Showing posts with label Michael Flynn. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Flynn. Show all posts

Friday, December 8, 2017

Day 48.4. Five EB5s, Four FISA Warrants, Three Wiretaps


Judge presiding over Michael Flynn criminal case is recused

(Reuters) - The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia judge presiding over the criminal case for President Donald Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has been recused from handling the case, a court spokeswoman said on Thursday.

According to a court filing, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras, who presided over a Dec. 1 hearing where Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about his contacts with Russia, will no longer handle the case.

Court spokeswoman Lisa Klem did not say why Contreras was recused, and added that the case was randomly reassigned.

Reuters could not immediately learn the reason for the recusal, or reach Contreras.
An attorney for Flynn declined to comment.

Now, Flynn’s sentencing will be overseen by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. Sullivan was appointed by former Democratic President Bill Clinton.

Flynn was the first member of Trump’s administration to plead guilty to a crime uncovered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s wide-ranging probe into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election and potential collusion by Trump aides. Russia has denied meddling in the election and Trump has dismissed any suggestion of collusion.

Flynn has agreed to cooperate with Mueller’s ongoing investigation.

A sentencing date has not yet been set, but the parties are due to return to court on February 1 for a status report hearing.

Contreras was appointed to the bench in 2012 by former Democratic President Barack Obama.
He was also appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in May 2016 for a term lasting through 2023.

That court issues warrants that allow Justice Department officials to wiretap individuals, a process that has been thrown into the spotlight amid the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election.

The most recent controversy related to FISA warrants involves Peter Strzok, a senior FBI agent who was removed from the Russia investigation for exchanging text messages with a colleague that expressed anti-Trump views.

At a hearing on Thursday at the House Judiciary Committee, Republican lawmaker Jim Jordan pressed FBI Director Christopher Wray on whether a former British spy’s dossier of allegations of Russian financial and personal links to Trump’s campaign and associates was used by Strzok to obtain a FISA warrant to surveil Trump’s transition team.



Judge Sullivan previously served on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals under appointments by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, respectively.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

CONYERS: All Dems on Oversight and Judiciary Committees Demand Immediate Investigation of President, Attorney General, and Top White House Aides

Request Public Hearing with FBI Director, Memos and Tapes in Light of
Reports that Trump Pressured Comey to End Flynn Investigation

Washington, D.C. (May 16, 2017)—Today, all 33 Democratic Members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Committee on the Judiciary sent a detailed letter, below, to their respective Republican Chairmen outlining their demand for an immediate investigation into the actions of President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and top White House aides:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
“We are writing to request that the Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committee launch an immediate joint investigation into whether President Donald Trump and his top officials are engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to obstruct the criminal, counter-intelligence, and oversight investigations currently being conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, and Congress into members of his presidential campaign and their contacts with Russian officials.”

The letter explains:

“Given the gravity of the events that have occurred over the past several weeks, there is simply no reasonable question that the Oversight Committee and Judiciary Committee should already be conducting a robust investigation of these issues that includes public hearings, document requests, and interviews and depositions.  It is unacceptable to continue ignoring these scandals.”

With respect to the Oversight Committee’s lack of action to date, the letter states:

“Although Chairman Chaffetz recently sent a letter to the Department of Justice Inspector General, we believe that response is anemic—especially for the Oversight Committee, which claims to be the premiere investigative body in the House of Representatives—and particularly in comparison to the multiple ‘emergency’ hearings he called and the unilateral subpoenas he issued as part of the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

With respect to the Judiciary Committee’s lack of action to date, the letter states:

“On several occasions—through at least four letters to Chairman Goodlatte, and in debate on three separate resolutions of inquiry debated in the Judiciary Committee—we have called for the Majority to take action ‘to ensure the integrity and independence of both the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’.”

The Members conclude:

“We are concerned that the continued failure of House Republicans to take action in the face of this onslaught of allegations will cause significant damage to the faith that the American people have in the credibility and integrity of our Committees and the House of Representatives.  We have a solemn obligation under the Constitution to act as a check on the Executive Branch and to hold President Trump accountable.  It is time to do our job.”

The letter requests an immediate public hearing with Director Comey and copies of all of the FBI Director’s memos relating to the President, as well as all associated agency and White House records, including any audio tapes, and notes, if they exist. 

