web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Jim Jordan

Comey Believes An Apology Is Owed; Too Bad Trump Can’t Fire Him Again

Westlake Legal Group obama-comey-620x413 Comey Believes An Apology Is Owed; Too Bad Trump Can’t Fire Him Again Special Counsel Sean Hannity President Trump Mueller Investigation Kimberley Strassel Jim Jordan james comey Glenn Greenwald Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump democrats Dan Bongino byron york buck sexton Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020

On Oct. 28, 2013, President Barack Obama and James Comey participate in the installation ceremony for Mr. Comey as FBI director at the bureau’s Washington headquarters. PHOTO: CHARLES DHARAPAK/ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

Fired, disgraced former FBI Director James Comey sure has chutzpah. He has mistaken Attorney General William Barr’s decision not to prosecute him for vindication. Following Thursday’s release of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’ surprise report which focused specifically on Comey, he feels that an apology is owed. Here is what he had to say:

Far from exonerating Comey, the report found that he had engaged in a great deal of wrongdoing. My colleague, Bonchie, posted the details of Comey’s January 6, 2017 briefing of President-elect Trump, which was “almost certainly a trap” here.

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York explained that “the group’s plan was to spring a scandalous allegation on President-elect Trump, quickly record his reaction, use a prearranged secure videoconference to discuss the information, and fit it all into the FBI’s ongoing (but unknown to Trump) “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation.” Read the whole article.

To me, their behavior sounds treasonous. The group’s actions were premeditated, disingenuous and subversive.

Additionally, the January briefing was not Comey’s only offense. The report discusses his mishandling of classified information, the leaked memos, his frequent leaks of other material and further violations of DOJ and FBI policies. The report says that Comey set “a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees.” It states:

Former Director Comey failed to live up to this responsibility. By not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment, and by using it to create public pressure for official action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees […] Were current or former FBI employees to follow the former Director’s example and disclose sensitive information in service of their own strongly held personal convictions, the FBI would be unable to dispatch its law enforcement duties properly.

More importantly is that the findings in this report are expected to pale in comparison to what is uncovered by the other two reports we’ve been waiting for. Sean Hannity called Thursday’s report the “tip of the iceberg” which is why the DOJ declined to prosecute.

The reports to follow, the IG’s main report on FISA abuse by the FBI and John Durham’s report on the origin of the Trump/Russia investigation, will provide a treasure trove of information. Hannity said that Comey will be playing a starring role in the FBI’s FISA court application process because he signed off on three of them. He speculated that Comey could be charged with premeditated fraud. Hannity told viewers:

The Durham report will dig into how the government’s powerful tools of intelligence were used and abused against President Trump’s campaign and then President Trump. And also, in fact, whether or not illegal spying occurred, the outsourcing of intelligence gathering to friendly countries like Italy, Great Britain and Australia, all designed to circumvent US laws against spying on Americans without a warrant for the purpose of destroying a duly elected president. That will be a bombshell. James Comey is also implicated in that particular case. We also wait to see what roles James Clapper and John Brennan played in all this.

All of this is to say that the misguided former FBI Director is claiming victory way too soon because it appears that he remains very much in legal jeopardy. The worst is yet to come.

Many in the political world were stunned by Comey’s tone deafness. Here are some of the reactions to his bizarre request for an apology.

The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel: “A curious request given the report’s bottom line was in fact this: “We conclude that Comey’s retention, handling, and dissemination of certain Memos violated Department and FBI policies, and his FBI Employment Agreement.”

Journalist Glenn Greenwald: “Holy shit: the arrogance and self-regard of @Comey is unparalleled. The Inspector General from his own Department just issued a scathing report accusing him of wrongdoing so severe that it “shocked” his own colleagues & he’s demanding apologies instead of expressing contrition.”

Television host and author Dan Bongino: “Comey celebrating a report, which clearly lays out his ethical depravity and disregard for the rules of his employment, is the Comiest Comey thing ever. What a clown this guy is.”

Radio host Buck Sexton: “So James Comey was – it’s official now – a sanctimonious, self-righteous bureaucrat who believed in holding other people to standards that he himself was free to break when he saw fit. This should surprise no one.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH): “Now we know why Comey didn’t want to prosecute Clinton—he didn’t see a problem mishandling sensitive information. After clearing her, he did it too!…Comey, like Clinton, thinks he’s above the law.”

And, of course, President Trump: “Perhaps never in the history of our Country has someone been more thoroughly disgraced and excoriated than James Comey in the just released Inspector General’s Report. He should be ashamed of himself!”

Too bad Trump can’t fire him again.

The post Comey Believes An Apology Is Owed; Too Bad Trump Can’t Fire Him Again appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group obama-comey-300x200 Comey Believes An Apology Is Owed; Too Bad Trump Can’t Fire Him Again Special Counsel Sean Hannity President Trump Mueller Investigation Kimberley Strassel Jim Jordan james comey Glenn Greenwald Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump democrats Dan Bongino byron york buck sexton Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

RCI: Russiagate hinges on Mifsud — and the mystery of why Mueller didn’t pursue him

Westlake Legal Group mifsud-valdai RCI: Russiagate hinges on Mifsud — and the mystery of why Mueller didn’t pursue him The Blog russiagate Robert Mueller obstruction of justice joseph mifsud Jim Jordan george papadopoulos

Who exactly is Joseph Mifsud, and what prompted his approach to George Papadopoulos in early 2016? The centrality of Mifsud to “Russiagate” and the mysterious lack of follow-up in Robert Mueller’s investigation remains the key unanswered question of the scandal, Eric Felten argues at RealClearInvestigations today.

