Judicial Watch Files Ethics Complaint Over Rep. Adam Schiff’s Contacts with Glenn Simpson and Michael Cohen MARCH 11, 2019 Judicial Watch https://www.judicialwatch.org/t/images/judicial_watch-logo_schema.jpg https://www.judicialwatch.org (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed an official complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics about Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) controversial communications and contacts with two congressional witnesses: Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS and Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former personal lawyer. The complaint asks that Rep. Schiff, who is the new chairman of the House Intelligence Community, be investigated in connection with recent revelations that he met with Simpson in Aspen, Colorado, in July 2018 and that he and his staff coordinated with Michael Cohen on Cohen’s recent testimony to congressional committees. Cohen’s testimony is alleged to be false in several important respects. Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint on April 13, 2018, against Rep. Schiff and Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) for improperly confirming classified information in violation of House rules but the Committee has yet to take any public action on the complaint. “Rep. Schiff has an ethics problem. His and his staff’s irregular communications with anti-Trump witnesses reflect poorly on the credibility of the House and its committees’ investigations,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It has long been apparent that Rep. Schiff can’t be trusted to lead the Intelligence Committee, so we hope that Democrats on the Ethics Committee stop protecting Mr. Schiff and take action.” The latest Judicial Watch ethics complaint is reprinted below: Dear Chairman Skaggs, Judicial Watch is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation, which promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government and fidelity to the rule of law. We regularly monitor congressional ethics issues as part of our anti-corruption mission. This letter serves as our official complaint to the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) concerning the activities of Rep. Adam Schiff. Rep. Schiff appears to have violated House Code of Official Conduct, Rule 23, clauses 1 and 2, by inappropriately communicating with witnesses. Clauses 1 and 2 provide: 1.A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House. 2.A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House and to the rules of duly constituted committees thereof. Rep. Adam Schiff attended the Aspen Security Forum conference in July 2018, which was also attended by Glenn Simpson, the founder of the firm Fusion GPS. Press reports have detailed evidence of a meeting and discussion between Rep. Schiff and Glenn Simpson at the July 2018 Aspen Security Forum. As noted in The Hill newspaper: At the time of the encounter, Simpson was an important witness in the House Intelligence Committee probe who had given sworn testimony about alleged, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Fusion GPS is the political opposition research firm involved in procuring “unverified” information claiming the Trump presidential campaign had “colluded” with Russia, among other things. That Fusion GPS-supplied information was the basis upon which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) obtained Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance warrants against Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. Mr. Simpson’s leadership of Fusion GPS and his centrality to events resulted in his having to testify before congressional committees or their staffs. Specifically, Mr. Simpson testified before the House Intelligence Committee, of which Rep. Schiff was the ranking Democratic member, on October 16, 2018 – approximately three (3) months after the Aspen Security Forum. We note that following revelations in 2017 that Rep. Devin Nunes had informed President Trump that U.S. intelligence agencies had been engaging in “incidental collection” of his campaign’s communications, Rep. Schiff demanded that Rep. Nunes, then Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, recuse himself from any investigations involving alleged Trump collusion with Russia. Indeed, Rep. Schiff wrote the following on twitter: This is not a recommendation I make lightly … But in much the same way that the attorney general [Jeff Sessions] was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation after failing to inform the Senate of his meetings with Russian officials, I believe the public cannot have the necessary confidence that matters involving the president’s campaign or transition team can be objectively investigated or overseen by the chairman. Then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi concurred with Rep. Schiff’s call for Mr. Nunes to recuse himself. The July 2018 contacts between Rep. Schiff and Mr. Simpson create, at a minimum, the appearance of impropriety. As a result of Rep. Schiff’s previously undisclosed, private discussions with Mr. Simpson, the public’s