evidence

FILE PHOTO: Robert Mueller listens at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee at an oversight hearing about the FBI on Capitol Hill in Washington
FILE PHOTO: Robert Mueller, as FBI director, listens during a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing about the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 19, 2013. REUTERS/Larry Downing/File Photo

March 25, 2019

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller acted honorably, President Donald Trump said on Monday, days after the fellow Republican wrapped up his Russia probe with no evidence of criminal collusion between Trump’s campaign and Moscow.

Asked if he thought Mueller acted honorably, Trump told reporters at the White House “yes.”

(Reporting by Jeff Mason; Writing by Susan Heavey; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

Source: OANN

Democratic House committee chairmen who want to keep looking into claims of collusion and obstruction on the part of President Donald Trump and his 2016 campaign will not find anything that special counsel Robert Mueller was not able to find over the course of his lengthy investigation, Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, said Monday.

"Bob Mueller, who had unlimited time, unlimited money, unlimited resources, 40 FBI agents working with 20 federal prosecutors couldn't find any evidence of any crimes," the Texas Republican, a member of the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees, told Fox News' "America's Newsroom." "What in the name of God's green Earth makes anyone think that Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and Elijah Cummings could find what Bob Mueller couldn't?"

Ratcliff noted that in the Senate, where Republicans control the Judiciary Committee, Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has already agreed there are questions surrounding the push for the Mueller investigation.

He also called it "disappointing" so many people are saying the investigation is not over and said the House does not need to investigate what Mueller already has.

Ratcliffe said he has spoken with Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and learned he hopes to be finished with his own report on Trump by May or June.

Further, he said John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, has "been dispatched" to look into the potential that "criminal aspects" might have come into play behind the Mueller probe.

"Between those investigations, the American people will hopefully get answers to those questions much sooner than later," Ratcliffe said.

Source: NewsMax

Mary Margaret Olohan | Reporter

Vice President Mike Pence celebrated the results of the Mueller investigation Sunday saying, “Today is a great day for America.”

The vice president referred to the findings of Robert Mueller’s investigation, which were announced on Friday in a letter from Attorney General William Barr to Congress. The findings contained no evidence of collusion between Russia and any member of the Trump family. Barr also said that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would not charge President Donald Trump with any charges of obstruction of justice. (RELATED: White House Reveals Next Steps on Mueller Report)

“Today is a great day for America, President Trump and our entire administration,” Pence said in a statement.

“After two years of investigation, and reckless accusations by many Democrats and members of the media, the Special Counsel has confirmed what President Trump said along; there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.”

“The Attorney General also confirmed that there was no obstruction of justice. This total vindication of the President of the United States and our campaign should be welcomed by every American who cherishes the truth and the integrity of our elections.”

“In the days ahead, the American people can be confident that the President and our entire administration will continue to focus where we always have, on the issues most important to our country.” (RELATED: Sanders: ‘It’s A Great Day In America’ After Mueller Report)

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

Robert Natelson | Senior Fellow, Independence Institute

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she wants to enfranchise 16 year olds. Speaker Pelosi is right that we need a national conversation about voting age. But that conversation should be about raising the age to 25.

In the Anglo-American legal system, traditionally people reached majority at 21. In 1971, the 26th amendment forced states to enfranchise citizens at 18.

I well remember the debate over lowering the voting age. The argument for the 18-year old vote was not fact-based. Its principal justification was the slogan: “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote!” The slogan’s appeal lay in the fact that America was conscripting millions of hapless young men for an unpopular war in Vietnam.

Of course, the slogan is a non-sequitur: The attributes that enable one to serve as a buck private are not the same as those of a responsible voter. Since only males were being drafted, the slogan didn’t explain why we should extend the vote to 18-year old women as well. Moreover, if there should be a connection between military service and suffrage, then arguably suffrage should come only after one’s military obligation is discharged. (Some republics have, in fact, adopted that rule.)

The real reason for the 26th amendment was to reduce young people’s opposition to the war. In other words, the 26th amendment was an overreaction to a temporary political need — always a poor reason to change the Constitution. I remember figuring all this out at the time and therefore opposing the change, even though I would benefit personally from the lower voting age.

Unfortunately, most people didn’t figure it out. States went even farther than the amendment required by dropping the age of majority to 18 for all purposes.

These foolish decisions contradicted what almost every parent who has finished raising kids knows: Celebrating an 18th birthday is not a good measure of civic maturity. Those who benefit politically from youthful voting will deny this, but the evidence on the point is overwhelming. Indeed, subsequent experience has induced us to repeal step-by-step the decisions made then.

For one thing, science has discovered that the brain does not fully mature until age 25. So it is not surprising that the record of governance in most countries that allow 16 year olds to vote — Brazil, Nicaragua, Argentina, etc. — has been truly wretched.

In America specifically, we have seen how improvident borrowing by young “adults” contributed to a college debt crisis. We have witnessed the slaughter by young people on the highways. That’s why all states (with federal prodding) have hiked the drinking age to 21. Some states also have raised the driving age and imposed additional restrictions on youthful drivers. Youthful abuse of tobacco and other drugs have led to more restrictions on access to those products.

In recognition that most post-adolescents remain dependent on others, the Obamacare law lets them remain on their parents’ health insurance policies until age 26.

Clearly, lowering the age of majority has not been a success.

Restoring it to 21 would be a step in the right direction, but it would not be enough. As Obamacare supporters (including Speaker Pelosi) have implicitly recognized, there are compelling reasons for a higher age.

One reason is the scientific finding referred to earlier: cerebral maturity arrives at 25, not 21. Another is that it now takes far longer for people to learn how the world works than it used to. Life is far more complicated than it was in, say, 1900; and far more young people remain in ivory tower insulation from its realities.

There is also the rising age of practical independence. The American Founders recognized that for decision making to work well, the decision maker has to be able to exercise independent judgment. (That insight forms a basic principle underlying many provisions in the U.S. Constitution.)

In 1900 a 21-year old frequently was a self-supporting taxpayer with a job, a spouse, and a deep stake in neighborhood and society. Today many of that age live an unanchored life at the expense of parents, the government, loans, and grants.

There is another difference from earlier times: If the “old enough to fight” mantra ever made sense, it makes none today. Military conscription has not existed in America for over 45 years. (Anyway, we could exempt active service members from a voting-age hike.)

Proposals to enfranchise 16-year olds are either frivolous or attempts to seize partisan advantage. But raising the voting age to 25 should be on the national agenda.

Rob Natelson is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the nonprofit Independence Institute in Denver. He served as a law professor for 25 years at three different universities, and has been active in small business and politics.


The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.

Source: The Daily Caller

Robert Natelson | Senior Fellow, Independence Institute

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she wants to enfranchise 16 year olds. Speaker Pelosi is right that we need a national conversation about voting age. But that conversation should be about raising the age to 25.

In the Anglo-American legal system, traditionally people reached majority at 21. In 1971, the 26th amendment forced states to enfranchise citizens at 18.

I well remember the debate over lowering the voting age. The argument for the 18-year old vote was not fact-based. Its principal justification was the slogan: “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote!” The slogan’s appeal lay in the fact that America was conscripting millions of hapless young men for an unpopular war in Vietnam.

Of course, the slogan is a non-sequitur: The attributes that enable one to serve as a buck private are not the same as those of a responsible voter. Since only males were being drafted, the slogan didn’t explain why we should extend the vote to 18-year old women as well. Moreover, if there should be a connection between military service and suffrage, then arguably suffrage should come only after one’s military obligation is discharged. (Some republics have, in fact, adopted that rule.)

The real reason for the 26th amendment was to reduce young people’s opposition to the war. In other words, the 26th amendment was an overreaction to a temporary political need — always a poor reason to change the Constitution. I remember figuring all this out at the time and therefore opposing the change, even though I would benefit personally from the lower voting age.

Unfortunately, most people didn’t figure it out. States went even farther than the amendment required by dropping the age of majority to 18 for all purposes.

These foolish decisions contradicted what almost every parent who has finished raising kids knows: Celebrating an 18th birthday is not a good measure of civic maturity. Those who benefit politically from youthful voting will deny this, but the evidence on the point is overwhelming. Indeed, subsequent experience has induced us to repeal step-by-step the decisions made then.

For one thing, science has discovered that the brain does not fully mature until age 25. So it is not surprising that the record of governance in most countries that allow 16 year olds to vote — Brazil, Nicaragua, Argentina, etc. — has been truly wretched.

In America specifically, we have seen how improvident borrowing by young “adults” contributed to a college debt crisis. We have witnessed the slaughter by young people on the highways. That’s why all states (with federal prodding) have hiked the drinking age to 21. Some states also have raised the driving age and imposed additional restrictions on youthful drivers. Youthful abuse of tobacco and other drugs have led to more restrictions on access to those products.

In recognition that most post-adolescents remain dependent on others, the Obamacare law lets them remain on their parents’ health insurance policies until age 26.

Clearly, lowering the age of majority has not been a success.

Restoring it to 21 would be a step in the right direction, but it would not be enough. As Obamacare supporters (including Speaker Pelosi) have implicitly recognized, there are compelling reasons for a higher age.

One reason is the scientific finding referred to earlier: cerebral maturity arrives at 25, not 21. Another is that it now takes far longer for people to learn how the world works than it used to. Life is far more complicated than it was in, say, 1900; and far more young people remain in ivory tower insulation from its realities.

There is also the rising age of practical independence. The American Founders recognized that for decision making to work well, the decision maker has to be able to exercise independent judgment. (That insight forms a basic principle underlying many provisions in the U.S. Constitution.)

In 1900 a 21-year old frequently was a self-supporting taxpayer with a job, a spouse, and a deep stake in neighborhood and society. Today many of that age live an unanchored life at the expense of parents, the government, loans, and grants.

There is another difference from earlier times: If the “old enough to fight” mantra ever made sense, it makes none today. Military conscription has not existed in America for over 45 years. (Anyway, we could exempt active service members from a voting-age hike.)

Proposals to enfranchise 16-year olds are either frivolous or attempts to seize partisan advantage. But raising the voting age to 25 should be on the national agenda.

Rob Natelson is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the nonprofit Independence Institute in Denver. He served as a law professor for 25 years at three different universities, and has been active in small business and politics.


The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.

Source: The Daily Caller

Kevin Daley | Supreme Court Reporter

The Supreme Court denied an appeal Monday from an unknown foreign entity disputing a grand jury subpoena issued in connection with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, which is now complete.

Little is known of the case, which is under seal — the identity of the foreign corporation, the country in which it is based, and the nature of the subpoena are all unknown.

The entity, which is a foreign financial institution, contested the subpoena under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the laws of its own country. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected those arguments, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The entity warned of far-reaching effects on U.S. foreign policy were the D.C. Circuit’s ruling allowed to stand.

“The D.C. Circuit broke from the FSIA’s text, this Court’s precedents, other circuits’ holdings, and the longstanding rule in America and abroad that one sovereign may not exercise criminal jurisdiction over another,” the company wrote in its petition to the high court. “If left to stand, the ruling would wreak havoc on American foreign policy — possibly alienating U.S. allies, undermining diplomatic efforts, and inviting reciprocal treatment abroad for American agencies and instrumentalities.”

The Trump administration asked the Court to reject the appeal. (RELATED: When Clarence Thomas Speaks)

Special Counsel Robert Mueller in Washington, D.C. on March 24, 2019. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Special Counsel Robert Mueller in Washington, D.C. on March 24, 2019. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Chief Justice John Roberts intervened at an earlier phase of the litigation, temporarily blocking a contempt order that issued after the company refused to comply with the subpoena in December 2018.

The full Court ultimately let that order take effect in January. As a result, the company has been subject to a $50,000 fine for each day it failed to furnish the items the subpoena sought.

The Court gave no reasoning for denying Monday’s appeal, as is typical of orders of that nature.

The special counsel submitted his completed report to Justice Department leadership Friday. Attorney General William Barr shared a general summary of that report to Congress on Sunday. Mueller’s investigation did not find evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia during the 2016 presidential election.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Send tips to [email protected]dailycallernewsfoundation.org

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

Betsy Rothstein | Reporter

CNN’s Chief Media Correspondent Brian Stelter recently received a scrumptious box of jelly donuts from Dunkin’ Donuts from Fox News primetime host Tucker Carlson. Still no thank you. But “sources in the CNN camp” told the New York Post‘s Page Six that they believed Carlson’s gift was an act of “fat-shaming.”

Could a box of jelly donuts really be triggering for a left-wing newsman who meticulously put every morsel of his entire diet on Twitter and shed tons of weight? At one of Washington socialite Tammy Haddad‘s world famous, ridiculously mob boss,  exclusive White House Correspondents’ Garden Parties, Stelter happily posted a pic of a giant donut wall filled with every kind of donut known to mankind. Stelter isn’t exactly stealth about his longtime weight issues. And well, sometimes, a donut really is just a donut, or, er, a dozen donuts or a wall of donuts. HELP! Weight Watchers. Jenny Craig. Marie Osmond. Oprah. Someone protect this man from a dozen donuts!

“Such bitches,” remarked a Mirror spy observing the situation. “He gets a dozen free donuts and somehow he’s the victim?”

 Stelter, who has ballooned a little in recent years, but certainly not back to his post-200 pound weight, blew off The Mirror’s request for comment Friday. This was a day after he appeared thrilled — yet somewhat agitated — to receive the box of sugary goodness at his office in New York City. It’s not easy enduring TV scrutiny about one’s appearance, so he can hardly be blamed for being sensitive.

But yeah, he can be ridiculed for turning himself into a victim over a box of donuts.

“Nobody plays the victim card better,” noted a longtime media industry insider. “He can, without evidence, repeatedly question Trump’s mental health but can’t handle receiving a box of donuts.”

Stelter appeared to majorly misinterpret Carlson’s gift when he finally broke his silence about the donut debacle. Was he too busy over the weekend downing the donuts? (RELATED: FNC’s Carlson Worries About Stelter’s Hunger Pains, Sends Him A Dozen Jelly Donuts) 

“Donuts?” Stelter tweeted Sunday night. “If this is @TuckerCarlson’s way of saying yes to my interview request, I’ll accept his silly delivery.”