Before we go there, let’s recall this exchange in the Mueller hearings in which Rep. Jim Jordan made the investigation’s strange pass on Mifsud a major story. Mueller’s team indicted Russian intelligence operatives for their interference operations and several Trump-world figures for lying to investigators, but Mifsud had done both — and never got named in any indictment. Jordan tried to get an answer from Mueller as to why, but Mueller refused to say:

Felten explains why this has become a big issue with Republicans, who are skeptical that the Mueller team investigated the full scope of Russian interference:

It was Mifsud, the report alleges, who took a trip to Moscow, and on his return “told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.”

Not so, said Mifsud in February 2017 when FBI agents interviewed him in the lobby of a Washington hotel. As Mueller recounted it in his report, Mifsud “denied that he had advance knowledge that Russia was in possession of emails damaging to candidate Clinton, stating that he and Papadopoulos had discussed cybersecurity and hacking as a larger issue and that Papadopoulos must have misunderstood their conversation.” The special counsel blamed Papadopoulos’ dissembling for disabling the FBI agents’ ability to get the goods on Mifsud: “The false information and omissions in Papadopoulos’s January 2017 interview undermined investigators’ ability to challenge Mifsud when he made these inaccurate statements.”

Maybe Mifsud was telling the truth. After all, the evidence to the contrary is supplied by someone who has done (a very little) time in jail for telling federal officials falsehoods. Which would at least explain why the special counsel did so little to pursue the professor. Having wrung a confession out of Papadopoulos for false statements about Mifsud, the special counsel’s team may have anticipated the difficulty they would face basing accusations against Mifsud on Papadopoulos’ say-so.

But it is another hypothesis altogether that is gaining traction with Republican lawmakers: the notion that the professor was indeed an intelligence asset, just not for Russia. “Joseph Mifsud is the key figure in the FBI’s opening of the official investigation of the Trump campaign, yet no one knows who he was working for,” Devin Nunes tells RealClearInvestigations.

Even though Mifsud is portrayed as the original contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and key to the alleged reason the FBI took the rare and controversial step of opening a counterintelligence probe against a presidential campaign, Nunes says the FBI and the special counsel were strangely blasé about the professor. “Mifsud has contacts throughout western governments, none of whom seem concerned that they’ve been compromised by a Russian agent.”

Part of Nunes’ rationale for speculating that Mifsud was an American intel asset was because of his links to Western institutions. It seems more likely that such connections would make Mifsud more valuable to Moscow rather than the CIA. It’s also possible that Mifsud worked both sides of the street, or neither at all. However, if Mifsud was indeed a US intel asset, then Congress will need to find out who ordered him to bait Papadopoulos, and why. That’s why Republicans want to know about Mifsud, because it might point back to a political-hit operation that would make Watergate pale in comparison.

At the moment, the prospects for getting an answer to the question seem poor. Michael Horowitz’ inspector-general investigation into the beginnings of Operation Crossfire Hurricane will get released soon, perhaps in September, but Horowitz’ scope is the Department of Justice. The CIA would be beyond his purview, which means he’d only be able to determine what the FBI knew about Mifsud, if much of anything.

Appointing John Ratcliffe as director of national intelligence might uncork more, but if there is more, why isn’t CIA director Gina Haspel providing it? Mifsud’s name and picture are all over the place, so it’s not as if he can operate as an active asset now, if indeed he ever was one in the first place. As president, Trump can choose to declassify anything he likes (although with some potential for drastic consequences). Jim Jordan shouldn’t have to be berating Mueller about Mifsud; if there’s something besides smoke there, Trump and his team can provide it.

The best guess for why Mifsud hasn’t been fully explained is because he’s just not fully explainable. The lack of charges against him should be explained, however, because it certainly leaves the impression that the special counsel was playing favorites with obstructors.

The post RCI: Russiagate hinges on Mifsud — and the mystery of why Mueller didn’t pursue him appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group mifsud-valdai-300x173 RCI: Russiagate hinges on Mifsud — and the mystery of why Mueller didn’t pursue him The Blog russiagate Robert Mueller obstruction of justice joseph mifsud Jim Jordan george papadopoulos   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Jim Jordan Fillets Mueller on Joseph Mifsud Not Being Charged, Exposes Serious Credibility Issues With the Probe

Westlake Legal Group mueller-house-hearing-2-620x317 Jim Jordan Fillets Mueller on Joseph Mifsud Not Being Charged, Exposes Serious Credibility Issues With the Probe rule of law Robert Mueller republicans Politics obfuscation Nonsensical Mueller report Mueller Hearing Lying to the FBI joseph mifsud Jim Jordan Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story double standards donald trump democrats

Former special counsel Robert Mueller, is sworn in before he testifies before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on his report on Russian election interference, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, Wednesday, July 24, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Today’s hearings have been an absolute disaster for Robert Mueller’s reputation and the Democrat narrative push toward impeachment. Seriously, look up the word disaster in the dictionary, and you’ll see a snapshot from today of Mueller sitting barely lucid before Congress. He couldn’t remember basic details, stammered constantly, and he obviously has no idea what is even in the actual report, that being the report he supposedly wrote.

There are going to be a lot of viral moments from the proceedings, almost all of them dealing with Mueller looking clueless or making nonsensical statements.

One of the major issues brought up today dealt with Joseph Mifsud. If you don’t know who that is, he’s the “informant” that claimed to have Hillary’s emails and appears to have purposely sought out George Papadopoulos to plant that seed. Mifsud also lied to the FBI three times during the course of the investigation.