The letter also requests that the Oversight Committee schedule an immediate vote on a motion to subpoena the White House to produce documents it has been withholding in response to the bipartisan request from Ranking Member Cummings and Chairman Chaffetz on March 22, 2017.  All Democratic Members of the Oversight Committee sent a letter to Chairman Chaffetz on April 27, 2017, insisting that he press the White House to produce these documents, but the Chairman refused to even hold a meeting.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, March 11, 2017

CONYERS To Ask For Full Accounting Of Pending U.S. Attorney/& Related Entitites


Detroit, MI - On March 10, 2017, the Trump Justice Department asked every sitting U.S. Attorney for their resignation.  Today, the Trump Administration fired Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the  Southern  District of New York.  Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee issued the following statement:

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
“I am deeply disturbed by the Trump Administration's decision to terminate all sitting U.S. Attorneys.  The Trump Administration--including former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and others--has been enveloped by myriad conflicts of interest, and allegations of improper if not unlawful contacts involving the Russian government.  The Attorney General himself is enmeshed in scandal resulting from his own inaccurate testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“It is particularly problematic that the Administration would fire Mr. Bharara, the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, who President Trump himself had previously asked to continue in his position--particularly given that Mr. Bharara could be reviewing a range of potential improper activity emanating from Trump Tower and the Trump Campaign, as well as entities with financial ties to the President or the Trump Organization.  Similarly, every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee recently asked Channing Phillips, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, to investigate whether Attorney General Sessions’ misstatements before the Senate Judiciary Committee may have constituted the federal crimes of lying to Congress or perjury.

“I am asking the Trump Justice Department to provide the House Judiciary Committee with a summary of any and all pending investigations involving members of the Trump Administration, the Trump Transition, the Trump Campaign, and the Trump Organization,  so that we can understand the full implications of this weekend’s firings.”


Preet Bharara Is Fired After Refusing to Step Down as U.S. Attorney


Preet Bharara, the Manhattan federal prosecutor who was asked by President Trump to remain in his post shortly after the election, was fired on Saturday after he refused an order to submit his resignation.
Mr. Bharara’s dismissal capped a brief but highly unusual showdown in which a political appointee installed by Mr. Trump’s predecessor, President Barack Obama, declined an order to submit a resignation.
He told the world what had happened on Twitter.
“I did not resign. Moments ago I was fired. Being the US Attorney in SDNY will forever be the greatest honor of my professional life,” Mr. Bharara wrote on his personal feed, which he set up in the past two weeks.
Mr. Bharara was among 46 holdover Obama appointees who were called by the acting deputy attorney general on Friday and told to immediately submit their resignations and plan to clear out of their offices.
But Mr. Bharara, who was called to Trump Tower for a meeting with the incoming president in late November, declined to do so.
Mr. Bharara’s office is overseeing a pending case against former close aides and associates of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and an inquiry into people close to Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City, who has been a target of Mr. Trump’s ire as he has positioned himself as a vocal opponent of the president’s on the left.
The announcement that Mr. Bharara had been told to resign created feelings of whiplash inside his office, according to two people familiar with the views of current prosecutors. One of the people described an oddly subdued reaction mixed with anxiety as the events unfolded. “You have a sense of how it’s going to end and it’s not going to end well,” this person said.
In November, Mr. Bharara met at Trump Tower with the president-elect and several of his advisers, including Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, according to two people briefed on that discussion who requested anonymity to describe a private meeting with Mr. Trump.
At the meeting, according to those briefed, Mr. Trump urged Mr. Bharara to remain in the job. Mr. Bharara said after the meeting, “I agreed to stay on.”
Mr. Bharara’s dismissal came about a year into his office’s investigation of Mr. de Blasio’s campaign fund-raising, an inquiry that is examining whether the mayor or his aides traded beneficial acts for political donations. And Mr. Bharara leaves his post at a sensitive juncture: Mr. de Blasio was interviewed recently by prosecutors who appeared to be in the final stages of determining whether to seek charges in the matter.
There is little precedent for Mr. Bharara’s refusal to resign; President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush also dismissed holdover political appointees in the Justice Department.
But the hasty nature of the dismissals, combined with Mr. Trump’s previous request of Mr. Bharara that he stay on, made this an unusual episode.
It was unclear how many of the 46 holdovers had submitted resignations. By way of contrast, Mr. Bharara’s colleague Robert L. Capers, the United States attorney in Brooklyn, announced his resignation on Friday afternoon.
The White House has said little about the timing of the mass push for resignations, other than insisting it was not a response to a call for a purge that Mr. Trump saw on Fox News, where one host, Sean Hannity, urged the president to clean house at the Justice Department.
Two White House officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the promise to keep Mr. Bharara on was a product of a chaotic transition process and Mr. Trump’s desire at the time to try to work with Senator Chuck Schumer, with whom Mr. Bharara is close. The relationship between Mr. Trump and Mr. Schumer, the Senate minority leader, has since soured.
Phil Singer, a former aide to Mr. Schumer and a Democratic strategist, called it “absurd” to suggest that Mr. Bharara’s firing was meant to punish Mr. Schumer.
But Mr. Trump has felt under siege over leaks springing from the vast federal bureaucracy he now oversees, and White House officials said that removing Mr. Bharara and the others was meant as a first step toward purging Obama appointees.
Before Mr. Bharara was fired on Saturday, one of New York’s top elected Republicans expressed support for him.
“Good for Preet, he is doing the job he was appointed to do!” Assemblyman Brian M. Kolb, the State Assembly minority leader, wrote on Twitter.
Assemblyman Steven F. McLaughlin, a Republican who was fond of calling for “draining the swamp” in Albany long before Mr. Trump embraced that expression, had urged Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions to reconsider on Friday.
“Big mistake,” he wrote on Twitter.
The Southern District of New York, which Mr. Bharara has overseen since 2009, encompasses Manhattan, Mr. Trump’s home before he was elected president, as well as the Bronx, Westchester, and other counties north of New York City.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, March 3, 2017