Stelter makes it a point to butcher Fox News nearly every week. He has made enemies with at least two hosts at Fox News, including Carlson and Sean Hannity. He purposefully carves out special time to cut into the network he loves to hate. Another Stelter staple: Berating President Trump, whom he believes is not mentally well. In a recent episode of “Reliable Sources,” Stelter even questioned the mental health of Fox News and said he hoped it could one day be a “healthy” part of the media ecosystem. No self-awareness about his own obvious lefty biases. Just a new week and more of the same. (RELATED: CNN Host Absurdly Questions The Mental Health Of Fox News) 

Excuse me, but wasn’t Carlson’s gesture to Stelter literally a sweet one? The FNC host had no comment on the matter.

During the whole Carlson-Bubba The Love Sponge saga, in which lefty watchdog group and professional Fox News haters Media matters excavated old, obviously off-the-wall conversations between Carlson and Bubba, Stelter clearly sided with the outrage machine. So did MSNBC’s leftiest of hosts Chris Hayes.

I’ve come up with the name of the Lifetime Movie for Stelter’s saga should it ever become one. TV News Host Drowns His Sorrows In Jelly Donut Sauce: The CNN Brian Stelter Story. 

If you have a better one, write me: [email protected] 

Source: The Daily Caller

U.S. Attorney General William Barr leaves his house after Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of collusion between U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia in the 2016 election in McClean, Virginia
U.S. Attorney General William Barr leaves his house after Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of collusion between U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia in the 2016 election in McClean, Virginia, U.S., March 25, 2019. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

March 25, 2019

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said on Monday he wants Attorney General William Barr to appear before the panel to discuss the special counsel’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

“What’s next, I hope, will be that he will come to the committee (and) release as much as possible of the Mueller report,” Senator Lindsey Graham said, referring to the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

(Reporting by Susan Cornwell and Doina Chiacu; Writing by Tim Ahmann; editing by Susan Heavey)

Source: OANN

There have been no conversations about President Donald Trump issuing pardons for any of his associates who have been charged or pleaded guilty as part of the U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, the White House said Monday.

There has been "no discussion that I'm aware of" regarding pardons, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders told reporters. Fellow White House spokesman Hogan Gidley also told MSNBC in an interview that the White House has not had any conversations about such pardons.

Gidley said he did not know whether any lawyers for Trump's associates had approached the White House counsel about pardons.

Mueller's team finished up work on Friday and submitted its findings to U.S. Attorney General William Barr, who issued a four-page summary on Sunday. Barr said the Special Counsel's Office had found no evidence of criminal collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia in the 2016 election but had left open the issue of whether Trump had tried to obstruct justice.

Still, Mueller's investigation led to charges and guilty pleas against dozens of people, including a series of Russian nationals and companies as well as several top Trump advisers, such as former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn and former adviser Roger Stone.

"We have a very rigorous process that relates to pardons," Gidley told MSNBC.

Source: NewsMax

Nick Givas | Media And Politics Reporter

Former Arkansas Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee said the one person who escaped blame for the Russia fiasco is former President Barack Obama.

“Now they’re saying, ‘well [Trump] colluded with Russians so he could win, but he didn’t really want to win.’ You can’t have it both ways, Democrats and media. And the third thing I think is important: Who was in charge of the government when all these things happened? Who was running the government?” Huckabee asked on “Fox & Friends,” Monday.

“Prior to the election, it was not Donald Trump. It was not Corey Lewandowski. It was not Paul Manafort. It was none of these people. It was Barack Obama.” (RELATED: Dershowitz Says The Media Must Apologize To The American Public Following Mueller Report Revelation)

Huckabee continued to list members of the Obama administration and asked why they weren’t able to protect America from foreign interference.

WATCH:

“[It was] Susan Rice. It was James clapper, John Brennan. It was Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr. They were the ones in government,” he said. “Donald Trump had zero power. Why aren’t we hearing the fact that when everything happened, the supposed Russia collusion, these were the people who were supposed to be protecting America and they were asleep at the switch. And if it happened, it happened because they let it happen. And they weren’t competent enough to stop it.”

Huckabee also said Democrats should step forward with any additional evidence or move on from the Russia issue entirely.

“They need to be blaring out on loud speakers the song from Elsa in ‘Frozen.’ ‘Let it go. Let it go.’ They’re not going to do that. I mean, it’s evident by the things they’ve been saying over the past 24 hours,” he said.

“And frankly I’m stunned by both the media and the Democrats who don’t have even the courtesy of acknowledging that this is a president who has been falsely accused, as well as the people around him. For two years they have relentlessly attacked him and accused him. And here’s a little word to Adam the Schiff. Adam, you’ve been saying you’ve got evidence. Show up with a box full of it and empty it out on the Capitol steps or shut the heck up.”

You can Follow Nick on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has more "breathing room" on deciding whether to seek impeachment charges against President Donald Trump following the end of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, Politico reports.

Mueller delivered the results of his investigation into Russian election interference in the 2016 election to Attorney General William Barr last week. Barr later released a summary of his findings, and wrote Mueller did not find evidence of collusion.

Pelosi has repeatedly warned impeaching Trump would not be a quick or simple process, and called for Democrats to wait until the special counsel completed his report before deciding whether or not to seek Trump's impeachment.

"I think her instincts were correct, that we're putting way too much into the Mueller report, and what if it disappoints?" Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., told Politico. "What did we really think Mueller was going to do?"

He added the report "exposes some of those early calls [for impeachment] for being premature and not based on the evidence at hand. And I think it sets that back. It doesn't let [Trump] off the hook, but you cried wolf way too early."

Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, added "not only was Nancy wise, but because of her experience she was able to lead us and guide us in the right direction on this. It also takes a certain level of strength and character to be able to deal with this in today's [environment]."

Source: NewsMax

Nick Givas | Media And Politics Reporter

The media failed to cover several important stories while it was obsessing over supposed Russian collusion, according to a reporter for The Hill, Joe Concha.

“How many Russian collusion stories did we see where an organization, reporters got it wrong and there were actual consequences? I can only name once really on a major level. CNN and Anthony Scaramucci, and three reporters got fired,” Concha said Monday on “Fox & Friends.”

“Think of the stories we missed as a result of Russia,” he continued. “The economy’s performance as it pertains to wages or unemployment or growth. The destruction of the ISIS caliphate that suddenly came out of nowhere, it seemed to a lot of people, because no one was really covering it. And the most overlooked story: the opioid epidemic. 70,000 people killed in 2017 alone. That’s more than car crashes. You hardly hear about that and that’s what effects real Americans’ lives.”

WATCH: 

Attorney General William Barr delivered his report on the special counsel probe to Congress Sunday and wrote that President Donald Trump and his campaign team did not collude with any Russian entities during the election. Barr also claimed there was not enough evidence to pursue obstruction of justice charges.

Concha criticized the media’s handling of the Russia probe and said the release of the Mueller report serves as the biggest “reckoning” the press has seen since 2016. (RELATED: Here’s How Many Articles, Likes And Shares The Mueller Probe Has Fueled Since Its Inception)

“Throughout these last 22 months, gossip was treated as gospel. Sources providing information to reporters all too willing to accept it like seagulls at the beach. And look, this is a day of reckoning for our media like we haven’t seen since the 2016 election,” he said earlier in the interview.

“I would say maybe the worst day ever for our media given all that coverage and the pushing of that particular narrative around Russia collusion. The Washington Post and New York Times — Mollie Hemingway pointed this out — won Pulitzers for their reporting on Russian collusion. All we heard about was, walls are closing, nooses tightening and this is the beginning of the end. And now we’re hearing, even yesterday and this morning, this is the beginning of something else. The next chapter. You know why? Because it’s good for ratings and because people want to believe the worst about this president.”

You can Follow Nick on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

  • Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence that the Trump campaign or any Trump associates conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
  • That finding deals a heavy blow to Democrats and some in the media who have pushed at least seven different theories of collusion over the past two-plus years.
  • Many of those theories derived from the infamous Steele dossier.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller put a nail in the coffin for the numerous conspiracy theories that the Trump campaign worked with Russian operatives to influence the 2016 election.

Over the past two years, at least seven main theories of collusion have appeared in the press and through the infamous Steele dossier.

Former Trump associates Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone were all alleged at various points to have colluded with Russia. The infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was also alleged to be where collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia occurred.

And then there was the case of Peter Smith, the late GOP operative who allegedly worked with hackers to track down Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails.

The theories percolated in the media, often stoked by Democrats like California Rep. Adam Schiff, who said he saw “more than circumstantial evidence” of collusion.

But Mueller dispelled those theories in a report of his 22-month investigation.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller wrote, according to Attorney General William Barr. (RELATED: Justice Department Details Mueller’s Conclusions: No Collusion)

Mueller found no evidence that Trump, his associates, or other Americans worked with Russians to release emails through WikiLeaks. He also found no evidence that Trump associates helped the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company that planted disinformation on American social media networks.

Here are those seven conspiracy theories.

Carter Page

The Steele dossier alleges that Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser, took part in a “well-developed conspiracy of co-operation” between the Trump campaign and Russian leadership. According to former British spy Christopher Steele, Page was working under the direction of Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign chairman, to carry out the conspiracy.

“The reason for using WikiLeaks was ‘plausible deniability’ and the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team,” alleged Steele in a memo in late July 2016.

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 02: Carter Page, former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign, speaks to the media after testifying before the House Intelligence Committee on November 2, 2017 in Washington, DC. The committee is conducting an investigation into Russia's tampering in the 2016 election. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Carter Page, former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign, speaks in November 2017. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

In exchange for the help, Trump’s team agreed to side with Russia on the Ukraine issue.

According to Steele’s Aug. 10, 2016 memo, Page had “conceived and promoted” the idea of releasing stolen DNC emails through WikiLeaks in order to swing Democrats away from Hillary Clinton and towards Bernie Sanders.

Steele also claimed that Page met in Moscow with two Kremlin insiders, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin, in early July 2016. Diveykin is alleged in the dossier to have told Page about blackmail material on both Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Page has vehemently denied the allegations from the dossier, which the FBI used to obtain four surveillance warrants against the former Trump aide.

Page was not charged in the Mueller investigation.

George Papadopoulos

The FBI’s initial collusion theory involved Papadopoulos, a 32-year-old energy consultant.

On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into Papadopoulos based on a tip the bureau had received from the Australian government.

Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to the U.K., had claimed that during a May 10, 2016, meeting in London, Papadopoulos told him that Russia had information on Hillary Clinton that it planned to release later in the campaign.

Papadopoulos said that two weeks before that meeting, he had breakfast in London with another diplomat, Joseph Mifsud, who told him that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands” of her emails.

Papadopoulos insists that he did not tell anyone on the campaign about Mifsud’s remarks and that he did not view, handle or disseminate Clinton emails.

He pleaded guilty on Oct. 5, 2017, to lying to the FBI about the extent of his contacts with Mifsud, but he was never charged with a more serious crime.

He served a 14-day prison term and is releasing a book Tuesday.

Michael Cohen

The former Trump lawyer is accused in the dossier of visiting Prague in August 2016 to meet with Kremlin officials for the purposes of paying off hackers.

“The agenda comprised questions on how deniable cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the CLINTON campaign,” reads Steele’s Dec. 13, 2016, memo.

The dossier’s allegations against Cohen were viewed as some of the strongest claims of collusion that have surfaced during Russia gate.

Cohen has vehemently denied the claims since BuzzFeed published the dossier. On Feb. 27, after he had been sentenced in the special counsel’s probe to three years in prison, Cohen testified that he has never been to Prague.

The testimony was seen as a knockout blow for the dossier’s credibility. Mueller’s findings seemingly ended all debate on the matter.

Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison on Dec. 12 on charges of tax evasion, bank fraud, illegal campaign contributions and making false statements to Congress.

Paul Manafort

In addition to being linked in the dossier to Carter Page, the former Trump campaign chairman was found to have sent cryptic emails during the campaign referencing Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who was locked in a business dispute with Manafort.

The special counsel also focused Manafort’s role in sending polling data during the campaign to two Russian oligarchs.

“If he needs private briefings we can accommodate,” Manafort wrote in an email to an associate on July 7, 2016, The Washington Post has reported.

In April 2016, shortly after he joined the Trump team, Manafort asked the same associate in an email how he could use his new position to “get whole.”

The email has widely been interpreted as Manafort suggesting that he would use his job on the Trump campaign to settle his debts with Deripaska.

But little came of Manafort’s links to Deripaska. Manafort was convicted in federal court in Virginia on Aug. 21, 2018, on charges related to his Ukraine consulting work. He cooperated with the special counsel after pleading guilty on Sept. 14, 2018, to working as an unregistered foreign agent of Ukraine.

The special counsel’s office hinted at times that prosecutors had evidence that dealt with the core issues of the investigation, but they never presented the evidence during court hearings.

Manafort was sentenced to seven-and-a-half years in prison on March 13.

Trump Tower

Democrats have seized on a June 9, 2016, meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a group of Russians as the strongest verifiable evidence of collusion to emerge during the Russia saga.

Trump Jr. accepted the meeting after receiving an email on June 3, 2016, from Rob Goldstone, a music publicist who worked for Russian pop star Emin Agalarov.

In the email, Goldstone said that Agalarov’s billionaire father had met with Russia’s “Crown prosecutor” and wanted to offer the Trump campaign “with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very helpful to your father.”

Trump Jr. accepted, writing: “If it is what you say I love it.”

Donald Trump, Jr. greets supporters at campaign stop for Republican senate nominee Patrick Morrisey and Republican candidate for the House of Representatives Carol Miller ahead of the 2018 midterm elections at Phillips Machine Service in Beckley, West Virginia, U.S., November 5, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

Donald Trump, Jr. greets supporters in Beckley, West Virginia, U.S., November 5, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

Goldstone responded to say that a “Russian government attorney” would fly to the U.S. for the meeting.

Trump Jr. attended the meeting with Manafort and Jared Kushner. Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya attended along with Goldstone and several other Russians.

All attendees have claimed that the meeting was a waste of time and that no information regarding the campaign was exchanged.

Veselnitskaya provided the campaign with a short memo containing research compiled by Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that, ironically, commissioned the Steele dossier. Veselnitskaya was working at the time with Fusion GPS on an investigation of Bill Browder, a London-based financier who spearheaded the Magnitsky Act, a sanctions law opposed by the Kremlin.

