenstein’s successor as early as next week. An administration official said Barr has chosen Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Jeffrey Rosen for the position.

A graduate of Northwestern University and Harvard Law School, Rosen previously served as General Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor for the White House Office of Management and Budget (2006 to 2009) and as General Counsel at the Department of Transportation (2003 to 2006), according to his online biography. Rosen, confirmed for his current role by the Senate in May 2017, works under Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao in overseeing the daily operations of the department.

The announcement of Rosenstein’s departure comes after former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s disturbing claims last week that the deputy attorney general was “absolutely serious” when he offered to secretly record President Trump.

He also said that Rosenstein was considering invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office.

NBC News

Published  2 months ago

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

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee is demanding that former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testify before the panel, following McCabe's explosive claims in an interview this week that senior members of the Department of Justice considered removing President Trump using the 25th Amendment.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

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

True Pundit

Published  2 months ago

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-ca), The Ranking Member Of The House Intelligence Committee, Told Fox News Channel Host Sean Hannity Tuesday Evening That “many” People Who Lied To Investigators Will Be Criminally Referred To The Justice Department After Attorney General Nominee William Barr Is Confirmed.- READ MORE

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

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

The Hive

Published  2 months ago

Later today, William Barr is expected to be confirmed as Donald Trump’s next attorney general, despite just three Democrats voting to advance his nomination earlier this week. But the Barr family is intent on gaining the nation’s trust. In order to avoid any thorny work situations, Barr’s son-in-law, Tyler McGaughey, will be leaving his job in the Justice Department . . . for a new gig that will seemingly provide even more opportunities for conflicts of interest, this time of the Russian variety!

CNN reports that McGaughey, the husband of Barr’s youngest daughter, has been hired as an attorney in the White House counsel’s office, where he’ll “advise the president, the executive office, and White House staff on legal issues concerning the president and the presidency.” While the division is separate from the legal team that defends Trump in the Russia investigation—a group of leading lights that includes Rudy “maybe there was collusion” Giuliani—its work nevertheless does “intersect with the investigation.” (Trump reportedly blamed former White House counsel Don McGahn for failing to bring the probe to a close.) Meanwhile, Mary Daly, Barr’s oldest daughter, will be leaving her current job in the deputy attorney general’s office for a gig at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which has had its own Russian intrigues.

Barr, of course, has his own special conflicts of interest when it comes to Robert Mueller’s probe. Last June, he sent an unsolicited 20-page memo to the Justice Department calling the inquiry into potential obstruction of justice by Trump “fatally misconceived” and Mueller’s actions “grossly irresponsible,” and insisting “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.” (Presumably, the memo didn’t hurt Barr’s position on the short list to replace the long-suffering Jeff Sessions.) While Barr said in January that he would not end the Mueller inquiry without cause if asked to do so by the president, he also told lawmakers he saw no reason to recuse himself in light of the memo, saying he would “seek the counsel of Justice Department ethics officials” but would not necessarily take their advice.

Walter Shaub, the former director of the Office of Government Ethics, said it was a “good idea” for McGaughey and Daly to leave the D.O.J., but added that McGaughey’s beeline for the White House was “concerning.” “That’s troubling because it raises further questions about Barr's independence,” he told CNN.

More Great Stories from Vanity Fair

— The leaking, gossiping, and infighting that made Kellyanne Conway a formidable White House player

— Nancy Pelosi is America’s most powerful power-suit boss

— Your passport to Vanity Fair’s 25th Hollywood Issue with Saoirse Ronan, Timothée Chalamet, Chadwick Boseman, and more

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story.

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 months ago

On Tuesday, Rep. Devin Nunes told Sean Hannity that many people who lied to the federal government will soon be criminally referred to the Justice Department once William Barr is confirmed as attorney general.

Get Your “Build The Wall” Coin For 50% Off And We’ll Send Nancy Pelosi A Foam Brick!

Read the conversation below between Nunes and Hannity:

REP. DEVIN NUNES: We’re going to work with the [House] Judiciary Committee and the [House] Oversight Committee, Sean, to ensure that this investigation into FISA abuse and other matters continues. The good thing is we got through about 15 interviews last year, the task for did, you covered it extensively on your show. We are going to continue to call people in for interviews. Just last week, the new chairman of the committee said that he is going to reopen the Russia investigation. We offered about a dozen subpoenas of people that we wanted to subpoena. We don’t expect for them to subpoena the people that we want, but at every attempt that we can, at every opportunity that we get, we will make attempts to subpoena these people to come in and speak. We will also ask for people to voluntarily come in and speak. Look, we need the new attorney general to get in there and then we will be making criminal referrals on many people who lied to Congress and did other bad things.

SEAN HANNITY: Does that mean we can be expecting pre-dawn raids with amphibious vehicles, frogmen, SWAT teams of 27, all of this to arrest one guy on a process crime? Is that what’s going to happen to Democrats? In other words, aren’t there a list of well-known people that served in the Obama administration that lied under oath?

REP. NUNES: I’m not asking anyone to be Roger Stone’d, which I think is now a verb, now. But, I am expecting people to be held accountable. If you’re going to bust people for lying to Congress, then we need to bust everyone for lying to Congress. Look, we’re just the House side. My guess is on the Senate side there are many people that some of the same people probably lied over there, so they should also be doing the same.

Thank goodness we have a fighter in Congress who is going after people other than people from the Trump campaign.

Maybe the new attorney general will actually take action.

Will these people who lied to Congress be treated like Roger Stone?

Probably not. But the fact that Nunes is taking action is a step in the right direction.

Read what conservative Kambree Kawahine Koa had to say on Twitter:

Devin Nunes: Criminal referrals for FISA abuse may be coming.

Buckle up.

— Kambree Kawahine Koa (@KamVTV) February 12, 2019

Buckle up is right.

We can expect a major push back from the Left if Nunes decides to take action and refer these people to the Justice Department.

Watch the full video of Nunes’ interview with Hannity below:

If we had more people like Nunes in Congress, our country would be in a much better place.

Should Nunes take action? How will Democrats respond if Nunes criminally refers these people to the Justice Department? Comment below!

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 months ago

Democrats continue to flounder after a devastating two weeks that is hardly what they expected after winning back control of the House Of Representatives in the midterm elections and President Trump is now putting on

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called the border wall proposal hammered out by congressional negotiators a "big victory" for President Trump.

AP News

Published  2 months ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler says he has hired two veteran lawyers and critics of President Donald Trump as his committee begins to investigate the president and his administration.

The hiring of the two prominent lawyers, Barry Berke and Norman Eisen, comes as lawmakers from both parties are pressuring Trump attorney general nominee William Barr to release a full accounting of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe when it’s complete. The new additions to Nadler’s staff could also provide expertise for impeachment proceedings, if Democrats decide at some point to pursue them.

Nadler said in a statement that the panel is determined to “ask critical questions, gather all the information, judiciously assess the evidence, and make sure that the facts are not hidden from the American people.”

He did not mention impeachment, but noted that Trump faces “numerous allegations” of corruption and obstruction.

“His conduct and crude statements threaten the basic legal, ethical and constitutional norms that maintain our democratic institutions,” Nadler said. “Congress has a constitutional duty to be a check and balance against abuses of power when necessary.”

Nadler said Berke and Eisen “have been retained on a consulting basis as special oversight staff” to the committee’s Democratic majority. He said they would consult on matters related to the Department of Justice and Mueller’s Russia probe.

Both men have been high-profile critics of Trump, and they co-authored a Brookings Institution report released last year that laid out a case for his impeachment. The report said “it has become apparent that the president’s pattern of potentially obstructive conduct is much more extensive than we knew.”

Eisen served as a White House counsel for President Barack Obama and has focused on government ethics and corruption as a co-founder of the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Berke is a top trial lawyer and white collar criminal defense lawyer who is based out of New York.

Democrats have been cautious in speaking about impeachment, with most arguing that they want to see the Mueller report before they would even consider such a step. Nadler has called impeachment a “trauma” that should be approached judiciously and with bipartisan support.

Still, he has said he believes Trump has engaged in a pattern of obstruction — one of the issues Mueller is investigating.

“This is a critical time in our nation’s history,” Nadler said in the statement.

Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary panel, criticized the hires and the “sharply partisan op-eds” that Eisen and Berke have written together.

“Looks like Democrats are staffing up for impeachment before Mueller’s report is even out,” Collins said.

Associated Press writer Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

Washington Examiner

Published  2 months ago

The Senate voted Tuesday to advance the nomination of William Barr, President Trump’s pick to serve as attorney general, to a final vote.

Barr’s confirmation cleared a procedural hurdle along mostly party lines, in a 55-44 vote. The vote followed a contentious Judiciary Committee hearing last week in which Democrats questioned Barr’s ability to fairly oversee special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russians.

Barr won the overwhelming support of Republican senators, who praised his long career as a lawyer and former attorney general for President George H.W. Bush.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called Barr “a tried and true public servant and a proven professional” who is committed to upholding the rule of law.

Despite initial support from senior Democratic lawmakers, Barr ended up passing with few Democratic votes.

Democrats said they were alarmed by a 20-page memo Barr authored in June questioning the legitimacy of the Mueller probe and making the case that Mueller should not demand Trump “submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.”

Barr told Judiciary Committee lawmakers during his confirmation hearing his memo aimed to narrowly address the obstruction question and that he believes Mueller should be able to complete his investigation into alleged collusion.

Democrats said they were not convinced by Barr’s testimony and believe he's a Trump loyalist appointed to protect the president from Mueller.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who is running for president, said Tuesday Barr has already taken extraordinary steps to undermine the Mueller probe by authoring the memo.

“Man, that is quite the cover letter for a job application, when the job is overseeing the very investigation you don’t think should exist in the first place,” Warren said.

Warren also criticized Barr’s views on women’s reproductive rights and immigration.

She said Barr would “continue to take our government further and further in favor of the powerful few over everyone else.”

Democrats backing bar were Sens. Doug Jones of Alabama, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

“Today I will vote to confirm William Barr to be the next attorney general because he is well-qualified, and I am confident that he will faithfully execute the duties of the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America,” Manchin said.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. voted against Barr because of Barr’s support for warrantless surveillance.

WayneDupree.com

Published  2 months ago

Law enforcement groups and many others supported the choice, while those on the Left worried about his views on the special counsel's investigation

Sara A. Carter

Published  2 months ago

Rep. Devin Nunes warned Wednesday the FISC must take action against the people that abused the system or risk "repercussions."

TheHill

Published  2 months ago

On his way out the door from a stormy tenure at the Department of Justice (DOJ), Rod Rosenstein is talking. Just not talking to the congressional committees that he stalled when they demanded his testimony last year.

Instead, the departing deputy attorney general is giving a series of off-the-record interviews to reporters, multiple sources confirm to me.

For those not privy to the ways of the media, it means Rosenstein is telling his story to reporters in a way that can’t be attributed to him. It’s a classic tactic some politicians and bureaucrats use to shape a legacy — without leaving their public fingerprints on the story line.

It also means the House judiciary and oversight committees that aggressively sought Rosenstein’s testimony remain empty-handed months after Republicans on the committees demanded answers under oath to such questions as:

Did he really do adequate due diligence and read the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant he signed that gave the FBI a fourth period of time to spy on Trump adviser Carter Page?

Did he allow outdated information to be submitted, or exculpatory evidence to be omitted, from the warrant request he submitted to the nation’s secret intelligence court?

Rosenstein managed to escape testifying on these issues by using an “I’m too busy” argument and running out the clock on the Republicans who then controlled the House but gave up power on Jan. 3, after Democrats won the majority in the November election.

Rosenstein, who took over the Trump-Russia probe when former Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself back in 2017, has made clear he plans to step down as early as next week when Sessions’s replacement, William Barr, presumably is confirmed by the full Senate.

Those Republican lawmakers who pursued Rosenstein’s testimony for months aren’t happy now that he is demonstrating he had enough time for reporters in his final days yet never had it for the lawmakers when it came to congressional oversight questions that arose last summer about possible abuse of the FISA process and discussions of secretly recording the president.

“Rod Rosenstein’s decision to clear his schedule and talk with reporters is just another example of the deputy AG’s anonymous spin to paint his decision-making in a more favorable light,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.). “When given the opportunity to be transparent and tell the truth under oath, he refused. Any stories he shares in his final days at DOJ should be met with a degree of skepticism and a heavy dose of declassification.”

Added Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), ranking member on the House Oversight Committee: “Rod Rosenstein plotted against the president and obstructed congressional efforts to get the truth. He should be testifying before Congress, not giving rounds of press interviews to friendly reporters. As he leaves office, Mr. Rosenstein must cooperate fully with IG (Michael) Horowitz’s investigation into Justice Department media leaks. Democrats in Congress should insist on Mr. Rosenstein’s public testimony — a far better use of our time than the Lanny Davis-produced circus with Michael Cohen.”

A DOJ spokesperson for Rosenstein did not return requests for comment.

With House Republicans unable to get their answers and, now, out of power on the committees, the only line of direct GOP inquiry will be newly-minted Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Graham has signaled he plans aggressive oversight on the issue of possible FISA abuses in the Russia probe.

The question now is whether the information Rosenstein is passing to reporters in his farewell tour will become part of that inquiry.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.

Hot Air

Published  2 months ago

To quote the famous ethicist Rahm Emanuel: You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Faced with a serious crisis in Hillary Clinton’s use of a secret and unauthorized use of a private e-mail system to transmit classified data, the FBI took action to, er … benefit the State Department? A newly released series of e-mails unveiled by a Judicial Watch FOIA action confirms that the FBI proposed allowing more legal attachés from State as a trade for changing the basis for withholding a classified Clinton e-mail:

Newly released internal FBI emails showed the agency’s highest-ranking officials scrambling to answer to Hillary Clinton’s lawyer in the days prior to the 2016 presidential election, on the same day then-FBI Director James Comey sent a bombshell letter to Congress announcing a new review of hundreds of thousands of potentially classified emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

The trove of documents turned over by the FBI, in response to a lawsuit by the transparency group Judicial Watch, also included discussions by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page concerning a potential quid pro quo between the State Department and the FBI — in which the FBI would agree to downgrade the classification level of a Clinton email in exchange for more legal attache positions that would benefit the agency abroad. There was no indication such a quid pro quo ever took place. …

“Jason Herring will be providing you with three 302s [witness reports] of current and former FBI employees who were interviewed during the course of the Clinton investigation,” Page wrote. “These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week, and produced (with redactions) pursuant to FOIA at the beginning of next week.

Page continued: “As you will see, they describe a discussion about potential quid pro quo arrangement between then-DAD in IOD [deputy assistant director in International Operations Division] and an Undersecretary at the State Department whereby IOD would get more LEGAT [legal attaché] positions if the FBI could change the basis of the FOIA withhold re a Clinton email from classified to something else.”

This offer emerged almost two and a half years ago, but at the time the report suggested that the offer went in the other direction. The release last night confirms that the offer went from the FBI to the State Department, which the FBI acknowledged at the time. This makes more sense than the original narrative floated in October 2016, since the FBI has no authority to declassify material that it does not itself produce. In order to declassify State Department material, State would have to take that action itself. And if they did that, they wouldn’t need to bargain with the FBI to make it happen.

But this still raises the question as to why investigators at the FBI would want to have it declassified, especially in light of the FOIA request. It doesn’t appear that the FBI wanted to make the e-mail subject to the FOIA demand, but just that the agency didn’t want the refusal to be on the basis of classification. Why? James Comey had staked out a no-crime position in July, a position that the Weiner laptop threatened in a big way. The timing certainly suggests that some in the FBI found it in their interest to keep Hillary from coming up again at the end of the election, which a FOIA refusal on the basis of classification would certainly do.

However, there’s another timing issue in play here too. These e-mails started on October 13th and ended on October 16th, prompted by an inquiry from Fox’s Catherine Herridge, but it wasn’t until the 28th that Comey told Congress that Hillary’s e-mails had been found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. At the time, no one outside the FBI knew about Weiner’s connection to the e-mail scandal. They may have also wanted to keep the e-mail scandal from popping up again in order to cover their new Weiner problem. Getting State to change its basis for FOIA denial would have been handy in that regard.

As it turns out, Comey never wavered from his July 2016 position despite finding classified e-mails on Weiner’s server. That’s not because the FBI didn’t find more classified material and more new material on the laptop, but perhaps because Hillary’s lawyer David Kendall did a full-court press to shut it down. In another newly released e-mail, FBI general counsel James Baker proposed a meeting with Kendall and his team. A few days later, Comey told Congress that the FBI had found nothing new or interesting on Weiner’s laptop, but that turned out to be false:

However, at least 18 classified emails sent from Abedin’s account were found by the FBI on the Weiner laptop. And, despite Strzok’s apparent claim, FBI officials later conceded they had not manually screened all of the nearly 700,000 emails on the laptop, but instead used computer technology to prioritize which emails to screen as Election Day rapidly approached.