confidence in Mr. Schiff’s ability to objectively and impartially carry out his duties as Committee Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have been gravely damaged. Further, Rep. Schiff’s contacts with Mr. Michael Cohen should also be scrutinized in the same light as the Simpson contacts. Journalists have reported: President Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen told House investigators this week that staff for Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., traveled to New York at least four times to meet with him for over 10 hours immediately before last month’s high-profile public testimony, according to two sources familiar with the matter – as Republicans question whether the meetings amounted to coaching a witness. The sources said the sessions covered a slew of topics addressed during the public hearing before the oversight committee – including the National Enquirer ‘s “Catch and Kill” policy, American Media CEO David Pecker and the alleged undervaluing of President Trump’s assets. Again, Rep. Schiff’ s conduct creates the appearance of unethical collusion and synchronization of efforts that calls into question whether Cohen’s testimony was a legitimate congressional hearing or well-rehearsed political theatre. During Mr. Cohen’s congressional testimony, he was questioned by Rep. Mike Turner concerning the number, nature and subject of his [Cohen’s] contacts with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Rep Jim Jordan pressed Cohen on the subject in subsequent questioning. Cohen hesitantly acknowledged that he had spoken with Schiff “about topics that were going to be raised at the upcoming hearing.” A pattern of conduct on the part of Rep. Schiff in these matters would exponentially increase the gravity of the prejudice and harm to the public’s confidence in the institution of the House of Representatives. Rep. Schiff’s conduct and contacts with witnesses must be treated with the same gravity that Reps. Schiff and Pelosi accorded Rep. Nunes’s actions. Rep. Nunes recused himself for a time from certain oversight responsibilities with respect to the Russia-Trump investigations. In the least, Rep. Schiff and his staff communications with Glenn Simpson and Michael Cohen, undermine the “credibility of the House” and its committee proceedings, especially given Mr. Cohen’s subsequent alleged false testimony. We call upon the OCE to investigate Rep. Schiff and his previously undisclosed, inappropriate contact with key witnesses in congressional investigation over which that Member holds significant sway. Thank you for your attention. Acknowledgment: I acknowledge that Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code applies to the information provided above.
and... Judicial Watch Sues for Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s Communications During Time of Comey Firing, Mueller Appointment MARCH 12, 2019 Judicial Watch https://www.judicialwatch.org/t/images/judicial_watch-logo_schema.jpg https://www.judicialwatch.org (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for all records of communications of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein between May 8 and May 17, 2017. Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the DOJ failed to respond to a September 21, 2018, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:19-cv-00481)). Judicial Watch seeks: Any and all e-mails, text messages, or other records of communication addressed to or received by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein between May 8, 2017, and May 22, 2017. The time period referred to in the suit was a critical one. On May 8, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memo to President Trump recommending that FBI Director James Comey be fired. The next day, President Trump fired Comey. On May 17 Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Between May 8 and May 17, Rosenstein met with then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other senior Justice Department FBI officials and discussed invoking the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump and whether Rosenstein and others should wear a wire to secretly record conversations with the President. Judicial Watch previously filed a FOIA lawsuit seeking records of communication of former FBI Deputy Director McCabe, the Office of the Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or the Office of Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein discussing the 25th Amendment or presidential fitness. Additionally, that lawsuit seeks all recordings made by any official in the Office of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General of meetings in the Executive Office of the President or Vice President. “These critical days in May, a scant three months into President Trump’s term, included extraordinary targeting of President Trump by Rod Rosenstein and other Deep State officials at the DOJ and FBI,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “Judicial Watch’s focused FOIA lawsuit aims to uncover what exactly Mr. Rosenstein’s role was in any discussions to overthrow President Trump.”
