russiainsider--2019-12-13--How Modern Psychology Destroyed Traditional Christian Morality

Sigmund Freud didn’t confine himself to armchair research. He wasn’t satisfied with activity only within his native country either. He wanted to “spread the light” to the whole world. In 1909, he visited America with his lectures for the first time.  It was then, at an American port, that he said: “They don’t realize that we’re bringing them the plague.” This is precisely what happened. Little by little the “plague of Freudism” spread far beyond the laboratory in Vienna.  At first the West didn’t accept Freudism and even was formally opposed to it. But the “seeds” of the “plague” brought forth “shoots” as early as fifty years later; we are speaking of the so-called “sexual revolution”, a socio-cultural phenomenon in the Western world that entailed the reappraisal of traditional (family) values.  To understand its origins we should refer to Sigmund Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis, namely his method of treating patients with mental disorders. According to the theory, a patient has all the instruments for his cure—for this he can become a psychoanalyst himself.  Supposedly some members of the human community in return for “social good” develop neuroses as their desires, suppressed by the yoke of public morality, remain unsatisfied.  And here the question arises: What will a society, some members of which decide to disregard social and ethic norms for the sake of their “mental health” be like? A split in society becomes inevitable.  In the early 1960s the “sexual revolution” broke out in the West. True, Freud himself wasn’t its ideologue in the full sense, but the high priority he specifically gave to all that’s sensual and sexual in human psychological life played its role. The Western world was inspired by the ideas of liberation.  Some agree and some disagree with the opinion that the ideas of Freud directly or indirectly triggered the “sexual revolution”. Peter Lukimson, who studied Freud’s biography, wrote that “the continuing processes of the liberalization of society unsealed the mouths of many and lifted the taboo on many forbidden subjects. Freudophobes often assert that the aggravation of this problem has to do with the ‘sexual revolution’, which was largely prepared by Freud. However, supporters of psychoanalysis parry this argument with a witty remark that in that case Galileo Galilei should be accused of the fact that the earth rotates.”  Stefan Zweig in his work dedicated to the Freudian doctrine called Freud “the liberator of humanity.”  At the same time, if we dig deeper into the history of the formation of psychoanalytical theory, many interesting facts await us that prove the link between the “sexual revolution” and Freudism. The need for changes in traditional cultural norms and sexual conduct in society runs through Freudian psychoanalysis theory. Specifically, during a discussion in February 1908 Freud expressed his idea that most women suffering from sexual anesthesia “were excessively well-bred girls.” Education, which at that age presupposed chastity (that is, sexual repression according to Freud) may have a negative impact on the mental state.  These ideas were presented to the public at large in a number of essays written between 1908 and 1913. These publications are mainly dedicated to the description of the social forces which, while being the bearers of cultural and civilizational origins, repress sexuality that in its turn has a destructive effect on people’s mental health. The principal works on this subject are the following: • None A Special Type of “Choice of Object” Made by Men (1910); • None On the Humiliation of Sexual Life (1912).  In his works of 1912 Freud wrote that social norms and rules demand that people control their desires, turning their lives into fantasies. In this sense, according to him, cultural repression eventually diminishes the role of both sexes. Sigmund Freud really believed that “sexual repression” causes deviations in both personal and social spheres.  It should be noted that Freud’s school of thought produced quite a few outstanding humanistic and existential psychotherapists: Erich Fromm, Abraham Maslow, Viktor Frankl and others. But there was Wilhelm Reich among them. It was his interpretation of Freudism that largely formed the ideological basis of the “sexual revolution”. Freud was the first to expose the burning issue of the West—namely the repression of sexual desires because of the inability to meet the material requirements of a culture.  Reich calls on people to overcome it by returning to the sexual practices of primitive societies. We will consider the concept of this famous disciple of Freud at length in the next paragraph. The following point of view is close to the author of this article: it was the interpretation of Freudism rather than Freudism as such that influenced the “sexual revolution.” This is what the U.S. Professor Robert Bruce McLaren, expert in Christian ethics and anthropology, writes on the consequences of the “sexual revolution” (the information is given on the basis of the analysis of the situation in the USA):  “The implications have gone so far that they cannot be compared to anything we have observed over many generations. For instance, we can take into account the fact that prior to 1915, seventy-five percent of the young women who entered into their first marriage were virgins; by 1982 , the percentage had shrunk to forty-three percent. Moreover, fifty-seven percent of unmarried women were in sexual relationships. About a third of them would get pregnant and only thirty-five percent of these married before the birth of their babies.  “Beginning from 1969, the number of extramarital births among American teenagers increased by 139 percent: it is twice as high as in the UK and seven times as high as in the Netherlands. Between 1938 and the mid-1960s the scale of the spread of premarital relations among young college students was quite stable: about fifty-five percent for male and about twenty-five percent for female students. Nine of fourteen studies conducted after 1955 revealed the scale of the spread of sexual life—to forty percent among representatives of the fair sex and to sixty percent among men.  “A poll of 1989 at the University of Georgia raised the last figure to seventy-seven percent. A survey at Ivy League [a group of long-established universities in the eastern US having high academic and social prestige. It includes Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia.—Trans.] showed that most students consider virginity as a deviation rather than a norm and a publication of 1992 reveals that around ninety-five percent of young men and eighty percent of women are engaged in sexual relations before marriage.”  Now a few statistics from the aftermath of the “sexual revolution” in the modern USA: Nineteen million cases of venereal disease are registered annually. The age category of those infected is fifteen to twenty-five. As a result of delayed diagnoses and mistreatment of VD, 24,000 American women become infertile. Forty-seven percent of US high school students have sexual experience. The USA has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in the world. Only 42.2 percent of US citizens aged twenty-four to thirty-five formalize their relationships. The USA is the country with the highest divorce rate in the world as well. Thirty percent of internet traffic is spent viewing erotic materials. Every fourth American lives in a one-parent family. Forty-one percent of women in New York City have abortions.  This statistic data clearly indicates the scope of the tragedy of a society that has taken the road of “liberation” and shaken off “the cultural yoke”.  The “plague” of Freudism spread to Russia as well. In post-revolutionary Soviet Russia, the institution of the family was also transformed. The masses had to face the new social marginal ideology that rejected the traditional views of the family and society. Women’s equality and sexual permissiveness rapidly spread. Inessa Armand [1874—1920; a prominent Communist politician, Bolshevik, feminist and long-lasting mistress of Vladimir Lenin.—Trans.] and Alexandra Kollontai [1872—1952; a famous Marxist revolutionary and later a diplomat, notably head of the Soviet legation in Norway.—Trans.], the “muses” of the revolutionary movement, proclaimed that marriage is a friendly union of two independent individuals. Kollontai wrote that “family has lost its economic function, which means that women have the right to choose their love partners themselves.”  1919 saw her work, The New Morality and the Working Class, based on the writings of the German feminist Grete Meisel-Hess. Kollontai declared that women must become emancipated not only economically but also psychologically. The ideal of “great love” is virtually unattainable, especially for men as it contradicts their ambitions in life. In order to become worthy of the ideal, the personality must undergo a period of discipleship in the form of “love games” or “erotic friendship”, thus mastering sexual relations which are free from both emotional bonds and the idea of any domination by one personality over another.  Kollontai believed that only free and, as a rule, numerous relationships can give women the opportunity to maintain their individuality in a society dominated by men (a patriarchal society). Any form of sexual relations is appropriate, but “serial monogamy”—that is, the changing of partners in marriage, each time based on love or passion—serial relations between men and women, is preferable.  Speaking of the consequences of the “sexual revolution” in a city taken separately, namely in St. Petersburg (then Petrograd), the “city of three revolutions”—the Russian-American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin in his article, “On the Influence of War” published in the Economist (no. 1, 1922), provides data on the situation with families in Petrograd after the 1917 Revolution:  “Now 10,000 marriages end in divorce in ninety-two percent of all cases. The figure is colossal. 51.1 percent of 100 broken marriages lasted less than a year; eleven percent—less than a month; twenty-two percent—less than two months; forty-one percent—less than three to six months; and only twenty-six percent—over six months.”  It is known that Freudism in Russia first gained popularity in literary circles (Eugene Zamyatin, Anatoly Lunacharsky, etc.). Later the new theory won the sympathy of doctors, psychologists, and educators (Natalia Traugott, Alexander Luria, Aron Zalkind). The Russian Psychoanalytical Society was founded in the USSR in 1922. Its activity was backed by Trotsky, Radek, Schmidt and other eminent political figures. Leon Trotsky met Freud in person abroad in as early as 1908 and would attend his lectures. Freudism created sincere interest in many revolutionaries. And no wonder, since it rejected the old traditional bourgeois morality and “liberated” people for the new world.  