DEMS SUBPOENA MUELLER REPORT WHAT IS BARR HIDING?
By Emily Tillett
The House Judiciary Committee voted to authorize subpoenas for special counsel Robert Mueller’s full report on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The resolution passed Wednesday morning 24-17 in a party line vote. The committee will now also move to subpoena all underlying documents related to Mueller’s findings.
Before Wednesday’s vote, Republicans largely blasted the Democratic-led effort as violating the law, claiming the public release of the full Mueller report would present national security issues as much of the report is expected to contain redacted materials pertaining to grand jury information.
Republican members on the committee also claimed the resolution was a continuing effort to undermine the Trump presidency, with some claiming Democrats were pursuing the subpoenas as an attack on the president.
“As much as Democrats may hate the president, I would hope you love America more,” said Colorado Republican Rep. Ken Buck. He said that “if love trumps hate” Democrats should afford the attorney general enough time to properly release the findings.
Meanwhile, as Democrats continue to push for transparency, President Trump pushed back, calling out committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for opposing the release of independent counsel Ken Starr’s report on the investigation of former President Clinton.
“With the NO COLLUSION Mueller Report, which the Dems hate, he wants it all. NOTHING WILL EVER SATISFY THEM!” tweeted Mr. Trump on Tuesday.
Committee spokesman Daniel Schwarz said in a statement on Tuesday that the debate in 1998 “was not about Congress receiving evidence” but rather about “what type of material from the underlying evidence in the Starr report should be made public.”
“Our expectation is that Attorney General Barr will be as forthcoming now as Mr. Starr was in 1998,” added Schwarz, saying Barr “should provide the full Mueller report to Congress, with the underlying materials, at which point we will be in a better position to understand what Special Counsel Mueller uncovered during his investigation.”
The House already overwhelmingly voted 420-0 on a non-binding resolution to release the full Mueller report, but Sen. Lindsey Graham blocked a vote on the resolution in the Senate.
As a result of the resolution, Nadler’s committee will also issue subpoenas for a variety of Trump associates. They include former White House Counsel Donald McGahn, former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and former White House Counsel Chief of Staff Ann Donaldson.
They are being subpoenaed as part of the Judiciary Committee’s separate investigation into possible threats to the rule of law by the president.
“Because we may have to go to court to obtain the complete text of the Special Counsel’s report, and because the President may attempt to invoke executive privilege to withhold that evidence from us, it is imperative that the Committee take possession of these documents, and others, without delay,” explained Nadler.
Highlights from the Judiciary Committee vote below:
Nadler pushes for report release
Speaking before Wednesday’s vote, Nadler said in opening remarks that on multiple occasions, he asked Barr “to work with us to go to the court and obtain access to materials.” Nadler claimed however that Barr has “so far refused.”
“I will give him time to change his mind. But if we cannot reach an accommodation, then we will have no choice but to issue subpoenas for these materials. And if the Department still refuses, then it should be up to a judge—not the President or his political appointee—to decide whether or not it is appropriate for the Committee to review the complete record,” said Nadler.
Republicans blast committee probe
Ranking Member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, meanwhile slammed the committee’s ongoing probe of the president and investigation, saying time would best be spent on issues like the crisis on the Southern border. Collins said the asks for further documents was “reckless, irresponsible and disingenuous.”
“What’s the rush? Spring break probably, we don’t want to wait until May,” Collins suggested of Nadler’s calls for subpoenas as Barr has vowed to testify before lawmakers in early May. He claimed Democrats were simply calling for the subpoenas of documents to make headlines after Mueller didn’t make a determination as to whether Mr. Trump committed obstruction of justice.
“This is great political theater,” he added, arguing that asking Barr to release any grand jury materials was illegal, citing potential national security issues.
Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado echoed Collins, saying the public release could “comprise intelligence sources and methods” that Barr previously expressed concerns about this to the committee.
“As much as Democrats may hate the president, I would hope you love America more,” said Buck. He said that “if love trumps hate” Democrats should afford the attorney general enough time to properly release the findings.
Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas meanwhile urged a subpoena of Robert Mueller himself, saying the committee should let Mueller speak about “whether or not he thinks the report he created should be disclosed without considerations of redactions of classified information.”
Fellow Texan Louie Gohmert blasted Democrats claiming they were the ones who colluded with the Russian government. He called the ongoing probe an “outrageous assault on the office of the president even after the truth has come out.”
“It’s time to go back and clean up the mess that’s been made,” added Gohmert.
Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida agreed with Gohmert, saying Democrats are in denial over Muller’s report, saying the report’s initial release is the the “death rattle of the Democrats’ Russian collusion lie.” He said they’re going through the “stages of grief” in real time over Mueller’s less-than-fruitful findings into obstruction of justice and collusion.
CBS News’ Rebecca Kaplan contributed to this report.
‘LOSER’ JERRY NADLER HECKLED FOR REFUSING TO ACCEPT NO COLLUSION
‘You guys lose again. You lose again, Nadler!’
MARCH 25, 2019
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) was heckled while announcing new House probes into President Trump during the Democrats’ press conference reacting to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings of no collusion.