Judicial Watch Announces Depositions of Senior Obama-era Officials and Former Hillary Clinton Aides MARCH 13, 2019 Judicial Watch https://www.judicialwatch.org/t/images/judicial_watch-logo_schema.jpg https://www.judicialwatch.org First Witness Testifies Tomorrow (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today a schedule of depositions of senior Obama-era State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides who have been ordered by the court to provide answers under oath to Judicial Watch’s questions about the Benghazi and Clinton email scandals. In January 2019, United States District Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered senior officials — including Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Jacob Sullivan, and FBI official E.W. Priestap – to respond under oath. The court-ordered discovery comes in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit filed after the U.S. Department of State failed to respond to a May 13, 2014 FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). Judicial Watch seeks: Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency. Judicial Watch’s discovery will seek answers to: Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system; whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request. The confirmed discovery schedule now includes: March 12: State Department’s responses to interrogatories and document requests were due. March 14: Deposition of Justin Cooper, a former aide to Bill Clinton who reportedly had no security clearance and is believed to have played a key role in setting up Hillary Clinton’s non-government email system. April 5: Deposition of John Hackett, a State Department records official “immediately responsible for responding to requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act.” April 16: Deposition of Jacob “Jake” Sullivan, Hillary Clinton’s former senior advisor and deputy chief of staff. April 23: Deposition of Sheryl Walter, former State Department Director of the Office of Information Programs and Services/Global Information Services. April 26: Deposition of Gene Smilansky, a State Department lawyer. April 30. Deposition of Monica Tillery, a State Department official. May 7: Deposition of Jonathon Wasser, who was a management analyst on the Executive Secretariat staff. Wasser worked for Deputy Director Clarence Finney and was the State Department employee who actually conducted the searches for records in response to FOIA requests to the Office of the Secretary. May 14: Deposition of Clarence Finney, the deputy director of the Executive Secretariat staff who was the principal advisor and records management expert in the Office of the Secretary responsible for control of all correspondence and records for Hillary Clinton and other State Department officials. June 11: 30(b)(6) Deposition, which will be designated by the State Department. June 13: Deposition of Heather Samuelson, the former State Department senior advisor who helped facilitate the State Department’s receipt and release of Hillary Clinton’s emails. As yet to be determined is the deposition date for Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell, who wrote a March 2, 2009, internal memorandum titled “Use of Blackberries on Mahogany Row,” in which he strongly advised that the devices not be allowed. Written questions under oath are to be answered by: Monica Hanley, Hillary Clinton’s former confidential assistant at the State Department. Lauren Jiloty, Clinton’s former special assistant. E.W. Priestap, is serving as assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division and helped oversee both the Clinton email and the 2016 presidential campaign investigations. Priestap testified in a separate lawsuit that Clinton was the subject of a grand jury investigation related to her BlackBerry email accounts. Susan Rice, President Obama’s former UN ambassador who appeared on Sunday television news shows following the Benghazi attacks, blaming a “hateful video.” Rice was also Obama’s national security advisor involved in the “unmasking” the identities of senior Trump officials caught up in the surveillance of foreign targets. Ben Rhodes, an Obama-era White House deputy strategic communications adviser who attempted to orchestrate a campaign to “reinforce” Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as being “rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.” “Judicial Watch is doing the heavy lifting on the ongoing Clinton email scandal, even as Congress dropped the ball and DOJ and State continued to obstruct our quest for the truth,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Court in our case wants real answers on the Clinton email scandal which is why our request for basic discovery was granted.” This Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit led directly to the disclosure of the Clinton email system in 2015. https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...a-officials-and-former-hillary-clinton-aides/