However, by the late 1920s the USSR had to abandon such “liberation”. This social experiment resulted in mass homelessness, the spread of VD, the boom of homosexuality, and a dramatic increase in rape cases.  In 1929, Wilhelm Reich, Freud’s assistant, visited the USSR. Later he wrote a book entitled, The Sexual Revolution. The disciple of “the father of psychoanalysis” attempted to “enlighten” Soviet citizens with a theory which was a hybrid of Freudism and Marxism.  His preaching boiled down to the following: After the social revolution, Russia must have another, “sexual revolution”. The old “bourgeois” family has broken up. However, its new formation—the youth commune (the working community, one of the functions of which is the satisfaction of certain physiological requirements of its members) proved to be weak. The bondage of the traditional moral and ethical yoke is still strong in society. The main taboos are concerned with sexual morality. In order to attain happiness, humanity needs to foster a positive attitude towards sexuality from childhood; to recognize the right of children and teenagers to sexual life and provide special rooms for this purpose.  Everything was loathsome and simple. Fortunately no one undertook to implement this theory in the USSR. The historian Nicholas Karamzin (1766—1826) prophetically wrote more than a century before about those who were trying to destroy the Russian family tradition:  There was an experiment with the introduction of new moral values in Europe too. It should be noted that Christianity has been and still remains the most important component in European mentality and thought. According to the social historian Fernand Braudel:  “Throughout the historical path of the West, Christianity has been at the center of civilization and its moving force. Though the majority of modern Europeans are atheists, they are still guided by Christian ethics, and Christian tradition underlies the foundations of their behavior.”  What was obvious to Braudel back in the 1960s has become unacceptable for most contemporary Europeans who identify themselves as antagonists against Christian values. The political authorities in Europe have been steadily pursuing a policy of propaganda for the things that, let it not be once named among you (Ephes. 5:3).  On January 19, 2011, Lithuania received a harsh decision from the European Parliament for its attempt to condemn public homosexual propaganda. The Lithuanian Government’s argument expressed concern for the moral make-up of children and the rising generation. Sadly, no one heeded it. In the view of European parliamentarians, children have the right of free access to information on sexual matters.  This is how a professor, Ph.D in sociology, a member of the Scientific Council of the Lithuanian Social Research Center characterizes the picture of transformation of family values in Europe:  “From the mid-1960s in developed Western countries, and from the late 1980s and early 1990s in other European countries, the following signs of family transformation became ever clearer: a decrease in the number of marriages; older marriage ages; an increase in the number of unregistered marriages; falling birth-rates, and the older age of mothers at their first child’s birth; the prevalence of families with few children; an increase in the number of children born out of wedlock; and the popularity of a childfree lifestyle.”  The twentieth century became an anthropocentric one. Together with new views of ourselves we allowed a spiritual tragedy to come into human society, and its consequences can be seen to this day. The Apostle Paul warned:  Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world (Col. 2:8).  But there appeared those who tempted and those who yielded to temptation.  This is what the Soviet philosopher Merab Mamardashvili wrote about what he believed to be the main problem of the twentieth century:  “Of all the multitude of catastrophes for which the twentieth century is notorious, the main catastrophe that is often hidden from the eyes of our minds is the anthropological one. I mean the change that occurs to man himself and has to do with civilization, in the sense that something vital can be irreversibly broken in him, in direct relation to the destruction of or just through the absence of the civilizational foundations of life and communication.”  By the example of statistics we see how the interpretation of Freudism has wiped out traditional values in the consciousness of millions of people and led to disastrous consequences in various societies. Not only have those who “care for their mental health” ruined themselves as personalities, they have also made their contribution to the creation of socio-cultural chaos in the world.  Here in Russia, this website is currently the only source of income for the Gleason family and the Silva family. Both families now live in Russia, and they appreciate your support.  To keep the Russian Faith website running, a recurring donation of even $5 or $10 per month would be a huge blessing.