“Executive privilege must be asserted by the president personally –” Nadler began before getting cut off.
“You guys are a bunch of losers!” a man shouted to Nadler as he was laying out Democrats’ “Plan B” against Trump.
“–and, um, and as the Nixon case in front of the Supreme Court was decided nine to nothing pointed out –” Nadler tried to continue.
“You guys lose again. You lose again, Nadler!” the heckler shouted. “Good job, dirtbags, good job!”
The heckler continued interrupting Nadler after a reporter asked how his party would “move forward.”
“You’re behind, Nadler! You’re not gonna move forward!” the heckler shouted.
Nadler is among the Democrat leadership choosing to ignore Mueller’s “no collusion” findings because they don’t find it politically useful.
“You. Have. Been. Exposed,” Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) told House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Twitter.
“Stop the charade. There was no collusion. You used your unique position on the Intel Cmte to convince the American people that you had access to evidence of collusion. You lied and misled in order to pursue your political agenda.”
“Move on,” he added.
Research: Google Search Bias Flipped Seats for Democrats in Midterms
By Allum Bokhari
New research from psychologist and search engine expert Dr. Robert Epstein shows that biased Google searches had a measurable impact on the 2018 midterm elections, pushing tens of thousands of votes towards the Democrat candidates in three key congressional races, and potentially millions more in races across the country.
The study, from Epstein and a team at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology (AIBRT), analyzed Google searches related to three highly competitive congressional races in Southern California. In all three races, the Democrat won — and Epstein’s research suggests that Google search bias may have tipped them over the edge.
The research follows a previous study conducted in 2016 which showed that biased Google results pushed votes to Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. Democrats and Google executives have disputed these findings.
Epstein says that in the days leading up to the 2018 midterms, he was able to preserve “more than 47,000 election-related searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, along with the nearly 400,000 web pages to which the search results linked.”
Analysis of this data showed a clear pro-Democrat bias in election-related Google search results as compared to competing search engines. Users performing Google searches related to the three congressional races the study focused on were significantly more likely to see pro-Democrat stories and links at the top of their results.
As Epstein’s previous studies have shown, this can have a huge impact on the decisions of undecided voters, who often assume that their search results are unbiased. Epstein has called this the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME).
According to Epstein’s study, at least 35,455 undecided voters in the three districts may have been persuaded to vote for a Democrat candidate because of slanted Google search results. Considering that each vote gained by a Democrat is potentially a vote lost by a Republican, this means more than 70,910 votes may have been lost by Republicans in the three districts due to Google bias. In one of these districts, CA 45, the Democrat margin of victory was just over 12,000 votes.
The total Democrat win margin across all three districts was 71,337, meaning that bias Google searches could account for the vast majority of Democrat votes. Extrapolated to elections around the country, Epstein says that bias Google results could have influenced 4.6 million undecided voters to support Democrat candidates.
Moreover, Epstein’s findings are based on modest assumptions, such as the assumption that voters conduct one election-related search per week. According to Epstein, marketing research shows that people typically conduct 4-5 searches per day, not one per week. In other words, the true impact of biased search results could be much higher.
Epstein’s study may also understate the level of liberal bias in Google search results, due to its use of a 2017 study from Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center to rank sources by their bias. The study assigns conservative sources like Breitbart News a far higher bias rating than ostensibly centrist but in fact highly liberal sources like the New York Times. The study also gives online encyclopedia Wikipedia a non-liberal bias rating, despite the fact that its most controversial pages are typically hijacked by its cabal of left-wing editors to push partisan liberal narratives.
As the Los Angeles Times notes, Epstein is not a Republican and publicly supported Hillary Clinton in 2016. Nevertheless, Democrats and liberals continue to ignore or doubt his findings. House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) has repeatedly called claims of big tech bias a “conspiracy theory,” as have other congressional Democrats. And left-wing academics interviewed by the Los Angeles Times also heaped doubt on Epstein’s work.
Dr. Robert Epstein is featured in the 2018 documentary The Creepy Line, which was produced by Breitbart News editor-at-large Peter Schweizer and explores the bias amongst the Masters of the Universe in Silicon Valley.
Breitbart News continues to expose left-wing bias at Google. Recent reports reveal that company managers have told employees that the tech giant must stop “fake news” because “that’s how Trump won,” that Google-owned YouTube adjusted its algorithms to push pro-life content off its top search results, and that the company’s own internal researchers describe the company’s changes in policy since 2016 as a “shift towards censorship.”
Maxine Waters: “Impeachment the Only Answer”
Dems swept up in impeachment frenzy
Tuesday, March 05, 2019
Democrats are on a warpath to impeach President Trump, with Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) leading the charge alongside Congressional colleagues Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff.
Waters has hardly modulated her impeachment rhetoric, even when other Democrats did so in the lead up to the 2018 midterm elections.
Now that House Democrats have launched a sweeping probe into the President’s affairs, Waters is doubling down on her wild claims regarding Trump’s alleged misdeeds.
