William Barr is in Deep Trouble

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF CNN)

 

William Barr is in deep trouble

(CNN)Attorney General William Barr did two strange things between the time he received special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and when he released it to Congress and the public.

The first came on March 24 when, two days after receiving the Mueller report, Barr released a four-page summary letter in which he made clear his conclusion that the report found no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians and that Mueller hadn’t made any recommendation as to whether President Donald Trump should be charged with obstructing justice.
 

THE POINT — NOW ON YOUTUBE!

In each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. Click to subscribe!

The second came on the morning of April 18 when Barr, with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein by his side, held a press conference to reiterate those findings — in remarkably Trumpian language — 90 minutes before actually making a redacted version of the report public.
On Tuesday night, those two moves came into far sharper — and more troubling — focus when it was revealed that Mueller sent a letter to Barr on March 27 expressing concern about the ways in which Barr’s summary document described the evidence surrounding obstructive behavior. Mueller did not make issue with any of the factual statements in Barr’s four-page letter but rather the lack of nuance on obstruction — and the resultant media coverage, according to CNN’s Laura Jarrett’s reporting.
That revelation creates a series of problems for Barr — most notably that he appeared to be, at best, misleading in his answers about Mueller’s feelings about his summary of the report.
On April 9, in a House hearing, Barr seemed entirely unaware of Mueller’s issues with his summary report. Here’s the key exchange between Barr and Florida Democratic Rep. Charlie Crist:
CRIST: Reports have emerged recently, general, that members of the special counsel’s team are frustrated at some level with the limited information included in your March 24 letter, that it does not adequately or accurately portray the report’s findings. Do you know what they are referencing with that?
BARR: No, I don’t.
In an April 10 appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee, this exchange happened between Barr and Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen:
VAN HOLLEN: Did — did Bob Mueller support your conclusion?
BARR: I don’t know whether Bob Mueller supported my conclusion.
What Barr quite clearly knew at that point — and had known for the better part of two weeks — was that Mueller had issues with the way in which he presented the conclusions of the report in the four-page letter.
Now, you can argue that Barr technically didn’t lie there. He knew that Mueller wasn’t thrilled with the way he summarized the broader report but that didn’t mean that Mueller opposed the conclusions. Again, that is technically possible. But, in the real world, it sure as hell seems like Barr was purposely obfuscating when it came to Mueller’s view of the report so as to downplay any sense that a) he didn’t present a full picture of the report and b) there was any rift between the two men.
And, given all of what he knew about Mueller’s opinion of his summary letter, Barr’s decision to hold a press conference more than an hour before the release of the actual report is even more concerning.
At the time — even without the knowledge we now possess about the Mueller letter of March 27 — it seemed odd. The attorney general holding a press conference about a report that he had seen but no one in the media had been given — and wouldn’t be for another 90 minutes? It seemed, even before Barr began speaking, to be a relatively transparent attempt by the AG to frame the soon-arriving Mueller report — to set the terms of the conversation for both Congress and the American public.
Within minutes, it became clear that was exactly Barr’s intent. Here’s just a piece of what Barr said that day:
“So that is the bottom line. After nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the special counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes.”
As I noted at the time, Barr’s language was strikingly similar to how Trump himself had long described the Mueller probe. But, that language from Barr seems far more damning for the attorney general in light of what he knew about both the repeated incidents of seemingly obstructive behavior in the Mueller report and also Mueller’s own concerns about the language Barr had used to describe the finding in his March 24 summary letter.
Barr is set to sit to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He’s got a lot to answer for.

President Trump: Is He The Most Clueless Ignorant Fool To Ever Set Foot In The White House?

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)

President Trump suggests anti-Semitic threats across U.S. are coming from within Jewish community

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said that the President suggested that threats were coming from within the Jewish community.

(OLIVIER DOULIERY / POOL/EPA)

President Trump appeared to suggest Tuesday that the wave of bomb threats against Jewish community centers across the U.S. could be coming from within the Jewish community itself, according to a Pennsylvania state lawmaker present for the comments.Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who was part of a group of state attorneys general meeting with Trump at the White House Tuesday, relayed Trump’s comments about the bomb threats to Buzzfeed News, explaining that the commander-in-chief seemed to indicate he felt some of the threats were being made from the inside, as part of a potential effort “to make others look bad.””He just said, ‘sometimes it’s the reverse, to make people, or to make others, look bad,'” Shapiro, a Democrat, said, repeating Trump’s alleged response to questions during the meeting about the large number of bomb threats against Jewish community centers in recent months.”It didn’t make a whole lot of sense to me,” Shapiro said of Trump’s remarks.