Given that Mueller had no qualms with charging multiple people with lying to investigators, the natural question is why Mifsud was let off the hook. Rep. Jim Jordan asks that question and absolutely fillets Mueller’s nonsensical and obfuscating response.

Mueller hides behind privilege, claiming he can’t discuss charging decisions, which is absolutely ridiculous. The entire Mueller report is a discussion of charging decisions. Why is Mifsud special? Why was Michael Flynn’s life destroyed over a white lie dealing with something completely mundane, but Joseph Mifsud can lie to the FBI three times and not even be brought in for further questioning?

The answer is simple. Joseph Mifsud wasn’t connected to Donald Trump.

When you go through the Mueller report and who was charged, one thing is clear. Robert Mueller and his team purposely chose to ignore criminality by various actors and only focused on people in Trump’s orbit. That means they give a sweetheart deal to a Ukrainian Oligarch instead of charging him. That means they let a pedophile leave the country and remain uncharged for years because they thought he had dirt on Trump. It means they don’t even interview Christopher Steele after it was known he lied to the FBI. Fusion GPS’s founder, Glenn Simpson, escaped scrutiny as well. This despite him being at the very center of the Trump Tower meeting. In fact, Mueller claimed to not even know what Fusion GPS was.

Despite all of this, we still have some “Republicans” making excuses for this nonsense because they’ve put so much of their own credibility into backing Mueller.

Joseph Mifsud was not a “fruitful foreign intelligence source.” He was a liar who’s actions started an investigation into what turned out to be disgusting smear. It takes an otherworldly level of obtuseness to hand wave away Mifsud’s actions in such a way, but Rothman manages to reach that level. It’s also ironic to see so many “rule of law” conservatives suddenly decide that if you are a “foreign intelligence source” that said laws don’t apply anymore and we should just trust the bureaucracies to make those decisions.

This investigation was a partisan farce and it’s been exposed as such today. Mueller was simply a figurehead. He didn’t write his own report and that’s painfully obvious. He let a group of partisan Democrat boosters like Andrew Weissmann run wild and simply rubber stamped their work. Meanwhile, blatant criminality by people like Steele, Mifsud, and Podesta was completely ignored and covered up with ridiculous claims that they were outside of Mueller’s purview.

Now, we are left to hope the Barr-Durham investigation sheds some light on the misconduct that took place during this entire ordeal. I sincerely hope Barr realizes how important his work is and how reaching conclusions in a timely manner, before the next election, is paramount to rebuilding some kind of public trust after this dumpster fire we witnessed today.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

 

The post Jim Jordan Fillets Mueller on Joseph Mifsud Not Being Charged, Exposes Serious Credibility Issues With the Probe appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-12-300x165 Jim Jordan Fillets Mueller on Joseph Mifsud Not Being Charged, Exposes Serious Credibility Issues With the Probe rule of law Robert Mueller republicans Politics obfuscation Nonsensical Mueller report Mueller Hearing Lying to the FBI joseph mifsud Jim Jordan Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story double standards donald trump democrats   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Jordan to Mueller: Why wasn’t Joseph Mifsud charged with obstruction?

Westlake Legal Group mueller-jordan Jordan to Mueller: Why wasn’t Joseph Mifsud charged with obstruction? The Blog Robert Mueller obstruction of justice joseph mifsud Jim Jordan george papadopoulos

The Robert Mueller hearings continue to grind on, and perhaps especially on Mueller himself. At times, Mueller acts as nothing more than a one-word validation for Democrats reading verbatim from his report. At other times, he appears lost and unfamiliar with it — especially in this tough cross-examination from Republican Jim Jordan. Jordan highlights the curious case of Joseph Mifsud in the Russia-collusion saga, whose name comes up 87 times in Mueller’s report, included repeated references to his lying to investigators.

And yet, when Jordan asks why the FBI didn’t charge Mifsud for lying as he did with Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, and Paul Manafort, Mueller can’t immediately recall Mifsud or his role. When his memory gets refreshed, Mueller can’t offer any explanation for their decision not to press charges either:

Mifsud’s not just a footnote in Mueller’s narrative. He first gets introduced on page 5 of Volume I as the man — as Jordan accurately notes — tells George Papadopoulos that “the Russian government had ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of e-mails.” Papadopoulos’ indictment and conviction for obstruction by Mueller’s office directly relates to his interactions with Mifsud (pages 9 and 81 fn). On page 193, Mueller’s report outlines a number of false statements that Mifsud subsequently made to investigators:

Papadopoulos’s false statements in January 2017 impeded the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Most immediately, those statements hindered investigators’ ability to effectively question Mifsud when he was interviewed in the lobby of a Washington, D.C. hotel on February 10, 2017. See Gov’t Sent. Mem. at 6, United States v. George Papadopoulos, No. 1 :17-cr-182 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2017), Doc. 44. During that interview, Mifsud admitted to knowing Papadopoulos and to having introduced him to Polonskaya and Timofeev. But Mifsud denied that he had advance knowledge that Russia was in possession of emails damaging to candidate Clinton, stating that he and Papadopoulos had discussed cybersecurity and hacking as a larger issue and that Papadopoulos must have misunderstood their conversation. Mifsud also falsely stated that he had not seen Papadopoulos since the meeting at which Mifsud introduced him to Polonskaya, even though emails, text messages, and other information show that Mifsud met with Papadopoulos on at least two other occasions-April 12 and April 26, 2016. In addition, Mifsud omitted that he had drafted (or edited) the follow-up message that Polonskaya sent to Papadopoulos following the initial meeting and that, as reflected in the language of that email chain (“Baby, thank you!”), Mifsud may have been involved in a personal relationship with Polonskaya at the time. The false information and omissions in Papadopoulos’s January 2017 interview undermined investigators’ ability to challenge Mifsud when he made these inaccurate statements.