thedailycaller--2019-08-24--CNN Pundit Ana Navarro Donald Trump Is The Enemy Of Morality

CNN Pundit Ana Navarro: Donald Trump Is The ‘Enemy’ Of Morality

CNN contributor Ana Navarro accused President Donald Trump of being the “enemy” of conservative principles and, indeed, the “American presidency” altogether Friday on CNN.  “He’s an enemy to sanity, he’s an enemy to stability,” Navarro said of Donald Trump.  “He’s an enemy to the American presidency. He’s an enemy of decency and of morality, and frankly, he’s an enemy of conservative and Republican principles, because if you are a Republican, you are a free trader. You are not for trade wars. You’re not for tariffs. You’re not for running a $1 trillion deficit. You’re not for antagonizing allies and coddling foes.” (RELATED: CNN’s Ana Navarro Does Her Nails During Immigration Debate Segment)  She continued, “When you see a president who is using the bully pulpit of the presidency to attack other Americans, to break international relations, to cause an instability and chaos, and I think what he’s trying to do is distract us from the fact that he inspired a white supremacist to go hunt down Latinos, and that he capitulated to the NRA and that, you know, his economy is going so badly!” (RELATED: Ana Navarro Loses It When Steve Cortes Says She’s On The Left)  Finally, she accused Trump of being “irresponsible, impulsive, ignorant, and short-sighted.”  Navarro has long occupied the role of the anti-Trump Republican on CNN’s airwaves. She has said that Trump is “unfit” to be a human and compared him to someone with Alzheimer’s disease.


eveningstandard--2019-01-17--UK weather forecast latest Snow and ice warnings in force amid Arctic blast

UK weather forecast latest: Snow and ice warnings in force amid Arctic blast

Weather experts have put snow and ice warnings in force across the UK as the arctic blast freezing the nation continues.  The Met Office has issued an ice warning for the majority of England and all of Wales and Northern Ireland.  This ice warning also reaches up into southern Scotland, while a further warning of snow and ice has been issued for the rest of Scotland including Shetland and the Outer Hebrides.  Met Office forecaster Simon Partridge said: "Be aware that there's the potential for some icy conditions out on the roads.  "Make sure you give yourself a bit of extra time - you will probably need a little longer to scrape the car as well."  A painfully low temperature of minus 3.4C was recorded at Great Dun Fell in Cumbria overnight as many places dropped to freezing or lower.  Patchy rain and sleet was moving in over north Wales early on Thursday morning, which brings the risk of icy stretches on untreated surfaces.  To the north showers were starting to bring snow to parts of Scotland, while flakes were falling on inland areas and higher ground.  The yellow snow and ice warning for Scotland is due to remain in place until midday on Thursday.  The yellow ice warning for Northern Ireland, Wales and England - excluding the far South East and Cornwall - expires at 11am.  Thursday night is set to be coldest of the week, with temperatures potentially as low as minus 5C in some areas.  In to the weekend, a Met Office forecaster previously told the Standard the cold weather is here to stay.  The mercury could plunge as low as -7C in central England on Saturday night then it is likely to remain chilly into Monday.


eveningstandard--2019-01-22--UK weather forecast Met Office warns of aposthundersnowapos as it issues ice warnings amid free

UK weather forecast: Met Office warns of 'thundersnow' as it issues ice warnings amid freezing temperatures