“It is big news that, just days before the presidential election, Hillary Clinton’s personal lawyer pressured the top lawyer for the FBI on the infamous Weiner laptop emails,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “These documents further underscore that the fix was in for Hillary Clinton. When will the Justice Department and FBI finally do an honest investigation of the Clinton email scandal?”

Never, probably. That won’t remove the smell from it, but it’s water under the bridge now that the election is in the past. Jeff Sessions didn’t want to take it on, and it seems doubtful that William Barr will start off his tenure at Justice by launching a divisive probe into a partisan minefield.

However, at least we unearthed this nugget of humility from the former FBI director:

And, in the face of mounting criticism aimed at the FBI, the documents revealed that Comey quoted the 19th century poet Ralph Waldo Emerson by assuring his subordinates, “To be great is to be misunderstood.”

Not when to be understood is to be embarrassing.

POLITICO

Published  2 months ago

Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker will remain at the Justice Department despite William Barr’s being sworn in to lead the department.

Whitaker, who served as chief of staff to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions until President Donald Trump tapped him for the acting role in November, is now a senior counselor in the associate attorney general’s office, a department spokesperson said Friday.

Attorney General William Barr was sworn in at the White House on Thursday after the Senate voted 54-45 to confirm him.

The Office of the Associate Attorney General, whose titular role is currently filled on an acting basis, oversees, among other things, the DOJ’s divisions on civil rights, antitrust, tax and the environment.

Whitaker was a controversial player in the president’s Cabinet, drawing backlash from congressional Democrats who protested his past public statements that were critical of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, an inquiry Whitaker oversaw during his time as acting attorney general. Democrats also attacked Whitaker for his time serving as an advisory board member for a patent company banned from the industry by the Federal Trade Commission for fraud.

The former acting attorney general was the first major Trump official to face a grilling by the House Democratic majority, testifying in a contentious hearing before the House Judiciary Committee last Friday.

Whitaker’s career plans had until now been something of a mystery. On Monday, a representative of the National Sheriffs’ Association offered the outgoing acting attorney general a gift after he wrapped up a speech to the organization during a Washington, D.C., conference.

“Great, is it a new job?” Whitaker quipped.

Newsweek

Published  2 months ago

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Friday, widely rebuked by Democrats, has also earned the scorn of a former leading FBI official. Whitaker, who was appointed to the role by President Donald Trump following the ousting of Jeff Sessions in November, repeatedly avoided questions from Democrats during Friday’s hearing. On several occasions, Sessions’s former chief of staff challenged the authority of the committee, which was holding its first hearing with a member of the Trump administration since Democrats took control of the House in the 2018 midterms.

Speaking on MSNBC shortly after the hearing, former FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Frank Figliuzzi said Whitaker’s performance compared negatively to some of the most dangerous criminals he had interviewed in his career.

“I’m not kidding when I say I have interviewed terrorists who are more cooperative and respectful than Matt Whitaker was today,” Figliuzzi began, provoking laughter from MSNBC host Nicole Wallace. “I gotta tell you, I say that with sadness, because the attorney general role is America's lawyer.

“We are his client and we are represented by the Congress members sitting in that room and he treated us with utter disdain, sarcasm, barely trying to get through this seriously,” Figliuzzi continued. “This is basically thumbing your nose at oversight by the people. And the way he conducted himself today is an indication that he is not America’s attorney. He is essentially seeing himself as Trump’s attorney.”

Whitaker faced most scrutiny during the hearing over why he was chosen by Trump to head the Justice Department, rather than the normal line of succession rules being followed. Numerous questions centered on Whitaker’s media appearances before joining the Justice Department in which he railed against special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign.

At times, Whitaker appeared to be adopting deliberate stalling tactics to avoid answering Democrats’ questions. Near the beginning of the hearing, the 49-year-old informed Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler that his five-minutes questioning time had expired, prompting gasps from the chamber.

Whitaker, frequently smirking, later made a similar comment to another Democrat on the committee, Sheila Jackson Lee, prompting a fierce admonishment.

“Mr. attorney general, we’re not joking here. And your humor is not acceptable,” Jackson Lee said. “Now, you are here because we have a constitutional duty to ask questions, and the Congress has a right to establish government rules. The rules are that you are here, and I need to ask the question and I need to have my time restored so that you can behave appropriately.”

Still, in the mind of the president, whose nominee William Barr is set to soon replace Whitaker, there was only one side that was in the wrong during the hearing.

“The Democrats in Congress yesterday were vicious and totally showed their cards for everyone to see,” Trump tweeted Saturday morning. “When the Republicans had the Majority they never acted with such hatred and scorn! The Dems are trying to win an election in 2020 that they know they cannot legitimately win!”

USA TODAY

Published  2 months ago

As the special counsel probe grinds toward its conclusion, there are growing signs that Mueller will never say anything about his own investigation.

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News Channel Host Sean Hannity Tuesday evening that “many” people who lied to investigators will be criminally referred to the Justice Department after attorney general nominee William Barr is confirmed.

A partial transcript is as follows:

REP. DEVIN NUNES: We’re going to work with the [House] Judiciary Committee and the [House] Oversight Committee, Sean, to ensure that this investigation into FISA abuse and other matters continues. The good thing is we got through about 15 interviews last year, the task for did, you covered it extensively on your show. We are going to continue to call people in for interviews. Just last week, the new chairman of the committee said that he is going to reopen the Russia investigation. We offered about a dozen subpoenas of people that we wanted to subpoena. We don’t expect for them to subpoena the people that we want, but at every attempt that we can, at every opportunity that we get, we will make attempts to subpoena these people to come in and speak. We will also ask for people to voluntarily come in and speak. Look, we need the new attorney general to get in there and then we will be making criminal referrals on many people who lied to Congress and did other bad things.

SEAN HANNITY: Does that mean we can be expecting pre-dawn raids with amphibious vehicles, frogmen, SWAT teams of 27, all of this to arrest one guy on a process crime? Is that what’s going to happen to Democrats? In other words, aren’t there a list of well-known people that served in the Obama administration that lied under oath?

REP. NUNES: I’m not asking anyone to be Roger Stone’d, which I think is now a verb, now. But, I am expecting people to be held accountable. If you’re going to bust people for lying to Congress, then we need to bust everyone for lying to Congress. Look, we’re just the House side. My guess is on the Senate side there are many people that some of the same people probably lied over there, so they should also be doing the same.

Updating World

Published  2 months ago

The U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday, Feb. 6, that it has opened an investigation into a 2007 plea deal that allowed New York billionaire Jeffrey Epstein to serve only 13 months in a …

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) said on Friday that the United States government should pay reparations to families that were separated after they entered the United States legally or illegally and faced immigration proceedings.

Jayapal appeared on MSNBC to talk about her interaction with Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker during a House Judiciary hearing on Friday, where she asked him about family separations.

“Our country is still reeling from the horror of family separations that occurred at the border,” Jayapal said ahead of questioning Whitaker.

Jayapal told MSNBC host Joy Reid that the separations are “a heinous crime that has been committed on thousands of children.”

Jayapal slammed Whitaker for what she called a “dismissive” attitude and for saying that people have “a lot of passion” about children whose parents brought them to the border and an uncertain fate.

“This is an issue that I know there is a lot of passion about,” Whitaker said. “I appreciate your passion.”

“It’s something we share together,” Whitaker said.

“If we all don’t have real passion, real commitment to figuring out what happened and making reparations, the U.S. government should make reparations for what we have done to these families,” Jayapal said.

Jayapal posted the MSNBC interview on her Twitter account.

According to a Health and Human Services (HHS) press release from June, the difference in how immigration cases are adjudicated causes family separation.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Health and Human Services (HHS) have a process established to ensure that family members know the location of their children and have regular communication after separation to ensure that those adults who are subject to removal are reunited with their children for the purposes of removal. The United States government knows the location of all children in its custody and is working to reunite them with their families.

As part of the apprehension, detention and prosecution process, illegal aliens, adults and children, are initially detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) before the children are sent to HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and parents to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Each entity plays a role in reunification. This process is well coordinated.

William Barr is expected to replace Whitaker next week if the Senate confirms him as the next Attorney General.

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

Attorney General nominee William Barr said in 2017 that he believed there was more basis to investigate failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her alleged role in the Uranium One agreement than President Donald Trump’s purported collusion with the Russian government in the 2016 election.

Following a call last year by President Trump for the Department of Justice to probe into Clinton’s role in the deal, Barr told the New York Times that there was “nothing inherently wrong” about a president requesting a probe — but cautioned that one shouldn’t be undertaken because the White House wants one. Barr also told the Times: “I have long believed that the predicate for investigating the uranium deal, as well as the foundation, is far stronger than any basis for investigating so-called ‘collusion.’”

“To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility,” he added.

In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, Barr was asked about his previous comments regarding Uranium One. “I have no knowledge of Uranium One,” he told lawmakers. “I didn’t particularly think that was necessarily something that should be pursued aggressively. I was trying to make the point that there was a lot out there. I think all that stuff at the time was being looked at by [Utah U.S. Attorney John] Huber.”

Huber, tasked by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is looking into whether the law enforcement officials ignored allegations of Clinton involved in the sale of American uranium rights.

“The point I was trying to make there was that whatever the standard is for launching an investigation, it should be dealt with evenhandedly,” Barr added.

Brought to the forefront by Breitbart News senior editor-at-large Peter Schweizer in his New York Times best-selling book, Clinton Cash, the Uranium One scandal refers to an alleged scheme in which then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Russia control over more than 20% of America’s uranium supply in exchange for $145 million in pledges benefiting the Clinton family and their foundation.

Rosatom acquired a majority stake in Uranium One in 2010 and bought the remainder of the company in 2013. Because Uranium One had holdings in American uranium mines, which at the time accounted for about 20 percent of America’s licensed uranium mining capacity, Rosatom’s 2010 purchase had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. Such committee, known as CFIUS, is made up of officials from nine federal agencies, including the State Department. Other agencies represented on the committee include the departments of Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy, and Homeland Security and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

In April 2015, The New York Times published an article echoing much of the Schweizer book, including one item that not long after the Russians said they wanted to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, former president Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. The speech was paid for by a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin as it promoted Uranium One stock.

Canadian financier Frank Giustra, a top Clinton Foundation donor, sold his company, UrAsia, to Uranium One, which was chaired by Ian Telfer, also a Clinton Foundation donor. Giustra has said he sold his stake in the deal in 2007, while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were vying for the Democratic presidential nomination.

According to Schweizer, who also serves as president of the Government Accountability Institute, the FBI, headed up by now special counsel Robert Mueller at the time, appears to have ignored evidence of Russian involvement in the uranium market when they approved the deal in 2010. “There was a megatons program that was designed to, in a sense, help the Russian nuclear industry transition from sort of military-based work to civilian work — a lot of detailed corruption that the FBI tracked in the 1990s and 2000s, so going up to the 2010 approval for Uranium One, it’s really impossible for senior FBI officials, including the director at the time — Mueller — to argue that they are just completely shocked that Uranium One and these kickbacks were taking place. It was widely known,” Schweizer told SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight co-hosts Rebecca Mansour and Joel Pollak last February.

The congressional testimony of “Uranium One whistleblower” William Douglas Campbell has led to the convictions of Russian executives tied to Rosatom in 2015 on bribery and money-laundering charges in connection to the Uranium One agreement. “This is a guy who was an FBI witness. It’s known that the Russians were paying him $50,000 a month to do work for them, and some of that work included, according to his job description, setting up meetings with high-level ranking U.S. officials. That’s all not in dispute,” Schweizer said of Campbell. “So this is a guy that certainly was there. The FBI found him credible. He got FBI executives thrown into jail, and they eventually pleaded guilty to a variety of charges, including bribery and kickbacks. So you can’t dismiss, as some Clinton defenders want to, this whistleblower as if he has no credibility because he was there.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

American Greatness

Published  2 months ago

The Indecent Inquisitors

02/09 2:56 pm

Post by @theamgreatness.

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 months ago

On Friday, America was treated to a preview of things to come when House Democrats turned a hearing with acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker into a grotesque spectacle of the sort of nasty politics and

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) said on Friday that the United States government should pay reparations to families that were separated after they entered the United States legally or illegally and faced immigration proceedings.

Jayapal appeared on MSNBC to talk about her interaction with Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker during a House Judiciary hearing on Friday, where she asked him about family separations.

“Our country is still reeling from the horror of family separations that occurred at the border,” Jayapal said ahead of questioning Whitaker.

Jayapal told MSNBC host Joy Reid that the separations are “a heinous crime that has been committed on thousands of children.”

Jayapal slammed Whitaker for what she called a “dismissive” attitude and for saying that people have “a lot of passion” about children whose parents brought them to the border and an uncertain fate.

“This is an issue that I know there is a lot of passion about,” Whitaker said. “I appreciate your passion.”

“It’s something we share together,” Whitaker said.

“If we all don’t have real passion, real commitment to figuring out what happened and making reparations, the U.S. government should make reparations for what we have done to these families,” Jayapal said.

Jayapal posted the MSNBC interview on her Twitter account.

I’m proud of my passion, Mr. Whitaker. We all should show real passion and a real commitment to fixing what was done to these families and these children. This is lasting trauma for thousands of children—we must make reparations. pic.twitter.com/hceesi4xk5

— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) February 9, 2019

According to a Health and Human Services (HHS) press release from June, the difference in how immigration cases are adjudicated causes family separation.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Health and Human Services (HHS) have a process established to ensure that family members know the location of their children and have regular communication after separation to ensure that those adults who are subject to removal are reunited with their children for the purposes of removal. The United States government knows the location of all children in its custody and is working to reunite them with their families.

As part of the apprehension, detention and prosecution process, illegal aliens, adults and children, are initially detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) before the children are sent to HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and parents to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. Each entity plays a role in reunification. This process is well coordinated.

William Barr is expected to replace Whitaker next week if the Senate confirms him as the next Attorney General.

Rantt

Published  2 months ago

Democrats probe Trump's corruption, Nancy Pelosi claps back at the State of the Union, Jeff Bezos makes a consequential accusation, and more in week 107.

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

House Dems and Whitaker faced off Friday during a contentious six-hearing hearing focused primarily on the special counsel investigation. 

MAGAMEDIA

Published  2 months ago

After watching the recent hearings with William Barr and AG Whitaker, it is clear how power hungry the left is.

Both Senators and members of Congress spout moral outrage and virtue signal about everything from children being separated from their parents to protecting the phony Russian investigation.

These usually insignificant politicians use these hearings to garner attention for themselves. They don’t care how much sense they make in the process.

The most obvious and worst example of this political grandstanding is when Judge Kavanaugh had his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court. We all remember the ridiculous train wreck of a show that was.

@RepJayapal virtue signals that she cares about the children who have been separated from their parents. Fake outrage if I have ever seen it.Where is this passion about aborting innocent children. Dont let democratic politicians fool you. They dont care about the kids pic.twitter.com/f58fTGvNRx

— Andrew (@smalltownandrew) February 8, 2019

From paid protestors to phony allegations at the last minute: Spartacus Booker was born. Diane Feinstein’s office carelessly leaked the Ford letter right in the middle of the hearings. The entire thing was an utter disaster and a complete embarassment to the United States Senate confirmation process.

How far will we let this public partisanship and political grandstanding before we overhaul how the comittees are run?

I for one am tired of seeing people like Judge Kavanaugh and William Barr smeared and shamed with lies and false accusations for the sake of a senator getting themselves some shine.

The democrats: every single time one of these guys come up to speak, they prove they are partisan hacks. Willing to do or say absolutely anything for attention, no matter who it affects. They need to start being held accountable for the accusations they invent.

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 months ago

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker silenced House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., on Friday during a heated exchange that led to several people in the room laughing and gasping. During his appearance before the House

WayneDupree.com

Published  2 months ago

Doug Collins, ranking member, bashed Democratic colleagues for trying to mislead others

The Washington Times

Published  2 months ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker testified before the House Judiciary Committee Friday — and pulled no punches in fending off Democratic queries.

After telling the committee he had not spoken with President Trump or senior White House officials about special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, Chairman Jerrold Nadler, New York Democrat, was incredulous.

After a lengthy, contentious exchange, Mr. Whitaker finally replied: “Mr. Chairman, your five minutes are up.”

SEE ALSO: AG Whitaker snipes at Dems, denies interfering with Mueller probe

The chamber erupted with laughter to Mr. Whitaker’s response.

Here is what led to that back-and-forth: Mr. Nadler asked Mr. Whitaker if he had been briefed on the Mueller probe after his decision not to recuse himself from overseeing the investigation. Mr. Whitaker repeatedly pressed the lawmaker to explain his basis for the question.

“You are asking me a question as to your understanding, are you going to tell me where —,” Whitaker said before being interrupted by Mr. Nadler.

“I’m not going to tell you,” Mr. Nadler shot back. “Just tell me if it is correct or not. It is a simple question.”

Mr. Whitaker responded, “If every member today asked questions based on their speculation —,” before being interrupted a second time by Mr. Nadler.