Mueller investigated the Trump Tower meeting. Goldstone and other attendees appeared before Mueller’s grand jury.

Goldstone responded to Mueller’s finding of no collusion in a message to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“After 2 years, Robert Mueller has delivered his report, stating there was no collusion in the 2016 Presidential election,” Goldstone said. “That includes my email to Donald Trump Jr. and the subsequent Trump Tower meeting … which as I have stated from the beginning, had nothing to do with collusion.”

Veselnitskaya was indicted by prosecutors in Manhattan related to her work against Bill Browder. No other Trump Tower attendees other than Manafort were charged by the special counsel.

Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi

One theory of collusion that emerged over the past year was that Trump confidant Stone and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi were linked to WikiLeaks.

Prosecutors keyed in on Stone because of tweets he sent and remarks he made in August 2016 that suggested he had inside knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans to release emails stolen from Democrats.

Stone said in interviews that he had communications with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. On Aug. 21, 2016, he tweeted that it would “soon [be] the Podesta’s time in the barrel.”

Stone has insisted that he had no direct contact with WikiLeaks or Assange. He also claims that he did not know that WikiLeaks would release Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails in October 2016.

Roger Stone at Politicon at Pasadena Convention Center on July 29, 2017 in California. (John Sciulli/Getty Images)

Instead, he’s maintained that he received tips about the timing and seriousness of the email releases from Randy Credico, a left-wing activist who is friends with a WikiLeaks attorney.

Stone released text messages that showed Credico providing information about the timing of the email releases.

Corsi was a focus because of emails he sent in August 2016 in which he suggested he had inside knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans.

“Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps,” Corsi wrote in the Aug. 2, 2016, email to Stone, seemingly referring to Assange, who lives under asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

“One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.”

“Time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC.”

Corsi was offered a plea deal by the special counsel but says he rejected it. Prosecutors wanted him to plead guilty to making false statements about exchanging WikiLeaks-related emails with Stone.

Corsi said he deduced on his own that WikiLeaks had Podesta’s emails and that he had no contact with anyone affiliated with the group.

Stone was indicted by the special counsel on Jan. 24, but not on charges related to conspiracy with Russia or WikiLeaks. He was instead charged with making false statements to the House Intelligence Committee regarding his discussions about WikiLeaks with associates and Trump campaign officials.

Peter Smith

One of the more bizarre collusion conspiracy theories involved Peter Smith, a GOP donor and political operative who lived in Chicago.

The Wall Street Journal first reported in June 2017 that Smith worked with numerous conservative operatives and hackers to obtain the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton deleted from her private server.

The conspiracy theory came to encompass close Trump associates, including Michael Flynn. Smith wrote in correspondence that he had been in contact with Flynn regarding the effort to hunt down Clinton’s emails.

The Wall Street Journal reported last year that Mueller was asking witnesses about the Smith operation. The story festered in the media, with follow-up reporting from BuzzFeed.

Smith died by suicide on May 14, 2017.

Follow Chuck on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

  • Carter Page is speaking out for the first time in the wake of special counsel Robert Mueller’s finding that nobody on the Trump campaign conspired with Russia during the 2016 election.
  • Page was Prime Suspect #1 in the government’s collusion investigation. He was a target of illegal government leaks to the media.
  • But Page said he was “not even slightly” worried he would face indictments by Mueller.

Carter Page insists he was never worried about being indicted in the special counsel’s probe, which ended on Sunday with more of a whimper than a bang.

“Not even slightly,” the former Trump campaign adviser insisted to The Daily Caller News Foundation on Sunday when asked if he ever expected to be charged in the investigation.

“That’s why I laughed at this stuff all along,” he said.

Page, 47, was at one point in time a major focus of the Russia investigation, which was led by special counsel Robert Mueller and played out in the media.

In a letter to Congress, Attorney General William Barr said Mueller found no evidence that President Donald Trump, Trump associates or members of his campaign conspired with Russia to sow disinformation or release emails stolen from Democrats. (RELATED: Mueller Finds No Collusion)

The letter exonerates Trump. It also exonerates Page, who was a volunteer national security adviser for Trump’s team.

Page was one of four initial targets of that counterintelligence investigation, which was formally opened by the FBI on July 31, 2016. Dubbed Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation started with George Papadopoulos, another young Trump aide who joined the campaign at the same time as Page.

During the probe, Page faced perhaps the most intrusive media and government scrutiny other than Trump himself. He faced it all without the base of support enjoyed by Trump, or his financial means.

Page was placed under government surveillance, was targeted by at least one FBI informant, and was the subject of a series of leaks by government officials to the media. He was also the target of public ridicule, allegations that he was a Russian agent and the death threats that accompanied such an explosive charge. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Cambridge Prof With CIA, MI6 Ties Met With Trump Campaign Adviser During Campaign, Beyond)

FBI Director Robert Mueller III testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during a oversight hearing on Capitol Hill Dec.14, 2011 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Page, a Naval Academy graduate, dispels the idea that he’s a victim.

He says Trump was the true target and that he was collateral damage.

Page has said he had interactions over the years with the FBI and CIA, largely because of his work in Moscow, where he worked as a consultant during the 2000s. He landed back on the U.S. government’s radar just after he joined the Trump campaign in March 2016. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey and other U.S. officials discussed Page after he joined Trump’s team. The FBI deployed a longtime informant, Stefan Halper, to make contact with Page in July 2016.

The pair met at an event held at Cambridge University on July 11-12, 2016 where the upcoming U.S. election was the topic of discussion. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was in attendance, as was Sir Richard Dearlove, a former chief of MI6.

Halper, a colleague of Dearlove at Cambridge, approached Page at the conference, and the pair remained in contact through September 2017, the same month the FBI’s fourth and final Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant expired.

It is still unclear what information the FISA warrants and Halper recovered from Page. But Page’s absence on the roster of indictees in the Mueller investigation suggests they didn’t find much.

The FBI appears to have applied for the first FISA against Page in September 2016, around a month before obtaining the warrant on Oct. 21, 2016.

Applications that have been declassified and released show the Steele dossier was a major component of the investigation. Compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and funded by Democrats, the dossier makes several serious allegations against Page, all of which he denies.

Steele claimed in his 35-page report that Page worked with Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to conspire with the Russians. It was also Page’s idea to release emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee through WikiLeaks, Steele’s sources said.

The dossier also alleges that Page met with two sanctioned Kremlin insiders, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin, during a trip to Moscow he made just before his Cambridge visit. During an alleged conversation with Sechin, the dossier says that Page offered to lobby against Russian sanctions in exchange for a brokerage stake on a deal involving Rosneft, the Russian oil giant.

Steele, a former MI6 officer, shared those allegations with reporters, including Michael Isikoff at Yahoo! News. On Sept. 23, 2016, Isikoff published an article laying out the claims about Page. It would later be revealed that Isikoff was one of a handful of reporters who Steele met with at the behest of Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm hired by the Clinton campaign and DNC to investigate Trump.

Republicans in Congress have investigated the FBI’s applications for the FISA warrants. They say that bureau officials withheld key evidence from FISA Court judges regarding the provenance of the Steele dossier, which remains unverified.

That investigation is expected to intensify now that Mueller has closed his investigation. Page is among those supporting the probe.

Page was also targeted with a series of damaging media leaks that he believes were tied to his decision to speak out publicly about the dossier’s allegations. His first television appearance was with PBS’s Judy Woodruff on Feb. 15, 2017, a month after the dossier was published by BuzzFeed.

Fusion GPS Co-Founder Glenn Simpson listens as his lawyer, Joshua Levy, speaks to members of the media following a meeting with members of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committee in the Rayburn Office Building on Capitol Hill on October 16, 2018 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Zach Gibson/Getty Images)

Fusion GPS Co-Founder Glenn Simpson on Capitol Hill on Oct. 16, 2018 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Zach Gibson/Getty Images)

On April 3, 2017, a story broke in BuzzFeed that Page was targeted for recruitment in 2013 by two Russian spies. Page was not accused of wrongdoing in the case. One of the Russian spies was recorded calling Page an “idiot.” Nevertheless, Page’s contacts with Russian operatives fit into the prevailing narrative that he had illicit ties to Russia. James Wolfe, a senior staffer for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has since been identified as leaking information to BuzzFeed for the report. He pleaded guilty to lying about contacts with the BuzzFeed reporter, who he was dating at the time.

A bigger bombshell landed a week after the BuzzFeed report.

On April 11, 2017, The Washington Post broke the news that Page was the target of a FISA application. In order to be targeted with that type of surveillance, the FBI and Justice Department would have had to present probable cause that Page was working clandestinely as an agent of Russia.

The source for that leak of classified information has yet to be identified.

“I think it’s all interrelated, right?” Page said when asked whether the leaks were a response to his media appearances. “It’s all retribution.”

The Washington Post leak had its intended effect, Page argues.

The argument at the time was that if the FBI felt that Page was a Russian agent, then surely he must have been. That thesis has since come under scrutiny as it became clear the FBI relied heavily on the Democrat-funded dossier to meet that probable cause standard.

Even Halper, the FBI-CIA informant, hinted to Page that collusion was a non-starter.

“It seems attention has shifted a bit from the ‘collusion’ investigation to the ‘contretempts’ [sic] within the White House,” Halper wrote in a July 28, 2017 email to Page.

“I must assume this gives you some relief,” he continued, urging Page to “be in touch when you have the time. Would be great to catch up.”

Twenty-six months after its publication, none of the major allegations in the dossier have been verified. There is strong reason to doubt many of its claims.

Michael Cohen, the former Trump fixer, has denied one of the dossier’s most serious collusion allegations under oath. On Feb. 27, he told Congress that he has never visited Prague, which is where the dossier claims Cohen visited in August 2016 to pay off Russia-linked hackers.

The dossier has other inaccurate information about Cohen. The source who provided information to Steele was also an intermediary for allegations about Page.

Page is vague when asked about his dealings with the FBI and the Mueller team. He has recently — albeit reluctantly — acknowledged he testified to Mueller’s grand jury on Nov. 1, 2017. He told TheDCNF that he was informed that he was not a target of the investigation.

“I was never even asked any question which comes anywhere near the zone of illegality. Not by a long shot,” he said.

He hinted he was informed during the course of the investigation that he was not a target. Federal prosecutors place individuals involved in investigations into three separate categories: witness, subject and target.

Page made an analogy to salsa: “mild, medium or hot.”

“I was the mildest of the mild,” he said.

Page concedes that if he has one regret, it’s not speaking out forcefully against allegations that began trickling into the press about him in the run-up to the 2016 election. He said if he had not been so easy-going in the face of allegations he was a Russian agent, he could have avoided further surveillance and media attention.

“If I had fought about the witch hunt earlier, all of this stuff wouldn’t have transpired,” he said, noting his relative obscurity made him an easy target for investigators, in the media and in government.

“It’s a lot easier to paint a picture on a blank slate,” he added.

Follow Chuck on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

Evie Fordham | Politics and Health Care Reporter

  • The Sackler Trust announced it is pressing pause on new philanthropic contributions Monday after a domino effect of prestigious art institutions parting ways from money connected to members of the family behind Purdue Pharma.
  • “I am deeply saddened by the addiction crisis in America and support the actions Purdue Pharma is taking to help tackle the situation, whilst still rejecting the false allegations made against the company and several members of the Sackler family,” trust chair Theresa Sackler said in a statement.
  • U.S. museums have faced staged Sackler-related protests, many of them led by activist and artist Nan Goldin, for years.

The Sackler Trust announced it is pressing pause on new philanthropic contributions Monday after a domino effect of prestigious art institutions parting ways from money connected to members of the family behind Purdue Pharma.

The news comes after the United Kingdom’s National Portrait Gallery and Tate art galleries cut ties with Sackler money last week, and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York announced Friday it would not be taking any new donations from the Sackler family.

The Sackler family, which controls the company that manufactures drugs including prescription opioid OxyContin, contributes to many arts, science and education endeavors through various organizations like the Sackler Trust. But several lawsuits against Purdue Pharma, and the Sacklers who have been involved in running the company, try to connect the family to the deadly opioid crisis in the U.S. (RELATED: Prestigious London Art Museum Says It Won’t Be Taking Donation Linked To Purdue Pharma’s Sackler Family)

Theresa Sackler, chair of the Sackler Trust and wife of the late Purdue Pharma chief executive Mortimer Sackler, wrote in a statement:

I am deeply saddened by the addiction crisis in America and support the actions Purdue Pharma is taking to help tackle the situation, whilst still rejecting the false allegations made against the company and several members of the Sackler family.

The current press attention that these legal cases in the United States is generating has created immense pressure on the scientific, medical, educational and arts institutions here in the UK, large and small, that I am so proud to support. This attention is distracting them from the important work that they do.

The Trustees of the Sackler Trust have taken the difficult decision to temporarily pause all new philanthropic giving, while still honouring existing commitments.

I remain fully committed to all the causes the Sackler Trust supports, but at this moment it is the better course for the Trust to halt all new giving until we can be confident that it will not be a distraction for institutions that are applying for grants.

The latest suit against Purdue Pharma and Sackler family members was brought by a coalition of 500 cities, counties and Native American tribes on March 18. The suit alleges that while the Sackler family has an estimated net worth of $13 billion, the opioid crisis cost the U.S. over $504 billion as of 2015. The suit also links the opioid crisis to allegedly aggressive and even deceptive marketing of prescription opioids by Purdue Pharma and members of the Sackler family.

Pedestrians walk past the entrance to the National Portrait Gallery in central London on August 24, 2018. (DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/Getty Images)

Pedestrians walk past the entrance to the National Portrait Gallery in central London on Aug. 24, 2018. (DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/Getty Images)

A spokesperson for the Dr. Mortimer and Dr. Raymond Sackler families told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement the allegations were “baseless.”

“The company our fathers and grandfathers founded manufactures an FDA-approved medicine that has always represented a tiny portion of the opioid market — never more than four percent of nationwide opioid prescriptions and currently less than two percent — while providing life-changing relief for the millions of pain patients who need it,” the statement continued.

Purdue Pharma has been accused of helping create the opioid crisis through the marketing of its products — and some critics blame the way Purdue Pharma promoted OxyContin for the roughly 200,000 prescription opioid-related overdose deaths since 1999.