Bomb threats again reported at Jewish centers, including New York

Shapiro claimed Trump used the word “reverse,” “two or three times,” adding that Trump also called the threats “reprehensible” toward the beginning of his remarks.

Trump also said he would address the bomb threats during his speech Tuesday night before the joint session of Congress, according to Shapiro.

The White House disputed Shapiro’s description of Trump’s comments.

“This is not what he said or meant,” a White House spokesperson told the Daily News in an email.

Pence visits vandalized Jewish cemetery, decries anti-Semitism

“He means (he) was referring to protesters,” the spokesperson added.

Trump’s latest comments came one day after yet another wave of bomb threats hit Jewish community centers across America, including one in Staten Island.

Jewish centers in at least nine states faced threats throughout Monday morning and afternoon, causing closures and evacuations, but there were no actual attacks.

The targeted locations included three New York centers — in Staten Island, Tarrytown and New Rochelle, according to officials and center representatives. Bomb threats also came in for centers in Cherry Hill, N.J.; Providence, R.I.; Asheville, N.C.; Mobile, Ala.; Harrisburg, Pa.; Ann Arbor, Mich.; Talleyville, Del.; and Indianapolis, Ind., according to local reports.

Jewish community centers receive fourth wave of bomb threats

A spokesman for Trump, who has been criticized for not speaking out more quickly and forcefully, condemned the threats Monday afternoon.

“The President continues to condemn these, and other forms of anti-Semitic and hateful acts in the strongest terms,” said White House spokesman Sean Spicer. “No one in America should be afraid to follow the religion of their choosing freely.”

The latest calls, however, come amid another trend of anti-Semitic vandalism nationwide: In the past week, dozens of headstones at Jewish cemeteries in Philadelphia and St. Louis were vandalized. Residents in Miami Beach, Fla. on Sunday reported finding swastikas carved onto their cars.

Trump, for his part, has faced scathing criticism for having not responded earlier and more forcefully to the increasing threats.

President Trump finally denounces anti-Semitism

And Trump’s latest comments prompted another round of backlash.

Vandals pushed gravestones on their bases at Jewish cemetery in Philadelphia.

Vandals pushed gravestones on their bases at Jewish cemetery in Philadelphia.

(TOM MIHALEK/REUTERS)

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told the Daily News that Trump’s remarks were “an absurd and obscene statement,” while the Anti-Defamation League said it was “astonished.”

“It is incumbent upon the White House to immediately clarify these remarks,” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement. “In light of the ongoing attacks on the Jewish community, it is also incumbent upon the President to lay out in his speech tonight his plans for what the federal government will do to address this rash of anti-Semitic incidents.”

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman tweeted he was, “sadly not surprised – but certainly disturbed – by Pres.Trump’s apparent claim that threats against Jews are false flags.”

Trump acknowledging rampant anti-Semitism won’t make it disappear

“If the reports are true, President Trump has gone over the Anti-Semitic deep end,” Steven Goldstein, the executive director of the Anne Frank Center, said in a statement.”

“Mr. President, have you no decency? To cast doubt on the authenticity of Anti-Semitic hate crimes in America constitutes Anti-Semitism in itself, and that’s something none of us ever dreamed would disgrace our nation from the White House,” Goldstein added. “If the reports are true, you owe the American Jewish community an apology.”

Members of Trump’s inner circle have also faced similar criticism.

Earlier Tuesday, a former Trump campaign adviser, Anthony Scaramucci, posted an ambiguous screed to his Twitter wall that appeared to connect the recent bomb threats to Democratic lawmakers.

“It’s not yet clear who the #JCC offenders are. Don’t forget @TheDemocrats effort to incite violence at Trump rallies,” Scaramucci tweeted, along with a link to a story from alt-new site Breitbart alleging that Democrats had hired “trained provocateurs to instigate violence at Republican events” during the 2016 campaign.

Tags:
DONALD TRUMP
DONALD TRUMP FIRST 100 DAYS
PENNSYLVANIA

Britain’s top court hears case that could delay European Union exit

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE SHANGHAI DAILY NEWS)

Britain’s top court hears case that could delay European Union exit

BRITAIN’S Supreme Court yesterday began a historic hearing to decide whether parliament has to approve the government’s Brexit negotiations, in a highly charged case that could delay the country’s EU exit.