CONYERS: We need an Independent, Non-Partisan Commission To Investigate Trump and Russia Ties

 
Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that he would recuse himself from Trump Campaign related investigations. However, his recusal should not be limited to only investigations involving the Trump Campaign. Under 28 CFR § 45.2, the Attorney General is required to recuse himself from a criminal investigation when he has a “personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution,” and must also recuse himself from any investigation where his participation would “create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.”

Serious allegations of misconduct involving President Trump and his associates occurred subsequent to the presidential election—including but not limited to communications between General Flynn and the Russian government, potentially improper contact between White House aides and officials within the Justice Department, and misstatements by the Attorney General himself.

Just as importantly, we need to ensure that any investigation involving issues which overlap between the campaign and the Administration are fully and fairly investigated, including what influence the Russian government, Russian intelligence and Russian financial interests may have with regard to Mr. Trump and his Administration, and whether there have been any efforts to cover-up the same.

As such, the Attorney General must recuse himself from any and all investigations involving the campaign, the transition, and the Trump Administration. He must obviously step aside from any investigation in which he himself may be a target.

I am not persuaded by the Attorney General’s effort to explain his misstatements to the Senate Judiciary Committee, in response to questions asked verbally by Senator Franken and in writing by Senator Leahy, and it is not at all clear that an after-the-fact clarification to the Committee will resolve this matter. As every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee wrote, the question of whether or not the Attorney General’s statement constitutes perjury should be reviewed by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

I am troubled by President Trump’s statement that he does not think Attorney General Sessions should recuse himself from any Russia-related investigations. It was wholly inappropriate for the President to discourage the Attorney General or anyone else from recusing themselves from any ongoing criminal investigation—let alone an investigation in which he and members of his Administration are potential suspects. Such statements fly in the face of applicable DOJ guidelines. They also smack of an attempted cover-up.

These events and statements also make abundantly clear, as I and many other Members of Congress have stated previously, that we need an independent, non-partisan commission to review the entire matter.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, March 2, 2017

CONYERS Concerns With President Trump and Attorney General Sessions Comments On Investigation Recusal

By John Conyers, Jr.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
After listening to comments from President Trump and Attorney General Sessions, I have the following concerns: 

First, the Attorney General’s recusal should not be limited to only investigations involving the Trump Campaign. Under 28 CFR § 45.2, the Attorney General is required to recuse himself from a criminal investigation when he has a “personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution,” and must also recuse himself from any investigation where his participation would “create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.” 