The acting attorney general remained evasive, saying he would not talk about his private conversations with the president and adding he had not spoken with Mr. Trump or any other senior White House official about the Mueller probe.

Mr. Whitaker had signaled to lawmakers ahead of the hearing that he would not talk about his conversations with Mr. Trump.

The committee’s top Republican, Rep. Doug Collins, Georgia, blasted Mr. Nadler for holding the hearing, calling it “nothing more than character assassination.”

Mr. Collins also called the hearing “pointless,” noting that by this time next week, Mr. Trump’s pick for attorney general, William Barr, will be leading the department, not Mr. Whitaker.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

A House hearing for Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker erupted in fireworks Friday morning, as the top Republican on the judiciary committee accused Democratic Chairman Jerrold Nadler of “character assassination” against the temporary head of the Justice Department and called the hearing a pointless “dog and pony show.”

“This hearing is a character assassination on Acting Attorney General Whitaker, all pure political theater, to go after the president,” Ranking Member Doug Collins, R-Ga, said in his opening statement while urging the committee to adjourn.

A vote was then taken on whether to abruptly end the hearing. The measure did not pass, and the hearing began as scheduled, with Whitaker addressing the issue Democrats are most interested in: his oversight of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe.

In his opening statement, he said he never offered "promises or commitments" regarding the Mueller or any other investigation.

"There has been no change in the overall management of the special counsel investigation," he said.

Whitaker also said he's been briefed and the probe and, during a tense exchange with Nadler, said he has not discussed the status with President Trump or senior White House officials.

The hearing follows an intense back and forth between the Justice Department and the Judiciary Committee a day earlier.

The Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to give Nadler the authority to issue a subpoena if necessary, despite Whitaker having already agreed to appear before the panel voluntarily.

Nadler made clear early Thursday that he did not want to have to subpoena Whitaker, but said a “series of troubling events” suggested it would be better for him to be prepared with that authority, just in case he decided not to show up for the hearing.

But Whitaker then warned he would not show up unless lawmakers dropped the threat.

“Consistent with longstanding practice, I remain willing to appear to testify tomorrow, provided that the Chairman assures me that the Committee will not issue a subpoena today or tomorrow, and that the Committee will engage in good faith negotiations before taking such a step down the road,” Whitaker wrote to Nadler.

Hours later, Nadler responded that if Whitaker appeared before the panel “prepared to respond to questions from our members, then I assure you there will be no need for the committee to issue a subpoena on or before February 8.”

Whitaker accepted the assurances and testified Friday.

The hearing Friday comes as the Senate is close to confirming President Trump’s nominee for attorney general, William Barr. The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted, along party lines, to advance Barr’s nomination to the full Senate for confirmation.

The president fired his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, the day after the 2018 midterm elections. Prior to Whitaker’s appointment as acting attorney general, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein oversaw the Russia investigation.

Nadler and other Democrats have criticized Whitaker for not recusing himself from the Mueller probe, as Sessions did due to his involvement with the Trump campaign in 2016, as Whitaker had made public comments criticizing the investigation.

The hearing is the committee’s first major oversight hearing looking at the Justice Department of this Congress. Whitaker told reporters last week that Mueller’s probe was “close to being completed,” the first official sign that the investigation may be nearing an end. His comments, though, were a departure for the Justice Department, which rarely comments on the status of investigations. Whitaker, though, said he had been “fully briefed” on the probe.

Fox News' Jake Gibson and Gregg Re contributed to this report.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

President Trump on Saturday blasted “vicious” Democrats for their conduct during a House Judiciary Committee hearing a day earlier that featured Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker -- and saw fiery exchanges between Whitaker and House Democrats.

Fox News

Published  2 months ago

After a tense back-and-forth between congressional Democrats and the Justice Department, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler announced Thursday evening that Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, likely in his final days as the country's chief law enforcement officer, will appear Friday as scheduled before the panel.

American Greatness

Published  2 months ago

After what seemed to be a done deal following a relatively smooth public hearing last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee now has delayed until February 7 the vote to confirm William Barr, President Trump’s nominee for attorney general. The reason, according to news reports, is lingering concerns about how Trump’s incoming attorney general would manage the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which is soon expected to conclude.

Despite Barr’s repeated assurances that he will follow Justice Department rules in his handling of Mueller’s final report, as well as a pledge to resist any attempted interference by the White House, Democrats on the committee remain unconvinced. “[Barr’s] answer was not particularly reassuring or clear as to the public disclosure of the Mueller report,” Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell earlier this week.

Democrats also have accused Barr of bias against the Mueller investigation based on a detailed memo he authored last year that objected to the special counsel’s reported interest in whether President Trump obstructed justice. Some have suggested Barr should recuse himself from the investigation, which would be a repeat of a terrible mistake made by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions in 2017.

The committee’s vote is scheduled to take place one day before acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker testifies in front of the House Judiciary Committee on a number of topics, including the Mueller probe; Trump foes claim Whitaker should have recused himself from oversight of the investigation based on some of his past comments, even though a Justice Department ethics review cleared him of any conflicts.

This one-two punch has a purpose: To taint Barr’s impartiality and discredit his office on all matters related to Trump-Russia. Why? Because during his confirmation hearing, Barr agreed—at the behest of Republican senators—to begin his own inquiry into who, why, and how the FBI launched several investigations into Trump’s presidential campaign and, eventually, into the president himself.

As indictments unrelated to Trump-Russia collusion pile up, Republican lawmakers and Trump’s base increasingly are outraged that the culprits behind perhaps the biggest political scandal in American history remain untouched. Barr signaled that the good fortune of these scoundrels could soon take a dramatic shift under his stewardship.

A few days before Barr’s hearing, the New York Times reported that in May 2017, the FBI opened an investigation into the sitting U.S. president purportedly based on suspicions he was a Russian foreign agent. Then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe—whom the Times does not mention by name at any time in the 1,800 words it took to report this information—initiated the probe immediately after Trump fired his predecessor, James Comey.

McCabe was fired last year and now is under criminal investigation for lying to federal agents.

“The decision to investigate Trump himself was an aggressive move by FBI officials who were confronting the chaotic aftermath of the firing of Comey and enduring the president’s verbal assaults on the Russia investigation as a witch hunt,” according to the Times. Just days after McCabe opened the investigation into President Trump, it was handed over to Mueller’s team.

That news did not sit well with Republicans on Capitol Hill. A clearly-agitated Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) raised the matter with Barr during his opening comments, reading aloud the Times’ headline from its January 11 front-page bombshell. “Would you promise this committee to look into this and tell us whether or not…a counterintelligence investigation was opened up at the FBI against President Trump? Have you ever heard of such a thing in all the time you’ve been associated with the Department of Justice,” the committee chair asked the nominee.

Barr, the former attorney general for President George H. W. Bush, replied that he had never heard of such a situation.

Graham then ticked off a list of names tied to the scandal, including McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, and Christopher Steele. He mentioned Fusion GPS and that its political opposition research in the form of the “dossier” was used as evidence to secure a FISA warrant to spy on Trump campaign aide Carter Page. Barr pledged to the committee that he would review whether the certification given to the FISA court by bad actors such as Comey and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates on the Page application was accurate. (The Justice Department’s inspector general is also reviewing potential FISA abuses related to the Page case.) Providing false information to the court is perjury.

The South Carolina Republican seems serious about his mission to clean up the Justice Department and hold people accountable. On Wednesday, he sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, demanding answers about the agency’s pre-dawn raid at the home of former Trump confidant Roger Stone and whether the arrest was leaked to CNN. (LOL) Wray has until February 5 to reply.

As Mueller’s work winds down and the public becomes increasingly weary of the sideshow that has yet to produce one charge related to collusion, Democrats, the media and NeverTrumpers are extremely nervous that their dependable cacophony of distraction in cries of “Trump-Russia collusion!” will be gone. Unless the final report produces some major bombshell about Trump or anyone in his orbit, Americans will re-examine what the purpose of this whole exercise was, and fume at the wasted time and money. Some will even question whether the political impartiality of that agency can be trusted again. Many will want answers and it appears as though Barr, in tandem with Senate Republicans, are set to deliver.

Barr could take immediate action once he’s confirmed, focusing on low-hanging fruit, including further declassification of the Page FISA application; the release of emails and texts between key Justice Department officials including Comey and McCabe; and any materials related to the interrogation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. The testimony of witnesses who appeared before the congressional committee also should be made public, as requested last year by congressional Republicans.

Other materials of public interest include the initiating documents for Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI’s investigation into four Trump campaign aides—which Comey claimed he never saw—and any details about who at the FBI started the unprecedented counterintelligence and criminal investigation into a sitting U.S. president.

And while he’s at it, and before Mueller’s team is finished, Barr should begin a formal inquiry into why the special counsel’s office scrubbed the iPhones used by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page while they worked for Mueller for a brief time in 2017. The phones and the data contained on those devices are public property. Barr needs to find out why that information was not collected and archived since both FBI officials already were under scrutiny. Destroying potential evidence is a crime.

The enormousness of Barr’s task and the devastating consequences for those involved are now coming into clear view. The timing couldn’t be worse for Democrats and NeverTrump Republicans who are desperate to defeat Trump and the GOP in 2020. That’s why we can expect both parties to whip up more criticism of Barr over the next few months. One hopes he will resist that criticism—and both Trump and Graham need to reassure the new attorney general and the American public that his investigation will receive the same amount of protection that was afforded to the Mueller team.

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: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 months ago

The FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller conducted a pre-dawn raid of 66-year-old Roger Stone on Friday morning in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Stone is under investigation for a process crime by Deep State Mueller. These police state tactics do not bother the FBI. They are proud of the work they do harassing innocent Americans in […]

The Federalist

Published  2 months ago

Our fact-checking media safeguards no longer function like they used to. Isn't it time we rethink how we distribute information?

The Federalist

Published  2 months ago

Our fact-checking media safeguards no longer function like they used to. Isn't it time we rethink how we distribute information?

Gun Owners of America

Published  2 months ago

TAKE ACTION: Click here to urge your Senators to OPPOSE the anti-gun William Barr for Attorney General. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - Last week, I wrote to you about all the gun control restrictions that William Barr supports. As you know, Barr has been nominated by President Trump to be the next “top cop” in America. Well, Barr’s support for gun control is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to

I Love My Freedom

Published  2 months ago

Not even fake news is going to prevent the new Democrat House majority from conducting their dozens of investigations into President Trump to settle the score over his upset White House win and to avenge Hillary.

In normal times, a spectacular dumpster fire like the debunked BuzzFeed scoop that Trump’s disreputable ex-lawyer Michael Cohen was ordered to lie to Congress would be so shameful that any respectable politician would distance themselves from it after it was fact-checked and found lacking by special counsel Robert Mueller himself.

Unfortunately, we do not currently live in normal times as the relentless Democrats, their media allies and the social media hate mob that serves as their shock troops will stop at nothing to get Trump, even using a discredited story like the one that just imploded.

Rep. Adam Schiff (whose district includes Hollywood) confirmed that there is no level to which the California crazies won’t stoop in their war on Trump.

Schiff: Congress will "absolutely" investigate claims raised in BuzzFeed report https://t.co/T6LIIhmbGb pic.twitter.com/nWhEKVgmy3

Via The Hill, “Schiff: Congress will ‘absolutely’ investigate claims raised in BuzzFeed report”:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday that he will “absolutely” investigate a BuzzFeed News report that said President Trump directed his former personal attorney to lie to Congress, despite the special counsel’s office pushing back on the story.

Schiff suggested on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the special counsel’s office’s rare response knocking down the story was likely spurred by the reaction to the report, which included calls for investigation and consideration of impeachment.

“Congress has a fundamental interest in two things,” Schiff said. “First, in getting to the bottom of why a witness who came before us lied, and who else was knowledgeable that this was a lie.”

The other reason, Schiff said, is that Trump’s pick for attorney general, William Barr, would not commit to making special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report public.

“We need to do our own investigations because at the end of the day if the Justice Department tries to stonewall the release of that report for whatever reason, the American people are going to need to know what happened,” Schiff said.

Schiff’s call to burn through an untold amount of taxpayer money by conducting Soviet-style tribunals into a bogus story shows that these Democrats are not your father’s Democrats or even the party of a few short years ago. There is something very menacing and unAmerican about this gang and their single-minded obsession with overturning a legitimate election.

The Dems have invested a lot of political capital into the rehabilitation of Cohen’s image as a man who they once reviled was welcomed into the fold once he made it clear that he would lie to the special counsel – and to Congress again – if that’s what it took to save his own hide.

Cohen’s appearance before the House next month will be Schiff’s star turn in hearings that will be held in a public setting and given saturation coverage by a media that like the Dems, has been clamoring for Trump’s impeachment ever since the night that they cried themselves to sleep over Hillary’s defeat.

It will be a spectacle unrivaled in American history; social media didn’t exist when Senator Joseph McCarthy became infamous for his Cold War witch hunt and Shiff will prove that he is the true heir of tail gunner Joe.

NaturalNews.com

Published  2 months ago

Longtime political strategist Roger Stone believes that elements of the Democrat-aligned Deep State are plotting a coup that will see POTUS Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence removed from [...]

POLITICUSUSA

Published  3 months ago

House Democrats are investigating acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to determine if he has ever improperly shared information about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation with President Trump or his lawyers.

In his position as acting Attorney General Whitaker has learned sensitive information about the investigation by participating in Justice Department briefings. Democrats believe that this put him in a position to serve as a “mole” spying on Mueller for the benefit of the president.

House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, (D-N.Y.), wrote a letter to Whitaker that was sent yesterday, in which he addressed these questions. Reportedly Nadler wanted Whitaker to have advance notice of the questions the House Judiciary Committee wants to ask so that he can consider if he will invoke executive privilege and refuse to answer certain questions the committee will have for him.

In his letter Nadler wrote:

“Short of a direct and appropriate invocation of executive privilege, I will expect you to answer these questions fully and to the best of your knowledge. I would view with considerable skepticism any effort to decline to answer on the basis that the inquiry is related to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

“Please take any steps that may be necessary for the White House to consider these communications and for the President to determine whether he will invoke executive privilege.”

The questions Nadler gave to Whitaker “relate to whether there has been interference with the special counsel’s work,” the chairman said, and “do not relate to the underlying substance of the investigation.”

The acting Attorney General is scheduled to appear before the Nadler’s committee on February 8. This will be his first testimony before a congressional committee since he was appointed to his current position after Trump fired former Attorney General Jeff Sessions in November.

Whitaker will also be the first Trump administration official to testify before a House committee since Democrats took control on January 3.

Nadler said he also plans to ask Whitaker about his December announcement that he would not recuse himself from oversight of the Mueller investigation. This announcement caused a great deal of concern among House Democrats.

Sessions did recuse himself, causing Trump to blame him for the Mueller probe. This eventually led to his firing by the president.

Nadler said he also wants to know if Whitaker has had any communication of any kind with Trump or any other White House official about recusal. He’s especially interested in discussions about recusal that took place before Whitaker was appointed by Trump to the position of acting Attorney General.

In refusing to recuse himself, Whitaker rejected the advice of a Justice Department ethics official. This puts him in position to have oversight of the special counsel’s investigation, which he had previously criticized.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s office, however, is still involved with the management of the special counsel’s investigation on a day-to-day basis.

Nadler also said that he wants to know if Trump has reacted to the guilty plea of Michael Cohen, his former lawyer, to him. Trump reportedly “lashed out” at Whitaker after the guilty plea, Nadler noted, and he wants to know if Whitaker has “taken any action” as a result.

Whitaker will also be asked if Trump expressed “concern, anger, or similar frustration” at the Southern District of New York, which prosecuted Cohen for a series of financial crimes connected to the president.

“I intend to ask you about these conversations with the White House because I believe that the independence of the Department has been placed at risk,” wrote Nadler, calling Whitaker’s testimony “vital” to the committee’s oversight of both Mueller’s investigation and the Justice Department.

Whitaker will serve in his current position until a permanent Attorney General is confirmed. William Barr was nominated by Trump in December and it is expected that he will confirmed by the Senate within a few weeks. No vote to confirm Barr has yet to be scheduled on the floor of the Senate, leaving Whitaker in charge for now.

There is no question that Donald Trump appointed Matthew Whitaker to his current position because he thought Whitaker would take orders and work for him instead of for the American people. If this has happened, it is fairly certain that Jerry Nadler will get to the bottom of it and bring to public light whatever dark secrets Matthew Whitaker has.

Sara A. Carter

Published  3 months ago

Sen. Kamala Harris announced on Monday that she will be running for president in 2020 because the future of Democracy is at stake. Harris, a staunch opponent of President Trump, previously served as Attorney General of the State of California.

The California Democrat is a critic of the government shutdown saying, there is no need for a wall but “they need a paycheck.”

Moreover, Harris has also been outspoken on the nomination of former Attorney General William Barr. She recently asked him to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation if he is nominated. Barr insisted he would not.