For the first time, all 11 Supreme Court judges convened to hear a challenge by the government against a ruling that Prime Minister Theresa May must seek lawmakers’ approval before starting the process to leave the European Union.

The High Court ruled last month that the government did not have the executive power alone to invoke Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, formally starting exit talks which could take two years.

The decision enraged Brexit supporters and some newspapers who accused judges of thwarting the will of the 52 percent who voted “Leave” in the June 23 referendum.

The vote for Britain to become the first country to leave the 28-nation bloc sent shockwaves across the world and emboldened populists in Europe and the United States.

Supreme Court President David Neuberger said people involved in the case had received threats and abuse and stressed that the judges would rule without any political bias after criticism from Brexit backers.

A parliamentary vote on Article 50 could open the door to pro-EU lawmakers delaying or softening Britain’s withdrawal from the bloc.

Neuberger said the judges were “aware of the strong feelings” surrounding Brexit but “those wider political questions are not the subject of this appeal.”

He told the court: “This appeal is concerned with legal issues, and, as judges, our duty is to consider those issues impartially, and to decide the case according to the law. That is what we shall do.”

He said some parties involved in the case had received threats of “serious violence and unpleasant abuse,” warning that there were “legal powers” to deal with such threats.

Attorney General Jeremy Wright, the government’s chief legal adviser, outlined the government’s case at the start of the four-day, live-broadcast hearing, with a judgment expected in January.

In his opening statement, he said there was a “universal expectation” that the government would implement the referendum result.

He argued that the government had constitutional authority over foreign affairs, including the right to withdraw from treaties, under so-called “royal prerogative powers.”

The royal prerogative is “not an ancient relic but a contemporary necessity,” he said.

If it loses, the government is expected to introduce a short bill — reportedly comprising just three lines of text — which it will then seek to push rapidly through parliament to authorize the triggering of Article 50.

May, who became prime minister after the Brexit vote, has insisted a parliamentary vote on the legislation would not disrupt her plans to trigger Article 50 by the end of March.

However, the opposition Labour Party delivered a blow to the government on Saturday when it announced it would seek to amend any bill, potentially delaying the process.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the amendment would ensure Britain retains access to the European single market and protect workers’ and environmental rights.

May faces a further potential complication from representatives of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland who will argue Article 50 also needs to be approved by the UK’s devolved parliaments.

FBI Director Comey Had His Integrity, Then Lost It, Regained It, Now He Lost It Again!

 

I honestly believe it is simply a case of the Director of the FBI whom was appointed by President Obama and the Attorney General Loretta Lynch who owed her job to Bill Clinton first, then to President Obama threatened him (Director Comey) with more than just his job. Director Comey’s two Supervisors that he has to answer to are first the Attorney General and second he has to answer to the sitting President (Mr. Obama) Ms. Lynch who owes the Clinton’s big time whom met illegally on her private plane with former President Clinton on 6-27-16. Then on 7-1-16 she declared that she would fully except the recommendation of the FBI. Then on 7-6-16 she declared the case closed. Basically all of the career FBI Supervisors just below the Director were/are very upset at the Director for ‘playing politics’, they want/wanted Hillary indited. The Director of the FBI, Mr. Comey has been forced to kiss the ring and the asses of his two Superiors, Lynch and President Obama. When the Department of Justice (what a joke the Clinton’s and President Obama have made of that title) and the FBI are made nothing but a political play things, the American people are the losers in every respect. Big business (like the Clinton Foundation) buys the politicians, the people and Our Constitution are defecated upon as they are laughing in our face.

Clinton And Her Campaign Managers Are Only Private Citizens: Who Do They Think They Are Telling The Director Of The FBI What To Do?

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF CNN)

Clinton chairman turns up heat on FBI

  • John Podesta appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union”
  • The Clinton campaign boss called the FBI chief’s conduct “inappropriate”

Washington (CNN)John Podesta is turning up the heat on FBI Director James Comey to release more details about the bureau’s review of new emails possibly tied to Hillary Clinton’s private server.