Serious allegations of misconduct involving President Trump and his associates occurred subsequent to the presidential election--including but not limited to communications between General Flynn and the Russian government, potentially improper contact between White House aides and officials within the Justice Department, and misstatements by the Attorney General himself. 

Just as importantly, we need to ensure that any investigation involving issues which overlap between the campaign and the Administration are fully and fairly investigated, including what influence the Russian government, Russian intelligence and Russian financial interests may have with regard to Mr. Trump and his Administration, and whether there have been any efforts to cover-up the same. 

As such, the Attorney General must recuse himself from any and all investigations involving the campaign, the transition, and the Trump Administration. 

He must obviously step aside from any investigation in which he himself may be a target. 

Second, I am not persuaded by the Attorney General's effort to explain his misstatements to the Senate Judiciary Committee, in response to questions asked verbally by Senator Franken and in writing by Senator Leahy, and it is not at all clear that an after-the-fact clarification to the Committee will resolve this matter. 

As every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee wrote today, the question of whether or not the Attorney General’s statement constitutes perjury should be reviewed by the FBI and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. 

Third, I am troubled by President Trump’s statement that he does not think Attorney General Sessions should recuse himself from any Russia-related investigations. It was wholly inappropriate for the President to discourage the Attorney General or anyone else from recusing themselves from any ongoing criminal investigation--let alone an investigation in which he and members of his Administration are potential suspects. 

Such statements fly in the face of applicable DOJ guidelines. They also smack of an attempted cover-up. Today’s events and statements also make abundantly clear, as I and many other Members have stated previously, that we need an independent, non-partisan commission to review the entire matter. 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions will recuse himself from any probe related to 2016 presidential campaign



Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Thursday he will recuse himself from any investigations related to the 2016 presidential campaign, which would include any Russian interference in the electoral process.
Speaking at a hastily-called press conference at the Justice Department, Sessions said he had met with department ethics officials soon after being sworn in last month to evaluate the rules and cases in which he might have a conflict.
“They said that since I had involvement with the campaign, I should not be involved in any campaign investigation,” Sessions said. He added that he concurred with their assessment, and would thus recuse himself from any existing or future investigation involving Trump’s campaign.
The announcement comes a day after The Washington Post revealed that Sessions twice met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and did not disclose that fact to Congress during his confirmation hearing.

Sessions spoke twice with Russian ambassador during Trump's presidential campaign