Why wasn’t Mifsud charged with the same crime as Papadopoulos? After all, they later got Papadopoulos to admit he’d lied and to cooperate with investigators. That would have cured the defects listed in this summary and allowed prosecutors to dig deeper into Mifsud, but it appears that they just let the matter drop. Mueller had no answer for this, and tried to claim that he couldn’t discuss declination and charging decisions. “It’s obvious, I think,” Mueller told Jordan, “that we can’t get into charging decisions.”

Excuse me? His report exists because the statute requires Mueller to explain his charging and declination decisions. Jordan suggests that the reason for Mueller’s refusal to answer is that Mifsud is an intelligence operative, but even if that were the case, Mueller had no trouble indicting “thirteen Russians no one ever heard of,” as Jordan put it. Why not Mifsud? Mueller won’t say. Jordan suggests that the reason is that Mifsud might not be a Russian intel asset but perhaps an American intelligence asset. And that might explain both why Mueller didn’t charge Mifsud and why Mueller won’t talk about him, because that would fall right into Michael Horowitz’ probe.

Today’s performance from Mueller was supposed to launch renewed Democratic efforts to impeach Donald Trump based on his report. Instead, Mueller has looked alternately like a pawn and an uncertain and confused bureaucrat, which is going to have an impact on the assessment Americans have about the special-counsel probe and its import to their lives. As Politico reported before Mueller made his appearance, that was already going badly for Democrats:

Since the public release of a redacted version of the Mueller report, Democrats have grown more skeptical that the Russia investigation was conducted fairly, according to a new poll.

Voters in general have grown more dubious about the Justice Department’s lengthy investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, according to the POLITICO/Morning Consult survey, tipping the scales away from net trust in the probe as lawmakers prepare to grill the special counsel on Wednesday morning.

By a 5-point margin, the poll found that, overall, there’s more skepticism about how the Justice Department conducted its investigation than trust that it was carried out fairly: 37 percent of voters said that they believed Mueller’s investigation had been carried out very or somewhat fairly, compared with 42 percent who said the probe was conducted “not too fairly” or “not fairly at all.”

Both Democrats and Republicans have tilted toward a belief that the inquiry, which wrapped up this spring after almost two years, was not conducted fairly. An April survey — conducted shortly after the report’s release — found that 46 percent of voters thought the probe had been fair, compared with 29 percent who felt it had been unfair.

The Mifsud question might make the fairness question even more pertinent.

The post Jordan to Mueller: Why wasn’t Joseph Mifsud charged with obstruction? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group mueller-jordan-300x162 Jordan to Mueller: Why wasn’t Joseph Mifsud charged with obstruction? The Blog Robert Mueller obstruction of justice joseph mifsud Jim Jordan george papadopoulos   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Welcome to … Mueller-Zebley hearing day? Update: Mueller says no revisiting obstruction decisions

Westlake Legal Group mueller-doj Welcome to … Mueller-Zebley hearing day? Update: Mueller says no revisiting obstruction decisions The Blog Robert Mueller Mueller report Jim Jordan House Judiciary Committee House Intelligence Committee donald trump aaron zebley

As if tensions and expectations weren’t already high enough surrounding Robert Mueller’s testimony today, along comes a twist right out of an episode of Law & Order. The special counsel has added a witness in one of today’s hearings and an advisory counsel in the other, and … they’re both the same man. Aaron Zebley, who served as Mueller’s deputy, will help Mueller answer questions from the House Judiciary Committee and then will testify himself at a House Intelligence Committee later:

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee agreed to allow Aaron Zebley, a former top deputy to Mueller, to sit beside him and advise him in his answers. The accommodation came after Mueller asked that Zebley be allowed to testify as a witness next to him, a request Judiciary Democrats rejected. The House Intelligence Committee, meanwhile, has agreed to let Zebley be sworn in for its hearing later in the day, according to a committee aide.

Zebley was Mueller’s chief of staff when Mueller was FBI director, and he played largely the same role inside the special counsel’s office. He and another top deputy, James Quarles, had been helping Mueller prepare for his testimony in unused office space at the WilmerHale law firm, which Mueller left to lead the special counsel investigation.

“The special counsel’s office has made it clear for some time, they’d like to have him present, they would like to allow him to answer questions,” said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.). “We want this hearing to be about Director Mueller.”

That sudden change to the witness list has Republicans crying foul up and down Pennsylvania Avenue. Jim Jordan began complaining yesterday afternoon; last night Donald Trump blew up on Twitter about it, and was still at it this morning:

Ranking Judiciary member Doug Collins attacked Jerrold Nadler over the violation of House rules in adding Zebley:

Republicans decried the move as an 11th-hour trick, arguing Democrats would have had to announce another witness days ago under traditional procedures in the House. In a statement Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Douglas A. Collins (Ga.), the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, accused the chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), of “again allowing the committee’s business to devolve into chaos.”

“If true, the chairman’s unprecedented decision to allow a witness’s counsel to both advise him privately and simultaneously testify alongside him shows the lengths Democrats will go to protect a one-sided narrative from a thorough examination by committee Republicans,” Collins said. “ . . . A last-minute addition to the witness list would now jeopardize whether tomorrow’s hearing complies with the rules of the House.”