Court confirms Senator John McCain was major cog in conspiracy with foreign governments to smear the POTUS in order to protect themselves from public exposure and subsequent prosecution of crimes against the US Government and it's citizens. Court also confirms McCain lied repeatedly to all Americans when questioned about his involvement. Just another stain on the dirtiest political career in US history. Court files reveal role of McCain, aide in spreading anti-Trump dossier By Adam Shaw | Fox News House Democrats ask White House and State Department for documents related to Trump-Putin communications Chairmen of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees specifically name the 2018 Helsinki summit; reaction from Rep. Will Hurd, Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee. Newly unsealed court filings show the office of the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., shared with the FBI and a host of media outlets the unverified dossier that alleged the Russians had compromising information on now-President Trump. McCain had denied being the source for BuzzFeed after it published the dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, but had acknowledged giving it to the FBI. In a newly unsealed declaration from September, former senior counterintelligence FBI agent Bill Priestap confirmed that the FBI received a copy of the first 33 pages of the dossier in December 2016 from McCain. In another filing, David Kramer -- a former State Department official and McCain associate -- said in a Dec. 13, 2017, deposition that the dossier was given to him by author and former British spy Christopher Steele, which he then provided to more than a dozen journalists at outlets including CNN, BuzzFeed and The Washington Post. The details were first reported by The Daily Caller. The report was also shared with State Department official Victoria Nuland, Obama National Security Council official Celeste Wallander and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill. The filings were unsealed as part of an ongoing libel case against BuzzFeed by a Russian businessman. In his deposition, Kramer said that McCain gave a copy of the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey on Dec. 9. Kramer told investigators that it was the sense from Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson that “having Senator McCain provide it to the FBI would give it a little more oomph than it had had up until that point.” “I think they felt a senior Republican was better to be the recipient of this rather than a Democrat because if it were a Democrat, I think that the view was that it would have been dismissed as a political attack,” he said. The FBI extensively relied on the dossier in its warrant applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in seeking to surveil Trump aide Carter Page -- even though some of the dossier’s claims have been called into question, including a claim that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to pay off Russian hackers and other more salacious claims about Trump himself.
There was always something sinister about McCain. It started with his cowardice in a N. Vietnamese prison camp. And you've gotta admit he just never seemed honest.
In Devin Nunes news (haven't we all missed him lately?)... Devin Nunes, the co-sponsor of the Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act, is suing an imaginary cow. barfo
Obama WH counsel faces possible prosecution in Mueller-initiated probe By Gregg Re | Fox News Former Obama White House Counsel and Clinton-linked attorney Greg Craig may soon be charged by the Justice Department for engaging in illegal unregistered overseas lobbying, in a case initially probed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller -- a development that would make him the first Democrat to face prosecution amid the long-running Russia investigation. The case centers on lobbying work that Craig performed in 2012 for the Russian-backed president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, while Craig was a partner at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. Craig allegedly never registered as a foreign agent under a U.S. law known as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which requires lobbyists to declare publicly if they represent foreign leaders, governments or their political parties. FARA violations were only rarely prosecuted until Mueller took aim at Paul Manafort, President Trump's former campaign chairman, for his lobbying work in Ukraine. Manafort, who connected Craig with Yanukovych, has been convicted on numerous bank and tax fraud charges, and was separately accused of FARA violations as well. He was sentenced earlier this month to approximately seven years in prison. Craig left Skadden last year as his work with Manafort became public. In January, Skadden agreed to cooperate with the DOJ's registration requirements and paid $4.6 million in a settlement to avoid a criminal prosecution. "We have learned much from this incident and are taking steps to prevent anything similar from happening again,” the firm said in a statement at the time. As with Manafort's case, there is no indication that Craig improperly colluded with a foreign government while he was serving in any official capacity. Craig worked as White House Counsel from 2009 to 2010, and previously worked in the Clinton administration on impeachment matters. Mueller referred the Craig case to New York federal prosecutors, apparently because it fell outside his mandate of determining whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia. Former Obama White House Counsel Greg Craig may soon become the first Democrat indicted in the Mueller probe. New York prosecutors ultimately forwarded the case to the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. in January for a now-imminent final decision on filing charges, The New York Times reported Tuesday. Separately, New York prosecutors are also looking into potential similar charges regarding another Clinton-connected Washington insider, Tony Podesta. In September, Manafort admitted to directing two firms -- Mercury Public Affairs and the Podesta Group -- to lobby in the U.S. on behalf of a Ukrainian political party and Ukraine's government, then led by Yanukovych, Manafort's longtime