Tag: United States Department of Justice

Andrew Harnik/AP/REX/Shutterstock President Donald Trump went on a 90-minute extended rant during his rally in Wisconsin on Saturday night, programmed against the White House Correspondents Dinner that he refused to attend. During his unhinged monologue, the president said many ridiculous things that will sap your will to continue living in this nightmare dystopia, including: accusing mothers and doctors of executing newborns, calling the media “sick” and ex-FBI officials “scum,” claiming credit for the “sick” idea of sending undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities, and doing an impression of the Saudi king’s accent. Speaking about abortion, Trump brought up a lie he’s been touting for a while: that newborn babies are “executed” by their mothers and doctors. He accused Democrats of “aggressively pushing extreme late-term abortion, allowing children to be ripped from their mothers’ womb right up until the moment of birth.” Then, he went even further, saying, “The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. Here's Trump making another false & unspeakably dangerous claim about abortion: "The baby is born; the mother meets with the doctor. Then the doctor & mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby." “These were dirty players… They’re just leaving because they got caught like nobody ever got caught.” Wow — Trump refers to the FBI and DOJ leaders he's purged from government as "scum" pic.twitter.com/mkjiWZ68cp — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 28, 2019 The president also said he was “proud” of his “sick” idea to ship undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities. Trump says sending illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities was his “sick idea” https://t.co/vCzpWKoYwh pic.twitter.com/idJYdjpZOT Speaking about America’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, Trump talked about his defense of Saudi King Salman in the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. “I said, King, We are losing our ass defending you, King, and you have a lot of money,” Trump claimed he said to Salman. pic.twitter.com/TVFMHdz9Oo — Tomthunkit™ (@TomthunkitsMind) April 28, 2019 Before the rally, Trump promised it would be “very positive,” unlike the White House Correspondents Dinner.

Erin Schaff/The New York Times WASHINGTON — House Democrats vowed on Friday to pursue the revelations in the special counsel’s report on President Trump but drew little Republican support in a nation still deeply polarized over the investigation that has dogged the White House for two years. “Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report, in itself written by 18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, which are fabricated & totally untrue,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, challenged the credibility of Mr. McGahn’s account later on Friday. “It can’t be taken at face value,” he said in an interview. “It’s a mystery why Rudy Giuliani feels the need to relitigate incidents the attorney general and deputy attorney general have concluded were not obstruction,” said the lawyer, William A. Burck. “But they are accurately described in the report.” On the campaign trail, Democratic presidential candidates condemned the president’s conduct and called for action against him. Mr. Trump’s critics called it a devastating indictment of a candidate willing to profit from the help of a foreign power and a president who repeatedly sought to disrupt or end the investigation even if he was not charged with violating the law. The subpoena issued on Friday by Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, escalated a fight with Mr. Barr over what material Congress is entitled to see from the investigation even as Democrats continued to pummel the attorney general for effectively serving as the president’s defense lawyer. “The department will continue to work with Congress to accommodate its legitimate requests consistent with the law and long-recognized executive branch interests.” Mr. Barr redacted about 10 percent of the report, blacking out information that would divulge secret grand jury evidence, expose classified intelligence, compromise continuing investigations, or invade the privacy or damage the reputation of “peripheral third parties.” Democratic leaders on Friday rejected Mr. Barr’s offer to show just select leaders a version with only the grand jury material redacted. “The attorney general stands ready to testify before our committee and to have the special counsel do the same.

NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with David Brooks of The New York Times and E.J. He laid out a very good case on obstruction but felt he couldn't charge him because of the Justice Department rule that says you can't indict a president. CORNISH: Let me let David jump in here because you looked at this existentially, that there are a broadly kind of three-pronged threat, looking at Russia being one of them, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks another and then the White House itself, Donald Trump. He's always trying to interfere with investigations, do things that are against the rules. And so that undermines our sort of governmental infrastructure. The Russians are undermining our informational infrastructure by introducing falsehoods into the public debate. CORNISH: I want to go back to the attorney general's press conference. BROOKS: Well, I'd given him faith that he was being accurate in what was in the report. There have been some more moves among Senate Republicans. DIONNE: Well, yeah, that's two, right, exactly - maybe David, too.

The arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange following his expulsion from Ecuador’s embassy in London on April 11 sparked debate among journalists about the dangerous precedents his case could set. Are the journalists who won awards reporting leaks Assange published hypocritical if they now support his arrest? Would successfully prosecuting Assange on accusations of a hacking conspiracy that involved helping Chelsea Manning crack passwords to disclose classified material allow the prosecution of journalists for reporting other classified materials leaked to them in the future? The Justice Department’s year-old indictment against Assange, which you can read here, includes an accusation of conduct that could arguably be considered a breach of the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics: Assange agreed to help Chelsea Manning “crack” a password to a Defense Department computer. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, an advocacy group that provides pro bono legal representation to journalists, weighed in on Assange’s arrest with prescient discernment. “It bears repeating that no one is outside the protection of the First Amendment. The singular allegation that Assange may have attempted to crack a password takes this case out of the ‘easy’ category for press freedom advocates. The government would be mad, reckless — or, worse, actively anti-democratic — to bring a similar case without the password-cracking angle.” Assange’s case raises compelling questions about what the First Amendment protects and what it does not. Cultivating a source, protecting a source’s identity, communicating with a source securely—the indictment describes all of these activities as the ‘manners and means’ of the conspiracy.” Would the Justice Department necessarily prosecute other journalists for these daily news gathering practices if it wins its case against Assange? As the Committee writes, “time will tell how this plays out.”

Good Thursday morning. Here are some of the stories making news in Washington and politics today. _____________________ • After almost two years of subpoenas, indictments and search warrants, the results of Robert Mueller’s investigation will be made public today. Here’s a full guide to what to expect. • Some of the report’s findings will not be news to President Trump. Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the special counsel’s conclusions, which has aided the president’s legal team in preparing a rebuttal. • Julián Castro, the former housing secretary and San Antonio mayor, brings youth and diversity to the Democratic presidential field. But, overshadowed by some peers, he has failed to get traction in early polls. A network known for conservative commentary and staunch loyalty to the president is drawing Democratic candidates eager for a big platform with access to Trump voters. • Former Gov.

Justice Department officials have had numerous conversations with White House lawyers about the conclusions made by Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, in recent days, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. Mr. Barr, who plans to hold a news conference at 9:30 a.m. Thursday to discuss the special counsel’s report, refused to answer questions from lawmakers last week about whether the department had given the White House a preview of Mr. Mueller’s findings. Much is at stake for Mr. Barr in Thursday’s expected release, especially if the report presents a far more damning portrayal of the president’s behavior — and of his campaign’s dealings with Russians — than the attorney general indicated in the four-page letter he wrote in March. Justice Department rules do not require Mr. Barr to make the special counsel’s report public, and the attorney general’s defenders say he will fulfill pledges of transparency he made during his confirmation hearings to make as much of the document public as possible. The information that Justice Department officials have provided to the White House could potentially be valuable for Mr. Trump’s legal team as it finalizes a rebuttal to the Mueller report — expected to be released not long after the department makes the special counsel’s findings public. Advisers to Mr. Trump insist that they still do not know many details about Mr. Mueller’s conclusions. The House Judiciary Committee has already authorized a subpoena for its chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, to try to force Mr. Barr to hand that material over to Congress. “On the assumption that it’s heavily redacted, we will most certainly issue the subpoenas in very short order,” Mr. Nadler said Wednesday evening at a hastily called news conference in New York. Promising more transparency, the government said it would let a select group of lawmakers see some of the material related to the case against Roger J. in 2016 that prompted law enforcement officials to open the Russia investigation.

Good Wednesday morning. Here are some of the stories making news in Washington and politics today. _____________________ • In his two years in office, Donald J. Trump has become president of the United Base of America, making little effort to expand his coalition beyond the voters who propelled him to the White House in the first place. While other presidents sought to broaden their public support, Mr. Trump is heading into his re-election campaign sticking with his own tribe. • Mr. Trump vetoed a bipartisan resolution that would have forced an end to American military involvement in Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, rejecting an appeal by lawmakers to his own deeply rooted instincts to withdraw the United States from bloody foreign conflicts. • The Trump administration took another significant step to discourage migrants from seeking asylum, issuing an order that could keep thousands of them in jail indefinitely while they wait for a resolution of their asylum requests. • There’s a real chance Democrats are headed toward a contested convention in 2020. Some members of the party establishment are wondering whether they should try to impede Senator Bernie Sanders’s candidacy before then. • Now that all the 2020 candidates have filed their first financial records, where does everyone stand? Here’s a visual breakdown of their fund-raising and spending, and here are nine takeaways from the reports.