Further, Harris also opposed the confirmation process of then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Harris, who led a harsh round of questioning, expressed her dissent calling Kavanaugh ‘unfit’.

“When Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward with serious and credible allegations of sexual assault, not only was she attacked by Senate Republicans, she was mocked by the President of the United States,” Harris said.

She said the White House prevented the FBI from investigating critical aspects of the allegations or interviewing key witnesses. She accused the administration of “not even permitting the FBI to interview Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford.”

The accusation was dismissed by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the FBI. The FBI had already interviewed Kavanaugh and conducted a thorough background investigation before his nomination.

BREAKING NEWS: I just announced I’m running for President and I need your support. Will you chip in now to give us the strongest possible start?

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 21, 2019

I'm running for president. Let's do this together. Join us: https://t.co/9KwgFlgZHA pic.twitter.com/otf2ez7t1p

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 21, 2019

Rantt

Published  3 months ago

The government shutdown continued as questions surrounding President Trump's corruption and the need for impeachment hit a fever pitch.

New York Post

Published  3 months ago

Imagine that a scientist wanted to conduct an experiment to see if it’s true that blind hatred of President Trump has led Democrats and their media handmaidens to go ’round the bend and off the

Washington Examiner

Published  3 months ago

Another leak about President Trump, supposedly from federal prosecutors, and another media freakout.

This one was different from the earlier ones in its seriousness. Two reporters from BuzzFeed, citing two anonymous law enforcement officials, reported that Trump had instructed his former lawyer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, or at least that this accusation had been passed on to special counsel Robert Mueller.

In a late Friday night news dump 24 hours after this "scoop," Mueller released a statement that the whole thing was a big hoax — "not accurate."

We had drafted an editorial warning people to exercise caution about this big story. Given the media track record under Trump, we didn't need to be fortune tellers to issue this warning. But for so many journalists, whose loathing of Trump has become an obstacle to their professional credibility, this story was just too good to check. People kept believing in it, wanting to believe it, even after the two reporters behind the story gave conflicting accounts of whether they’d seen the documents in question.

On Thursday evening, cable news talking heads were already discussing Trump's impending impeachment. DNC Chairman Tom Perez sent a fundraising email accusing Trump of "PERJURY" in all caps in the subject line.

Their certainty, and their barely contained glee, should be deeply embarrassing to them all now. And the deflation of this bogus scoop leaves the conspiracy theorists back at square one.

Their December narrative centered on hush-money payments Trump made to a porn star and a nude model with whom he had allegedly cheated on his wife. The supposedly impeachable offense in this tawdry episode was that he paid out the money from private funds rather than his campaign coffers. This charge was always too clever by half. Another presidential candidate, John Edwards, once defended a similar payout, arguing that he had made it to protect his family and his personal reputation.

Another, earlier line of attack had to do with the firing of FBI Director James Comey. As dumb as Trump's behavior in this regard may have been, it is highly doubtful that this could constitute obstruction of justice in any context we can imagine.

The longest-running line leading to Trump's impeachment has involved the ominous and undefined idea of “collusion” with Russia. On its own, "collusion" isn't even an actual crime, but there was always at least an outside chance that it involved some kind of real, prosecutable offense, especially if finances were involved.

In this case, however, Trump was finally being accused of something unambiguously illegal. Lying to Congress is a crime, and telling someone to lie to Congress can be obstruction of justice. Trump’s nominee for attorney general, William Barr, had written as much in a memo. Finally, Trump wasn't going to get out of this one.

Or was he?

Reporters and commentators should have suspected this could blow up. Recall the dossier BuzzFeed fed us, which is still uncorroborated. Recall ABC’s report about the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia, which sent markets tanking — and which also turned out to be false. One of the BuzzFeed reporters involved in this story has a history of fabulism.

This should be a lesson about jumping the gun on Mueller's work. At some point soon, the special counsel and other federal prosecutors will wrap up their investigations. We’ll get to see the documents that the reporters either saw or didn’t see. We’ll get sworn statements from agents instead of selective leaks from anonymous sources.

Until then, we’ll be holding our fire.

dailycaller

Published  3 months ago

Reporters began to notice a distinct change in Senator Ted Cruz after he won a contentious Texas Senate race last November: The Senator had begun to grow a beard.

Cruz — who is one of the most recognizable members of the deliberative body — has never once sported facial hair since entering the national political arena a decade ago. The beginnings of a beard late in 2018 seemed a strange sight to many observers. Reporters and political commenters alike marveled at the growth of the salt and pepper mane on social media.

Ted Cruz: You don’t got a beard, bro?

William Barr: pic.twitter.com/QD19lnZN9e

— Thor Benson (@thor_benson) January 15, 2019

Big day for those on the Ted Cruz Beard Beat pic.twitter.com/Fq7uhzBExN

— Miriti Murungi (@NutmegRadio) January 15, 2019

Ted Cruz made the right call by growing a beard.

— Matt Ford (@fordm) January 15, 2019

The Ted Cruz beard has now left the awkward stage and is in full-blown hefty face fur mode. The senator sported the beard during his official swearing-in ceremony, on a recent presidential visit to the Texas border and to a confirmation hearing for the new Attorney General nominee. (Ted Cruz Explains How He’s Going To Make El Chapo Pay For The Border Wall)

So how did the Senator do it? Cruz spoke exclusively with The Daily Caller to reveal the secret of how he grew his full beard.

In a world of Beto-males and woke man-shaming Gillette ads — we should all take Ted’s advice here:

littlesis

Published  3 months ago

William Barr, Donald Trump’s nominee for Attorney General

Donald Trump’s pick for Attorney General is going up for confirmation this week – and his nomination is just the latest example of the extent to which the Trump administration is captured by corporate America, despite its populist posture.

William Barr is Trump’s nominee to replace Jeff Sessions as the head up the U.S. Department of Justice. Barr previously served as Attorney General for George H.W. Bush, after which he began a 25 year career in the corporate world. Much of this time was spent as the top lawyer for telecommunications company GTE and then, after GTE’s merger with Bell Atlantic to form Verizon, as the top lawyer for Verizon.

Media outlets like the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have reported on Barr’s dedicated service to the corporate world – with a particular focus on his GTE/Verizon days, as well as his roles at Time Warner (he’s been a board member since 2009 and clashed with the DOJ over the proposed Time Warner-AT&T merger) and Caterpillar (he represented the company in the face of a recent DOJ probe).

Barr has been a board member of three corporate giants over the past ten years: Time Warner (as mentioned), but also Dominion Energy (2009-present) and Och-Ziff Capital (2016-2018). As a director of these companies, Barr has raked in over $4.68 million during the past decade in cash payments and stock options – and very likely close to a million more than that, since three of his recent years of compensation are so far undisclosed, but probably fall in the range of $290,000 to $300,000, based on precedent. (This calculation also doesn’t take into account gains that Barr may have seen from increases in the value of his company stock rewards over the past decade’s stock market boom).

Moreover, his directorships in these three firms, all powerhouses across their respective sectors of mass media, energy, and finance, convey the scope of his commitments to the corporate world whose adherence to the law, as the nation’s top prosecutor, he’ll be tasked with overseeing:

Time Warner. Barr has served on the Time Warner board since 2009, and in that time he’s been paid $1,979,689 in cash and stocks (in fact, he’s probably earned about a half-million more than this, since Time Warner proxy filings that show 2017 and 2018 director compensation are unavailable). Time Warner (which recently changed its name to Warner Media) is a media and entertainment giant that includes CNN, HBO, and a host of other assets. As a Time Warner director, Barr recently went to bat against the DOJ’s antitrust division over its opposition to the Time Warner/AT&T merger. As Attorney General, Barr would head a department that is still appealing that merger and would possibly oversee proposed mergers of Time Warner rivals.

Dominion Energy. Barr has served on the Dominion board since 2009, and in that time he’s been paid $2,013,088 in cash and stocks through 2017 (2018 compensation data is not yet available). Dominion is an energy and utilities powerhouse based in Virginia that is expanding further across the US, from New York to South Carolina. It is the biggest stakeholder in the controversial Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 600-mile pipeline that will transport fracked-gas across West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina. In its home state of Virginia, Dominion – led by its powerful CEO Tom Farrell – is widely understood as one of the most influential actors in the state.

Och-Ziff Capital. Barr served on the Och-Ziff board from August 2016 to January 2018, and in that time he was paid $687,638 in cash and stocks. Och-Ziff is a private equity firm that manages approximately $33 billion in assets as of last September. While Barr was on the board, the firm agreed to pay a $413 million fine for a bribery scandal (Barr chaired the firm’s Corporate Responsibility and Compliance Committee). Barr left the board amidst a struggle over the firm’s leadership – showing that he was far from a disinterested player.

All told, Barr took in $4,415,797 from these board memberships since 2009 – and again, that’s not counting his compensation from 2017 and 2018 for Time Warner and 2018 for Dominion, the sum of which would likely add another $800,000 to $900,000 to this total.

In addition, Barr has raked in big sums from his board memberships at a range of investment funds managed by Davis Advisors – these include the Clipper Fund from 2014 to 2016 and Selected Funds from 1994 from 2016. In 2012, for example, Barr took in $64,969 for his directorship over three funds advised by Davis Advisors.

Taken together, all this raises significant concerns over conflicts of interest and questions over whether Barr will provide adequate oversight of the corporate world that he’s served so devoutly and profited from so handsomely in recent years.

For example, the Wall Street Journal quotes Gene Kimmelman, the former chief counsel for the Justice Department’s antitrust division who now leads a consumer advocacy group, who said of Barr: “We’re particularly concerned that he could interfere with strong antitrust enforcement involving telecom or similar mergers, enabling further dangerous consolidation of essential broadband and media services.”

In addition to his corporate roles described above, Barr was also a board member of cement companies Holcim US and Aggregate Industries Management from 2008 to 2013, though his compensation from these roles is unknown.

Fox News

Published  3 months ago

Like a false prophet of moral righteousness, James Comey, former FBI director is constantly pretending to be a courageous hero fighting for truth and justice. In reality, he is a hateful, vengeful, arrogant narcissist who abused power and fostered one of the most corrupt federal departments this country has ever seen. But we can report the walls are closing in on James Comey.

We have, yet, another major development in our "Hannity Watch" on the "Deep State." Former FBI general counsel James Baker, the man who served as Jim Comey's top lawyer, he, too, like others. is now criminal investigation for leaking to the media. And Baker has long faced scrutiny over his ties to "Mother Jones" reporter David Corn. Remember, Corn was the first journalist to report the existence of Christopher Steele's dirty dossier in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election.

So, let's keep track of Comey's leadership at the FBI. You know, Mr. Integrity. Now, of course, we know Comey himself was fired by President Trump. His second in command, Andrew McCabe, was fired for lying. Andrew McCabe is now currently under a criminal investigation. Comey's top investigator, Peter Strzok, well, he was fired for his obvious political bias. He may soon be under criminal investigation, as well as his ex- girlfriend, top FBI lawyer Lisa Page. She was forced to resign over her bias.

Then have you Comey's chief of staff, James Rybicki, he has resigned. And now, we know Comey's general counsel Jim Baker now, we can report, under an official criminal investigation, for something Comey himself that he admitted to doing when he leaked the FBI memos about President Trump. Remember, to his professor friend at Columbia, and then to the New York Times for the very purpose of spurring a special counsel investigation, which coincidentally -- well, that's being carried out by Comey's close friend Robert Mueller. How nice.

So, what did all the people have in common? They all wanted Hillary Clinton to win, one of them 100 million to zero. They all hated -- and continue to hate -- Donald Trump. They all worked together to rig our political system and fix the outcome of the 2016 election by using their powerful top position -- not rank and file -- the top positions, the FBI and the DOJ, to help Hillary Clinton win, to cheat, to rig an election.

And as we now know, they had an emergency policy and a media leak strategy in case Clinton didn't win, 100 million to zero. And after James Comey was fired, top officials inside the FBI were angry. They acted out of that anger, malice, emotion. And without any evidence, no probable cause or reasonable suspicion, they ended up launching what was a partisan investigation into the President of the United States, with a wild conspiracy accusing the president of working with Vladimir Putin to fire Comey because Russia told him to do it. No evidence.

They were angry. This was their punishment. This was their payback -- abusing power to attack the president that they never wanted elected.

Now, this brings us to a "Hannity" history lesson. Glenn Greenwald recently pointed out that the FBI in their investigation into Donald Trump used eerily similar tactics to those pioneered by J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover served as an FBI director for many decades, and he became infamous for his aggressive investigation into Americans who he suspected had ties to the Soviet Union. Hoover even suspected FDR's vice president, Henry Wallace. He conducted a lengthy probe and surveillance simply because Hoover disagreed with Wallace's policy.

The FBI should never be in the business of investigating political differences or policy decisions. They shouldn't be lashing out because of personal opinions that they have. The 99 percent of FBI field agents of rank-and-file do their jobs. They investigate crimes and criminals. Not politics, not policy, and especially not launching a counterintelligence investigation into a duly elected president with zero evidence because you don't like him.

On Tuesday, William Barr, President Trump's pick to be our next attorney general, faced his first day of confirmation hearings on the Hill. Sen. Lindsey Graham grilled him about whether or not he would investigate the FBI's baseless, corrupt investigation into President Trump. "Mr. Chairman. I think there were a number of investigations as I understand it going on in the department," Barr said.

That's a good sign, that William Barr cares about equal justice, equal application of our laws and says he will serve as a fair attorney general. Mr. Barr, there are no shortage of corrupt Trump haters to investigate and many with a lot of power that they have abuse. No shortage of crimes here.

We're going to begin to lay out a road map of corruption for the new attorney general to investigate. Fox News' Gregg Jarrett has compiled a comprehensive list. We're going to start with FISA abuse. That is lying to a FISA court. That is committing a fraud against a court to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate using Hillary Clinton's bought and paid for phony dossier that was full of Russian lies.

James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Rod Rosenstein all likely committed fraud on a FISA court by presenting Hillary Clinton's dirty dossier as unbiased, verified evidence, when reality, it was never verified, never corroborated and full of Russian lies. And they never told the courts that it was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton.

That's a good sign, that William Barr cares about equal justice, equal application of our laws and says he will serve as a fair attorney general. Mr. Barr, there are no shortage of corrupt Trump haters to investigate and many with a lot of power that they have abuse. No shortage of crimes here.

Next up, Mr. Barr, if you get this job, you need to look into the theft and leaking of government documents. Now, Jim Comey obviously committed a serious crime when he intentionally leaked his FBI memos about his conversations with the president. It's important to also look at abuse of power charges that would be applied to many of the same names: Comey, McCabe, Strzok, all fired. Lisa Page, resigned and shamed. Bruce Ohr, demoted twice - he should have been fired. All using their high positions in our federal government to persecute those they disagreed with politically. All trying to get Hillary Clinton get elected and then having an insurance policy, and a media leak strategy if, in fact, Donald Trump did win.

Let's not forget about lying to the FBI. After all, this crime shouldn't only apply an American war hero like General Flynn and Trump campaign staffer like George Papadopoulos, who just spent two weeks in jail for nothing. Andrew McCabe was literally fired over that charge. Is he going to receive the same treatment as General Flynn and be prosecuted?

Now, the DOJ also will need to tackle the unauthorized leaks. We now know that James Baker is already facing a criminal investigation over this charge. But so, too are we going to look at John Brennan and James Clapper? What about Susan Rice? And what about Samantha Powers? Shouldn't they be investigated over the massive amount of names that they unmasked while serving in the final year of the Obama administration?

And because of James Comey's biased investigation into Hillary Clinton and exoneration before an investigation, there's an obvious violation of the Espionage Act. Mr. Barr must also revisit Hillary Clinton's various crimes, like, deleting subpoenaed emails and deleting your hard drive and washing it with BleachBit and busting up devices and ripping out SIM cards.

Adapted from Sean Hannity's monologue from "Hannity" on January 15, 2019.

Sean Hannity currently serves as host of FOX News Channel’s (FNC) Hannity (weekdays 9-10PM/ET). He joined the network in 1996 and is based in New York. Click here for more information on Sean Hannity.

Daily Intelligencer

Published  3 months ago

At first glance, the revelation by BuzzFeed News reporters Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier that President Trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about his attempt to build a tower in Moscow during the campaign, looks bad for Trump. On second, third, and fourth glances, it looks extremely bad.

1. Attorney General William Barr has already defined this behavior as obstruction of justice. In the secret memo Barr wrote to the Department of Justice questioning Robert Mueller’s obstruction inquiry, Barr allowed that of course it was possible the president could obstruct justice if he did something incredibly obvious, such as instruct people to lie in sworn testimony:

At his Senate confirmation hearings, Barr reiterated that suborning perjury would obviously constitute obstruction.

Senator Amy Klobuchar quizzing William Barr on exactly what he would consider an act of obstruction. pic.twitter.com/tibx2ud2ed

— Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) January 18, 2019

So whatever legal shield Trump believes he is getting in Barr will not help him escape this allegation.