Thundersnow could strike the UK this week as temperatures plummet below zero and forecasters issue ice warnings for large swathes of the country.  Weather alerts for snow and ice have been issued by the Met Office for most of UK, with wintery conditions likely to cause disruption for road and rail users on Tuesday morning.  Forecasters have also warned of so-called thundersnow, which is an unusual phenomenon that normally only occurs during a few months of the year.  The western Highlands are expected to face the brunt of the snow, with some areas above 500m facing up to almost 10cm of the white stuff, the Met Office said.  Simon Partridge, of the Met Office, said: "Some snow could be seen on the lower levels, so it's not exclusively left to the high ground - but it could end up being rain, snow, rain.  "So, on and off there could be snow from now until the early hours of Wednesday for the west of Scotland, and the best part of 24 hours."  Wintry showers are on the way for northern and western parts of the country, where some outbreaks of thunder and lighting and heavy snow could be seen.  A Met Office spokeswoman told Sky News: “When thunderstorms form in wintry conditions, they can sometimes give rise to heavy downpours of snow, along with the usual thunder and lightning, so it is called thundersnow.  "It is considered unusual because it can only really occur during a few months of the year."  Temperatures in the early hours on Tuesday were expected drop to as low as minus 2C (28.4F) in Pitlochry while Southampton may see highs of 7C (44.6F).  Mr Partridge added: "The main problem is that skies become clear so there's an ice risk after midnight which could cause some big issues during the overnight period.  "There'll be further showers tomorrow with some hail and sleet along the coasts, on the hills and mountains you can see it turning into snow."


eveningstandard--2019-01-26--UK weather forecast Snow ice and wind warnings in force as cold snap returns

UK weather forecast: Snow, ice and wind warnings in force as cold snap returns

Snow, ice and wind warnings are in force across parts of the UK as temperatures plummet again following a brief respite from the cold snap.  Yellow ‘be aware’ alerts for snow and ice are in place for Scotland and the Highlands until 12pm on Sunday.  A wind warning from the Met Office covers north-west England, south-west England, Wales and Northern Ireland from 9pm on Saturday until 12pm on Sunday.  A separate wind warning for the East Midlands, East of England, north-east England and Yorkshire and Humber is in place from 8am on Sunday until 9pm.  An ice warning covers much of the north and the midlands until 11am on Sunday.  The Met Office said snow and ice was expected across much of northern Scotland with blizzards possible. Between 10 and 15cm of fresh snow is expected on high ground, forecasters said.  It warned the public to prepare for travel disruption and to watch out for ice that has formed on the roads.  Daytime temperatures will be between 3C and 9C across the UK with the colder temperatures in northern England and Scotland.  Forecaster Luke Miall said the weekend would be one of "two halves", with Sunday feeling noticeably colder than Saturday.  He said: "We will see quite a blast of strong, northerly winds coming down from the Arctic.  "It's going to be very windy but it's also going to turn much colder."  He added: "That northerly wind is just going to cut straight through, so its real temperature on the thermometer will probably say 4-7C, but when you add on the wind it's going to feel sub-zero."    The Met Office said: “Another cold day on Monday with bright spells and some wintry showers. “Less windy on Tuesday and Wednesday but still chilly with further wintry showers and overnight frost.”


breitbart--2019-09-11--Nadler I Think the Judiciary Committee Will Vote for an Assault Weapons Ban

Nadler: I Think the Judiciary Committee Will Vote for an Assault Weapons Ban

On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) discussed the House Judiciary Committee’s upcoming hearing on an assault weapons ban and stated that he assumes “we will vote for” an assault weapons ban.  Nadler said, “[O]n, September 25th, in two weeks, we will have a hearing on the assault weapons ban, and one of the bills we reported yesterday was to ban the sale of high-capacity magazines, which, by all testimony, is what makes these mass shootings much worse. So, we’re doing that. Buybacks may go a little further than people are willing to go — mandatory buybacks, but certainly, an assault weapons ban, we will consider, and I assume we will vote for it.”