Stateside, several institutions have reconsidered their links to the Sackler family. The Metropolitan Museum of Art told TheDCNF it is still reviewing its gift acceptance policies in light of revelations about members of the Sackler family after first informing TheDCNF of a possible change in January.

U.S. museums have faced Sackler-related protests for years. Photographer Nan Goldin’s organization Prescription Addiction Intervention Now (PAIN) targeted recipients of Sackler money like the Metropolitan Museum of Art with demonstrations. In March 2018, she and other activists littered The Met’s Sackler Wing with pill bottles and chanted “Sacklers lie, people die.” The Met’s Sackler Wing houses the famous Egyptian Temple of Dendur. The wing was named after the Sackler family in 1974, years before OxyContin hit the markets in 1996.

WATCH:

Goldin discussed her fight to hold institutions accountable for displaying the Sackler name or taking Sackler family with TheDCNF in January after The Met told TheDCNF it was reviewing its gift acceptance policies after revelations about members of the Sackler family.

“Yes, these organizations do good things, but they have to vet where their money comes from,” Goldin said. “To me, art is kind of holy, so art institutions of all places have to have some kind of belief system, some kind of integrity. Yeah, [the Sacklers] do good things, but it’s a tiny percentage of their money. They can get money from other places.”

TheDCNF began investigating the Sackler family’s charitable donations in fall 2017 in the series “American Cartel” and found no evidence the family was using their vast personal wealth to help victims fight opioid addiction. The first part of the series can be read here.

Follow Evie on Twitter @eviefordham.

Send tips to [email protected].

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

Attorney General William Barr told Congress Sunday that special counsel Robert Mueller did not find collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, destroying two years of media speculation and bad reporting.

The obsession to prove collusion has dampened the media’s journalistic abilities, leading to a seemingly endless list of corrections, retractions and apologies.

In light of Mueller concluding his investigation, we’ve compiled a list of some of the worst media screwups in the history of Russia theories.

1. CNN Accuses Don Jr. Of Wikileaks Collusion

Last December, CNN’s Manu Raju reported that Wikileaks emailed Donald Trump Jr. to give him access to stolen documents a full 10 days before they were released to the public.

Unfortunately for CNN, it turns out their sources gave them the wrong date. Don Jr. actually received an email with access to the stolen docs on Sept. 14, 2016, after they had already been released publicly.

2. ABC Tanks Stock Market With Fake Flynn News

ABC was forced to suspend Brian Ross after he falsely reported that former national security adviser Michael Flynn was prepared to testify that then-candidate Donald Trump ordered him to make contact with the Russians.

The stock market dropped a few hundred points at the news — but it turned out to be fake.

ABC clarified that Flynn was actually prepared to testify that Trump asked him to contact Russia while the administration was transitioning into office. Pretty standard preparation for an incoming president.

3. The Mooch Is NOT Under Investigation

CNN earns another spot on this list for their shoddy reporting about former Trump adviser Anthony, “The Mooch,” Scaramucci. In June, CNN relied on a single unnamed source to claim that Scaramucci was under investigation for a meeting he took with a Russian banker prior to Trump’s inauguration.

The Mooch denied the story and CNN later gave him a much-deserved apology. Oh … and three CNN employees resigned over the botched piece.

4. Bloomberg’s Dirty Deutsche Bank Scoop

Bloomberg initially reported in December that special counsel Robert Mueller had “zeroed in” on Trump by subpoenaing Deutsche Bank records for the incoming president and his family.

Bloomberg later admitted that Mueller was looking for records relating to “people affiliated” with Trump.

5. Sessions Exonerated

Last May, CNN was sure that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had botched protocol when he didn’t list meetings he had with the Russian ambassador on his security clearance forms. To CNN and other establishment media outlets, this was proof that Sessions was hiding something related to Russia.

A little over six months later, CNN quietly walked back the scandal, explaining the FBI sent emails informing Sessions’ aide that he did not need to disclose the meetings on his forms because they were carried out in the course of his duties as a senator.

6. Russians Aren’t Just Hacking The Election — They’re Hacking Our Power Grid

The Washington Post claimed in January 2017 that Russians were hacking the U.S. power grid through a company in Vermont, only to change the story to say that only one laptop was infiltrated. It turns out that one laptop was never even connected to the power grid.

7. Republicans Funded The Dossier! 

A number of news outlets have consistently claimed that Republicans initially paid for the anti-Trump Steele dossier, failing to note that Steele wasn’t even contracted by Fusion GPS until after the GOP donors pulled funding. The Republican donors say they paid Fusion for standard opposition research and that they have zero connection to the dossier.

The media has perpetuated this falsehood so consistently that even former FBI director James Comey was confused, repeating the lie in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier.

8. CNN Gets Comey Prediction Wildly Wrong

Prior to former FBI director James Comey’s congressional testimony last June, CNN asserted that Comey was prepared to contradict a key claim by President Trump — that Comey told him he was not under investigation.

Sadly for them, Comey’s prepared testimony was released with the line, “During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower … I offered that assurance [that he was not under investigation].”

9. The ’17 Intel Agencies’ Lie

The media perpetuated a false claim from presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for months, insisting that all 17 intelligence agencies agree that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. The New York Times, for example, rated that claim as true only to later say the exact opposite.

Only four intelligence agencies ultimately deemed Russia responsible for meddling because the other 13 have no business making judgments on the claim. As The NYT succinctly explained, “The rest were doing other work.”

10. Manafort Notes Are A Nothing Burger

NBC botched its big scoop claiming that Paul Manafort’s notes from a meeting with a Russian lawyer included the word “donations” near a reference to the Republican National Committee.

Turns out, not only did the word “donations” not appear in Manafort’s notes, but the word “donor” didn’t, either. POLITICO had to correct the NBC report, leaving the legacy network looking awfully embarrassed.

11. NBC Issues Cohen Correction

NBC issued a major correction in May on a story about wiretaps and Michael Cohen.

NBC initially claimed that federal investigators were listening in on Cohen’s phone calls, but it turns out they had what’s called a “pen register warrant,” which means they could see who Cohen spoke to on the phone but could not hear what was said.(RELATED: MSNBC Issues HUGE Correction To Michael Cohen ‘Wiretap’ Story)

12. Did Cohen Go To Prague?

A McClatchy report stated that special counsel Robert Mueller had evidence that Michael Cohen visited Prague in the summer of 2016, which seemed to corroborate the portion of the Steele dossier claiming Cohen visited Prague at that time to meet with a Kremlin official.

However, no other outlets ever confirmed the report and Cohen told Congress during an open hearing in February that he has never been to Prague. (RELATED: Here’s Why You Should Be Skeptical Of That Michael Cohen Prague Story)

13. Busted BuzzFeed 

The special counsel’s office disputed a 2019 report by BuzzFeed claiming that Trump directed his lawyer to lie about a potential business deal in Moscow during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The BuzzFeed report was used to float impeachment proceedings and obstruction of justice charges against the president, but Mueller’s team disputed the core premise of the reporting.

“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate,” spokesman Peter Carr said in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

14. Lanny Davis Obliterates CNN’s Trump Tower Story

CNN reported in July that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was prepared to tell special counsel Robert Mueller that the president had knowledge in advance of a Trump Tower meeting between his son and Russians.

ut Cohen’s lawyer, Lanny Davis, said in August that CNN’s reporting got “mixed up” and that Cohen had no information related to the Trump Tower meeting. Cohen said the same to Congress on two separate occasions.

CNN doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on its reporting, despite a series of issues with the report.

15. NPR Accuses Don Jr. Of Perjury

NPR published a report in November insisting that Donald Trump Jr. lied to Congress about efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow because his statements conflicted with those of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.

However, NPR failed to realize that the piece of Trump Jr.’s testimony they quoted was about a different project.

“Trump Jr.’s statements about work on a Trump Tower Moscow that ended in 2014 referred to negotiations with Aras Agalarov,” The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Chuck Ross explained. “Felix Sater, a businessman with links to Cohen and Russian officials, tried to make a Trump Tower Moscow happen in 2015.”

16. Mic Claims Russian Spy Infiltrated The Oval 

Shortly after it was revealed that a Russian spy was attempting to infiltrate right-wing networks, Mic writer Emily Singer claimed that same Russian spy was present during an Oval Office meeting with Russian diplomat Sergey Lavrov.

Singer claimed Russian spy Maria Butina was spotted in a photo of the meeting, citing the fact that she has red hair like the woman in the photo.

The woman in the photo is actually NSC staffer Cari Lutkins. 

This story was originally published in May 2018 but has been updated with additional information regarding the delivery of Mueller’s report to Attorney General Bill Barr. 

 Follow Amber on Twitter

Source: The Daily Caller

Nick Givas | Media And Politics Reporter

White House adviser Kellyanne Conway called on Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California to resign Monday after the release of Robert Mueller’s Russia report.

“When you’re talking about collusion and talking to Russia, and conspiracies and obstruction of justice for two years with no proof other than people leaking to you or you just, you just guffawing with the anchor next to you and fake lawyers on TV and the journalists who are pretending to be lawyers for that moment. You’re calling us all … You’re saying that we did not win fairly and squarely,” Conway said on “Fox & Friends” Monday.

“You in fact running around jutting your jaw out and saying ‘I’m worried about the effect of institutions.’ You were disparaging the institutions. You were demeaning and deriding our great democracy — The presidency of the United States. Adam Schiff should resign,” she continued. “He has no right as somebody who has been pedaling a lie day after day after day. Unchallenged. Unchallenged and not under oath. Somebody should have put him under oath and said, ‘Do you have evidence? Where is it?’ Because Bob Mueller already ran the fair and the full investigation. And any partisan, politicized investigation from here on in will never have the credibility of the Mueller investigation.”

WATCH:

Attorney General William Barr delivered his report on the Mueller probe to Congress Sunday, and wrote that Trump and his campaign team did not collude with any Russian entities during the election. Barr also said there was no evidence to suggest Trump obstructed justice.

Conway said the media has gotten away with being overly biased and has yet to pay for their mistakes with Russia and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (RELATED: Justice Department Delivers Mueller Conclusions To Congress — No Collusion)

“There is not a single person in the media who got the 2016 elections so chronically and embarrassingly wrong [and] lost their jobs. And they probably won’t here, too. Look what they did to Brett Kavanaugh. The second most popular story in the Trump presidency was the Russian collusion fake hoax nonsense. The most covered stories I read last night in a condensed period of time was Brett Kavanaugh,” she said earlier in the interview.

“And they treated him the same way. That is a microcosmic version of what they tried to do to President Trump and his campaign and his family for the last two years. It’s a drive-by. They abandoned all standards, all personal ethics, all professional duty. Do you realize major papers in this country won Pulitzer prizes over their reporting over something that is totally fake? Over 13,000 stories combined by two major print outlets and two major cable stations not named Fox News. And as somebody who engages with those people [as] much as I can, and tries to get out there, we were basically were being told we were liars.”

You can Follow Nick on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

Nick Givas | Media And Politics Reporter

White House adviser Kellyanne Conway called on Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California to resign Monday after the release of Robert Mueller’s Russia report.

“When you’re talking about collusion and talking to Russia, and conspiracies and obstruction of justice for two years with no proof other than people leaking to you or you just, you just guffawing with the anchor next to you and fake lawyers on TV and the journalists who are pretending to be lawyers for that moment. You’re calling us all … You’re saying that we did not win fairly and squarely,” Conway said on “Fox & Friends” Monday.

“You in fact running around jutting your jaw out and saying ‘I’m worried about the effect of institutions.’ You were disparaging the institutions. You were demeaning and deriding our great democracy — The presidency of the United States. Adam Schiff should resign,” she continued. “He has no right as somebody who has been pedaling a lie day after day after day. Unchallenged. Unchallenged and not under oath. Somebody should have put him under oath and said, ‘Do you have evidence? Where is it?’ Because Bob Mueller already ran the fair and the full investigation. And any partisan, politicized investigation from here on in will never have the credibility of the Mueller investigation.”

WATCH:

Attorney General William Barr delivered his report on the Mueller probe to Congress Sunday, and wrote that Trump and his campaign team did not collude with any Russian entities during the election. Barr also said there was no evidence to suggest Trump obstructed justice.

Conway said the media has gotten away with being overly biased and has yet to pay for their mistakes with Russia and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. (RELATED: Justice Department Delivers Mueller Conclusions To Congress — No Collusion)

“There is not a single person in the media who got the 2016 elections so chronically and embarrassingly wrong [and] lost their jobs. And they probably won’t here, too. Look what they did to Brett Kavanaugh. The second most popular story in the Trump presidency was the Russian collusion fake hoax nonsense. The most covered stories I read last night in a condensed period of time was Brett Kavanaugh,” she said earlier in the interview.

“And they treated him the same way. That is a microcosmic version of what they tried to do to President Trump and his campaign and his family for the last two years. It’s a drive-by. They abandoned all standards, all personal ethics, all professional duty. Do you realize major papers in this country won Pulitzer prizes over their reporting over something that is totally fake? Over 13,000 stories combined by two major print outlets and two major cable stations not named Fox News. And as somebody who engages with those people [as] much as I can, and tries to get out there, we were basically were being told we were liars.”

You can Follow Nick on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

Phillip Stucky | Contributor

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders argued that it was a great day for America when the Mueller report was sent to Attorney General William Barr on a Monday edition of “New Day” on CNN.

“To be clear, I think it’s a day America has looked forward to for a long time,” Sanders said. “It’s a great day for America when a decision like this comes forward and, frankly, it’s a great thing that we can move back, that the media and everyone can move back to focusing on things like the economy, the defeat of ISIS and rising wages in this country. The things that the president’s been focused on the last two years.”(RELATED: Justice Department Delivers Mueller Conclusions To Congress-No Collusion)

President Donald Trump also appeared pleased with the results of the Mueller report, tweeting Sunday “No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!”

Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly found no evidence of collusion with Russia either from Trump or from his family.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller wrote, according to Barr’s letter.

Members of the media had to deal with the fact that the Mueller narrative was no longer true after the report.

“After two years, multiple investigations, millions of taxpayer dollars, nonstop media coverage and lies about @realDonaldTrump… What do we have? NO COLLUSION,” GOP Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel wrote on Twitter Sunday.