2. The allegations are serious enough that even conservatives concede they would constitute a crime. The immediate response by Trump defenders Byron York and Mollie Hemingway has been to call the allegations “big if true,” while implying they are likely false. Erick Erickson has a short piece arguing the allegations would mean impeachment if they are true, before going on to speculate they are probably false, because no other news organization has yet confirmed them. (To be clear, in the news business, it is common enough for a news organization to break an exclusive story that we have a word for such an occasion: “scoop.”)

They can always move from denial to justifying the crime later. But the lack of any justification for the alleged crime at the outset is telling.

3. The evidence reportedly has multiple sources. Trump lawyer-of-sorts Rudy Giuliani dismissed the story: “Haven’t checked it out but if you believe Cohen I can get you a good all-cash deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.” Any denial of a crime by one’s client that is prefaced with “haven’t checked” obviously does not inspire confidence. And Giuliani’s assumption that the allegation rests on taking Cohen’s word for it is flatly contradicted by the report.

As BuzzFeed explains, the evidence did not originate from Cohen. Cohen merely confirmed what Mueller discovered through other sources: “The special counsel’s office learned about Trump’s directive for Cohen to lie to Congress through interviews with multiple witnesses from the Trump Organization and internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents. Cohen then acknowledged those instructions during his interviews with that office.”

Cormier tells CNN he has more sourcing for the report, beyond the two sources he confirmed Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress:

"I am rock solid. My sourcing on this goes beyond the two on the record. It's 100%." - @BuzzFeed reporter @a_cormier_ pic.twitter.com/twL6H7rQGV

— Alli Hedges (@AllisonLHedges) January 18, 2019

4. The could be more where this came from. Go back to the part about “internal company emails, text messages, and a cache of other documents.” Remember that prosecutors seized a massive trove of recordings and notes from Cohen’s office. Cohen worked closely with Trump in a business that by all indications engaged in criminal activity so routinely that it barely registered. There is very little reason to expect this is the only crime directly implicating Trump contained in these files.

5. Why did Trump order Cohen to lie? By telling this lie, Trump opened himself up to blackmail by Putin. Trump was publicly denying the contours of a business deal to which Russian intelligence was privy. Trump consistently takes enormous risks to protect his dealings with Russia from public exposure.

Building a tower in Moscow is not illegal. He could have admitted the project’s existence during the campaign. Or, having lied about it, he could have let Cohen admit it later. Trump has told so many lies, the news media has had to create new categories to describe their vastness.

So how harmful could it have been for Cohen to add one more admitted lie to a pile of lies so infinite it beggars the imagination? The lie would have been forgotten immediately. Maybe Trump decided to direct Cohen to lie for no good reason. But it may well be the case that he had to lie because confessing to the Trump Tower project would open up other questions about his dealings with Russia during the campaign. Needless to say, there is a lot there.

Leave a Comment

Medium

Published  3 months ago

A suicide bombing in Manbij, Syria has reportedly killed 19 people including four Americans, two of whom were US soldiers and two of whom…

WayneDupree.com

Published  3 months ago

I like how some Trump supporters who call themselves leaders, have signed on for supporters of William Barr, nominee for Attorney General.

Barr is a friend of Robert Mueller that doesn’t subscribe to the “lock her up” stuff.

I couldn’t the questions today of Barr because I didn’t trust him when I heard that he was part of George H. W. Bush. I am sure he’s surprised he was even nominated as he’s probably had some preconceived perceptions of Pres. Trump.

Every Democrat is 100 percent on a mission to destroy Trump anyway they possibly can, and Barr doesn’t seem to be too far behind them. Witch hunt? WHAT witch hunt? Mueller’s a great guy and personal friend – and we need another couple of years to allow him to wrap up this very serious investigation properly (no – he didn’t say “years,” but he’s obviously in no rush).

Related: Trump’s Nominee For AG Says — Mueller Not On Witch Hunt; Sessions Right To Recuse Himself

This had better be a classic case of bait and switch, or I’m really going to have to wonder why on earth, after making the colossal mistake of putting Jeff Sessions in the AG’s seat, Trump would turn around and make another colossal mistake and put this guy in there – because he certainly doesn’t seem to be playing for Team Truth.

Blumenthal quizzed Barr about statements he has made concerning Hillary Clinton, namely that both the debunked Uranium One “scandal” and the Clinton Foundation should be investigated.

Barr clarified that he did not mean the Clinton Foundation should be investigated criminally, but as a tax matter.

He also said that he agreed with former Attorney General Mike Mukasey that putting political opponents in jail would be the behavior of a “banana republic.”

“That’s why I said… I don’t subscribe to this ‘lock her up’ stuff,” Barr told Blumenthal.

It’s obvious Pres. Trump never dreamed of the depth of evil he would face. He is used to working with ambitious but decent people, but D.C. is completely depraved. It would be difficult to find more than a handful of politicos who are not self-serving cutthroat liars — total phonies.

No executive branch employee has any legitimate excuse for refusing to comply with a presidential directive unless that directive is unconstitutional. Ethics, regardless of whether personal or professional, does not meet that threshold. If you refuse a directive from POTUS without qualms about its constitutionality, you should expect to be fired.

Trump doesn’t have two years to find out if Barr is a keeper. Barr’s appointment will have to stand until the 2020 election. That’s why his nomination is crucial, and I have no real confidence that he will stand behind the President. And if he does not, it’s going to be touch and go for Trump to be re-elected.

Please consider making a donation to WayneDupree.com

and help our mission to make the world a better place

If you find inaccurate information within this article, please use the contact form to alert us immediately.

NOTE: Facebook and Twitter are currently censoring conservative content. We hope they will reverse their policy and honor all voices shortly. Until then, please like our page on Facebook and PLEASE check the Wayne Dupree homepage for the latest stories.

Having problems finding a source for real news links in real time, click on Whatfinger.com. Visit, bookmark and share this resource and then tell your friends and family.

NBC News

Published  3 months ago

WASHINGTON — Comments made Tuesday by William Barr, President Donald Trump's nominee for attorney general, suggest that the report of special prosecutor Robert Mueller's Russian meddling investigation might not become public in the way many have been expecting.

At his confirmation hearing, Barr repeatedly told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he's committed to making as much information public as he can about Mueller's probe. But he also suggested that what is eventually released might not be a redacted version of Mueller's report.

Barr noted that the special counsel regulations require Mueller to submit a confidential report to the Justice Department. The rules specify, "At the conclusion of the Special Counsel's work, he or she shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel."

Barr said that material eventually made public might be a report from the attorney general on what Mueller concluded.

"Under the current regulations, the special counsel report is confidential, and the report that goes public would be a report by the attorney general," he told lawmakers.

However, he said he hasn't discussed this with anyone at the Justice Department or with Mueller, so he isn't sure exactly how the process will work. A Justice Department official said it could be a redacted version of Mueller's report that is made public, or it could be a summary.

The special counsel regulations contemplate public release of reports, but not the final report itself. Instead, they say the attorney general can make public any reports sent to Congress that are required when "the attorney general concluded that a proposed action by a special counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established departmental practices that it should not be pursued."

At the time the rules were imposed in 1999, the Justice Department said the special counsel should consider "the interests of the public in being informed of and understanding the reasons for the actions of the special counsel" with the goal of helping to "ensure congressional and public confidence in the integrity of the process."

The only other special counsel appointed under the rules, John Danforth who investigated the 1993 fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, issued both an interim and a final report, both of which were made public.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked Barr, if he would commit to providing Mueller's report to Congress "not your rewrite or summary."

Barr responded that is goal is revealing as much as he can, saying, "I have no clue as to what's being planned, but I am going to try to get the information out there consistent with the regulations. And to the extent that I have discretion, I will exercise the discretion to do that."

Conservative News Today

Published  3 months ago

A federal judge has ruled that former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice and her deputy, Ben Rhodes, must answer written questions about the State Department’s response to the 2012 radical Islamic terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

The September 2012 attack on the US embassy in Benghazi led to the deaths of four Americans, including US Ambassador Chris Stevens.

The inquiry is part of a lawsuit related to Hillary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private, unsecured email server to conduct government business when she was Obama’s secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

Hillary Lied and Blamed a Video for Terrorist Attack

Immediately after the Benghazi attack, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to the world by falsely claiming that it was caused by an anti-Muslim video. And Barack Obama played along.

The attack occurred on Sept. 11, 2012. Many believe the Obama administration promoted this false narrative in order to not hurt his chances of re-election two months later, in November 2012.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth agreed to a request by watchdog Judicial Watch to make Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes answer written questions about the cover-up.

However, Lambert denied a request to make them sit for depositions, Fox News reported.

Judicial Watch has been doggedly pursuing whether Hillary Clinton’s State Department “acted in bad faith.”

Did Hillary Use Private Email to Hide Her Lies?

While the media looks for every tiny thing to criticize President Trump, they gave former Secretary of State Hillary and former president Obama a pass on many epic screw-ups for eight years.

Not only did Hillary lie when she blamed the 2012 Benghazi embassy attack on an anti-Islam video, but the media never criticized her for reportedly ignoring 600 email requests from Ambassador Chris Stevens begging for more security in the months before he was murdered.

“Rice’s talking points and State’s understanding of the attack play an unavoidably central role in this case,” Lamberth wrote.

“State’s role in the [talking] points’ content and development could shed light on Clinton’s motives for shielding her emails from [Freedom of Information Act] requesters or on State’s reluctance to search her emails.”

AG nominee William Barr is friends with Mueller, ‘doesn’t subscribe to lock her up stuff’ on Hillary

Fox News

Published  3 months ago

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham kicked off Tuesday’s confirmation hearing for William Barr, President Trump's attorney general nominee, by saying the Justice Department needs a new leader to “right the ship over there.”

Raw Story

Published  3 months ago

William Barr, President Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, on Tuesday suggested that journalists could be put in jail if they “hurt the country” with their reporting.

At a Senate confirmation hearing, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) asked for the nominee’s view on protections for a free press.

“I want to ask you something that I asked Attorney General [Jeff Sessions],” Klobuchar said. “If you’re confirmed, will the Justice Department jail reporters for doing their jobs?”

“I can conceive of situations where as a last resort and a news organization has run through a red flag or something like that, knows that they’re putting out stuff that will hurt the country,” Barr said, “there might be a situation where someone would be held in contempt.”

Spencer Ackerman, a national security reporter for The Daily Beast, called Barr’s answer “disturbing.”

Disturbing answer by Barr on jailing reporters. Says he can conceive of circumstances where "as a last resort" & where a news organization "knows they are putting stuff out where they’re hurting the country," which puts the legal onus on publishers.

— Spencer Ackerman (@attackerman) January 15, 2019

Watch the video below from C-SPAN.

Breitbart

Published  3 months ago

CNN legal analyst Areva Martin accused SiriusXM Patriot 125 host David Webb of “white privilege” during a debate on his radio program on Monday morning.

Webb informed Martin that he is, in fact, black.

It’s always emotional but necessary to speak up on this thing called justice. Put in some work @CNN tonight pic.twitter.com/QJGAfTzL1I

— Areva Martin, Esq. (@ArevaMartin) September 22, 2016

The discussion began with a debate about the confirmation hearings of President Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general, William Barr.

They later moved on to the question of racial diversity in cable news. Recently, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called out CBS News for failing to hire any black journalists to cover the 2020 election.

Webb asked Martin for her opinion on the controversy. She said she rejected the idea that there were not enough black people interested in journalism, and noted that many had spoken out on social media about their interest. Martin also agreed with Ocasio-Cortez that it was not acceptable for media outlets to claim there were not enough journalists of color available.

To that, Webb responded that he had “31 years” of experience in media, adding: “I’ve seen the coverage, and I’ve also seen it change, generationally … I have not seen the lack of [diversity], I’ve seen, actually growth in it.”

Webb also asked Martin whether Black Entertainment Television (BET) would have to hire a white or Hispanic reporter.

Martin said that was up to BET, but that networks with diverse audiences should have on-air personalities that reflect that diversity, especially with the wide diversity of candidates expected in the Democratic presidential primary in 2020.

Webb argued that qualifications should be the deciding factor. “I never considered my color the issue. I considered my qualifications the issue.”

Martin responded: “Well, David, that’s a whole ‘other long conversation about white privilege, the things that you have the privilege of doing that people of color don’t have the privilege of…”

Webb interjected: “How do I have the privilege of white privilege?”

Martin answered: “David, by virtue of being a white male, you have white privilege.”

Webb replied:

Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should have been better prepped. I’m black … See, you went to white privilege. This is the falsehood in this. You went immediately with an assumption … You’re talking to a black man who started out in rock radio in Boston, who crossed the paths into hip-hop, rebuilding one of the greatest black stations in America, and went on to work for Fox News, where I’m told apparently blacks aren’t supposed to work, but yet you come with this assumption and you go to white privilege. That’s actually insulting!

Martin apologized. “My people gave me wrong information.”

Webb, indignant, noted that his family background was diverse. “This is part of the problem with driving the narrative around a construct like white privilege.” While privilege existed, he said, it was not necessarily determined by color.

Martin insisted, nevertheless, that white privilege is real.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  3 months ago

Rachel Maddow hinted on Monday night that Democrats could invite special counsel Robert Mueller to the confirmation hearings for Donald Trump’s attorney general pick William Barr.

The hearings, which are set to begin on Tuesday, will focus heavily on whether Barr will allow Mueller’s investigation to remain unimpeded and be released to the public when it concludes.

In his prepared testimony released on Monday, Barr said, “On my watch, Bob will be allowed to complete his work.”

Maddow hinted on Monday, though, that if Democrats really want to ensure that Mueller and Barr are on the same page, they should invite the special counsel to the hearing like they did when Richard Nixon sought the confirmation of an attorney general during the Watergate era.

Rachel Maddow says Democrats can use a Watergate-era strategy to ensure that Trump’s attorney general pick will not undermine the Mueller investigation. #ctl #p2 #maddow pic.twitter.com/fXEGt2jaLn

— PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) January 15, 2019

Maddow said:

With Bill Saxby’s nomination in December 1973 specifically, a kind of amazing and singular thing happened, because when Saxby got up there to be the fourth attorney general for Nixon, Democrats on the Senate committee that was considering him, they not only sought assurances from Saxby that he would let the Watergate prosecutor proceed without interference, that he would provide him the sources he needed, he’d get out of his way, make sure he was protected. In addition to that, the Democratic senators on that committee considering whether he would be the next attorney general, they also did something kind of nuts. They brought the Watergate special prosecutor into the hearing room and swore him in and made him sit down next to Bill Saxby the attorney general nominee so the two of them were sitting there side by side. They both had to swear under oath that they both understood about the special prosecutor’s independence. They both had the same understanding of it, they both respected it. I mean, that’s weird, right? I mean, the prosecutor was not being confirmed by the Senate in that moment but they made him sit down and get sworn in right there with the guy who was being confirmed. I mean, this attorney general nominee, they made him swear he wouldn’t interfere with the Watergate investigation but remarkably, they made the Watergate prosecutor sit down next to him and swear that he understood that as well.

We shouldn’t take William Barr’s word for it

While it’s fine that Barr released a prepared statement claiming he would allow Mueller’s investigation to be completed and released to the public, we shouldn’t take his word for it.

After all, as CNN pointed out, “Last year, Barr authored a memo to senior Justice Department officials arguing that Trump’s interactions with Comey would not constitute obstruction of justice and called Mueller’s obstruction probe ‘fatally misconceived.'”

When hearings start on Tuesday, Democrats shouldn’t just roll over and accept Barr’s recent change of heart.

Instead, they should make him swear under oath that he will do nothing to thwart Mueller’s probe – which has taken on increasing importance in recent days – and release the findings to the public.

And, if they truly want to guarantee that Barr and the special counsel are on the same wavelength, they can pull a page from the Watergate playbook and invite Mueller to the hearings.

Washington Examiner

Published  3 months ago

William Barr, President Trump's nominee to be the next attorney general, not only survived his eight-hour Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, but he left it with a strong chance of picking up some Democratic votes.

dailycaller

Published  3 months ago

The Supreme Court rejected an unusual challenge to Matthew Whitaker’s appointment as acting attorney general Monday.

The challenge arose in the context of a Second Amendment case from Nevada, where an independent political activist named Barry Michaels challenged a provision of the Federal Gun Control Act which prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms. Michaels’ convictions were for non-violent crimes and he has lived in accordance with the law for 20 years.

Whitaker became the named defendant in Michaels’ case when he was appointed acting AG. Shortly thereafter, Michaels and his attorneys filed a motion at the Supreme Court challenging Whitaker’s appointment.

The motion argued that a federal law called the Attorney General Succession Act controls the accession of leadership at the Department of Justice. That law provides that the Deputy Attorney General should become the acting AG when a vacancy in that office arises. As such, Michaels said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is the rightful acting AG, not Whitaker.