That might have been why Nadler ended up keeping Zebley from testifying in the first hearing, but still nerves are on edge over the change. Why does the addition of Zebley as a witness spark so much ire? Two weeks ago, the Department of Justice attempted to discourage two members of Mueller’s special-counsel team from testifying before House committees, especially Judiciary. One was James Quarles, and the other was [wait for it] Aaron Zebley. This looks like Mueller’s attempt to either get around the DoJ or stick a thumb in its eye by demanding Zebley’s presence.

Even so, it’s not clear what impact Zebley will actually have today. He’s not going to contradict Mueller’s report and suddenly produce evidence of Russian collusion when Zebley testifies before Schiff’s committee. (That would be more of a Law & Order: SVU episode.) That would make Mueller look like an idiot for having issued a report with the opposite conclusion, and Mueller didn’t bring Zebley along to make himself look incompetent. Zebley’s role in the first hearing with the Judiciary Committee won’t involve testimony at all, and Mueller doesn’t need much help in keeping his mouth shut.

Zebley’s a wild card, even if a limited one. It might help stoke the drama, but only for those paying much attention. As The Atlantic reminded readers yesterday, that’s a small subset of American voters, and even a small subset of engaged voters:

Democrats had wanted Mueller to testify soon after he finished his investigation in April, but the special counsel’s reluctance to submit himself to what will likely turn into a partisan spectacle led to a delay. The leaders of the judiciary and intelligence committees spent weeks trying to negotiate a voluntary appearance by Mueller before ultimately resorting to a subpoena. His testimony comes after yet one more delay—a one-week postponement so that the Judiciary Committee could have an extra hour of Mueller’s time that will allow all of its members to question him. Junior lawmakers on the panel had protested the original two hours the committee was due to have, which meant the hearing would likely have ended before several of them got a chance to speak.

Rather than building suspense, the lag time seems to have had the opposite effect—like air slowly leaking out of a balloon. And if anyone popped that balloon, it was Mueller himself. On May 29, in his lone public appearance of the past two years, a televised press conference that lasted for about 10 minutes and featured no questions, the former FBI director made clear that he did not want to testify and that if he did appear before Congress, he “would not go beyond the report.” “The report is my testimony,” Mueller said.

It’s probably going to be Zebley’s too. After all, the same letter that Mueller requested from the DoJ as cover for his refusal to go beyond the report would also apply to Zebley. And that again makes Zebley’s last-minute addition a head-scratcher. If he’s not there to go beyond what Mueller will say and what’s in the report, why bother at all?

The hearings will be under way by the time this post goes live — assuming something in Washington DC actually starts on time — but we’ll keep our eyes and ears peeled for any news that emerges. We won’t necessarily be live-blogging the testimony, because if Mueller performs as he’s promised, the live blog was released about three months ago.

Update: I won’t be live-blogging this much, but it’s worth noting that Mueller made it explicitly clear that he would not be revisiting his decision not to decide on obstruction issues, nor would he comment on the open investigation into the origins of the FBI probe. In fact, Mueller reiterated, “The report is my testimony, and I will not go beyond it.”

Well, that’s going to make for a dull day.

The post Welcome to … Mueller-Zebley hearing day? Update: Mueller says no revisiting obstruction decisions appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group mueller-doj-300x173 Welcome to … Mueller-Zebley hearing day? Update: Mueller says no revisiting obstruction decisions The Blog Robert Mueller Mueller report Jim Jordan House Judiciary Committee House Intelligence Committee donald trump aaron zebley   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Video: After Elijah Cummings Accuses the CBP of an “Empathy Deficit”, Jim Jordan Promptly Sets the Record Straight

Westlake Legal Group JimJordanAPPhoto-620x317 Video: After Elijah Cummings Accuses the CBP of an “Empathy Deficit”, Jim Jordan Promptly Sets the Record Straight washington D.C. republicans Politics Ohio North Carolina Jim Jordan immigration Illegal Immigration homeland security Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elijah cummings democrats Culture Congress border crisis Allow Media Exception

Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asks questions to Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, during a hearing of the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2019. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Congressional Democrats seem to believe the best approach to solving the issues our nation faces is by first falsely accusing their political opposition of not giving a d*mn about minorities and children. Such was the case today at a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing on border conditions.

NPR reports:

Democrats pushed back against what oversight committee chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., called [acting DHS Secretary] McAleenan’s attempts to “sugarcoat” conditions for detained migrants.

When McAleenan insisted his agency was doing its “level best,” Cummings shot back: “What does that mean? What does that mean when a child is sitting in their own feces, can’t take a shower? Come on, man. What is that about? None of us would have our children in that position. They are human beings.”

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., held up pictures of men and children at DHS faculties she said she visited, saying, “This would not be allowed as a kennel for dogs.” But McAleenan said Congress specifically excluded funding for more beds at facilities run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, exacerbating the overcrowded conditions there.

McAleenan also fired back after Cummings suggested that border patrol agents had an “empathy deficit”:

“I can tell you that I am at a point where I begin to wonder whether there is an empathy deficit,” Cummings said while questioning McAleenan.

McAleenan objected to the suggestion from Cummings.

“I just wonder why would an agency if they have a deficiency of empathy, create a Border Search Trauma and Rescue team to try to protect people that are making this dangerous crossing and make over 4,000 rescues a year, on their own time with the collateral duty apply to be emergency medical technicians so they can help people in dangerous conditions,” McAleenan said.