Source: The Daily Caller

The Supreme Court is rejecting an appeal from a company owned by an unidentified foreign government that has refused to turn over information demanded by special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

The justices didn't comment Monday in turning away the company, which is racking up a fine of $50,000 a day for not complying with the grand jury subpoena for documents.

Mueller turned over his report to Attorney General William Barr on Friday, but the status of the grand jury is unclear.

Fines have been accruing since Jan. 15 and could total nearly $3.5 million. New daily fines stop once the grand jury is discharged.

Mueller found no evidence President Donald Trump's campaign "conspired or coordinated" with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election but reached no conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice. Trump claims vindication.

Source: NewsMax

Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said the media must apologize to all Americans following the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia report.

“I look at the law not in terms of what I wish would happen, but what I know will happen based on 50 years of experience. I wish the folks over on CNN would have done the same thing,” Dershowitz said Monday on “Fox & Friends.”

“They didn’t. All they did was oh, he’s going to be indicted because we want him to be indicted,” he said. “He did collude because we want him to collude. He obstructed because we wanted him to have obstructed. That’s not news analysis. That’s advocacy journalism.”

WATCH:

“I think a lot of apologies are due to the American public about being mislead by many in the media who substituted wishful thinking for factual analysis,” he continued. “That’s not what media people want to hear. What we want to hear as the American public is a straight down analysis and what we don’t want to hear from Mueller is a law review article. … From a prosecutor we want, ‘No, we’re not indicting, end of inquiry. That’s it.’ But I think the end result is what the facts pointed toward.”

Attorney General William Barr delivered his report on the special counsel probe to Congress Sunday and wrote that President Donald Trump and his campaign team did not collude with any Russian entities during the election. Barr also said there was no evidence to suggest Trump obstructed justice either.

Dershowitz said he is still facing media backlash over his skepticism and claimed he’s been personally attacked because he won’t shill for Democrats(RELATED: Justice Department Delivers Mueller Conclusions To Congress — No Collusion)

“Well, they are still coming after me. The New Yorker has commissioned a hit piece on me, attacking my personal life because they don’t like what I’ve said about Donald Trump,” he said, adding:

“You know, you go all over the media — and I’m being attacked all over the place not because of anything I did but because of my truthful analysis, which people think shows I’m a big supporter of Trump. Look, I voted for Hillary Clinton, as I said. I’m a liberal Democrat. But I call them as I see them.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

U.S. Attorney General William Barr leaves his house after Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of collusion between U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia in the 2016 election in McClean, Virginia
U.S. Attorney General William Barr leaves his house after Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of collusion between U.S. President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia in the 2016 election in McClean, Virginia, U.S., March 25, 2019. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

March 25, 2019

By Makini Brice and Susan Heavey

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House said on Monday it was up to the U.S. Justice Department to decide if detailed findings from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation would be made public, a day after the attorney general said President Donald Trump had been cleared of any collusion.

Mueller wrapped up his investigation after nearly two years on Friday and submitted his findings to Attorney General William Barr, who on Sunday released a four-page summary saying there was no evidence of criminal collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia in the 2016 election. Mueller’s report left unresolved whether Trump obstructed justice.

Meanwhile, the Kremlin on Monday said President Vladimir Putin was ready to improve ties with the United States following the release of Barr’s summary and called on the United States to formally recognize there was no collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign.

Trump last week openly backed the public release of the report from the investigation, which he had repeatedly lambasted as a “witch hunt.”

The Barr summary handed Trump a political victory ahead of his 2020 re-election effort, even as Democratic challengers and lawmakers vowed to press on with other investigations into his business and personal dealings.

Democrats also called for the full findings from Mueller to be released to Congress and the public and vowed to call Barr to appear before lawmakers to answer questions.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said that while Trump wanted the special counsel’s report to come out, it was not up to him.

“I think that the president is doing exactly what he should and that’s leaving that decision into the hands of the attorney general and we’ll see what decision he makes on that front,” Sanders said in an interview on NBC’s “Today” program on Monday.

Sanders declined to comment on whether Trump would invoke presidential privilege to withhold any information. But Jay Sekulow, one of Trump’s personal lawyers, said it “would be very inappropriate” to release the president’s written answers to the special counsel, saying they were confidential. Despite lengthy negotiations, Mueller never obtained an in-person interview with the president.

“As a lawyer, you don’t waive privileges and you don’t waive investigative detail absent either a court order or an agreement between the parties,” Sekulow told CNN in an interview, adding that Barr would make the final decision.

Trump embraced the summary’s findings, retweeting Barr’s assessment and related headlines news media despite years of decrying the “fake news” as #ReleaseTheFullMuellerReport trended nationwide on social media.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, in a on a conference call with reporters, called on Washington to make the first move to reset ties and repeated Moscow’s denial of any interference in U.S. elections and internal affairs or those of any other country.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry also said the allegations of election meddling against a number of Russians were politically motivated.

Mueller’s investigation led to charges and guilty please against dozens of people, including a series of Russian nationals and companies as well as several advisers to President Donald Trump, including this former campaign chairman and national security adviser.

(The story was refiled to add the dropped word “said” in the first paragraph)

(Reporting by Susan Heavey and Makini Brice; Editing by Bill Trott)

Source: OANN

Nick Givas | Media And Politics Reporter

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Monday the release of the Mueller report marked the best day of Donald Trump’s presidency and called it “good news” for all Americans.

“If the appointment of Robert Mueller was the worst day of his presidency, the release of Robert Mueller’s report was the best day of his presidency,” Scarborough said Monday.

“So that’s a big headline. But also another big headline. It is good news. Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike. It is good news that the president of the United States did not conspire with Russia to influence the 2016 election.” (RELATED: Scarborough Says Supreme Court Will Decide If Trump Can Be Indicted Or Not)

WATCH:

Attorney General William Barr delivered his report on the special counsel probe to Congress Sunday, and wrote that Trump and his campaign team did not collude with any Russian entities during the election. Barr also said there was no evidence to suggest Trump obstructed justice either.

Scarborough continued to defend Mueller and said the country can rest soundly knowing Trump did not collude with the Russian government in any way.

“And we know, because unlike Donald Trump and the right-wing hacks that were chopping Robert Mueller to pieces for two years, we know that Robert Mueller actually is an honorable man. And we can put our heads on the pillows tonight and know that while Donald Trump did a lot of terrible things and acted abhorrently during this investigation and tried to undercut the rule of law, we know at least … we can have confidence that the president of the United States did not collude with Vladimir Putin and Russia. Right? Good news,” he said.

You can Follow Nick on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

Saagar Enjeti | White House Correspondent

President Donald Trump would likely not object to at least a partial release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on NBC Monday morning.

“I don’t think the president has any problem with it. . . . He’s more than happy for any of this stuff to come out because he knows exactly what did and what didn’t happen and now frankly the rest of America knows. They know there was no collusion, they know there was no obstruction and it’s a complete and total exoneration of the president,” Sanders said when asked if Trump would support the release of the report.

Presidential lawyers Jay Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani said in multiple media interviews Sunday that they defer to Attorney General Bill Barr on whether the full Mueller report should be released. Barr delivered a letter, which detailed the top line findings of the Mueller report, to lawmakers Sunday afternoon. (RELATED: Justice Department Delivers Mueller Conclusions To Congress, Determines No Collusion) 

Trump celebrated the results of the report on Twitter Monday morning.

Barr quoted Mueller’s finding that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” and the report  “does not conclude that the President committed a crime,” but “it also does not exonerate him.”

Democratic lawmakers have called nearly unanimously for the full report to be released, noting that they do no trust Barr’s mere quoting from sentences of the report. Democrats have fixated on Mueller’s declaration that he does not exonerate Trump from obstruction of justice and compiled evidence to the contrary.

Source: The Daily Caller

Evie Fordham | Politics and Health Care Reporter

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation has fueled 533,074 web articles since its inception in May 2017, according to NewsWhip data cited by Axios.

After nearly two years of saturated media coverage of the topic, Attorney General William Barr delivered a report of the special counsel’s investigation to Congress Sunday. Barr wrote in a memo that the special counsel found no evidence the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election.

The investigation continues to dominate headlines — all four stories on the front page of The New York Times were Mueller-related Monday. (RELATED: Justice Department Delivers Mueller Conclusions To Congress – No Collusion)

The more than 530,000 articles on “Russia and Trump/Mueller” generated an additional 245 million likes, comments and shares on Twitter and Facebook since May 2017, according to Axios. That is not counting all of the airtime the investigation (and pundits’ opinions) received on cable news.

U.S. President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up sign to supporters who applauded as he returned to the White House after spending the weekend in Florida March 24, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

U.S. President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up sign to supporters who applauded as he returned to the White House after spending the weekend in Florida on March 24, 2019 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

MSNBC seems to lead the pack when it comes to Mueller coverage, with over 4,200 posts mentioning the Mueller probe popping up when searched, according to research by the Republican National Committee (RNC). The RNC also found that 1,965 CNN stories mentioned the Mueller investigation since May 2017, while 1,156 by The New York Times mentioned it and 1,184 by The Washington Post.

The Mueller report seemingly attracted more coverage than other issues Americans also care about. For example, WaPo published 192 more stories about the Russian interference probe than about the Trump administration’s defeat of the Islamic State, according to research by the RNC.

Many pundits on the right called out members of the media for allegedly rooting for a different outcome in the Mueller probe.

“Mueller: no evidence of collusion [with] Russia. Now will the media who invested so much in this narrative accept it, remembering that they are not supposed to root for outcomes? Or will they hold on, looking for ways to save face on their earlier (wrong) predictions/coverage?” former NBC host Megyn Kelly wrote on Twitter Sunday.

Follow Evie on Twitter @eviefordham.

Send tips to [email protected].

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

Derek Hunter | Contributor

Today’s show is all about the Mueller report and how Democrats and the media are dealing with their grief. It turns out, they still aren’t letting the facts stand in the way of their narrative.

Listen to the show:

Nothing short of Robert Mueller frog-marching President Donald Trump out of the White House was ever going to be enough for leftists who were convinced the president has a sock drawer full of Rubles and Vladimir Putin’s direct number on his iPhone. The special counsel’s report ended the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election with no indictments of any Americans for anything related to collusion and no evidence either.

Democrats, both elected and in the media, who spent the last 2 years swearing there were bags full of smoking guns, spent the weekend scrambling to convince their audiences that they weren’t lied to. They failed. We have all the audio and analysis.

The usual suspects retreated to their safe spaces — CNN and MSNBC — to claim more investigation is needed. Journalistic fossil CNN contributor Carl Bernstein even had that gall to praise the media’s coverage of the whole affair. Apparently, like most of America, he doesn’t watch CNN.

You have to hear it all to believe it.

Please help spread the word about The Daily Daily Caller Podcast. Please take a minute to rate and review on iTunes, share on social media and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode:

The Daily Daily Caller Podcast is a daily look and mocking of the news from a conservative perspective. Hosted by Derek Hunter, it is available in audio form Monday-Thursday and will have a video option on Fridays.

Derek Hunter is a columnist and contributing editor for The Daily Caller and author of “Outrage, INC: How the Liberal Mob Ruined Science, Journalism, and Hollywood” from HarperCollins, available nowPick Up a copy, or several copies, here. Send compliments and complaints to [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at @derekahunter.

Source: The Daily Caller

Derek Hunter | Contributor

Today’s show is all about the Mueller report and how Democrats and the media are dealing with their grief. It turns out, they still aren’t letting the facts stand in the way of their narrative.

Listen to the show:

Nothing short of Robert Mueller frog-marching President Donald Trump out of the White House was ever going to be enough for leftists who were convinced the president has a sock drawer full of Rubles and Vladimir Putin’s direct number on his iPhone. The special counsel’s report ended the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election with no indictments of any Americans for anything related to collusion and no evidence either.

Democrats, both elected and in the media, who spent the last 2 years swearing there were bags full of smoking guns, spent the weekend scrambling to convince their audiences that they weren’t lied to. They failed. We have all the audio and analysis.

The usual suspects retreated to their safe spaces — CNN and MSNBC — to claim more investigation is needed. Journalistic fossil CNN contributor Carl Bernstein even had that gall to praise the media’s coverage of the whole affair. Apparently, like most of America, he doesn’t watch CNN.

You have to hear it all to believe it.

Please help spread the word about The Daily Daily Caller Podcast. Please take a minute to rate and review on iTunes, share on social media and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode:

The Daily Daily Caller Podcast is a daily look and mocking of the news from a conservative perspective. Hosted by Derek Hunter, it is available in audio form Monday-Thursday and will have a video option on Fridays.

Derek Hunter is a columnist and contributing editor for The Daily Caller and author of “Outrage, INC: How the Liberal Mob Ruined Science, Journalism, and Hollywood” from HarperCollins, available nowPick Up a copy, or several copies, here. Send compliments and complaints to [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at @derekahunter.

Source: The Daily Caller

Russia is reacting with an "I told you so" on Monday in state media after the conclusion of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Moscow's involvement in the U.S. presidential election didn't find evidence of collusion.

Wrapping up 22 months of the investigation, Mueller's report that was delivered over the weekend found no evidence that U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign conspired with Russian officials to influence the 2016 election.

The released summary, however, didn't clear the president of improper behavior regarding Russia but didn't establish that "he was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," Mueller said in a passage from the report quoted by U.S. Attorney General William Barr.

Russian officials and state media who have vehemently denied that the Kremlin wanted Trump to win and was helping him in the campaign on Monday relished the news.

"The results of Mueller's investigation are a disgrace for the U.S. and its political elites," Alexei Pushkov, chairman of the information committee at the Federation Council, tweeted on Monday. "All of the accusations were proved to be trumped up."

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov had a more muted reaction on Monday, saying that Russia has never interfered in elections in other countries and "doesn't intend to do so."

"It's hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if it isn't there," he said.

Thirty-four people, including six Trump aides and advisers, were charged in the investigation. Twenty-five are Russians accused of election interference either through hacking into Democratic accounts or orchestrating a social media campaign to spread disinformation on the internet.

Russian authorities over the past months portrayed the Mueller probe as a witch hunt against Trump and a tool of the Democratic Party to fan the flames of the anti-Russian sentiment in the U.S.

Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the foreign affairs committee at the Federation Council, on Monday described the probe and the discussions around it as "two years of incessant lies."

State-owned Channel One on its morning news show suggested that U.S. media had been consciously whipping up the hysteria about possible collusion in order to sway the public opinion against Russia.

"There were so many fake scoops: the one about the non-existent back channel between Washington and Moscow, the one about the so-called Russia Dossier with the Kremlin's alleged compromising information on Trump," Channel One's U.S. correspondent said. "But will the viewers hear the rebuttals now?"

The conclusions of the probe led some to believe that Trump will have a free hand now to improve ties with Russia.

"There's an opportunity to reset out relations but the question is whether Trump will take the risk," Kosachev said.

Source: NewsMax

National flags of Russia and U.S. fly at Vnukovo International Airport in Moscow
FILE PHOTO – National flags of Russia and the U.S. fly at Vnukovo International Airport in Moscow, Russia April 11, 2017. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov

March 25, 2019

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Moscow would be happy to mend ties with Washington after a report by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia in the 2016 election, a senior Russian lawmaker said on Monday.

Mueller found no evidence of collusion but left unresolved the issue of whether Trump obstructed justice by undermining the investigations that have dogged his presidency.

“In any case, there is an opportunity to reset a lot in our relations but it is still a question as to whether Trump would risk that. We of course are ready,” Russian lawmaker Konstantin Kosachev said.

(Reporting by Maxim Rodionov and Polina Devitt; Writing by Tom Balmforth; Editing by Paul Tait)

Source: OANN

The summary of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report “raises as many questions as it answers," and thus the full document should be released to the public, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer said in a joint statement on Sunday, The Hill reported.

"The fact that Special Counsel Mueller’s report does not exonerate the president on a charge as serious as obstruction of justice demonstrates how urgent it is that the full report and underlying documentation be made public without any further delay," the Democratic Party leaders said.

They issued the statement after Barr sent a letter to Congress summarizing the key findings of Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign's ties with Russia.

Barr stated in the letter that Mueller found no conclusive evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. However, on the issue of obstruction of justice, the attorney general wrote that “while this report does not conclude the president committed a crime, it does not exonerate him.”

Several Democratic presidential candidates emphasized that point to press for a full release of the report.

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker tweeted that "The American public deserves the full report and findings from the Mueller investigation immediately – not just the in-house summary from a Trump Administration official." 

Source: NewsMax

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report sounds like a “law school exam,” where he shirked his job and didn’t have “the guts” to make a decision on whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice, Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Sunday during an appearance on Fox News where he also slammed CNN personalities and guests who “misinformed the American public.”

Mueller turned in his final report Friday, and Attorney General William Barr on Sunday in a letter to Congress said the investigation concluded there was no collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential election.

On the topic of potential obstruction of justice on the part of President Donald Trump, the special counsel referred the question of criminality to the attorney general.

“I thought it was a cop out for him to say there was not enough evidence to indict, but it’s not an exoneration, and we’re going to put a report out,” Dershowitz told anchor Shannon Bream “… It sounds like a law school exam. That’s not the job of the prosecutor. The job of the prosecutor is to decide yes or no. Make a decision.”

The TV personalities and guests on CNN who predicted Mueller’s probe would result in indictments for collusion and obstruction “should be hanging their heads in shame,” Dershowitz added.

“I have to tell you, they should be hanging their head in shame when you think about how many people went out on a limb and predicted there would be indictments for obstruction, there would be indictments for collusion, there would be indictments for this and for that,” he.

“They made it seem like it was an open and shut case, and they misinformed the American public, and they have to have some public accountability when you say things that turn out not to be true.”

Source: NewsMax

FILE PHOTO: Special Counsel Robert Mueller departs after briefing the U.S. House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington
FILE PHOTO: Special Counsel Robert Mueller departs after briefing the U.S. House Intelligence Committee on his investigation of potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 20, 2017. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein/File Photo

March 25, 2019

By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Special Counsel Robert Mueller has concluded that nobody associated with President Donald Trump’s campaign “conspired or knowingly coordinated” with Russia during the 2016 presidential election, and U.S. Attorney General William Barr says he does not see enough evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of justice.

But that does not necessarily mean Trump is in the clear – he still faces multiple investigations into his business and other aspects of his political campaign, and Democrats are launching a wave of probes from Capitol Hill.

Following are some possible next steps as Washington continues to wrestle over Russia’s role in the election, the conduct of Mueller’s investigation and other aspects of the Trump-Russia saga.

HOW MUCH OF MUELLER’S REPORT CAN BE MADE PUBLIC?

Barr said he wants to release as much of Mueller’s report as he can, as long as it does not undermine legal proceedings that should be kept secret, such as grand jury interviews, or interfere with other ongoing investigations. He is now going through the report to determine what can be released.

Democrats are pressing Barr to release the entire report so they can draw their own conclusions. If he does not do so, expect a protracted tug-of-war that could end up in court.

THE QUESTION OF OBSTRUCTION

Foremost on Democrats’ minds is whether Trump obstructed justice by interfering with Mueller’s probe and other investigations.

Barr says he did not, but he adds that Mueller presented evidence on both sides of the question. Democrats will press for access to Mueller’s full report – as well as the underlying evidence he collected over the course of an investigation that interviewed 500 witnesses and issued more than 2,800 subpoenas.

The Democratic chairs of six House of Representatives committees said on Friday they expected that evidence to be turned over on request to their panels, which cover everything from taxes to banking.

The House Judiciary Committee is also expected to continue its own investigation into alleged obstruction of justice after requesting documents from 81 people and organizations several weeks ago.

TRUMP’S ALLIES SAY IT’S TIME TO MOVE ON – OR MAYBE NOT

The Russia probe has dogged Trump’s presidency from his first months in office. Trump allies say it is now time to move on and focus on substantive issues like trade and the economy.

But some of Trump’s biggest supporters on Capitol Hill do not want to put the issue to rest just yet.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, a Republican, has said he wants to investigate whether top officials at the Justice Department discussed forcing Trump from office, and is pressing the FBI to hand over documents relating to their surveillance of Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser on Trump’s election team.

BARR ON THE HILL

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat, said he planned to ask Barr to testify before his committee to explain why he thought Trump should not be charged with obstruction of justice.

Many Democrats are already suspicious of Barr’s views on the issue. As a private lawyer, Barr wrote an unsolicited memo to the Justice Department last year arguing that Mueller’s obstruction inquiry was “fatally misconceived” and saying that presidents have “all-encompassing” authority over law enforcement investigations, even those that relate to him directly.

Barr’s views of presidential power are relevant not only when it comes to obstruction of justice but other issues like how much the administration is required to cooperate with congressional investigators – which will be a key issue over the next two years.

Barr faced pointed questions from Democrats during his January confirmation hearing. Any session devoted to obstruction of justice and presidential powers could be much more contentious.

MUELLER SPEAKS?

Mueller has not spoken publicly over the course of the 22-month investigation, but that might change now that his work is done.

Nadler and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff have said they may try to get him to testify in front of Congress. The questioning might be relatively polite – as a former FBI director and decorated Vietnam War veteran, Mueller is one of the most respected people in Washington.

But his testimony may not be that revealing. Mueller has cultivated a reputation as a scrupulous prosecutor, and he may not be willing to discuss evidence or reach conclusions not contained in his report. Also, as special prosecutor, he is required to defer to Barr as to what can be disclosed to the public.

(Reporting by Andy Sullivan; Editing by Ross Colvin and Peter Cooney)

Source: OANN

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters as he returns to the White House in Washington
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters as the president returns from a weekend in Florida at the White House in Washington, U.S., March 24, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

March 25, 2019

By Steve Holland, Jeff Mason and Roberta Rampton

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that Donald Trump did not collude with Russia to win the presidency in 2016 gives the president a powerful weapon to use against his Democratic opponents and a potential boost to what is shaping up to be a tough bid for re-election in 2020.

Mueller’s conclusion that neither Trump nor his aides conspired with Russia in 2016 takes away a central charge that Democrats have flung at Trump for two years – that he did not win the presidency fairly or cleanly. The allegations have played out on an endless loop on cable TV news shows, overshadowing Trump’s presidency from day one.

Democrats have vowed to continue congressional investigations into the 2016 election campaign and Trump’s business practices. But without the solid foundation of a Mueller report that found evidence of any crimes by the president, they now risk seeming to overplay their hand.

“This is a gold star day for Donald Trump,” said presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. “Now the shackles are off. He’s able to demonize the news media and Democrats as perpetuating what he calls a hoax. And he’ll be able to use his innocence as fodder for the campaign trail.”

The question for Trump now is whether he will be able to bring a minimum of discipline to his campaign messaging and to the presidency itself.

History suggests he will have trouble with self-discipline. Just last week, he was immersed in a strange fight with a dead man, sharply criticizing the late Republican Senator John McCain and falsely accusing him of being at the root of some of the collusion allegations against him.

He has also been prone to making baffling abrupt decisions, such as occurred last week when he called off a round of sanctions against North Korea before they had even been imposed.

Despite the Mueller report’s conclusions, Trump remains an intemperate president, eager to lash out at any and all critics and perceived slights.

“This was an illegal takedown that failed,” Trump said on Sunday, even though Mueller left open the question of whether the former real estate magnate had attempted to obstruct the Russia probe, which did find extensive evidence that Russia meddled in the 2016 election.

“Now is the time to get back on the offense on the economy and growth,” said Republican strategist Scott Reed. “This is a good time to get back to a real healthy dose of message discipline for the entire administration, department-wide and the White House. That’s what you do when something like this happens.”

Trump, on a golfing weekend in Palm Beach, Florida, got the news in his private quarters at his Mar-a-Lago retreat from White House counsel Emmett Flood, and watched TV coverage of the Mueller report in his cabin on Air Force One.

Trump’s initial comments in reacting to the Mueller conclusion suggests he is not inclined to move past the investigation.

Speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force One for the flight back to Washington, Trump called for Democrats to be investigated, expanding on his often repeated assertion that the Mueller probe was Democrat-inspired. Mueller was appointed by Trump’s Department of Justice in 2017 after he fired FBI director James Comey.

“It’s a shame that our country had to go through this. To be honest it’s a shame that your president has had to go through this,” Trump said. “Before I even got elected it began, and it began illegally.”

Trump’s comments could foreshadow an effort by his supporters to seek payback for the cloud that has hung over his time in the White House.

“I’m interested in moving on and trying to get this behind us, but people have to pay for what they’ve done for the past two years,” said former Trump campaign aide David Bossie. “We must investigate the investigators.”

CHALLENGES FOR DEMOCRATS

Trump’s path to re-election remains a perilous one. Analysts say he will probably need to win the Midwestern states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, just as he did in his improbable 2016 victory, and Democrats are already pouring resources into those states.

Trump will foreshadow his campaign message on Thursday night when he headlines a “Make America Great Again” rally in Michigan.

Trump supporters viewed the Mueller report as a blow to the more than a dozen Democrats who are campaigning for their party’s 2020 presidential nomination.

“This is very problematic for any Democrat who’s running for president in 2020 that was hoping they would face a weakened or beaten-down President Trump,” former Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller said. “In fact, President Trump will likely see a ratings boost coming out of this and a strong tailwind pushing him toward the upcoming election.”

Reuters/Ipsos polling has shown that Americans decided early on in Mueller’s investigation whether they thought Trump was guilty of collusion or not. The polling found few undecided voters.

Brinkley said Democrats will need to adjust their tactics and emphasize their differences with Trump’s record on issues ranging from healthcare and climate change to immigration.

“Some of those charges are going to have to rise to be the main charges against Trump,” he said, noting there was fatigue with the Russia issue.

(Reporting By Steve Holland, Jeff Mason and Roberta Rampton; Editing by Ross Colvin and Chris Reese)

Source: OANN

Chris White | Energy Reporter

  • A new report suggesting that Facebook is using a secret code to deboost conservative content is sparse on evidence, according to tech experts.
  • It’s likely that reports showing Facebook suppressing conservative content could be overblown, experts warn. Examples of Facebook deboosting conservative content could be evidence of the company’s inability to moderate its platform.
  • Facebook’s inability to be transparent about the limits of artificial intelligence is creating a lot of problems for the social media giant, one artificial intelligence researcher warns.

Tech experts are criticizing a recent Project Veritas report suggesting Facebook is involved in a secret project designed to suppress conservative content on the platform.

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe produced a report in February suggesting that Facebook is suppressing the distribution of conservative pages. The report included documents from an insider who claimed the company’s engineers were using a piece of code designed to weed out videos on suicide as a tool to deboost conservative content.

The tool the insider saw during her time at Facebook was labeled Sigma:ActionDeboostLiveDistribution, which is a type of artificial intelligence that does real-time voice-to-text analysis of live stream videos, then records the text, and tries to decipher what the content of the text means.

Content from The Daily Caller, internet pundit Mike Cernovich and others was allegedly targeted using this tool, according to the insider. (RELATED: Daily Caller Editor In Chief Locked Out Of Account For Tweeting ‘Learn To Code”)

Project Veritas’ report also included a memo from Facebook engineer Seiji Yamamoto, who reportedly told a colleague that Facebook should address “… quite a bit of content near the perimeter of hate speech.” Yamamoto, a data science manager, and others discussed in the memos how best to collect information about internet troll behavior for the purpose of shutting down supposedly malicious content.

Screenshot of internal Facebook memo explaining reason for deboosting Mike Cernovich’s page (Screenshot)

The report gained some traction on Twitter after its release, but got elevated to a higher level after Donald Trump Jr. wrote a March 17 editorial on big tech censoring conservatives. He mentioned O’Keefe’s reporting in the piece, writing that “we now know that Mark Zuckerberg’s social media giant developed algorithms to ‘deboost’ certain content, limiting its distribution and appearance in news feeds.”

Software engineers are now poking holes in Project Veritas’ conclusions. Neil Stevens, director of information technology at The Daily Caller, believes there is not much evidence supporting the conclusion O’Keefe’s group is making. Stevens is responsible for building up and maintaining websites for both TheDC and The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Facebook is trying to block suicide content but doing it on the cheap. Instead of using human beings to monitor videos, they’re using artificial intelligence/machine learning systems to scan mass amounts of video without any human intervention,” he told TheDCNF. “And in this case, it failed,” Stevens said, referring to the content O’Keefe provided as evidence that Facebook is deboosting conservatives.