Michaels also raised a constitutional issue, arguing that the appointments clause requires Senate confirmation for all principal officers of the government, even those serving in an acting capacity. Whitaker was chief of staff to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions prior to his appointment, which is not a Senate-confirmable position.

The justices rejected that motion in a brief order Monday morning. As is typical of such matters, the order was unsigned and no explanation was provided. (RELATED: Supreme Court To Review Illegal Immigrant’s Gun Possession Conviction)

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh filed a similar motion in an ongoing Affordable Care Act case before a federal trial court in Baltimore.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the executive branch on a range of legal issues, issued an advisory opinion confirming the legality of Whitaker’s appointment in November 2018.

President Donald Trump has since nominated William Barr for the attorney generalship. Barr will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a confirmation hearing on Tuesday.

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.

TheHill

Published  3 months ago

The department may revise the rules for obtaining journalists' records in part because of a massive increase in criminal leak investigations.

Fox News

Published  3 months ago

To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 10.2.0 or greater is installed.

The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nomination of William Barr for the position of attorney general on Tuesday.

Barr is expected to face questions on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign and immigration policy, among others.

Matthew Whitaker was named acting attorney general after Jeff Sessions resigned from the post in 2018. Barr previously served as attorney general under late President George H.W. Bush from 1991 to 1993.

Fox News' Kaitlyn Schallhorn contributed to this report.

Kathleen Joyce is a breaking/trending news producer for FoxNews.com. You can follow her at @Kathleen_Joyce8 on Twitter.

American Greatness

Published  3 months ago

Visit the post for more.

Fox News

Published  3 months ago

Dishonesty and corruption are endemic at the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The latest proof comes in a New York Times report that the FBI initiated an investigation in May of 2017 into whether President Donald Trump was serving as a covert Russian agent. The accusation itself was ludicrous on its face. But from a legal standpoint, the FBI's probe constituted an egregious abuse of power. The Bureau had no probable cause, no evidence, and no reasonable suspicions. They investigated Trump because they could. They defied the law, ignored or perverted facts, and debased the integrity of a heretofore-respected law enforcement agency.

Why did these rogue officials commit such an outrageous act of malfeasance? In a word, vengeance. Already incensed that Trump had defeated their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, they grew furious when the president fired Director James Comey on May 9, 2017. In reaction, they sought retribution. What better way to avenge Comey's firing than to launch a counterintelligence investigation of Trump under the false pretense that he committed treasonous acts for the benefit of the Kremlin and at the direction of President Vladimir Putin. Absent credible proof, information could be manipulated to frame Trump while a compliant media would gobble up the leaks and report the damaging charge. The election results could then be undone when the president was driven from office.

To readers of my book, "The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme To Clear Hillary Clinton And Frame Donald Trump,” this comes as no surprise. As detailed therein, Comey and his faithful confederates at the Bureau twisted facts and contorted the law to absolve Clinton of all criminal acts she most certainly committed in the mishandling of her classified emails while Secretary of State.

On the same day Comey exonerated Clinton, his FBI was furtively meeting with the author of the fictitious anti-Trump "dossier" funded by Clinton and the Democrats. Although nothing in the phony document was true or ever verified, the FBI used it as a pretext to commence and advance a malicious investigation into whether Trump "colluded" with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election. They also exploited the "dossier" as the basis to gain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, concealing the truth from the intelligence court and deceiving the judges.

Over the next ten months, the FBI failed to corroborate anything in the "dossier." Bureau agents uncovered no evidence that Trump had somehow conspired or coordinated with Russia to influence the election. Then came the firing of Comey for just cause. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Comey's direct boss, volunteered to author a memorandum recommending his termination for multiple acts of misconduct and serious violations of Justice Department and FBI rules in the Clinton case. Six former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties endorsed his termination. Comey was canned for reasons that were entirely merited and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Russia probe. The president was constitutionally authorized to take such action, which Comey confirmed in a letter to his colleagues at the FBI.

As I noted in my book, "Almost immediately, demands for impeachment of President Trump were heard in the corridors of Congress. The liberal media were crazed with excitement over the prospect that the president had obstructed justice in trying to block the Russian investigation. In truth and in law, neither scenarios were remotely rational."

When the people we entrust to enforce the law become the lawbreakers, they must be held accountable.

Among those who were aggrieved over Comey's firing was his loyal lieutenant, Andrew McCabe, who became Acting FBI Director, as well as bureau lawyer Lisa Page and her paramour, Peter Strzok, a top counterintelligence agent. Page and Strzok were intimately involved in the "collusion" investigation and were virulently opposed to the president both politically and personally, as evidence by their numerous anti-Trump text messages.

In the eight-day period after Comey's termination, top officials at the FBI decided to take action. They would originate a counterintelligence investigation of Trump for being a foreign agent of Russia. Critically, they had no evidence or even reasonable suspicion to support their operation. They simply despised Trump and chose to misuse their positions of power in an illegal act of reprisal.

Once again, the FBI needed a pretext.They coalesced around the idea that Comey's firing might constitute obstruction of justice if it was intended to stop or impede the original Russian probe. In other words, the president must surely be a Russian agent if it can be shown that he wanted to halt the Russian probe. According to the New York Times, Trump made two comments that served the FBI's improper purpose. They are worth examining.

First, Trump wrote a letter to Comey thanking him for telling him three times that he was not under investigation. Comey later confirmed that he had, in fact, told the president he was not under investigation. Obviously, Trump wanted the American public to learn that he was not personally being investigated for Russian "collusion." Yet, Comey refused to disclose this truth. How this letter can, therefore, be viewed plausibly as obstruction of an investigation is baffling. Trump wanted to promote the truth, not conceal it.

Second, Trump gave an interview to NBC News two days after Comey was dismissed in which he made reference to the Russia investigation. How is this evidence of obstruction? It is not. As I explained in my book, "A rigorous reading of what Trump said confirms that his intent was not to interfere with or end the Russia investigation, but to place someone who was neutral and competent in charge." In fact, Trump told NBC that he might want to lengthen the investigation to get to the bottom of any wrongdoing. This is hardly evidence of a corrupt purpose to interfere in an investigation as the law of obstruction demands.

The FBI's illegitimate decision to begin an investigation of Trump as a Russian agent based on an obstruction premise was a false and fabricated excuse. This is shown by the testimony of McCabe who appeared before the Senate Intelligence committee after Comey was fired. He stated, "There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date." Days later, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told Congress, "There never has been...any political interference in any matter under my supervision in the Department of Justice." Six days before he was fired, Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee that no one had told him to stop something for a political reason. "It's not happened in my experience," he said.

Not only did these key people involved in the Russia case affirm that the president never interfered or obstructed, there was no other evidence that Trump was working for the Russians that would have justified the FBI's punitive decision to launch its investigation. Both Comey and Page testified before House investigators that by the time the director was fired and Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed there was no hard evidence of "collusion." The investigation had been running for ten months. Comey admitted, "In fact, when I was fired as director, I still didn't know whether there was anything to it." Nevertheless, top officials at the FBI opened their investigation of Trump in May of 2017 without sufficient evidence and in direct violation of FBI and DOJ regulations. They broke the law. And they did it to depose Trump.

The FBI was not alone in its attempt to remove Trump from office. According to another New York Times story, Rosenstein also sought retribution by proposing to secretly record the president in an attempt to gain some damaging information about him. He allegedly suggested that he and others wear hidden devices to record their conversations with Trump and discussed recruiting Cabinet members to remove him under the Constitution's 25th Amendment. Three top FBI officials confirmed various elements of Rosenstein's efforts to mount the equivalent of a palace coup. The Deputy Attorney General has consistently resisted requests by Congress to question him about his actions.

It is now undeniable that critical decisions made by senior FBI leadership were driven by political bias and personal animus, not sustainable facts or credible evidence. These powerful officials could not abide that Donald Trump had emerged, against their wishes, as the duly elected president of the United States. They could not accept that he had unceremoniously shown Comey the door. In an act of rank retaliation, they decided to abuse their positions of power to drive him from office. They invented facts and ignored the law to subvert our system of justice and undermine the democratic process. They compromised essential principles and betrayed the nation's trust. Their conduct was, and is, unconscionable.

When William Barr takes office as our nation's next Attorney General, he must review their actions and present all evidence of wrongdoing to federal prosecutors and, if appropriate, a grand jury. When the people we entrust to enforce the law become the lawbreakers, they must be held accountable. No one is above the law.

Gregg Jarrett joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2002 and is based in New York. He currently serves as legal analyst and offers commentary across both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN).

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  3 months ago

People claiming Trump needs urgency and to move quickly right now as if Trump's in any real danger are misreading what's actually happening.

GOP

Published  3 months ago

If Senate Democrats try to obstruct attorney general nominee William Barr, they’ll have to explain why not a single Democrat objected to him holding that very same position before.

In 1991, the Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed Barr by voice vote just 36 days after he was nominated. The Joe Biden-led Judiciary Committee approved Barr by a unanimous 14-0 vote.

Then-Judiciary Chair Joe Biden praises William Barr as a “heck of an honorable guy.” https://t.co/lwHa3O4Lw4 pic.twitter.com/raQ7nxxcyF

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) December 7, 2018

Here’s just some of what prominent Democrats – including Chuck Schumer – had to say about Barr at the time…

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to Barr: “You're going to be a good Attorney General, you're sharp, you're smart…” (U.S. Senate Hearing, Committee On Judiciary, 11/13/91)

Biden: Barr showed “commitment to the public interest above all else...” (U.S. Senate Attorney General Confirmation Vote, 11/20/91)

Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-Brooklyn), then-chairman of the House Crime and Criminal Justice Subcommittee: “Mr. Barr has proven to be a capable deputy attorney general. He did a good job of helping run the department in troubled times.” (Newsday, 10/17/91)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee: Barr will be “an independent voice for all Americans – not just the President.” (Los Angeles Times, 11/16/91)

Leahy: “I get the impression that he's committed to working with rather than against the committee.” (Facts On File World News Digest, 11/21/91)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee: “Mr. Barr comes before this committee with a distinguished record of public service in the Central Intelligence Agency and the White House and the Department of Justice, as well as in the private practice of the law.” (U.S. Senate Hearing, Committee On Judiciary, 11/12/91)

White House Nominations

The Washington Times

Published  3 months ago

The Trump-Russia investigation, with its dynamic cast of judges, defenders and prosecutors, can have the look of an exclusive club.

POLITICUSUSA

Published  3 months ago

Rachel Maddow looked at the past mass presidential pardon that Trump’s attorney general nominee William Barr was involved with and raised the red flag on how it relates to the Russia scandal.

Maddow said:

William Barr is something very, very specific in the history of presidents and presidential scandals and the bad ways they can end. Because on Christmas eve 1992 when George H.W. Bush shocked the country by pardoning everyone still in trouble in Iran Contra and effectively ending the prosecution of that scandal, while he himself was edging into the crosshairs, he took that action specifically on advice of William Barr in the George H.W. Bush administration at the time, the same trump nominee to the attorney general. Here is the “New York Times” write up from the Christmas Day edition, throughout the deliberations, Mr. Bush consulted with attorney general William Barr. William Barr was asked about the pardons. In a 2001 oral history at the University of Virginia. William Barr said quote I certainly did not oppose any of them. I favored the broadest. There were some people arguing just for a pardon for Weinberger.

With everything else going on in the U.S. Government, with just, with the government shutdown, with the trump administration quietly trying to lift sanctions on a Russian oligarch linked to the trump campaign and expected testimony of Michael Cohen in open session. With the revelation this week the president’s campaign chair was providing internal campaign data, is it really possible in this environment right now that the Senate is about to confirm someone who is most notable previous achievement he was the architect of the last time a major criminal presidential scandal was shut down with blanket pardons for everyone. In for a penny, in for a pound. I wanted everyone pardoned. That is who President Trump has nominated to be attorney general, who is now taking meetings with senators. His confirmation hearings begin on Tuesday.

Trump has not been subtle with his actions as it relates to his desire to kill the Mueller investigation. One of the ways that he could kill the investigation is to pardon everyone associated with it, including himself. Trump is clearly trying to pull something with the nomination of Barr. Amongst all of the other chaos that Trump is causing, the Senate needs to keep its eye on the bigger prize and not be distracted into playing into the hands of what could be Trump’s plan to pardon his way out of potential future criminal charges.

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

Breitbart

Published  3 months ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday that attorney general nominee William Barr has confidence in special counsel Robert Mueller and will let him complete his Russia investigation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said after meeting with Barr, who led the Justice Department under President George H.W. Bush, that Barr has a “high opinion” of Mueller. Barr was spending most of Wednesday on Capitol Hill, meeting senators on the committee before his confirmation hearing next week.

“He had absolutely no indication he was going to tell Bob Mueller what to do or how to do it,” Graham said.

President Donald Trump pushed out Attorney General Jeff Sessions in November and made Sessions’ chief of staff, Matthew Whitaker, the acting attorney general before nominating Barr in December.

Trump’s critics have expressed concern that Barr may try to curtail Mueller’s investigation, which Trump repeatedly has called a “hoax” and a “witch hunt.” Also, Barr wrote an unsolicited memo to the Justice Department last year critiquing Mueller’s investigation into whether the president sought to obstruct justice by firing James Comey as FBI director.

Graham said Barr also told him about his longtime relationship with Mueller. Barr and Mueller worked together when Barr was Bush’s attorney general from 1991 to 1993 and Mueller oversaw the department’s criminal division. Graham said that the two men were “best friends,” that their wives attended Bible study together and that Mueller had attended the weddings of Barr’s children.

“So his opinion of Mr. Mueller is very, very high in terms of ethics and character and professionalism,” Graham said.

Graham listed a number of questions that he had put to Barr: “I asked Mr. Barr directly, ‘Do you think Mr. Mueller is on a witch hunt?’ He said no. ‘Do you think he would be fair to the president and the country as a whole?’ He said yes. ‘And do you see any reason for Mr. Mueller’s investigation to be stopped?’ He said no. ‘Do you see any reason for a termination based on cause?’ He said no. ‘Are you committed to making sure Mr. Mueller can finish his job?’ ‘Yes.’”

Graham said Barr said that if he were attorney general, he would “err on the side of transparency” when he eventually received Mueller’s report.

The senator said Barr also told him that he has a high opinion of Rod Rosenstein, the current deputy attorney general who has so far overseen the Mueller investigation and is expected to leave office if Barr is confirmed.

“Mr. Rosenstein mentioned to him when they first met, I think, that two years would probably be enough,” Graham said. “He has got some ideas of a deputy. I told him to pick somebody you are comfortable with and that the president can approve, and I trust his judgment to find a worthy successor to Mr. Rosenstein.”

Barr also met with several other Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including the outgoing committee chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who said he believes Barr’s experience “ought to make his nomination very easy.” Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said after his meeting that he is pleased that Barr would be “what I would call a ‘traditional law and order’ attorney general.”

Barr was also scheduled to meet with Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Ben Sasse, R-Neb.

TheHill

Published  3 months ago

Rudy Giuliani says President Trump’s legal team should be allowed to “correct” special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report before Congress or the American people get the chance to read it.

Fox News

Published  3 months ago

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is expected to leave his role in the coming weeks once a new attorney general is confirmed, a report published early Wednesday said.

There was no indication he was being forced out of his position by President Donald Trump, but multiple sources told ABC News that Rosenstein always expected to serve about two years.

Rosenstein has made Trump and White House officials aware of his plan to leave, the report said. His exit is expected to occur around the time William Barr-- Trump's nominee for attorney general-- would take office, ABC News said.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to Fox News for comment early Wednesday.

Speculation of Rosenstein’s departure mounted after the firing of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions in November. He has overseen Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into whether Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election and has been a target of Trump on Twitter.

The Daily Beast

Published  3 months ago

Reuters / Jonathan Ernst

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will quit his role at the Justice Department in the coming weeks, ABC News reports. Citing unnamed sources said to be familiar with his plans, the report states Rosenstein told President Donald Trump that he intends to leave the administration at the same time that William Barr—Trump’s nominee for attorney general—would take office, if he is confirmed by the Senate. Rosenstein reportedly wants to wait until a new AG is in the role to ensure a smooth transition for his successor. ABC News reports there’s no indication that Rosenstein was being forced out by Trump and that he had long intended to only serve for two years. CNN later confirmed the ABC report. Speculation mounted that Rosenstein would quit his role after Jeff Sessions was fired as attorney general. He has overseen Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election since Sessions recused himself from the matter because of his role in Trump’s campaign. He’s been a frequent target of Trump’s anger on Twitter—the president recently retweeted an image of Rosenstein and others behind bars.

Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has launched an extraordinary attack on the Trump administration, saying “first-class idiots” are in charge of making U.S. government policy. In a strongly worded statement against U.S. sanctions on Iran, Khamenei said the economic measures are placing “unprecedented” pressure on his country. Last year, Trump pulled out of an international pact on Iran’s nuclear program and re-imposed sanctions intended to disrupt the country’s oil exports, missile programs, and influence in the Middle East. “The sanctions do put pressure on the country and the people,” Khamenei said Wednesday, adding: “The Americans happily say that these sanctions are unprecedented in history. Yes, they’re unprecedented. And the defeat that the Americans will face will be unprecedented, God willing.” The angry statement went on to lambast Trump administration officials for their approach to Iran, with the supreme leader saying: “They are first-class idiots.”