political patron. Mercury and Podesta, which were paid a combined $2 million on the project, then registered under a less stringent lobbying law that doesn't require as much public disclosure as FARA. Both firms have said they registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, rather than FARA, on the advice of lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Craig's former firm. But in court papers, Mueller's prosecutors suggested the firms were aware they were working on Ukraine's behalf. The Times reported on Tuesday that the Podesta probe apparently has not been moved to the DOJ, and that Manahattan prosecutors remain in control of the investigation. In a flurry of new activity in January, though, federal prosecutors began systematically interviewing witnesses and contacting lawyers to schedule additional questioning related to the Podesta Group and Mercury Public Affairs. Podesta is a longtime Democratic operative whose brother, John Podesta, ran Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign; Weber is a former Republican congressman from Minnesota. Neither man has been charged with any crimes. Their firms have defended the decisions by saying they relied on the advice of outside attorneys. Mercury spokesman Michael McKeon said the firm has "always welcomed any inquiry since we acted appropriately at every step of the process, including hiring a top lawyer in Washington and following his advice. We'll continue to cooperate as we have previously." Foreign lobbying work was central to Mueller's case against Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates, two high-profile Trump campaign officials who pleaded guilty earlier this year and have been interviewed extensively by prosecutors. The Podestas have been frequent targets of Trump and his associates, who have repeatedly demanded to know why Tony Podesta has not been arrested and charged. Gates admitted in his plea deal that he lied to Mercury's attorneys about the project, a fact the lobbying firm has publicly highlighted. The Podesta Group has said it was misled by the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, citing a written certification from the nonprofit stating it wasn't directed or controlled by the Ukrainian Party of Regions, one of Manafort's clients. For Trump and other Republicans -- who have long accused Clinton backers of skirting the law -- that explanation amounted to a weak effort to obtain plausible deniability. "Was the brother of John Podesta paid big money to get the sanctions on Russia lifted?" Trump tweeted in 2017. "Did Hillary know?" https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ob...ssible-prosecution-in-mueller-initiated-probe
Indictments and guilty please soon to follow. Oh wait, that's the ones associated with trump being indicted and sentenced. An obvious bias that only trump associates are the ones going to prison. By the way Maris, do you approve of the angry orangeman always tweeting out negative stuff, not denouncing white supremacy and attacking a man who was known as a great patriot in John McClain plus all the childish name calling he does? Reminds me of a 6th grade bully.
Trump team turns tables after Mueller report, calls for investigation into probe's origin By Andrew O'Reilly | Fox News Rudy Giuliani calls for a full and complete investigation into where collusion claims originated Attorney General William Barr says special counsel Robert Mueller did not find that the Trump campaign or its associates 'conspired or coordinated' with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 election; reaction from President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani. President Trump and his legal team declared total victory Sunday following the release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s key findings -- including no evidence of collusion with Russia during the 2016 campaign -- but sought to turn the tables by renewing calls to investigate the investigators. Trump himself slammed the probe as an “illegal takedown,” as he called Mueller’s report a “complete exoneration” and said it was a “shame” his presidency had to deal with the investigation for two years. “Hopefully somebody is going to look at the other side,” Trump said. “This was an illegal takedown that failed and hopefully somebody is going to be looking at the other side.” In case it wasn't clear what he meant, Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani told Fox News an investigation should be launched into how the investigation began. “He was being investigated for a crime that never happened,” Giuliani said. “There was never any collusion.” Giuliani added: "There has to be a full and complete investigation, with at least as much enthusiasm as this one, to figure out where did this charge emanate, who started it, who paid for it.” The former New York mayor specifically called out one of Trump’s most vocal critics, Rep. Adam Schiff, asking the California lawmaker where the evidence of collusion is that Schiff has said he has. “Where is Schiff’s evidence?” Giuliani asked. “Where is it? In his head?” The Associated Press contributed to this report. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...ler-report-calls-for-investigation-into-probe
What Mueller meant was he couldn't prove a conspiracy beyond a shadow of a doubt. This doesn't mean that he found Trump didn't commit such a crime. Edit: No evidence found? Nope, they found evidence, just not enough to assure a conviction.
Trying to have any reasonable discussion with maris is a waste of time as he very seldom says anything worthwhile and only cuts and paste articles that never seem to go anywhere.