breitbart--2019-08-24--Jeffries Judiciary Committee Will Decide on Impeachment Articles Later This Year

Jeffries: Judiciary Committee Will Decide on Impeachment Articles Later This Year

On Saturday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Up,” House Judiciary Committee member and House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) stated that the Judiciary Committee will decide whether or not to recommend articles of impeachment “at some point later on this year.”  Jeffries said, “I support the efforts of the Judiciary Committee to sort of uncover the range of misbehavior that we’ve seen, present that to the American people in the most compelling way. Jerry Nadler has said we’re going to have hearings on obstruction of justice. We’re going to have hearings on abuse of power. We’re going to have hearings on the culture of corruption, and then decide whether to recommend articles at some point later on this year.”  Jeffries added that there isn’t a timetable or a deadline for a decision on impeachment.


breitbart--2019-12-05--House Judiciary Committee: Next Impeachment Hearing on Same Day as IG Report

The House Judiciary Committee said Thursday that it will hold its next impeachment inquiry hearing on Monday, the same day that the Justice Department inspector general’s Russia probe report is scheduled for release.  The announcement comes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) directed the panel, chaired by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), to begin drawing up articles of impeachment over President Donald Trump’s actions toward Ukraine. Pelosi argued the president’s July 25 telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was an abuse of power that undermined U.S. national security. A partisan CIA analyst’s mischaracterization of the call — in which the president floated the idea of Ukraine probing allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden — was detailed in a “whistleblower,” later prompting the inquiry.  “The facts are uncontested: the president abused his power for his own personal, political benefit at the expense of our national security, by withholding military aid and a crucial Oval Office meeting in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival,” Pelosi said in a press conference.  On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee heard from four law professors on the merits of whether to impeach the president. Monday’s hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. EST and feature presentations from Democrat and Republican counsels on the House Judiciary and Intelligence panels.  Meanwhile, the White House appears unphased by Pelosi’s announcement, and instead, said the House Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for moving forward with impeachment.  “@realDonaldTrump has done nothing but lead our country – resulting in a booming economy, more jobs & a stronger military, to name just a few of his major accomplishments,” White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham wrote on Twitter. “We look forward to a fair trial in the Senate.”  Ahead of Pelosi’s press conference, President Trump unloaded on House Democrats and called for a swift impeachment in the lower chamber so the Senate can begin a “fair” trial.  “The Do Nothing Democrats had a historically bad day yesterday in the House. They have no Impeachment case and are demeaning our Country,” the president wrote in a pair of tweets. “But nothing matters to them, they have gone crazy. Therefore I say, if you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast, so we can have a fair trial in the Senate, and so that our Country can get back to business. We will have Schiff, the Bidens, Pelosi and many more testify, and will reveal, for the first time, how corrupt our system really is.”


breitbart--2019-12-08--House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Report Ignores 'Expert' Witnesses

The House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment report Saturday on the constitutional and legal grounds for impeachment failed to cite any of the testimony from the “expert” witnesses who testified on Wednesday.  The report, signed by 20 members of the Democratic majority staff, appears to have been written in advance of that hearing. It was also prepared in advance of any evidentiary hearings in the committee, which are scheduled to begin Monday.  The report includes a caveat that its view are those of the staff, not the committee’s elected members.  One witness, University of North Carolina Law School professor Michael Gerhardt, is cited in the report, but the references are to his prior publications, not to his testimony in the hearing with two other Democratic witnesses.  Because it ignores the witnesses, notably the sole Republican-called witness, George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley (who is not, himself, a Republican), it fails to address the arguments they raised.  For example, the report argues that President Donald Trump can be impeached for “obstruction of Congress” for turning to the courts to prevent certain witnesses and documents from being provided to the House investigation.  I can’t emphasize this enough, and I’ll say it just one more time. If you impeach a president, if you make a “high crime and misdemeanor” out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing. We have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two branches. And what comes out of there and what you do with it is the very definition of legitimacy.  The report fails to address that, and other objections.  As Breitbart News has noted, the report includes many legally, historically, and constitutionally dubious assertions, such as the claim that a president can be impeached for “legally permissible” conduct if his motives are “illegitimate.”  As precedent, the report cites the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, which is widely viewed by historians and legal scholars as a mistake, and an abuse of the majority’s power in the House.  Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


breitbart--2019-12-09--***Live Updates*** House Judiciary Committee Holds Second Impeachment Hearing