The Daily Beast

Published  3 months ago

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) rebutted President Trump’s Oval Office address Tuesday night, accusing Trump of “manufacturing a crisis.” “The president is rejecting these bipartisan bills which would re-open government over his obsession with forcing American taxpayers to waste billions of dollars on an expensive and ineffective wall,” Pelosi said, adding that the president had “chosen fear” to pursue his desired $5.7 billion in border-wall funding. “American democracy doesn't work that way. We don't govern by temper tantrum,” Schumer said. While Trump announced that he had invited Democrats for discussions about the border security issue on Wednesday, the two leading Democrats implored the president to separate the shutdown from further talks about the wall. “Mr. President, re-open the government and we can work to resolve our differences over border security, but end this shutdown now,” Schumer said.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will quit his role at the Justice Department in the coming weeks, ABC News reports. Citing unnamed sources said to be familiar with his plans, the report states Rosenstein told President Donald Trump that he intends to leave the administration at the same time that William Barr—Trump’s nominee for attorney general—would take office, if he is confirmed by the Senate. Rosenstein reportedly wants to wait until a new AG is in the role to ensure a smooth transition for his successor. ABC News reports there’s no indication that Rosenstein was being forced out by Trump and that he had long intended to only serve for two years. CNN later confirmed the ABC report. Speculation mounted that Rosenstein would quit his role after Jeff Sessions was fired as attorney general. He has overseen Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election since Sessions recused himself from the matter because of his role in Trump’s campaign. He’s been a frequent target of Trump’s anger on Twitter—the president recently retweeted an image of Rosenstein and others behind bars.

NBC News

Published  3 months ago

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein plans to leave the Department of Justice once William Barr, President Donald Trump's nominee for attorney general, is confirmed, an administration official told NBC News.

That person said Trump was not forcing out Rosenstein. Instead, the deputy attorney general had long planned to serve about two years.

Rosenstein has come under fire from the president after he appointed special counsel Robert Mueller and oversaw his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials.

Rosenstein's intentions were first reported by ABC News.

This is a developing story, check back for updates.

Fox News

Published  3 months ago

The reported resignation of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is long overdue and means the Justice Department is headed for badly needed reforms.

The Gateway Pundit

Published  3 months ago

Beryl Howell, the Obama-appointed federal judge of the DC District Court who oversees Mueller’s grand jury, issued the 23-person jury a six-month extension on Friday, reported CNN.

Mueller is going to drag his unconstitutional witch hunt into the next presidential election in order to harass President Trump.

The Washington DC grand jury which began in July of 2017, was originally seated for 18 months, however, the Obama judge who oversees the jury just gave Mueller another six months.

Under federal rules, the court can extend a grand jury’s term for an extra six months if it is “in the public interest.”

Recent reports have indicated that Mueller was perhaps working to issue a final report on Trump, however; Friday’s decision to give Mueller several more months to pump out criminal indictments signals his witch hunt is far from over.

House Democrats are also pushing for legislation to protect their precious King Robert Mueller from being removed.

Dems are panicking because a new Attorney General who is critical of King Mueller is set to be confirmed by the Senate.

If William Barr is confirmed as Trump’s next Attorney General, he should put an end to Mueller’s unconstitutional witch hunt and Trump should pardon every American caught up in the probe.

CREDO Action

Published  3 months ago

William Barr might be worse than Jeff Sessions and he will help Trump cover up his alleged crimes. We cannot let him become attorney general.

WSJ

Published  3 months ago

Mr. Whitaker made the same claim in a 2010 application for an Iowa judgeship. And a Justice Department press release, issued in 2009 when Mr. Whitaker left his post as U.S. Attorney in Iowa, said he had been “an academic All-American football player.”

To be considered for Academic All-American status, a student-athlete must have at least a 3.3 cumulative grade point average and be a starter or important reserve on his or her team.

Mr. Whitaker’s name doesn’t appear in the list of Academic All-Americans on the website of the organization that bestows the annual honor, the College Sports Information Directors of America. Another University of Iowa football player is on that list for 1992, the year Mr. Whitaker has said he received the honor.

Barb Kowal, a spokeswoman for the awarding organization, also known as CoSIDA, said the group has no record that Mr. Whitaker was ever an Academic All-American.

After checking with the University of Iowa, Ms. Kowal said that it appears that Mr. Whitaker was given a lower-level honor, selected to an All-District honor in one of eight regions around the U.S. Those selected in the regions are put on the national ballot, she said. From there, a small number of student-athletes from each sport are voted to be given the coveted Academic All-American status every year.

Kerri Kupac, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said Mr. Whitaker relied on a 1993 University of Iowa football media guide, which listed him as a “GTE District VII academic All-American.” (GTE was the contest sponsor at that time.)

She referred further questions to Steve Roe, an assistant athletic director at the University of Iowa, who said that “if there is confusion at all, part of it could be how we listed it in our media guide.”

CoSIDA’s Ms. Kowal, in an email, said “being named an Academic All-District is PART of the CoSIDA Academic All-America program, but does not make you an Academic All-America honoree. You must be placed on the national ballot and then voted onto the Academic All-America team to gain that honor.”

Ms. Kowal said the correct term for Mr. Whitaker’s honor is “1992 GTE District VII Academic All-District selection.” She said CoSIDA was less formally organized in the 1990s and “we know that people over time use terms interchangeably and innocently.”

Mr. Whitaker did win several other academic awards while at Iowa, including three Academic All-Big Ten awards, according to the 2018 University of Iowa media guide. He went on to earn business and law degrees from the university.

Questions about Mr. Whitaker’s claims to have been an Academic All-American were raised Monday on Wikipedia Signpost, an in-house publication for Wikipedia editors, by a user named Smallbones.

Mr. Whitaker was named acting attorney general by President Trump in early November, after the ouster of Jeff Sessions from that post. Mr. Trump has chosen William Barr, a former attorney general, to replace Mr. Sessions but Mr. Barr has yet to be formally nominated or come before the Senate for confirmation hearings.

It is possible the Academic All-American matter would have arisen during independent vetting from the Senate, if Mr. Whitaker had gone through the confirmation process. In his previous position as chief of staff to Mr. Sessions, Mr. Whitaker didn’t require Senate confirmation.

Write to Mark Maremont at mark.maremont@wsj.com

Daily Intelligencer

Published  4 months ago

President Trump has repeatedly expressed his belief, in public and in private, that the attorney general should act as his personal capo, pressing investigations against his enemies and ignoring violations by his allies. And yet his choice to fill the job (after his first pick infuriated him by refusing to violate clear ethical protocols) is a relatively mainstream choice: William Barr, who held the same position under George H.W. Bush.

A partial answer to the mystery is that Barr has publicly defended Trump on several of his pet issues. He endorsed the firing of James Comey, called for investigation of the Clinton Foundation, impugned the neutrality of Robert Mueller’s investigators, and defended Trump’s practice of demanding investigations of his enemies. Barr has a record as one of the members of the Republican legal Establishment most indulgent of Trump’s conspiratorial mafia ethos.

But a new report in the Wall Street Journal suggests more complete answer. Earlier this year, Barr wrote a lengthy memo excoriating Mueller’s investigation of Trump for obstruction of justice. Mueller’s investigation was “grossly irresponsible,” had “potentially disastrous implications,” and other choice descriptions spread over 20 pages culled from public reports. This memo was completely unsolicited.

Exactly why he wrote it is a more curious question. According to the Journal’s account, based on people “familiar with the process,” submitted copies of his anti-Mueller memo to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and to “the top lawyer representing the White House in the Mueller probe.”

The story implies that Trump was not familiar with the memo when he chose Barr, but does not say so outright. The Journal reports “a second person familiar with the matter said the memo played no role in [Trump’s] decision to choose Mr. Barr.” And it also reports, “After Mr. Trump offered him the job, Mr. Barr briefly told the president that he had written a memo about aspects of the Russia probe that could spur questions during his confirmation hearing, according to a person familiar with the process.”

The story does not say who else the White House counsel shared Barr’s memo with, or whether Trump was ever told of it. It’s entirely possible — indeed, it seems quite likely — Trump was aware of the memo.

The assertion by the Journal source that the memo “played no role” in Trump’s selection of Barr is therefore extremely hard to accept at face value. We know Trump is obsessed with finding an attorney general who will suppress the Mueller investigation. His candidate wrote a memo attacking Mueller, and submitted it to Trump’s lawyer, who may or may not have informed others of the memo’s existence.

The worst-case scenario for Barr is that he opened a covert back channel to the administration and campaigned for the role of being Trump’s Roy Cohn. The best-case scenario is that he merely created the appearance of impropriety. Barr, in this scenario, merely happens to be a fanatical proponent of executive power who expresses his passion for the issue by writing long memos in his spare time. Somehow word of this memo never reached Trump, who then learned of the strange coincidence that Barr had endorsed the very theories that Trump was looking for in the candidate.

Assume for the moment that this latter scenario is true. The most optimistic reading of the Trump administration is that the system has held, and a coterie of professionals have curtailed Trump’s gross autocratic instincts. In this case, then, giving the highest law-enforcement job in the country to an extreme advocate of executive authority, who defends the president’s right to obstruct justice and to demand his own investigations as a matter of abstract ideology would be a grave risk.

Leave a Comment

Breitbart

Published  4 months ago

During Sunday’s “The Cats Roundtable” on New York AM 970, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich reacted to former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe revealing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein conducted a push to remove President Donald Trump from office.

Gingrich called the plot “one of the great scandals in American history.”

“[I]f you look at things like McCabe and this whole FBI thing, which is, I think, one of the great scandals in American history,” Gingrich argued to host John Catsimatidis. “The whole idea that your most important law enforcement institution had people who were actively plotting in effect to overturn the elected president of the United States. The more we hear from McCabe and Comey on this, the clearer it is that this was an agency that was so corrupt and so out of control that I think if Hillary Clinton had won, there is no telling what would have happened to our freedom.”

Gingrich added that his hope is new Attorney General William Barr will look into how the FBI treated Hillary Clinton and her staff.”

“I’m hoping that [Barr] is going to look very carefully at everything going back to 2015 and the whole treatment of the Clintons and the treatment of the Clintons’ staff,” he said. “I mean, all these different pieces out there, the more we learn about them the sicker they are. … If it is true, as McCabe and others suggest, that Rosenstein was involved in a serious conversation about whether or not to apply the amendment to take away the president’s authority, I don’t see any way you could avoid dismissing him.”

Rantt

Published  4 months ago

The Gateway Pundit

Published  4 months ago

FOX News legal expert and best-selling author Gregg Jarrett UNLOADED on the New York State acting Attorney General Robert Khuzami and the “snot-nosed kids” and “morons” who put together the nonsensical and flimsy accusations against Michael Cohen and targeting Donald Trump.

Gregg Jarrett went off on the novice leftists at the New York Attorney General’s office for not knowing the law and putting together such an amateurish legal document.

This was brutal!

Robert Khuzami, the “Acting” US Attorney, filed a sentencing memo claiming President Trump organized illegal payments. Khuzami doesn’t know the law. Non-disclosure contracts are legal in every state. It’s not an illegal campaign contribution. Not a crime. Khuzami is wrong.

Trump did not use campaign funds. A candidate may make unlimited contributions to his own campaign. Yet, Robert Khuzami convinced Cohen, a liar and tax cheat, to plead guilty to a non-crime. Khuzami wants to be the guy who brings down the President.

Look at the four attorneys who signed the Cohen sentencing memo under Robert Khuzami’s name. Griswold, Maimin, McKay and Roos. They’re all kids. No real experience. They don’t know anything about the law. They don’t understand the Federal Campaign Election Act.

Frankly, it should be against the law to allow a bunch of snot-nosed kids, fresh out of law school, to file a federal court document that contorts the law in a deliberate effort to implicate the President in wrongdoing. Did they even read the law? Comprehend it? Morons.

Robert Khuzami, the “Acting” US Attorney, filed a sentencing memo claiming President Trump organized illegal payments. Khuzami doesn’t know the law. Non-disclosure contracts are legal in every state. It’s not an illegal campaign contribution. Not a crime. Khuzami is wrong.

— Gregg Jarrett (@GreggJarrett) December 8, 2018

I’m hoping William Barr, an outstanding lawyer, will clean up the corruption at the Department of Injustice and FBI. Prosecute Comey, McCabe Strzok, Steele, Ohr, Simpson, and others. And fire Robert Khuzam, who is “acting” as a US Attorney.

— Gregg Jarrett (@GreggJarrett) December 8, 2018

Frankly, it should be against the law to allow a bunch of snot-nosed kids, fresh out of law school, to file a federal court document that contorts the law in a deliberate effort to implicate the President in wrongdoing. Did they even read the law? Comprehend it? Morons.

— Gregg Jarrett (@GreggJarrett) December 8, 2018

Gregg Jarrett has argued for months that using your own money and not campaign funds to pay off former lovers.

Jarrett told Hannity you can make unlimited contributions to his own campaign.

Fox News

Published  4 months ago

President Trump confirms he will nominate former Attorney General William Barr to return to the post and State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert to be the next ambassador to the United Nations. This is a developing story. Check back for

Breitbart

Published  4 months ago

President Donald Trump confirmed Friday that he will nominate William Barr as his new Attorney General.

Barr served as Attorney General during the George H.W. Bush administration from 1991-1993, unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate. He is currently an attorney for Washington, DC law firm Kirkland and Ellis.

“He was my first choice since day one,” Trump said, confirming the news to White House reporters as he left the White House for a trip to Missouri.

The Washington Post reported on Thursday that Barr was the top choice by members of the administration.

Barr wrote in a May 2017 op-ed that Trump was right to fire FBI Director James Comey, asserting that the former director “crossed a line” in the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

He also told the New York Times that there was justification for further investigation of Clinton’s role in approving the Uranium One sale to the Russians.

“To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility,” he was quoted in a November 14, 2017 article.

TheHill

Published  4 months ago

The Democrat poised to lead the House Judiciary Committee next year says he has no intention of continuing the GOP-led investigation into FBI and Justice Department decisionmaking during the 2016 election.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who stepped outside of the ongoing closed-door interview with former FBI Director James Comey, told reporters Friday that he plans to end the probe come January.

"Yes, because it is a waste of time to start with," Nadler said in response to a question about whether he would end the probe. Nadler characterized the Republican investigation as a political sideshow that aims to distract from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

"The entire purpose of this investigation is to be a diversion of the real investigation, which is Mueller. There is no evidence of bias at the FBI and this other nonsense they are talking about," he continued.

GOP lawmakers say they are seeking to unravel what they allege is evidence of political bias against President Trump by the top brass at the FBI and DOJ during the election.

Comey, the latest in a series of current and former FBI and DOJ witnesses Republicans wrangled to testify as part of the joint House Judiciary-Oversight investigation, has long been a target for his actions during the heated presidential race.

The former FBI chief and other top officials at the bureau came under heavy scrutiny earlier this year after a DOJ watchdog issued a scathing report about Comey and other officials' judgment during the heated presidential race in relation to the Clinton email investigation and the Russia probe.

GOP lawmakers are also seeking to interview former Attorney General Loretta Lynch before Democrats take hold of committee gavels, although the exact timing remains unclear, a committee aide told The Hill on Thursday.

Nadler also told reporters that, while he just learned about Trump's nomination of William Barr to serve as attorney general — a role Barr previously held under George H.W. Bush's administration — and while the confirmation process for Barr is still a ways off, he still has "lots of questions" for Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker.

"The real question now is Whitaker, [who] is still the acting attorney general," Nadler said.

The top Democrat pointed to critical remarks Whitaker made about Mueller's investigation before joining the DOJ, stating that he believes it is "unconstitutional" Whitaker could take the interim role without going through the Senate confirmation process.

Democrats have pushed for Whitaker, the top official overseeing Mueller's probe, to appear before Congress to testify about his remarks. And just last week, House Democrats announced that they have secured an interview with Whitaker for sometime in January.

Washington Examiner

Published  4 months ago

The House Intelligence Committee's top Republican, Rep. Devin Nunes, has a tall list of people he still wants to interview about the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton, and the Russian interference.

The list of 32 names has been submitted to the Democratic majority of the panel, and includes the likes of Sidney Blumenthal, a key Clinton ally, former Clinton adviser Jake Sullivan, and Robby Mook, Clinton's 2016 campaign chairman.

Nunes said Sunday it is imperative to speak with them because of their ties to the infamous Trump dossier, which contained compromising, yet unverified claims about President Trump's ties to Russia. Compiled in 2016, the research effort was conducted by ex-British spy Christopher Steele and was funded in part by Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

"Why would people in the Clinton campaign be tweeting out messages about [President] Trump's involvement with Russia? It's because they had the dossier," Nunes said during an interview on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures." "They were promoting this message, this dirt, out there in 2016, and we need to ask these Clinton campaign people where they got it from. Did they get it from Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS the dossier they were paying for or do they get it from some Russian friends?"