“Where’s the deficit of empathy there?” he added.

Cummings later clarified he was referring to the “zero tolerance” policy that resulted in thousands of children being separated from their families. Cummings and McAleenan also agreed to travel to the border together.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the ranking member on the committee, was particularly incensed over Cummings’s accusation of the CBP allegedly having an “empathy deficit.” Watch the video below, as Jordan displays a photo taken by former CBP acting Commissioner John Sanders of agents assisting a child at the border. Jordan then asks if the photo looks like a display of an “empathy deficit.”

McAleenan is also seen in the video explaining more about what the Border Search Trauma and Rescue team does. He also noted that a majority of the agents who worked for the border patrol were of Latino descent – a point Jordan emphasized:

Nice work by both Jordan and McAleenan to speak out on behalf of the men and women who work the border tirelessly every day. The vast majority of them are good and decent people doing their jobs.

The fact that most of them are Latino members of the community who are working to help Latino migrants who are attempting to cross the border also just goes to show you how utterly despicable the blanket accusations of “racism” by The Squad and others against the agents actually are.

Related –>> Rep. Jim Jordan at Obamacare Hearing: “How Can You Undermine Something That’s Already Failed?” (Video)

————–
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Video: After Elijah Cummings Accuses the CBP of an “Empathy Deficit”, Jim Jordan Promptly Sets the Record Straight appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JimJordanAPPhoto-300x153 Video: After Elijah Cummings Accuses the CBP of an “Empathy Deficit”, Jim Jordan Promptly Sets the Record Straight washington D.C. republicans Politics Ohio North Carolina Jim Jordan immigration Illegal Immigration homeland security Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elijah cummings democrats Culture Congress border crisis Allow Media Exception Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Rep. Jim Jordan at Obamacare Hearing: “How Can You Undermine Something That’s Already Failed?” (Video)

Westlake Legal Group JimJordanAPPhoto-620x317 Rep. Jim Jordan at Obamacare Hearing: “How Can You Undermine Something That’s Already Failed?” (Video) washington D.C. Social Media republicans Politics Ohio Obamacare North Carolina Jim Jordan hearings healthcare Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Congress Allow Media Exception

Ranking Member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asks questions to Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer, during a hearing of the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2019. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

On Wednesday, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform held a hearing on Obamacare. Specifically, the committee wanted to discuss what they called the Trump administration’s “attacks” on the ACA:

The purpose of the hearing is to examine the Administration’s decision to reverse its position in Texas v. United States and assert that the entire health care law should be struck down, as well as the impact this reversal could have on millions of Americans—including those with pre-existing conditions—and the United States health care system.

Ranking member Jim Jordan (R-OH) didn’t mince words in an opening statement that questioned how Obamacare could be “undermined” if it had already failed. He also talked about what he called the “Nine lies of Obamacare.”

After asserting that the committee was not interested in working towards bipartisan healthcare solutions that would “make the lives of everyday Americans better”, Jordan said the goal of the hearing was to score “political points” against the Trump administration.

“The Majority’s title for today’s hearing is ‘Trump’s Efforts to Undermine the ACA’,” Jordan said, reading off the agenda in front of him. “Undermine the ACA? Think about what we were told when this bill passed now, what, 9 years ago? I call them the nine lies of Obamacare”:

1 – “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Y’all remember that one?”
2 – “How about the one if you like your plan you can keep your plan?”
3 – “We were told by the President of the United States premiums were gonna go down.”
4 – “He then got more specific: Premiums will go down on average $1,500.”
5 – “He said deductibles would decline.”
6 – “This was in the fall of 2013, remember this one? They told us the website was gonna work.”
7 – “They told us the website was secure. Your information would be secure there.”
8 – “They told us that these [Obamacare] co-ops were wonderful, end-all, be-all creations. Twenty-three were created. Guess how many are still in existence? Four. The other nineteen went bankrupt.”
9 – “First they told us [the individual mandate penalty] it’s not a tax, then they went to court and said it is a tax. Now they’re saying no it’s not really a tax at all ’cause you can’t tax them now ’cause the individual mandate’s gone. There’s no penalty.”

Nine different lies we were told about Obamacare and the hearing is titled ‘Trump’s Efforts to Undermine the ACA.’ How can you undermine something that’s already failed?”

Watch Rep. Jordan’s opening remarks about Obamacare below:

Matt Margolis at PJ Media has a good explainer giving some background on each of the lies Jordan talked about. Make sure to check it out.

———–
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Rep. Jim Jordan at Obamacare Hearing: “How Can You Undermine Something That’s Already Failed?” (Video) appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JimJordanAPPhoto-300x153 Rep. Jim Jordan at Obamacare Hearing: “How Can You Undermine Something That’s Already Failed?” (Video) washington D.C. Social Media republicans Politics Ohio Obamacare North Carolina Jim Jordan hearings healthcare Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Congress Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Justin Amash quits the Freedom Caucus after calling for Trump’s impeachment. Will he quit the GOP too?

Westlake Legal Group a-2 Justin Amash quits the Freedom Caucus after calling for Trump’s impeachment. Will he quit the GOP too? Trump The Blog republican Mark Meadows libertarian Justin Amash Jim Jordan impeachment freedom caucus 2020

It was a friendly departure, he insisted to CNN afterward, never mind that the group which he helped found formally condemned him last month for concluding that Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice in the Russiagate probe were impeachable.