“Obstruction of justice reality show: Firing Comey, sending coded messages to Manafort & others that he has the power to pardon; lying abt Trump Tower meeting; threatening Cohen’s in-laws; attempting to destroy Mueller,” Waters tweeted. “What more do we need to know? Impeachment is the only answer.”
“For the faint of heart, who’ve been waiting for every “t” to be crossed and every “i” to be dotted, now is the time to demonstrate your patriotism. Support impeachment!”
During recent comments following the testimony of former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, Waters claimed to believe the Trump Foundation is actually a tax evasion front.
“There’s one thing that I think should not be missed that came out of the hearing, and that is how [Trump] directed payments into the foundation to keep from paying taxes,” Waters said. “I think there’s more than we know about at this time.”
“I think that’s an area that should be looked at because I think the foundation has been used by him to avoid paying taxes on money he’s earned.”
A new Quinnipiac poll found that only 35 percent of Americans favor impeaching the President, while an overwhelming 59 percent oppose the idea.
Hoo Boy: Are Democrats Planning to Move Forward With Impeachment, Regardless of What Mueller Finds?
By Guy Benson
For months and months, we’ve been told the following — and not without good reason: (1)The House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation is hopelessly partisan and beset with intense infighting.
(2) The Senate panel’s parallel probe has been much more professionally handled, with sober bipartisan leadership, but its resources and powers are incomplete, so its ‘no collusion‘ findings cannot be considered conclusive. (3) What really matters are the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team. Mueller is so important, in fact, that there has been constant hand-wringing about his investigation being canceled or disrupted by Trump. But now that it’s reportedly almost Mueller Time, there appears to be a concerted effort in anti-Trump circles to redefine the battlefield. No matter what Mueller’s verdict may be on Russian ‘collusion,’ we’re increasingly told, Trump is already guilty:
That first tweet is a CNN analyst preparing his audience for a potential letdown, preemptively pivoting to focusing on already-known facts if Mueller doesn’t drop new bombshells. The second is the Senate Intelligence Committee’s ranking member (who is slowly backing away from his call for his state’s governor to resign) not exactly contradicting Chairman Burr, but basically arguing, “what we already know is bad enough.” Perhaps most importantly, the new leader of the House committee that would instigate the impeachment process against the president went on television over the weekend and declared that he’s seen enough to conclude that its “very clear” the president has committed an impeachable crime:
Amid last week’s Michael Cohen hearings, a number of liberals, journalists, and Republicans observed that the proceedings felt like the first step toward removing Trump from office. Byron York argues that Democrats have now officially tipped their hand:
Think what you will about the reasons — calling an investigation a “witch hunt” is obstruction of justice? — but Nadler sounded less like a man weighing the evidence than a man who has has made up his mind.Given that, Nadler’s ABC interview led to a question: President Nixon was threatened with impeachment for obstruction of justice. President Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice. Why is Nadler, who heads the committee in the House that originates articles of impeachment, not moving forward with impeaching President Trump right now? … Nadler’s talk with ABC was the clearest indication yet that Democrats have decided to impeach Trump and are now simply doing the legwork involved in making that happen. And that means the debate among House Democrats will be a tactical one — what is the best time and way to go forward — rather than a more fundamental discussion of whether the president should be impeached…
Other House Democrats are sending similar messages. “There is abundant evidence of collusion,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said on CBS Sunday…So now the Democratic plan is coming into sharper relief. The impeachment decision has been made. Various committee chairs are moving forward in gathering and organizing the formal justification for removing the president. The timing decision is still up in the air, as is an overarching communications plan — selling impeachment to the American public, or more specifically those Americans who don’t already support impeachment…whatever the stated rationale, impeachment is on.
The goalposts are moving before our very eyes. But Allahpundit seems to agree that the Axios-floated grand strategy from House Democrats is not to pull the trigger on the I-word over the next year-plus, but rather to execute a slow-bleed of politically-damaging pain over that time span. The idea would be to cripple and overwhelm Trump’s presidency all the way up to election day, then let the voters oust him from office. “The smart play is to do what they’re doing, launching an open-ended investigation that will dig up plenty of dirt on Trump and grind on to Election Day next year,” he writes. “Instead of passing articles of impeachment and seeing them die in the Senate, they’re probably going to produce a Democratic counterpart to the Mueller report, laying out everything they find in gory detail and publishing it next summer so that the Democratic nominee and the media have a treasure trove of oppo to use against Trump.” If I were a betting man, that would be my wager, too. I’ll leave you with Trump-skeptical conservative writer David French attacking the Steele Dossier (the credibility of which was further eroded by Cohen’s testimony):
Gowdy did, in fact, make this point, and Russia’s 2016 electoral interference undoubtedly deserved very serious scrutiny. But a shady and unverified Clinton/DNC oppo research scheme serving as a primary driver of key elements of the investigation is a very bad look — and it almost certainly fed a pernicious spiral of mutual mistrust between Trumpworld and the DOJ that has convinced people on each side that the other is dangerous and must be stopped. The toxicity in American politics right now is palpable and worrisome. By the way, not all Democrats agree that Nadler’s sprawling, open-ended investigation is a smart move:
Tom's Blog 