The list, which also includes Simpson, stems from an exhaustive roll of names Nunes sent to a GOP task force of the House Oversight and Judiciary Committee's last year, which included Clinton allies, current and former Justice Department and FBI officials connected to the Russia investigation, as well as people who served in the White House or State Department under the Obama administration. There were roughly 42 names in all.

"These names are all-important because we need to know if these people were involved in the chain of custody of the dossier," Nunes said. "The dossier makes claims that this information came from Russians, so all the names that are on this list that we didn't get to last year that still need to be interviewed if we're really looking for Russian collusion we need to know if any of those people were actually talking to Russians on behalf of the Clinton campaign or any other operative."

Nunes was doubtful that his list would make any headway with Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., in charge of the House Intelligence Committee, but suggested there were other ways to proceed with the investigation, even if it goes out of his hands.

"They claim they're going to give us witnesses so far they've given us zero witnesses," Nunes said of the Democrats. "If they continue not to give us any witnesses we will ask all of these people to voluntarily come into Congress to talk to us. If they won't come in, we will either do it through the courts or we will send it over to the Senate and hope that Lindsey Graham and his team get to bottom of it."

Fox Business's Maria Bartiromo, who was anchoring the show, noted that Graham, who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has indicated a willingness to help out the GOP minority in House in their investigative endeavors.

The list, provided to the Washington Examiner, also includes Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias, who represented the Clinton campaign and the DNC and took up funding anti-Trump research from Fusion GPS after the conservative publication the Washington Free Beacon withdrew its funding.

Nunes has also pinned high hopes on new 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 in terms of document requests.

Steele's dossier remains a leading issue for Republicans. Last year, Republicans from the House Intelligence Committee put together a memo that accused the FBI and the Justice Department of obtaining surveillance warrants to spy on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, by using the dossier, but failing to present key information, including its author's anti-Trump bias and Democratic benefactors, to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Democrats argued in a rebuttal memo that the FISA process was not abused and the GOP allegations are meant to discredit special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The dossier took a major credibility hit last week when former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified to the House Oversight Committee that one of its key assertions, that he took a trip to Europe ahead of the 2016 presidential campaign to talk with Russian officials, was untrue. "I've never been to Prague," Cohen said.

More revelations about the dossier are poised to be unveiled soon. Last week a a federal judge ruled depositions given by Steele and David Kramer, a longtime associate of John McCain, must be unsealed. The pair gave testimony in a lawsuit brought against BuzzFeed in December 2018 by a Russian Internet entrepreneur. BuzzFeed published the dossier in January 2017.

Fox News

Published  4 months ago

Following his confirmation last month, a representative for Attorney General William Barr on Monday said Barr would not be recusing himself from overseeing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing Russia probe.

“Following General Barr’s confirmation, senior career ethics officials advised that General Barr should not recuse himself from the Special Counsel’s investigation,” Kerri Kupec, the Director of the Office of Public Affairs at the Department of Justice, told Fox News in a statement.

“Consistent with that advice, General Barr has decided not to recuse.”

However, a senior DOJ official tells Fox News that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is still the primary liaison for Mueller's Office. Barr is ultimately in charge, but Rosenstein is still the primary liaison between the DOJ and Special Counsel Mueller's office.

During his confirmation process, Barr was repeatedly questioned about his handling of the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Democrats and many Republicans have said they believe that Mueller’s final report should be fully released. Barr has said that he will be as transparent as possible under Justice Department regulations, noting that regulations call for the report to be confidential, requiring only that the report explains the decisions to pursue or to decline prosecutions.

“I don’t know what—at the end of the day, what will be releasable. I don’t know what Bob Mueller is writing,” Barr said at his hearing.

Barr was sworn in on Feb. 14 as President Trump’s next attorney general following his confirmation by the Senate earlier in the day, placing him in charge of a Justice Department whose past officials have come under sharp criticism from the president over the ongoing Russia investigation Barr will now oversee.

Several Democrats joined nearly all the Republicans in confirming Barr, 68, a longtime lawyer who served as attorney general from 1991 to 1993 under the late President George H.W. Bush. He was confirmed 54-45.

President Trump's former AG, Jeff Sessions, resigned at the president's request after the November midterms. Trump had publically and privately lambasted Sessions over his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions had recused himself amid revelations he spoke twice with Russia’s ambassador and didn’t disclose it to Congress.

Following his resignation, the president then named Matthew Whitaker, who was chief of staff to Sessions, acting attorney general. Whitaker left the DOJ on Saturday.

Fox News’ John Roberts, Alex Pappas and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

American Greatness

Published  4 months ago

Post by @theamgreatness.

TheHill

Published  5 months ago

It's important to know whether FBI leaders met agency obligations under the Attorney General Guidelines in the Trump-Russia investigation.

American Greatness

Published  5 months ago

Fox News

Published  5 months ago

Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker stunned onlookers and lawmakers during an already-contentious House hearing Friday, when he tried to call time on the Democratic chairman after yet another line of questioning regarding Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe. 

The Savage Nation

Published  5 months ago

FOX NEWS:

CNN host Don Lemon is under fire after a disturbing, on-air rant in which he declared that “white men” are the biggest terror threat to the United States, noted that “there is no white-guy ban” and wondered aloud, “what do we do about that?”

“Cuomo Prime Time” namesake Chris Cuomo and Lemon were discussing the recent shooting of two black men in Kentucky that is being investigated as a hate crime when his Monday guest and colleague took the conversation off the rails.

“I keep trying to point out to people not to demonize any one group or any one ethnicity, but we keep thinking that the biggest terror threat is something else,” Lemon said. “Some people who are marching towards the border like it’s eminent. And the last time they did this, a couple of hundred people came and they, you know, most of them didn’t get into the country. Most of them got tuckered out before they even made it to the border,” Lemon told his CNN colleague. “So we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them.”

Lemon then pondered solutions as Cuomo– a privileged white male whose father was a Democratic Governor of New York — looked on.

“There is no travel ban on them,” Lemon said. “There is no ban on… you know, they had the Muslim ban. There is no ‘white guy ban.’ So what do we do about that?”

Cuomo responded by telling Lemon he was “making the right point.”

CNN – OWNED BY TURNER BROADCASTING – A DIVISION OF WARNER MEDIA

Molly Battin – Executive Vice President and Global Chief Communications and Corporate Marketing Officer, Turner

Peter Knag – Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Turner

Jeremy Legg – Chief Technology Officer, Turner

David Levy – President, Turner

Louise Sams – Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Turner

Angela Santone – Executive Vice President and Global Chief Human Resources Officer, Turner

Doug Shapiro – Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, Turner

Gerhard Zeiler – President, Turner International

Jeff Zucker – President, CNN Worldwide

TIME WARNER BOARD:

Jessica P. Einhorn, Robert Clark, Kenneth Novack, Deborah Wright, Richard Parsons, Jeff Bewkes, James Barksdale, Stephen Bollenbach, Paul Wachter, Fred Hassan, William Barr, Carlos Gutierrez, Mathias Dopfner

Washington Examiner

Published  6 months ago

The position of most Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill is that lawmakers are waiting until Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller delivers his report before considering whether to impeach President Trump. But what if Mueller does not accuse the president of wrongdoing, or at least impeachable wrongdoing? Would Democrats say, 'Never mind,' put away thoughts of impeachment, and move on to the next item on their agenda?

That seems unlikely. Many Democrats are deeply, emotionally committed to resisting Trump. Sixty-six House Democrats voted to allow impeachment articles to move forward a year ago. Now, with the House in Democratic hands, and after another year of media-hyped Trump-Russia allegations, there's no reason to believe Democrats would abandon the Russia issue regardless of what Mueller does.

In addition, some Democrats are warning that the public might not see all of Mueller's report. Justice Department rules don't require it, and attorney general nominee William Barr, in recent confirmation hearings, did not promise to release the whole thing.

So now there is talk about starting a new House Trump-Russia investigation that would essentially replicate what Mueller is doing now, but with the assurance that the proper (anti-Trump) result would be reached and that it could be used for impeachment purposes.

When Mueller poured water on the BuzzFeed report claiming that Trump directed fixer Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, pledged to take up where BuzzFeed left off, no matter what Mueller said.

"Are you still going to investigate the claims?" Schiff was asked on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"Absolutely, absolutely," Schiff said.

Later on the program, Schiff said that whatever Mueller does, Congress needs to do for itself. "We need to do our own investigations," he said, "because at the end of the day, if the Justice Department tries to stonewall the release of that report for whatever reason, the American people are going to need to know what happened, and we're going to have to press forth."

But it's not just a powerful House committee chairman talking about a parallel investigation. A few days ago, former CIA chief Michael Hayden and former solicitor general Neal Katyal took to the Washington Post to call for a new "investigation into whether impeachment is appropriate."

Hayden and Katyal suggested that Mueller might not be able to satisfactorily investigate the subject covered by the BuzzFeed report, that is, whether Trump directed Cohen to lie:

The recent statement by the special counsel's office disputing the BuzzFeed article itself highlights the need for a congressional investigation. The BuzzFeed article alleges that Trump ordered Cohen to lie to Congress. Congress of course is the entity with the most at stake when it comes to such a crime. No entity is better poised to find the truth and reveal the facts to the American people.

The president and his advisers have tried already to block the government from investigating these questions. They have criticized special counsel Robert S. Mueller III as engaged in a "witch hunt" and attacked Cohen as a "rat" and a liar. Trump's lawyers have threatened to assert executive privilege to block answers to Mueller's questions and threatened to block release of Mueller's report. A senator has indicated he won't pursue the interpreter's notes due to executive privilege. All of this points to a severe danger that, absent an investigation into impeachment, there will be no process to ferret out the truth and report it to the American people.

It is hard to understand what evidence Congress, which does not have law enforcement powers, could find that Mueller's office, which does have those powers, could not. Instead, it appears that the utility of a new congressional investigation would be that it would keep a Mueller-like probe going even if Mueller falls short.

Of course, House Democrats are already starting, or promising to start, all sorts of investigations into the president and his affairs. What seems different about the recent talk is that it envisions an investigation specifically designed to lead to impeachment — something Democrats thought Mueller was doing for them.

It is important in any discussion of the Trump-Russia matter to say that we do not know what Mueller will do. For all we know, he might be planning dramatic action in the next 24 hours, or he might be putting the finishing touches on an "anti-climactic" report.

The second possibility could leave Democrats in a very difficult position. Party leaders have invested a lot in their across-the-board opposition to the president. If Mueller does not come up with something that supports what Democratic lawmakers want to do, they will have to do it themselves.

Renewed Right

Published  7 months ago

Reports surfaced he would turn in his report next week.

But Robert Mueller was forced to admit a terrible truth that proved he lied.

In recent days, reports surfaced indicating Robert Mueller would submit his final report to Congress.

CNN broke this news.

But today, a top Justice Department official told Fox News that would not be the case.

The Daily Caller reports:

Special counsel Robert Mueller will not be delivered to the Justice Department next week, as CNN reported on Wednesday.

“Any reporting that Special Counsel Mueller’s report will be delivered to the Department of Justice next week are incorrect,” a senior Justice Department official told Fox News on Friday.

CNN reported Wednesday that Attorney General William Barr was preparing to receive the report next week.

The new statement does not indicate when the report will be released, but most observers believe the probe is near its end. CNN reported that prosecutors with the special counsel’s office have been spotted removing boxes of documents from their offices. The grand jury being used in the Mueller probe has also not met since Jan. 24, the same day that Trump confidant Roger Stone was indicted.

Fake news CNN is a Mueller-friendly outfit.

The story that Mueller was on the verge of finishing could only have leaked from his office.

Critics wonder if Mueller pulled back after his allies began to put the word out that Mueller’s report would be a dud and not include any evidence of collusion.

Did Mueller pop his own trial balloon to allow nervous liberals to regroup and continue to push the collusion hoax in the fake news media?

It sure looks that way.

We will keep you up-to-date on any new developments in this ongoing story.

Rantt

Published  9 months ago

We avoided another government shutdown this week but the slow-moving constitutional crisis that is Trump's presidency picked up speed.

AP News

Published  1 year ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump was in full deflection mode. The Democrats had blamed Russia for the hacking and release of damaging material on his presidential opponent, Hillary Clinton....

Sara A. Carter

Published  1 year ago

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch told Congressional lawmakers in closed door testimony that despite the DOJ having approved the FBI warrant and renewals to spy on Carter Page, she did not recall the applications, did not remember the details contained in the applications or the circumstances surrounding conversations about the warrant, according to testimony reviewed […]

The Gateway Pundit

Published  2 years ago

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Sean Hannity on Tuesday night to discuss the ongoing Congressional investigations of the 2016 presidential campaign. Nunes told Sean he will represent the evidence they have to the new Attorney General and expect several indictments. Rep. Devin Nunes: Look, we need the new Attorney General to get in there. And […]

Fox News

Published  2 years ago

The father of the Alabama woman begging to be let back into the U.S. after leaving years ago to join ISIS is now launching a legal campaign against President Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General William Barr.

Attorneys from the Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America have filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ahmed Ali Muthana arguing his daughter Hoda and her 18-month-old son should be allowed to return to America, and her citizenship – which the U.S. government disputes – should be recognized.

The suit also seeks a judgment that Muthana's father is “entitled to send his daughter money to ensure the survival of his daughter and grandson, and enable them safe passage home, without subjecting himself to criminal liability” under U.S. law.

Muthana currently is living at a refugee camp in northeast Syria and she "is willing to pay whatever debts she has to society” – even if it means serving a lengthy prison sentence, her family's lawyer told Fox News on Thursday.

ISIS WIFE BEGGING FOR US RETURN IS 'GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER TO GOD FOR HER DECISIONS', ATTORNEY SAYS

In 2015, Muthana allegedly operated a Twitter account that, on at least one occasion, tried to incite Americans to commit acts of violence on national holidays.

Pompeo though has said Muthana is not an American citizen and Trump has vowed not to let her back into the country.

“In Ms. Muthana’s words, she recognizes that she has ‘ruined’ her own life, but she does not want to ruin the life of her young child,” the attorneys who filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia told AL.com in a statement. “Citizenship is a core right under the Constitution, and once recognized should not be able to be unilaterally revoked by tweet—no matter how egregious the intervening conduct may be."

But Zuhdi Jasser, the Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy -- a group that describes itself as a “Muslim-led organization working on the front lines for reform at all levels of the Muslim community” -- told Fox News yesterday the government shouldn’t even bother with Muthana.

“She became, not only a terrorist, she became an enemy of our country and if she did believe in the citizenship oath…she abandoned it and actually violated it and became an enemy combatant,” he said on "America’s Newsroom."

www.theepochtimes.com

Published  7 years ago

Commentary What a difference a month makes. When Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker surprised the media at a ...

MAGA Daily Report

Published  8 years ago

Matt Whitaker took on the Democrats yesterday and turned in a performance for the ages. At times rude and belligerent and other times simply exasperated, he sparred with the Democrats and gave them the answers they did not want to hear.

Much will be made of how Whitaker fought back against the Dems with many thinking he went too far and was disrespectful.

But that just hides their disappointment with Whitaker’s answers. He blew a mile wide hole in CNN’s and the rest of the media’s phony narrative about Trump playing games with the Russia investigation behind the scenes.

CNN ran a report saying Trump lashed out at Whitaker over some actions taken by SDNY in the Cohen case among other dubious claims of Trump interfering in the investigations.

Other media outlets have claimed Trump and Whitaker have been conspiring behind the scenes. Unless Matt committed perjury yesterday, which would be dumb because there will be records inside the DOJ he Matt interfered, the narratives are false.

From Fox News: Democrats are acutely focused on Whitaker’s oversight of the Mueller probe, in his acting AG status while awaiting confirmation of President Trump’s attorney general pick William Barr.

“There has been no change in the overall management of the special counsel investigation,” Whitaker testified Friday, saying that he never offered any “promises or commitments” regarding the Mueller or any other investigation.

Nadler pressed Whitaker over whether he had shared information about the investigation with Trump, or any White House officials.

“I do not intend today to talk about my private conversations, but to answer your question, I did not talk to the president about the status of the investigation,” Whitaker answered. “Consistent with what I’ve already said, I have not talked about the special counsel’s investigation with any White House officials.”

From The Atlantic:

Trump has yet to comment on Whitaker’s performance. But there seemed to be little for him to complain about.

Whitaker told lawmakers that, despite a CNN report to the contrary, Trump had not “lashed out” about the investigation into his longtime personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

And in contrast to his testimony that he had not discussed the Mueller investigation with Trump, Whitaker dodged questions about whether he had discussed the Cohen probe with the president.

“As I’ve mentioned several times today, I’m not going to discuss my private conversations with the President,” he told Democratic Representative Val Demmings.

->