Amash claims he left because he didn’t want to be a “distraction.” A distraction from what? The Freedom Caucus is a small minority of the House minority. One reason why they’ve transformed from a group devoted to shrinking government into a group shilling for Trump in all things (which tracks the transformation of the wider GOP, but I digress) is that they have nothing better to do these days. The squabble with Amash is the first interesting thing to come out of the caucus since Pelosi took over.

He should have demanded that they vote to oust him. Why do them the favor of punishing himself for his own blasphemy?

“I have the highest regard for them and they’re my close friends,” [Amash] told CNN. “I didn’t want to be a further distraction for the group.”…

Amash, who was a founding member of the group, told CNN in March that he had stopped going to Freedom Caucus meetings after clashing for months with members over the group’s direction under Trump.

He told CNN he had attended a House Freedom Caucus board meeting before House votes on Monday night to announce he would step aside from both the board and the group as a whole. The other members didn’t know he would be going to the meeting…

He emphasized his decision was voluntary and that he remains on good terms with his colleagues.

He signed up for the Freedom Caucus, not the MAGA Caucus. Frankly, he should have left ages ago, although I assume he hung on in the expectation that Mueller’s verdict might help ease the tensions between him and his colleagues. If Mueller had come down firmly on Trump’s guilt, the caucus’s pushback on Amash’s impeachment call necessarily would have been more muted. If Mueller had come down firmly on Trump’s innocence, Amash himself might have dropped the Russiagate matter. Instead Mueller punted on obstruction, ensuring that the internal disagreement would linger.

Obvious question: Will Amash’s break with the Freedom Caucus end there or does the essence of his conflict with them compel him to leave the GOP too? If his rebuke of Trump is a facet of his discontent with the two-party system then it’s the logical next step. And the wider Republican caucus isn’t much less Trumpist than the Freedom Caucus itself is, after all. If Amash has decided that his position on Trump means he can’t in good conscience remain a member of a right-wing group that’s broadly aligned with him on limiting government — in theory, I should emphasize — then there’s no principled reason to remain a Republican either. There are pragmatic reasons to do so: Going independent means he’ll need to win a three-way House race next year and it’ll likely cost him his committee assignments, further reducing his influence over policy. Even if Amash is willing to continue to caucus with Republicans in hopes of retaining those assignments, it would please Kevin McCarthy’s friend Donald to see him humiliated by having them stripped.

But maybe Amash has resolved that he’s done with the GOP in its current incarnation and if that costs him his House seat, so be it. A man who wanted to stay in Washington forever wouldn’t have accused Trump of obstruction in the first place.

McCarthy was asked about Amash at this morning’s minority-leader press conference, incidentally, and gave a stupid answer:

Trumpists can hate the heretic privately as much as they like but the fact remains that Amash running for president as a libertarian would be an X factor in the 2020 campaign. He might not cost Trump many votes if he ran; he might even help Trump by giving right-leaning “Anyone But Trump” independent voters someone to vote for instead of the Democratic nominee. But it’s possible that he’d pull enough Trump-skeptic fiscal conservative righties away from POTUS to hurt him, especially in Amash’s crucial home state of Michigan. McCarthy and the rest of the party should be polite to him even in their disagreements and emphasize that he’s a Republican in good standing. Don’t give him more of a reason to leave and challenge Trump than he already has.

The post Justin Amash quits the Freedom Caucus after calling for Trump’s impeachment. Will he quit the GOP too? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group a-2-300x153 Justin Amash quits the Freedom Caucus after calling for Trump’s impeachment. Will he quit the GOP too? Trump The Blog republican Mark Meadows libertarian Justin Amash Jim Jordan impeachment freedom caucus 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Schiff: Mueller still needs to testify

Westlake Legal Group schiff-wapo Schiff: Mueller still needs to testify The Blog Robert Mueller Mueller report Jim Jordan adam schiff

California Congressman Adam Schiff isn’t giving up on his hope to get former Special Counsel Robert Mueller in a witness chair before Congress. Schiff told ABC’s This Week he believed it was imperative for Mueller to speak on the Hill because it’s his “one final duty.”

We want to find out what happened to those counterintelligence findings that were sent back to headquarters. What other things did you learn during the investigation that ought to concern us in terms of whether the president is vulnerable to influence from Russia. Does the president still — did you find evidence whether the president still intends to build a Trump Tower in Moscow? Is that why that financial inducement why the president can’t criticize Putin or take adequate steps to protect our elections?

There are any number of questions that we have every right, the American people have every need to have answered here.

So, I hope that Bob Mueller will understand, as painful as it may be, and as much as it may subject him to further abuse by the White House, he has a final duty here to perform, like any other witness, and it’s my hope that he will do so, and it’s my hope that he will do so voluntary.

My head hurts just reading this because it’s like Schiff can’t let the fact no collusion was found in the Mueller Report. He’s almost like a child bawling at a parent for being sent to bed while it’s still light outside despite the fact bedtime is, and has always been, 8:30 p.m. He also (rightly) accused the Republican Party of becoming “a cult of the president’s personality and is not likely to act consistent with its Constitutional obligations.” I suppose the Democratic Party from 2008 to 2016 didn’t exist.

It is interesting Schiff is clinging to the Russia idea for all his worth. One would think he’d be more interested in the obstruction suggestions made by Mueller – and backed by Michigan Republican Congressman Justin Amash. However, those suggestions – which I am not convinced deserve impeachment because President Donald Trump’s lieutenants did not follow through with the suggestions or orders – may fall by the wayside. Schiff appears to see Russia/Trump as the way to victory for 2020 which only gets Democrats riled up.