Another likely scenario is that Facebook took note of how internet trolls were jumping into YouTube videos and editing them to include clips of people promoting suicide. Such videos might look normal until a jump-cut halfway through reveals a person demonstrating how to slit a wrist. Facebook tried to use this specific code to flush out such content, but their AI experienced false-positives, Stevens believes.

Screenshot of internal Facebook guide explaining reason for deboosting Mike Cernovich’s video content (screenshot provided by Project Veritas)

Facebook has faced criticisms of censoring individuals, many of whom are conservatives, though some Democrats are also dinging the Silicon Valley giant. Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, for instance, has advocated for breaking up what she believes is Facebook and Amazon’s monopoly. Conservatives meanwhile have hammered the company during the past few years over concerns related to censorship.

President Donald Trump’s social media director Dan Scavino Jr. was temporarily blocked on March 18 from making public Facebook comments. The ban claimed that “some of your comments have been reported as spam,” and that “to avoid getting blocked again,” he should “make sure your posts are in line with the Facebook Community Standards.” The president assured his supporters in a March 19 tweet that he “will be looking into this!” His tweet linked to a story about Facebook targeting Scavino.

Other engineers made similar observations. Emily Williams, a data scientist and founder of Whole Systems Enterprises, for one, argued that Facebook’s lack of transparency about the frailties of their AI-deep learning instruments makes it difficult for people to understand why and how content is being throttled. (RELATED: GOP Lawmakers Grill Social Media Giants Over Alleged Censorship Of Conservatives, Again) 

FILE PHOTO: A 3D printed Facebook logo is placed on broken glass above a printed EU flag in this illustration taken January 28, 2019. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo

“I think that is a very big stretch,” she said, referring to the belief that Facebook is using the code for anything other than flushing out content promoting suicide. “If Facebook came out and was transparent, that would be one thing, but a lot of people are arrogant and don’t want to admit their algorithms are imperfect,” said Williams, whose company provides AI solutions for a variety of industries.

She added: “If I were trying to weed out extremists I would not use this code. These codes are very good at what they are trained for but not very good at anything else.” Facebook is a profit-driven corporation, so if it wanted to target conservatives or liberals, then it would probably not use a code for a purpose other than what it was designed to do, Williams noted.

A more efficient process would be to “write an algorithm that tries to find those people specifically. Write one for the extreme left and extreme right. And a different one for ISIS and neo-Nazis,” she said. Stevens mirrored her comments, telling TheDCNF that using code for reasons other than the stated purpose risks creating a much higher rate of false-positives, all of which could affect content across the platform.

Facebook fired the insider in 2018 for breaking multiple employment policies, a company spokesman told TheDCNF. Project Veritas’ spokesman Marco Bruno told TheDCNF that his group stands behind O’Keefe’s report. “We happen to trust what our insider saw behind closed doors, and the documents she leaked, more than what Facebook will say on a podium,” Bruno said.

A Facebook spokesman directed TheDCNF to a section of the company’s policy page, which explains that deboosting sometimes occurs on the platform when users upload pre-recorded videos on the Facebook Live feature. The company has tools detecting when a person has misused the feature and can then prompt AI to deboost the non-live videos. Live videos are considered more newsworthy and thus take priority.

Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” — Letter to Congress from Attorney General William Barr

Now that the findings of the Department of Justice have exonerated the president, will Democrats follow their own advice, admit there was no collusion or obstruction and Move On?

The liberal activist organization of that name was founded a generation ago when Congress investigated and tried to impeach President Clinton. Congress didn’t take the advice of legal experts and constitutional scholars then, and unfortunately it looks like Democrats intend to repeat the mistake.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) says regardless of the report’s findings, he will pursue investigations even “broader” than what the special counsel has done with 2,800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses, some 500 search warrants and more than $25 million over the last two years.

Democrats and the media should be trying to heal the nation not divide us. Instead, Democrats intend to spend the next two years subpoenaing and dragging every member of Trump’s administration, his family and business associates to testify before their committees.

Nadler says he’s doing it to protect “the rule of law.”

But will House Democrats really respect the institutions and traditions of American jurisprudence? If the past is prelude, the answer to that questions is, sadly, no.

Democrats did away with the presumption of innocence for Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Kavanaugh, with his family and the American people paying the price Now, Democrats are now ready to abandon other bedrock principles of American justice.

One of the most basic principles is equality before the law!

The Constitution prohibits double jeopardy. It’s a matter of basic fairness — no one should be victimized by vindictive prosecutors armed with the power of government and $25 million in financial backing of the U.S. Treasury.

Congressional Democrats’ endless investigations, leaks and political machinations violate the spirit of that constitutional prohibition. Americans understand that, no matter what the spin or who stands accused. The constitution guarantees fair and equal justice for every American regardless of who they are!

Democrats want to convict President Trump in the court of public opinion to set the stage for impeaching him. That’s what Rep. Nadler told George Stephanopoulos: “Before you impeach somebody, you have to persuade the American public that it ought to happen.” Fortunately Mueller’s exoneration of President Trump will make that extremely difficult to do, despite media persecution and false news stories,

The Democrats are ready to violate another norm of legal precedent by asking Attorney General Barr and the DOJ to release every scrap of paper the special counsel gathered.

Prosecutors normally don’t release confidential material gathered during an investigation out of respect for the privacy of individuals not charged with a crime.

”The normal procedure is that unless there’s a damn good reason, you don’t release grand jury material,” Nadler said a generation ago when he opposed releasing the evidence behind the Ken Starr report.

Nadler and fellow Democrats accused the Judiciary Committee of seeking the background material to build a public case for impeaching President Clinton.

“They don’t think there is enough of a vote for impeachment yet out in the public,” Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts), the second ranking Democrat on the committee, said. “So what you have a very one-sided, partisan effort to release material, before the president gets a chance to review it or respond to it, that makes the president look bad.”

Nadler took a page from that playbook and now demands the raw material Mueller obtained to build his own case for impeaching President Trump. Furthermore, he says the White House “should not get an advance look at the report” or the evidence.

That’s quite an about face from the Jerry Nadler of 1998 who fought for Clinton to have time to look at the Starr report. “The president is asking for two days. The Republicans say no,” he said bitterly.

The DOJ does not release such information to protect the innocent. Furthermore, the Trump administration has a legal right to review the report, prepare a response, rebuke any false accusations and information covered by executive privilege. 

As for an impartial hearing, President Trump can expect no better from House Democrats than Senate Democrats gave Judge Kavanaugh.

Chairman Nadler already convicted the president of obstruction of justice before seeing the attorney general’s letter and the Mueller report.

House Democrats don’t care that the special counsel found the president did not collude with the Russians or obstruct justice. They will continue their investigations, attempts to smear the president. Like Javert obsessed with Jean Valjean, Democrats can’t help themselves.

All Americans, Democrats, Republicans and independents alike, should be celebrating the fact investigators found no evidence of collusion. However, Democrats won’t take the finding of no collusion or obstruction for an answer.

That tells you they were never pursuing the truth, just a political vendetta and a different outcome for the 2016 election. Their obsession with President Trump will only further divide the nation, not help unite us.

Rep. Nadler says he wants to protect the rule of law and “the institutions we depend on for our democratic form of government.”

But Democrats are weakening those institutions by engaging in relentless political warfare. Voters elected Congress to address the very real challenges our country faces — an opioid epidemic, China’s economic aggression, the crisis on our southern border, the difficulty of raising a family, to name, just a few.

Our system is founded on belief in equal justice under the law. All will be held accountable.

We hope the politicians, intelligence officials, journalists and media executives who fed Americans unfounded speculation, conspiracy theories for the last two years that have done incalculable damage to our country and its institutions will be held accountable.

Preserve the principles of justice on which our incredible country was founded.

Kimberly Guilfoyle (@KimGuilfoyle) is vice chairwoman of America First Policies, a nonprofit organization supporting key policy initiatives that will work for all citizens in our country and put America first.


The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.

Source: The Daily Caller

The text of Attorney General William Barr's letter to congressional lawmakers outlining the principal conclusions reached by the special counsel in the Russia probe (with footnotes below):

March 24, 2019

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REPORT

On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a "confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions" he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. 600.8(c). This report is entitled "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election." Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel's report.

Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." (1)

The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Obstruction of Justice. The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president. (2)

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of- justice offense.

STATUS OF THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW

The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel's report will be a "confidential report" to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038,37,040-41 (July 9,1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to "matter(s) occurring before (a) grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

***

As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that "the Attorney General may determine that public release of' notifications to your respective Committees "would be in the public interest." 28 C.F.R. 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,

William P. Barr

Attorney General

(1) In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign "coordinated" with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined "coordination" as an "agreement_tacit or express_between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference."

(2) See A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).

Source: NewsMax

The text of Attorney General William Barr's letter to congressional lawmakers outlining the principal conclusions reached by the special counsel in the Russia probe (with footnotes below):

March 24, 2019

Dear Chairman Graham, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Feinstein, and Ranking Member Collins:

As a supplement to the notification provided on Friday, March 22, 2019, I am writing today to advise you of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III and to inform you about the status of my initial review of the report he has prepared.

THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REPORT

On Friday, the Special Counsel submitted to me a "confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions" he has reached, as required by 28 C.F.R. 600.8(c). This report is entitled "Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election." Although my review is ongoing, I believe that it is in the public interest to describe the report and to summarize the principal conclusions reached by the Special Counsel and the results of his investigation.

The report explains that the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated allegations that members of the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump, and others associated with it, conspired with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, or sought to obstruct the related federal investigations. In the report, the Special Counsel noted that, in completing his investigation, he employed 19 lawyers who were assisted by a team of approximately 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants, and other professional staff. The Special Counsel issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

The Special Counsel obtained a number of indictments and convictions of individuals and entities in connection with his investigation, all of which have been publicly disclosed. During the course of his investigation, the Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public. Below, I summarize the principal conclusions set out in the Special Counsel's report.

Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. The Special Counsel's report is divided into two parts. The first describes the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The report outlines the Russian effort to influence the election and documents crimes committed by persons associated with the Russian government in connection with those efforts. The report further explains that a primary consideration for the Special Counsel's investigation was whether any Americans – including individuals associated with the Trump campaign – joined the Russian conspiracies to influence the election, which would be a federal crime. The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: "(T)he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." (1)

The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election. The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election. As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities.

The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

Obstruction of Justice. The report's second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. After making a "thorough factual investigation" into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as "difficult issues" of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. Over the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel's office engaged in discussions with certain Department officials regarding many of the legal and factual matters at issue in the Special Counsel's obstruction investigation. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president. (2)

In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction. Generally speaking, to obtain and sustain an obstruction conviction, the government would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person, acting with corrupt intent, engaged in obstructive conduct with a sufficient nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding. In cataloguing the President's actions, many of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department's principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of- justice offense.

STATUS OF THE DEPARTMENT'S REVIEW

The relevant regulations contemplate that the Special Counsel's report will be a "confidential report" to the Attorney General. See Office of Special Counsel, 64 Fed. Reg. 37,038,37,040-41 (July 9,1999). As I have previously stated, however, I am mindful of the public interest in this matter. For that reason, my goal and intent is to release as much of the Special Counsel's report as I can consistent with applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

Based on my discussions with the Special Counsel and my initial review, it is apparent that the report contains material that is or could be subject to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which imposes restrictions on the use and disclosure of information relating to "matter(s) occurring before (a) grand jury." Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B). Rule 6(e) generally limits disclosure of certain grand jury information in a criminal investigation and prosecution. Id. Disclosure of 6(e) material beyond the strict limits set forth in the rule is a crime in certain circumstances. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 401(3). This restriction protects the integrity of grand jury proceedings and ensures that the unique and invaluable investigative powers of a grand jury are used strictly for their intended criminal justice function.

Given these restrictions, the schedule for processing the report depends in part on how quickly the Department can identify the 6(e) material that by law cannot be made public. I have requested the assistance of the Special Counsel in identifying all 6(e) information contained in the report as quickly as possible. Separately, I also must identify any information that could impact other ongoing matters, including those that the Special Counsel has referred to other offices. As soon as that process is complete, I will be in a position to move forward expeditiously in determining what can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies.

***

As I observed in my initial notification, the Special Counsel regulations provide that "the Attorney General may determine that public release of' notifications to your respective Committees "would be in the public interest." 28 C.F.R. 600.9(c). I have so determined, and I will disclose this letter to the public after delivering it to you.

Sincerely,

William P. Barr

Attorney General

(1) In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign "coordinated" with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined "coordination" as an "agreement_tacit or express_between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference."

(2) See A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222 (2000).

Source: NewsMax

Illustration photo of a U.S. Dollar note
A U.S. Dollar note is seen in this June 22, 2017 illustration photo. REUTERS/Thomas White/Illustration

March 25, 2019

By Shinichi Saoshiro

TOKYO (Reuters) – The dollar edged back from a six-week low against the yen early on Monday, as a degree of calm returned to the market gripped by fears of a recession in the United States.

The greenback had tumbled on Friday as the spread between 3-month Treasury bills and 10-year note yields inverted for the first time since 2007 following weak U.S. manufacturing PMI data.

An inverted yield curve has historically signaled an impending recession.

Cautious comments from the U.S. Federal Reserve last week had also raised worries about the growth outlook in the United States and the rest of the world.

The dollar was up roughly 0.2 percent at 110.13 yen after sinking to 109.745 on Friday, its lowest since Feb. 11.

“The dollar’s slide on Friday appeared to have been an algo-led reaction to the yield curve inversion and quite simply overdone. Some bargain hunting by market participants emerged to support dollar/yen,” said Yukio Ishizuki, senior currency strategist at Daiwa Securities in Tokyo.

“The response, on the other hand, to the Mueller report has been limited.”

Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russia, and did not present enough evidence to warrant charging Trump with obstruction of justice, U.S. Attorney General William Barr said on Sunday.

The dollar index was unchanged at 96.651 after scraping out a gain of 0.15 percent on Friday.

The euro was little changed at $1.1297. The common currency has lost roughly 0.7 percent on Friday after a much weaker-than-expected German manufacturing survey raised concerns for Europe’s biggest economy and the wider euro zone.