In an interview Sunday with CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union,” the Clinton campaign chairman complained the FBI should have investigated enough to know exactly what it was dealing with before announcing the review.
“He might have taken the first step of actually having looked at them before he did this in the middle of a presidential campaign, so close to the voting,” Podesta said.
Comey’s Friday notification to Congress of the review is rocking the final days of the presidential race. Democrats are furious that Comey would revive the explosive issue of Clinton’s email server so close to the election. Donald Trump, meanwhile, is seizing on the review after spending weeks on the defense, hoping it will be a potent issue he can ride until the end of the contest.
“This is something that has been tossed into the middle of the campaign. We would have preferred that not happen, but now that it has happened, we would prefer that Mr. Comey come forward and explain why he took that unprecedented step,” Podesta said.

who’s winning?

CNN poll of polls
Hillary Clinton headshot photo
49%
clinton
Donald Trump headshot photo
44%
trump
Gary Johnson headshot photo
3%
johnson
Jill Stein headshot photo
2%
stein
The campaign chairman called Comey’s handling of the matter “inappropriate.”
Podesta asked if, just days from the election, Comey’s revelation is “something you toss on the table, or do you take the time and do what other prosecutors have done in the past and make sure it’s so significant that you have to go forward with it?”
On Saturday, CNN’s Evan Perez reported that Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates disagreed with Comey’s decision to notify Congress about the bureau’s review of emails found on at least device of Huma Abedin, a top aide to Clinton, according to law enforcement officials familiar with the discussion.
But Comey decided to disregard that warning and went ahead and sent the letter to Congress. Comey’s decision to send the letter angered his superiors at the Justice Department, but officials acknowledge there is little they can do given the fallout of the Attorney General’s meeting with Bill Clinton on the Arizona tarmac this past summer.
On Sunday, CNN reported that the Justice Department and Abedin’s lawyers are in talks to permit a full review of the emails.
Podesta also told Tapper that Clinton has learned from her use of a private email server at the State Department.
“I think she obviously would like to take that decision back, but she’s learned from it,” he said.
Podesta defended long-time top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, the estranged wife of Anthony Weiner — the disgraced former congressman whose lewd texts with a 15-year-old girl are under FBI investigation, and whose computer contained the emails that Comey is reviewing.
“I think it’s clear that she (Abedin) complied to the best of her abilities, turned everything over that she had in her possession. I don’t know anything more than the speculation that’s running wild in the press now what this is about,” Podesta said.
He said that Abedin, who was not traveling with Clinton yesterday, is still serving in her same role on the campaign.
Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway continued the campaign’s criticism of Comey for refusing to recommend criminal charges against Clinton in July, pointing to his “unprecedented statement to the world on July 25 where he was leading up to a conclusion that was different from the one that he announced.”
“I guess he was trying to clear his own conscience,” she said of his latest step.
Still, she praised Comey’s decision to announce the FBI is reviewing newly discovered emails possibly tied to Clinton’s server.
“Hillary Clinton flouted the law and set up a private server so she could hide stuff from the public,” Conway said.

Should FBI Director James Comey Be Indited For Fraud Because Of His Clinton “Investigation?”

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE NEW YORK POST)

 (SHOULD BOTH THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BE INVESTIGATED FOR ILLEGAL ACTIONS CONCERNING THE “COZY” INVESTIGATIONS INTO HILLARY AND BILL CLINTON?)

FBI agents are ready to revolt over the cozy Clinton probe

Veteran FBI agents say FBI Director James Comey has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his “cowardly” whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server.

Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, “So if I blew it, they blew it, too.”

But agents say Comey tied investigators’ hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.

“In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews,” said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit.

Instead of going to prosecutors and insisting on using grand jury leverage to compel testimony and seize evidence, Comey allowed immunity for several key witnesses, including potential targets.

The immunity agreements came with outrageous side deals, including preventing agents from searching for any documents on a Dell laptop owned by former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills generated after Jan. 31, 2015, when she communicated with the server administrator who destroyed subpoenaed emails.

Comey also agreed to have Mills’ laptop destroyed after the restricted search, denying Congress the chance to look at it and making the FBI an accomplice to the destruction of evidence.

Comey’s immunized witnesses nonetheless suffered chronic lapses in memory, made unsubstantiated claims of attorney-client privilege upon tougher questioning and at least two gave demonstrably false statements. And yet Comey indulged it all.

What’s more, Comey cut a deal to give Clinton a “voluntary” witness interview on a major holiday, and even let her ex-chief of staff sit in on the interview as a lawyer, even though she, too, was under investigation.

Clinton’s interview, the culmination of a yearlong investigation, lasted just 3½ hours. Despite some 40 bouts of amnesia, she wasn’t called back for questioning; and three days later, Comey cleared her of criminal wrongdoing.