At the same time, he seems increasingly nervous about the public seeing a redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings, which Attorney General William Barr says he will release Thursday. INVESTIGATE THE INVESTIGATORS! When Attorney General William Barr released his “principle conclusions” of the report last month, he quoted it as noting that the investigation “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Mueller did not, however, contend that Trump did not obstruct justice, writing that his team was not able to “exonerate” the president. It was Barr, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who concluded the report did not contain enough evidence “to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” But earlier this month, members of Mueller’s team leaked to the Washington Post that they found “alarming and significant” evidence of obstruction that “was much more acute than Barr suggested.” The Times later reported that Mueller’s team believes what they found is “more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated.” The White House is worried. The White House has been briefed on the Mueller report and "there is significant concern on the president's team about what will be in this report," and "what worries them most is what Don McGahn told the special counsel," @jonkarl reports https://t.co/p9QKxcDdC3 #ThisWeek pic.twitter.com/xkh64AN8iW — This Week (@ThisWeekABC) April 14, 2019 “What worries them most is what [former White House counsel] Don McGhan told the special counsel,” Karl said. It was reported earlier that he spent 30 hours before the special counsel.” This White House probably should have been prepared for the possibility that whatever McGhan told the special counsel would eventually go public, but they forgot to ask him about it. The bottom line is that they really don’t know.” Last August, the New York Times reported McGhan cooperated “extensively” with Mueller’s investigation, and that he provided “investigators examining whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice a clear view of the president’s most intimate moments with his lawyer.” McGhan’s conversations with Mueller’s team reportedly centered around Comey’s firing, his efforts to convince former attorney general Jeff Sessions to un-recuse himself from overseeing the investigation and attempts to fire Mueller outright. The special counsel’s office reportedly pursued several avenues in probing potential obstruction of justice, even taking into considering Trump’s many tweets excoriating Sessions for allowing the investigation to continue. That is, never forget, the crime….. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 15, 2019 ….Since there was no Collusion, why was there an Investigation in the first place! The Times reported on Sunday that he’s done so in part to distract from the Mueller report.

Former White House counsel Greg Craig was indicted by a grand jury Thursday for allegedly making false statements to the Department of Justice about work performed for Ukraine in 2012. Craig, 74, who was charged with concealing material information from the Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit and making false statements, failed to disclose work he performed for Ukraine because he believed it would prevent him from future roles within the federal government, according to the indictment, which stemmed from special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. Craig and his law firm were hired in early 2012 to lead an independent inquiry into whether former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko received a fair trial after she was sentenced to seven years in prison in 2011 for abuse of office, federal prosecutors say. He was also signed on to consult about Tymoshenko’s second trial. The investigation into Craig grew out of Mueller’s probe of lobbying efforts undertaken at Manafort’s direction and at the behest of the pro-Russian, pro-Putin Yanukovych government. Craig allegedly made false statements about the report in 2013 in response to the FARA Unit’s inquiries and again in 2017 after being interviewed by Mueller. The attorney allegedly stated in a formal written response to the FARA Unit that his firm did not inform, consult or act under the instruction of Ukraine. He failed to inform the FARA Unit that he generated the written inquiry report, that his firm advised the hiring of a public relations firm, was informed about the firm's strategy and met with a lobbyist whom he informed of the firm's strategy, according the indictment. Due to the allegedly misleading information provided by Craig, the FARA Unit determined the attorney and his firm did not have to register as a foreign agent, according to the indictment. "It ignores uncontroverted evidence to the contrary," the statement said.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images WASHINGTON — Lawyers for Gregory B. Craig, a White House counsel in the Obama administration, expect him to be indicted in the coming days on charges related to his work for the Russia-aligned government of Ukraine. The case against Mr. Craig, 74, stemmed from an investigation initiated by the office of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. In a summary of the inquiry, Attorney General William P. Barr said that the special counsel’s team had concluded that there was no evidence that President Trump or his aides “conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The case against Mr. Craig is related to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which the Justice Department is prioritizing in part because of scrutiny related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation. Mr. Manafort, who went on to become Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman in 2016, was sentenced last month to seven and a half years in prison on charges brought by Mr. Mueller’s team related to obstruction of justice and violations of FARA, as well as banking and tax laws stemming from his work in Ukraine. After the report was released, and Mr. Craig was quoted discussing it in an article in The New York Times, the Justice Department unit that oversees FARA reached out to Skadden Arps to ask why the firm and its lawyers had not registered as foreign agents for the Ukrainian government. Prosecutors cast doubt on Mr. Craig’s claim in a settlement reached in January between the Justice Department and Skadden Arps. Under that settlement, the firm avoided prosecution in the matter in exchange for an agreement to pay $4.6 million, to retroactively register its Ukraine work under FARA, to beef up its compliance processes and to cooperate with government investigations of the work on behalf of Ukraine. Neither Mr. Craig nor the journalist are identified by name in the settlement. Mr. Craig’s lawyers have argued that he was not required to register his work under FARA because he was not doing public relations for the Ukrainian government. In a statement on Wednesday, they said he “repeatedly refused requests that he participate in Ukraine’s media and lobbying campaign to promote the Tymoshenko Report.” Rather, they say he spoke to The Times to correct the Ukrainian Justice Ministry’s claims that the report cleared Mr. Yanukovych of accusations that he directed the prosecution of Ms. Tymoshenko for political purposes.