Schiff isn’t the only congressman who seems interested in Mueller showing up. Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan told ABC’s This Week he has his own questions for Mueller.

I think the one question most Americans want to know, when did you first learn there was no obstruction — or excuse me, no collusion? The — the central charge of Bob Mueller — the central task was to find if there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia…

Say — OK — so when did you know there was no conspiracy, no coordination, no — call it what you want, those — those have been interchangeable for the last two years. So when did you know there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia? We knew when we deposed Jim Comey — when we deposed Jim Comey, he said all the way up until the day he was fired, May 9, 2017, he told us they had no evidence of any type of conspiracy, collusion or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. And that was after 10 months of FBI investigating him. That was after — that was after putting Azra Turk next to George Papadopoulos, that was after using the dossier to spy on the Trump campaign via Carter Page.

So after 10 months if they couldn’t establish collusion, how long did it take Bob Mueller. And if you learned this early on, why did you wait almost two years before you told the country there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election? After all, that was your central focus, your central task of this entire special counsel investigation.

Jordan’s concern appears to be the expenditure of $30M or so to do the 22-month probe – which isn’t a bad worry. That is a ton of money to spend but Mueller said from the beginning the probe wasn’t just about Trump-Russia collusion. It would also be nice if Jordan went back to being the budget hawk he was during the Obama years. Alas, halcyon days. Halcyon days.

There are, frankly, more important issues the country should be looking at – instead of the Mueller Report. Trade – especially the powers Congress decided to abdicate to the executive on tariffs – is a huge issue. Social Security and spending, in general, are also major issues the government seems uninterested in tackling – unless it’s in spending other people’s money. Veronique de Rugy suggested at Reason health care is also something which should be tackled. Taxes can also be looked at.

It’s just easier to carp about the Mueller Report because it’s bombastic and can be used to generate donations. So much for actual political discussion.

The post Schiff: Mueller still needs to testify appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group schiff-wapo-300x162 Schiff: Mueller still needs to testify The Blog Robert Mueller Mueller report Jim Jordan adam schiff   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Barr’s Pick To Lead Russia Collusion Investigation Has Been On The Case Since At Least October

Westlake Legal Group from-russia-with-love-SCREENSHOT-620x346 Barr’s Pick To Lead Russia Collusion Investigation Has Been On The Case Since At Least October william barr Mueller Investigation john durham Jim Jordan james baker Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption david corn Dan Levin Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

 

It turns out that John Durham, the prosecutor chosen by Attorney General William Barr to lead the probe into the origins of the Trump/Russia Collusion investigation isn’t so new to the case after all.

Real Clear Investigations’ Eric Felten published an excerpt from former FBI General Counsel James Baker’s October 3, 2018 closed testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees. Baker is currently under criminal investigation for possible illegal leaking of classified information to the press.

During questioning by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), it was revealed that John Durham is the prosecutor assigned to Baker’s case.

The following partial transcript (via Real Clear Investigations) from Baker’s October 3, 2018 testimony shows how this was discovered.

Note: David Corn is the Washington Bureau Chief for Mother Jones. He was one of the first journalists to write an article about the Steele Dossier in October 2016. Throughout the summer and fall of 2016, the FBI received various versions of the dossier from different sources. One of those came from David Corn.

Rep. Jordan: Tell me about your relationship with David Corn.

Baker: David is a friend of mine.

Jordan: Tell me about that. A close friend? Long-time friend?

Baker: Long-time friend.

Jordan: When did you first meet Mr. Corn?

Baker: I don’t specifically remember. A long time ago, though.

Jordan: Years ago?

Baker: Years and years and years ago, yeah. Our kids carpooled together. We carpooled with them when our kids were little

Jordan: Prior to the election of – Presidential election of 2016. How many times did you talk with David Corn in the weeks and months prior to election day?

Baker: I don’t remember.

Jordan: Is it fair to say you did talk with Corn?

Baker: Yes, I did, but I just don’t remember how many [times].

Jordan: So did you talk to Mr. Corn about anything that the FBI was working on? Specifically the now infamous Steele dossier?”

Baker’s lawyer, Dan Levin: (interrupts) One second. (Levin and Baker speak privately.)

Levin: I cannot let [Baker] answer these questions right now. You may or may not know, he’s been the subject of a leak investigation which is still – a criminal leak investigation that’s still active at the Justice Department. I’m sorry. I’m cutting off any discussion about conversations with reporters.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC): You’re saying he’s under criminal investigation? That’s why you’re not letting him answer?

Levin: Yes.

Jordan: There is an ongoing investigation by whom?

Levin: The Justice Department.

Jordan: I mean, is the inspector general looking at this or is this—

Levin: No. It’s Mr. John Durham, a prosecutor…I don’t want him talking about conversations he’s had with reporters because I don’t know what the questions are and I don’t know what the answers are right now. Given that there is an ongoing investigation of him for leaks which the Department [of Justice] has not closed, I’m not comfortable letting him answer questions.

This particular excerpt from Baker’s testimony was disclosed in January, and at that point, the name John Durham would have been meaningless to most of us. It is good news that John Durham is already familiar with at least some aspects of the case. I would even say it’s likely he’s been working on the larger investigation for longer than the public has been led to believe.

The post Barr’s Pick To Lead Russia Collusion Investigation Has Been On The Case Since At Least October appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group from-russia-with-love-SCREENSHOT-300x167 Barr’s Pick To Lead Russia Collusion Investigation Has Been On The Case Since At Least October william barr Mueller Investigation john durham Jim Jordan james baker Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption david corn Dan Levin Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com