The Australian dollar, viewed as liquid proxy for global growth, stood little changed at $0.7077.

The pound was 0.1 percent lower at $1.3200

Sterling had rallied 0.8 percent on Friday, helped by a weaker euro and after European Union leaders gave British Prime Minister Theresa May a two-week reprieve to decide how Britain will leave the European Union.

(Editing by Shri Navaratnam)

Source: OANN

Former FBI Director James Comey on Sunday tweeted a quixotic photo of himself gazing up into trees along with a caption that said, “so many questions,” following reports that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation found no collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

The post came after Attorney General William Barr submitted to Congress his summary of the main conclusions from Mueller’s investigation.

Mueller did not find Trump’s campaign or associates conspired with Russia, Barr wrote, and did the special counsel did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute obstruction of justice.

“In cataloguing the President’s actions, many of which took place in public view, the (Mueller) report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent, each of which, under the Department’s principles of federal prosecution guiding charging decisions, would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to establish an obstruction-of-justice offense,” Barr wrote.

Mueller, though, did not exonerate the president.

Trump, though, said the findings exonerated him.

This was an illegal takedown that failed and hopefully somebody's going to be looking at the other side," Trump told reporters on Sunday.

Mueller’s probe started in May 2017 after Trump’s sudden decision to dismiss Comey.

Source: NewsMax

Illustration photo of a Japan Yen note
A Japan Yen note is seen in this illustration photo taken June 1, 2017. REUTERS/Thomas White/Illustration

March 24, 2019

By Swati Pandey

SYDNEY (Reuters) – The Japanese yen hovered near a six-week high on Monday while Asian shares are expected to start lower as risk assets fell out of favor on growing worries about an impending U.S. recession, sending global bond yields plunging.

In Asia, Nikkei futures pointed to a weak start for Japan. Australian shares fell 0.3 percent at the open while New Zealand’s benchmark index faltered 0.9 percent.

Investors also kept one eye on the details of a nearly two-year U.S. investigation which found no evidence of collusion between Donald Trump’s election team and Russia, in a major political victory for the U.S. President.

U.S. stock futures were marginally higher during early Asian hours.

On Friday, all three major U.S. stock indexes registered their biggest one-day percentage losses since Jan.3 with the Dow sliding 1.8 percent, the S&P 500 off 1.9 percent and the Nasdaq dropping 2.5 percent.

Concerns about the health of the world economy heightened last week after cautious remarks by the U.S. Federal Reserve sent 10-year treasury yields to the lowest since early 2018. Adding to the fears of a more widespread global downturn, manufacturing output data from Germany showed a contraction for the third straight month.

In response, 10-year treasury yields slipped below the three-month rate for the first time since 2007. Historically, an inverted yield curve – where long-term rates fall below short-term – has signaled an upcoming recession.

“We have re-run our preferred yield curve recession models, which now suggest a 30-35 percent chance of a U.S. recession occurring over the next 10‑18 months,” said Tapas Strickland, markets strategist at National Australia Bank.

Typically a 40-60 percent probability sees a recession within the next 10-18 months, Strickland added, basing the analysis on previous recessions.

“The risk of a U.S. recession has risen and is flashing amber and this will keep markets pricing a high chance of the Fed cutting rates.”

Much of the concerns around global growth is stemming from Europe and China which are battling separate tariff wars with the United States. Political turmoil in Britain over the country’s exit from the European Union is also a major overhang for risk assets.

On Sunday, Rupert Murdoch’s Sun newspaper said in a front page editorial British Prime Minister Theresa May must announce on Monday she will stand down as soon as her Brexit deal is approved.

The British pound was last flat at $1.3209 after three straight days of wild gyrations. The currency slipped 0.7 percent last week.

Politics was also in focus in the United States.

The long-awaited Mueller report into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia to help Trump defeat his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, marked a major milestone of his presidency as he prepares for his 2020 re-election battle.

In currency markets, the Japanese yen – a perceived safe haven – held near its highest since Feb. 11. It was last off 0.1 percent at 110.04 per dollar.

The Australian dollar, a liquid proxy for risk play, was down for its third straight session of losses at $0.7072.

(Editing by Shri Navaratnam)

Source: OANN

Virginia Kruta | Associate Editor

Less than one year ago, the Washington Post and the New York Times won Pulitzer Prizes for coverage of something that, according to Mueller’s report, did not exist.

In April 2018, both newspapers were awarded Pulitzers for their coverage of possible collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Politico reported at the time:

The New York Times and Washington Post each won a Pulitzer Prize for national reporting on Monday, capping off a newsroom battle last year for scoops on links between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia, the focus of an ongoing special counsel investigation into the 2016 election.

And on Sunday, Attorney General William Barr delivered a summary of special counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusions to Congress — that summary indicated that Mueller, over the course of nearly two years, had found no evidence of collusion. (RELATED: Justice Department Delivers Mueller Conclusions)

Upon being reminded of those Pulitzers — and the reason they were awarded — Donald Trump Jr. argued that they ought to be replaced with “fake news awards.” He tweeted, “There should be a recall.”

Follow Virginia on Twitter

Source: The Daily Caller

Virginia Kruta | Associate Editor

The prevailing media narrative was that the Mueller report was going to damage President Donald Trump — but as the details began to roll out, many criticized the media as being hardest hit.

Attorney General William Barr delivered a summary of Mueller’s conclusions to Congress on Sunday, and the takeaway was that the special counsel had found no evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice.

Many were quick to pile on, blaming media personalities for perpetuating a narrative that now appears to be based wholly on faulty premises.

Donald Trump Jr. jumped into the fray as well, taking direct aim at specific outlets and challenging “honest journalists” to hold them accountable. (RELATED: Trump Jr. Lays Into ‘Sick And Twisted Conspiracy Theories’ Of ‘Collusion Truthers’)

A few people then pointed out that the Washington Post and the New York Times won Pulitzers “for their supposed stellar reporting on Trump’s treasonous activity with Russia.”

Trump Jr. responded with a plan to make a quick correction. “They should convert those Pulitzer’s to #fakenews awards,” he said.

Follow Virginia on Twitter

Source: The Daily Caller

Virginia Kruta | Associate Editor

Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders made it abundantly clear that he would not be placated with a summary of the Mueller report.

Shortly after Attorney General William Barr submitted a summary of Mueller’s findings to Congress, Sanders tweeted, “I don’t want a summary of the Mueller report. I want the whole damn report.”

Sanders is not alone in calling for the entire report to be made public. Many members of Congress — on both sides of the political aisle — have called for full transparency and a public release of the report.

A fair number of media personalities have issued the same call for Mueller’s full report — and even the evidence he considered while reaching his conclusions — to be made public.

Even President Donald Trump, apparently confident that the full report will not be damaging to him, has said that he has no problem with the American people knowing what Mueller uncovered. “Let it out. Let people see it,” he said. (RELATED: Trump: ‘I Don’t Mind’ If Public Sees What’s In Mueller Report)

The summary of the report provided to Congress on Sunday indicated that Mueller found no evidence of either collusion or obstruction of justice.

Follow Virginia on Twitter

Source: The Daily Caller

High-profile Democrats repeatedly promised the public they would see evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia.

But special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia’s 2016 election meddling, according to a four-page letter that Attorney General William Barr sent to Congress on Sunday.

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” Barr’s letter states.

Mueller’s findings are a major blow to Democrats like California Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, who repeatedly asserted as fact Trump colluded with Russia. (RELATED: Bob Menendez Claimed Trump Could Be ‘An Agent Of The Russian Federation)

Democratic California Rep. Maxine Waters guaranteed in September 2017 that Trump colluded with Russia.

REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

Congresswoman Maxine Waters addresses the audience at the ‘Ain’t I a Woman?’ Sojourner Truth lunch, during the three-day Women’s Convention at Cobo Center in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., October 28, 2017. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

“Here you have a president who I can tell you and guarantee you is in collusion with the Russians to undermine our democracy,” Waters said.

Waters predicted in December 2017 that Mueller’s report is “going to lead right to, not only collusion, obstruction of justice, money laundering.”

Swalwell, Schiff and other Democrats didn’t wait for Mueller to finish his investigation to claim that collusion had already been proven.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) (L) and committee member Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) return to a closed-door hearing with Michael Cohen, former attorney and fixer for President Donald Trump, following a vote at the U.S. Capitol March 06, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

“The evidence is pretty clear that there was collusion between  the Trump campaign and the Russians,” Democratic Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal told MSNBC in February 2018.

Swalwell in February 2018 published a powerpoint titled “Evidence of Collusion” that failed to include any evidence of collusion. He repeated his assertion of Trump-Russia collusion on several occasions, despite lacking the evidence to substantiate it.

Schiff, too, claimed there was evidence of collusion before learning Mueller’s conclusion.

“You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion — pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff declared on February 17.

Hours before receiving Barr’s memo on Sunday, Schiff was still defending the collusion narrative.

“There’s a difference between compelling evidence of collusion and whether the special counsel concludes that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal charge of conspiracy,” Schiff said.

“I have trust in [Mueller’s] prosecutorial judgment. But that doesn’t mean, of course, that there isn’t compelling and incriminating evidence that should be shared with the American people,” he added.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler similarly refused to accept Mueller’s lack of evidence for collusion.

“We know there was collusion,” Nadler said Sunday. “Why there’s been no indictments, we don’t know.”

WATCH:

Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

Source: The Daily Caller

Traders work on the floor at the NYSE in New York
Traders work on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York, U.S., March 22, 2019. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

March 24, 2019

(Reuters) – S&P 500 e-mini futures rose 0.19 pct on Sunday after U.S. Attorney General William Barr said Special Counsel Robert Mueller had found no evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign team and Russia.

The 10-year Treasury note futures were trading flattish at the open.

(Reporting by Jennifer Ablan and Trevor Hunnicutt in New York; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Source: OANN

Democrats are jumping on Attorney General William Barr's summary of the Mueller report in a letter to Congress that its findings were inconclusive on whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice as justification to proceed with their own investigation, Politico reported Sunday.

"This letter leaves more questions than answers; a sanitized summary from Trump's handpicked bodyguard is not acceptable," Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., said. "Barr has his finger on the scale to protect Trump. The full report should be released immediately."

His Democratic colleague in the House, Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., added "according to the Attorney General's letter, he described a pattern of evidence suggesting the president engaged in obstruction of justice," Politico reported

Barr wrote in his letter to the Congress that "The report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the special counsel views as 'difficult issues' of law and fact concerning whether the president's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction."

Barr added Mueller stated in his final report that "while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Source: NewsMax

Virginia Kruta | Associate Editor

Donald Trump Jr. laid into Democrats and many in the media in his first full public statement regarding the conclusions reached by special counsel Robert Mueller.

“The farce that the Democrats & their media lackeys perpetrated on the American people for over 2 years should never be forgotten!” he tweeted along with a full statement.

He began with an attack on the media, blaming a number of outlets for perpetuating the collusion narrative without evidence to back it up.

After more than 2 years of non-stop conspiracy theories from CNN, MSNBC, Buzzfeed and the rest of the mainstream media, as well as daily lies and smears coming from Democrats in Washington, the Mueller Report proves what those of us with sane minds have known all along, there was ZERO collusion with Russia.

Trump also noted that in the hours since it was announced that there would be no further indictments related to the probe — and that Mueller had found no evidence of collusion or obstruction — there are a number of Democrats and media personalities who don’t appear ready to move on. (RELATED: Ted Cruz Blasts House Democrats: ‘They Are Going To Impeach The President For Being Donald Trump)

Sadly, instead of apologizing for needlessly destabilizing the country in a transparent attempt to delegitimize the 2016 election, it’s clear that the Collusion Truthers in the media and the Democrat Party are only going to double down on their sick and twisted conspiracy theories moving forward.

Trump concluded with a call to “honest journalists,” challenging them to be courageous enough to “hold these now fully debunked truthers accountable and treat them with the scorn and ridicule that they so deserve.”

It’s my hope that honest journalists within the media have the courage to hold these now fully debunked truthers accountable and treat them with the scorn and ridicule that they so deserve.

Trump Jr. may be right — in the hours since Mueller gave his report to Attorney General William Barr, a number of Democrats have indicated that they plan to forge ahead. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler told CNN’s Dana Bash that “we know there was collusion,” and he intended to continue investigating regardless of Mueller’s findings.

Follow Virginia on Twitter

Source: The Daily Caller

Scott Morefield | Reporter

President Donald Trump celebrated the end of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and the release of Attorney General William Barr’s letter to Congress summarizing its results with a Sunday afternoon tweet.

“No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION,” Trump tweeted. “KEEP AMERICA GREAT”

In addition to finding no evidence that the president or anyone associated with his campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 election, the report also did not find sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of justice.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller wrote, according to Barr’s letter.

Meanwhile, Democrats promise to keep the investigation going in the House.

“We know there was collusion,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler told CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday. “Why there’s been no indictments, we don’t know.” (RELATED: Adam Schiff Still Believes There’s ‘Compelling And Incriminating’ Evidence Of Collusion)

Follow Scott on Twitter

Source: The Daily Caller

Scott Morefield | Reporter

President Donald Trump celebrated the end of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation and the release of Attorney General William Barr’s letter to Congress summarizing its results with a Sunday afternoon tweet.

“No Collusion, No Obstruction, Complete and Total EXONERATION,” Trump tweeted. “KEEP AMERICA GREAT”

In addition to finding no evidence that the president or anyone associated with his campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 election, the report also did not find sufficient evidence to charge Trump with obstruction of justice.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller wrote, according to Barr’s letter.

Meanwhile, Democrats promise to keep the investigation going in the House.

“We know there was collusion,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler told CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday. “Why there’s been no indictments, we don’t know.” (RELATED: Adam Schiff Still Believes There’s ‘Compelling And Incriminating’ Evidence Of Collusion)

Follow Scott on Twitter

Source: The Daily Caller

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said on Sunday the Department of Justice's findings on the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election were a "total and complete exoneration of the President of the United States."

Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who spent nearly two years investigating allegations that Russia meddled in the presidential election to help Donald Trump win, found no evidence that any member of Trump's election campaign conspired with Russia during the election.

Source: NewsMax


Current track

Title

Artist