“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time,” Hughes said. “I hold Director Comey responsible.”

Agreed retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello: “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”

The accommodations afforded Clinton and her aides are “unprecedented,” Biasello added, “which is another way of saying this outcome was by design.” He called Comey’s decision not to seek charges “cowardly.”

“Each month for 27 years, I received oral and computer admonishment concerning the proper protocol for handling top-secret and other classified material, and was informed of the harsh penalties, to include prosecution and incarceration,” for mishandling such material, he pointed out. “Had myself or my colleagues engaged in behavior of the magnitude of Hillary Clinton, as described by Comey, we would be serving time in Leavenworth.”

Former FBI official I.C. Smith knows a thing or two about Clinton corruption. After working at FBI headquarters as a section chief in the National Security Division, he retired as special agent in charge of the Little Rock, Ark., field office, where he investigated top Clinton fundraisers for public corruption and even Chinese espionage.

“FBI agents upset with Comey’s decision have every reason to feel that way,” Smith said. “Clearly there was a different standard applied to Clinton.”

“I have no doubt resourceful prosecutors and FBI agents could have come up with some charge that she would have been subject to prosecution,” the 25-year veteran added. “What she did is absolutely abhorrent for anyone who has access to classified information.”

Smith said Congress should subpoena the case’s agents to testify about the direction they received from Comey and their supervisors: “It would be interesting to see what the results would be if those involved with the investigation were questioned under oath.”

Comey made the 25 agents who worked on the case sign nondisclosure agreements. But others say morale has sunk inside the bureau.

“The director is giving the bureau a bad rap with all the gaps in the investigation,” one agent in the Washington field office said. “There’s a perception that the FBI has been politicized and let down the country.”

Comey has turned a once-proud institution known for its independence into one that bows to election pressure, hands out political immunity to candidates and effectively pardons their co-conspirators. He’s turned the FBI into the Federal Bureau of Immunity and lost the trust and respect of not only his agents but the country at large. He ought to step down.

 Paul Sperry, formerly Washington bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, is the author of “Infiltration.”
FILED UNDER OMEY

CHEROKEE NATION HOSTS SECOND ANNUAL ELDER’S SUMMIT

(This article is courtesy of the Native News On Line)

CHEROKEE NATION HOSTS SECOND ANNUAL ELDER’S SUMMIT

Hundreds of Cherokee elders attended the first-ever Cherokee Nation Elder’s Summit in 2015. With that success, the tribe expanded the second annual Cherokee Nation Elder’s Summit to two locations, Tahlequah and Vinita.

Hundreds of Cherokee elders attended the first-ever Cherokee Nation Elder’s Summit in 2015. With that success, the tribe expanded the second annual Cherokee Nation Elder’s Summit to two locations, Tahlequah and Vinita.

Published September 19, 2016

TAHLEQUAH — Cherokee elders across the tribe’s 14-county jurisdiction are invited to the second annual Cherokee Nation Elder’s Summit. This year’s summit is being held in two locations, Vinita and Tahlequah, in order to reach more elders.

The Elder’s Summit in Vinita will be hosted at the Vinita Health Center on Tuesday, September 27, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., with the summit in Tahlequah being hosted at the Tahlequah Armory Municipal Center on Thursday, September 29, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Last year’s summit marked the launch of the tribe’s Elder Fraud Protection Initiative. Led by Cherokee Nation Deputy Chief S. Joe Crittenden, the Cherokee Nation administration, Attorney General’s office and Marshal Service joined forces, seeking to put an end to the growing problem of elder abuse. The coalition continues to collaborate with state and local agencies to prevent elder abuse and prosecute individuals who financially exploit or otherwise abuse Cherokee elders.

“It’s our responsibly to ensure our most valuable, and in many cases our most vulnerable, citizens remain safe from abuse, whether it’s physical or financial or emotional. Our elders should be respected and appreciated for their experience and cultural knowledge. That has always been an important Cherokee value,” said Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. “We started this awareness and education initiative last year and continue to add more content to better connect Cherokee senior citizens with programs and services that can help them the most.”

Various booths will be set up at the summit locations, offering information on how to spot and report elder abuse and resources if one is a victim. Elder abuse has reached epidemic proportions in Oklahoma. In 2012, Oklahoma Adult Protective Services received nearly 19,000 reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation of seniors. Often elders experiencing abuse or exploitation don’t know where to turn or how to seek help.