 
Play Video1:49
Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice in 2016 with Russia's ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, but did not mention this during his confirmation hearing to become U.S. attorney general. Sessions was asked about possible contacts between President Trump's campaign and the Russian government. (Victoria Walker/The Washington Post)
At that hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign, and said, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”
Democrats had been calling for weeks for Sessions to step away from the investigation, though he had resisted pressures to do so. On Thursday, some high-level Republicans joined in saying the former senator should recuse himself.
Sessions said discussions about his recusal began before the revelation of his meetings with Kislyak. He said he and ethics officials had agreed on Monday to meet for a final time Thursday.
Sessions defended his comment on meetings with Russian officials to Franken as “honest and correct as I understood it at the time,” though he also said he would “write the Judiciary Committee soon — today or tomorrow — to explain this testimony for the record.” His explanation, he said, was that he was “taken aback” by Franken’s question — which referenced a breaking news story about contacts between Trump surrogates and Russians.
“It struck me very hard, and that’s what I focused my answer on,” he said. “In retrospect, I should have slowed down and said I did meet one Russian official a couple times. That would be the ambassador.”
In a statement issued Wednesday night, Sessions said he “never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.” A spokeswoman confirmed his meetings with Kislyak but said there was nothing misleading about what Sessions said to Congress.
The spokeswoman, Sarah Isgur Flores, said Sessions did not meet with Kislyak as a Trump supporter, but rather, in his capacity as a member of the Armed Services Committee. One meeting was in September; the other in July, when Sessions was approached after an event on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention.
A Justice Department official said Wednesday of the September meeting: “There’s just not strong recollection of what was said.”
On Thursday, though, Sessions outlined fairly extensive details of the encounter, which also included two senior Sessions staffers. He said he talked with the ambassador about a trip he made to Russia in 1991, terrorism and Ukraine — a major policy issue following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the imposition of U.S. and European Union sanctions on Russia for its actions.
At one point, Sessions said, “it got to be a little bit of a testy conversation.” He said the ambassador invited him to lunch, but he did not accept.
“Most of these ambassadors are pretty gossipy, and this was in the campaign season, but I don’t recall any specific political discussions,” Sessions said.
President Trump said Thursday that he has “total” confidence in Sessions, who has come under fire for not disclosing his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Speaking aboard the aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford in Newport News, Va., Trump told reporters that he was not aware of Sessions’s contact with the Russian ambassador. Trump also said that Sessions “probably” testified truthfully during his confirmation hearing last month before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
A Justice Department official said Wednesday of the September meeting: “There’s just not strong recollection of what was said.”
On Thursday, though, Sessions outlined fairly extensive details of the encounter, which also included two senior Sessions staffers. He said he talked with the ambassador about a trip he made to Russia in 1991, terrorism and Ukraine — a major policy issue following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the imposition of U.S. and European Union sanctions on Russia for its actions.
At one point, Sessions said, “it got to be a little bit of a testy conversation.” He said the ambassador invited him to lunch, but he did not accept.
“Most of these ambassadors are pretty gossipy, and this was in the campaign season, but I don’t recall any specific political discussions,” Sessions said.
President Trump said Thursday that he has “total” confidence in Sessions, who has come under fire for not disclosing his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Speaking aboard the aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford in Newport News, Va., Trump told reporters that he was not aware of Sessions’s contact with the Russian ambassador. Trump also said that Sessions “probably” testified truthfully during his confirmation hearing last month before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Asked earlier Thursday whether Sessions should recuse himself, Trump added: “I don’t think so.”
But several top Republican lawmakers believe Sessions should recuse himself from ongoing investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including potential contacts between Trump campaign officials and associates and Russian officials.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that Sessions met twice with Kislyak in 2016. When asked during his confirmation hearing about what he would do as attorney general if there were contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian authorities, Sessions answered by saying that he had not been in contact with Russian officials during the campaign.
The meetings occurred during the height of concerns about Russian interference in the U.S. election and at a time when Sessions was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as a top Trump surrogate and adviser.
Democrats called on Sessions to resign, and several said he had perjured himself in his confirmation hearing. The swift response among some Republicans, although more muted, signaled increasing concern about the potential political fallout.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) tweeted early Thursday that “AG Sessions should clarify his testimony and recuse himself.”
Chaffetz later told reporters: “Let’s let him clarify his statement, and I do think he should recuse himself.” Asked whether his committee would investigate the matter, he said, “There are things we are looking at.”
Other calls for Sessions to step down came from across the GOP spectrum. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who formally introduced Sessions at his confirmation hearing, said he should recuse himself from ongoing probes of Russian involvement. So did Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio), who is held in high regard at the White House.
Republican Reps. Darrell Issa (Calif.), Raúl R. Labrador (Idaho) and Barbara Comstock (Va.) agreed. Comstock, who represents a swing district in Northern Virginia and is a former Justice Department official, said that Sessions “needs to clarify any misconceptions from his confirmation hearing on the matter.”
The episode marks the second time in Trump’s nascent administration when the truthfulness of one of its top officials has come under scrutiny. In February, Trump fired his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, after The Washington Post reported that he had not fully disclosed his contacts with Russian officials.
According to Justice Department officials, Sessions met with Kislyak twice in 2016, including a private meeting in September in his office.
In a statement following the revelations, Sessions denied that he had met with “any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign.” He added: “I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”
On Thursday morning, Sessions told NBC News, “I have said whenever it’s appropriate, I will recuse myself. There’s no doubt about that.”
And White House press secretary Sean Spicer pushed back against calls for Sessions to recuse himself, telling Fox News, “He was 100 percent straight with the [Judiciary] committee, and I think that people who are choosing to play partisan politics with this should be ashamed of themselves.”
House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) also noted that ongoing investigations have found no evidence that “an American or a person in the Trump campaign was involved or working with the Russians.”
“Should he recuse himself? I think he answered that question this morning,” Ryan told reporters during his weekly news conference. “If he himself is the subject of an investigation, of course he would. If he is not, I don’t see any purpose or reason for doing this.”
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) shared conflicting views on Sessions during back-to-back television interviews Thursday. Asked whether Sessions should recuse himself, he told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” “I think the trust of the American people — you recuse yourself in these situations, yes.”
But McCarthy later told Fox News: “I’m not calling on him to recuse himself. I was asked on ‘Morning Joe’ if he needs to recuse himself as going forward. As you just heard, Attorney General Sessions said he would recuse himself going forward — appropriate, and that’s all my answer was.”
Sessions has focused his response to the allegations on the substance of his conversations with Kislyak, which he said did not include talk about the campaign.
Many Democrats considered that a direct contradiction of Sessions’s testimony in January, when he told Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) that he had not spoken to Russian officials.
But Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who considers Sessions a close friend, said, “I don’t think Jeff Sessions is a liar” and argued that Sessions had not misled the Judiciary Committee “because all of the questions were about campaign contacts.”
But Sessions “does owe it, quite frankly, to all of us to tell us what he talked about” with Kislyak, Graham said.
Fallout from Session’s statements came as FBI Director James B. Comey made a previously scheduled visit to Capitol Hill to meet with the House Intelligence Committee. But Comey was once again unwilling to confirm whether the FBI is exploring ties between Trump campaign officials and the Russian government, according to Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the committee’s top Democrat.
“We can’t do a complete job unless the director is willing to discuss anything that they are investigating,” Schiff said. “At this point we know less than a fraction of what the FBI knows.”
But Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the committee’s chairman, said Comey was “very upfront” with lawmakers.
“There’s a lot more information … the FBI and intelligence agencies need to provide to our committees” to aid ongoing congressional investigations, Nunes said. He added that he had “no reason to believe that any information” would be withheld from his committee.
Nunes also refused to call for Sessions’s resignation, describing that outcry as “a disagreement between the attorney general and some United States senators.”
Senators who deal regularly with defense, foreign affairs or intelligence matters often meet with foreign officials. But as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sessions was less likely to meet with foreign ambassadors than foreign military leaders. The Post has spoken to all senators who served on the armed services panel in 2016. All of them said they had not met with Kislyak last year.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said he met with Kislyak in 2016, but in the earlier part of the year before the presidential campaign intensified.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) agreed Thursday that there’s nothing unusual about lawmakers interacting with foreign diplomats but said that Sessions must be removed from any oversight of investigations of Russia’s alleged interference.
“It would be of ‘Alice in Wonderland’ quality if this administration were to sanction him to investigate himself,” Schumer told reporters as he joined other top Democrats in calling on Sessions to resign.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement released late Wednesday that “Sessions is not fit to serve as the top law enforcement officer of our country.” On Thursday, more than 100 House Democrats followed suit. Every Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee also called for a criminal investigation of Sessions’s comments during his confirmation hearing.
In an acknowledgment that Sessions is unlikely to step down, Schumer and other Democrats focused mostly on ensuring impartial investigations of Russian meddling in U.S. elections.
“Better for the country if he resigns, but let’s get an investigation going,” he said.
Schumer also said that the Justice Department’s inspector general should investigate whether Sessions made any attempts to thwart any ongoing Russia-related investigations. If lawmakers were not satisfied with the choice of independent counsel, Democrats would seek to revive an expired independent counsel law, but would rewrite it to empower a three-judge panel like the D.C. Circuit Court — not the attorney general — to appoint the special prosecutor.
Some Democratic senators called on Sessions to appear again before the Judiciary Committee to explain his relationship and conversations with Russian officials under oath. Others are encouraging congressional tax-writing committees to use their authority to review Trump’s tax returns for any sign of Russian connections.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, February 16, 2017

HOUSE REPUBLICANS CALL FOR LEAK INVESTIGATION BUT REFUSE TO INVESTIGATE TRUMP/RUSSIA TIES OR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST


House Judiciary GOP Offers Bare Minimum Response; Strike Down Dem Amendments to Investigate Trump & Russia Ties



Last night, the Chairmen of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees wrote a letter calling for an investigation into the leaks that exposed former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn--after consistently refusing to investigate either Flynn or Russian hacking. House Republicans have refused to investigate or even acknowledge concerns about Russian interference with the 2016 election and any Trump Administration connections to that interference.

Just yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee marked up the House Republicans’ oversight plan for the 115th Congress. You can view the original Republican plan here.

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
In his opening statement, Ranking Member John Conyers said, “…I fear that there are several urgent matters within our jurisdiction that will not be discussed on a timely basis if we do not bring them up today…the Majority has been conspicuously silent with respect to report after report connecting various figures in the President’s inner circle to the government of Vladimir Putin….The fact that General Flynn has resigned does little to resolve a number of questions that this Committee has a responsibility to ask—especially after last night’s revelation that the Trump campaign was in direct communication with Russian intelligence operatives—and we will begin to ask some of those questions today.”Ranking Member Conyers’ full remarks are available here.

Facing criticism for failure to conduct meaningful oversight of the Trump Administration, Chairman Goodlatte offered an amendment to the oversight plan that discussed oversight into “allegations of misconduct by Executive Branch officials” and “allegations of leaks of classified information.”  Democratic Rep. Cicilline offered a successful amendment to the Goodlatte amendment, addressing “allegations of interference with our democratic institutions or efforts to improperly or illegally interfere with our elections.”  

Ranking Member Conyers had this to say about the majority's bare minimum effort: “I will not oppose the adoption of the amendment, as far as it goes, but what is disturbing is that it clearly does not go far enough.  In specifying a focus on leaks, it undermines the gravity of the wrongdoing the leaks expose.  In doing so, it appears that my Republican colleagues are embracing and channeling Donald Trump, whose administration has displayed a dangerous degree of incompetence, particularly on national security matters.  And the incompetence, dishonesty, unethical behavior, and disregard for our constitutional issues show no sign of abating.”

The final oversight plan does not specifically address any concerns about the integrity of the election or any of the alleged connections between the Trump Administration and the government of Vladimir Putin. The markup spanned more than 7 hours as Democratic members of the committee offered a number of amendments on Trump Administration contacts with the Russian government, President Trump’s ongoing conflicts of interest, and other matters that the Majority chose not to prioritize in their proposed oversight plan. 

A full list of the amendments that House Judiciary Republicans voted down is available below.

Amendment
Description
Nadler
Failed 11-16
In the Intellectual Property Subcommittee section, amends the “Federal Judiciary” section to discuss threats to federal judges.

Lofgren
Failed 13-15
In the Immigration Subcommittee section, adds a new item on the deportation of parents of minor children.

Jackson Lee
Failed 13-19
In the Crime Subcommittee section, amends the item on the FBI to discuss the FBI’s investigation of Trump Administration contacts with Russia.

Jackson Lee
Failed 11-18
In the Crime Subcommittee section, amends the item on the FBI to discuss the bureau’s public disclosure of information related to high-profile investigations.

Cohen
Failed 12-17
In the Constitution Subcommittee section, amends the “Free Speech” item to discuss threats to the freedom of the press.

Johnson
Failed 11-17
In the Constitution Subcommittee section, adds new item on false allegations of voter fraud.

Cicilline
Failed 10-15
In the Constitution Subcommittee section, amends the “Religious Liberty” section to discuss entry into the United States.

Raskin
Failed 10-14
In the Full Committee section, adds discussion of the foreign emoluments clause to “Protecting Congress’ Constitutional Powers.”

Jayapal
Failed 11-15
In the Immigration Subcommittee section, amends the “Refugee Program” item to discuss the rigorous vetting of refugees.

Schneider
Failed 12-18
In the Immigration Subcommittee section, adds a new item on the deportation of Dreamers.

Swalwell
Failed 11-17
In the Full Committee section, adds a new item on DOJ’s investigation into Russian influence on 2016 election.

Swalwell
Failed 12-19
In the Full Committee section, adds new item on background checks for security clearances.

Swalwell
Failed
In the Constitution Subcommittee section, amends the “War on Terrorism” item to discuss the limits of congressionally authorized military force.



Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©