The House Judiciary Committee will hold its second impeachment inquiry hearing on Monday.  Staff counsels from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee will make presentations in the “evidence hearing” that could also potentially be the last before the House drafts its articles of impeachment perhaps as soon as later this week.  Stay tuned to Breitbart News for live updates. All times eastern.  6:39 PM: In what will likely be the last hearing before the House drafts its articles of impeachment, Nadler makes the case that there is “no excuse” for Trump’s conduct. He claims Trump’s actions endangered the country’s national security and compromised the security of the country’s election for his personal interests. Nadler accuses Trump of putting himself before his country and there is a Constitutional remedy for that–impeachment. He claims the “facts are clear” and Trump “constitutes a continuing threat” and his conduct is impeachable. He says the committee will proceed accordingly.  6:33 PM: Collins making his concluding remarks. Collins points out that staff, and not members, gave testimony, and it is “ridiculous” that Goldman testified instead of Schiff. Collins says nobody will take responsibility for the “smear job” with the phone numbers. Collins says he is holding Schiff responsible. Collins also accuses Nadler of “blatantly” disregarding House rules by not giving the minority a hearing day. Collins says the American people will realize that Democrats still have not made their case to impeach Trump and says this will be the first partisan impeachment with disputed facts. He rips the “farce” that is the Judiciary Committee’s “impeachment scam.”  6:28 PM: Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) claims Castor has conceded that direct evidence has been produced. She asks Goldman to debunk the GOP’s claims that there was no quid pro quo, and Goldman claims that there is “direct evidence” that proves there was a quid pro quo. Goldman also says the aid was not released until “the president got caught.”  6:25 PM: Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (D-FL) claims Trump’s actions are the “beginnings of a dictatorship” like those in Latin America.  6:01 PM: Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA) trying to establish the case that it is a “federal crime” for Trump to “intimidate” potential witnesses. She claims Trump has tried to intimidate potential witnesses on Twitter.  6:55 PM: When pressed by Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) about the whistleblower, Goldman will not answer if he knows the whistleblower or has had contact with the whistleblower. He claims the whistleblower is irrelevant to the investigation at hand.  5:38 PM: Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA) also asking Castor about hearsay. Castor says there are at least 50 instances of hearsay and talks about how some of the people “doing the whispering” may not like Trump and their whispers could have become more distorted.  5:20 PM: Rep. Val Demings (D-FL), like other Democrats, accusing Trump of using military aid to “extort” Ukraine. She is allowing Goldman to make the case that Trump released the aid days after the Trump administration realized there was a whistleblower complaint about withholding aid.  5:15 PM: Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA) accuses Democrats of wanting to impeach Trump because they are scared he will win re-election in 2020 with the red-hot economy.  4:59 PM: Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) says Trump’s national security staffers came forward to report on Trump’s “scheme” and it moved him a lot.  4:55 PM: Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) says democracy only works when the losing side accepts the legitimacy of the winning side. He points out that the first calls of impeachment started in 2016 and Democrats have been searching for a pretext. He says the Ukrainian phone call replaced Russia collusion, Stormy Daniels, and even tweets when the Democrats realized they were running out of time. He says Democrats have only offered “presumption, speculation, and what they read in the New York Times” to try to nullify the 2016 presidential election by turning the Bill of Rights on its head. “These are the legal doctrines of despots,” McClintock says, predicting they will “stain the reputations” of those responsible for decades.  4:45 PM: Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) discusses all of the hearsay evidence and rips the “sham hearing” that is the “culmination of a pre-determined outcome.” He says Democrats have been trying to impeach and remove the president for three years.  4:40 PM: Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) asks Goldman if he would welcome the problem of receiving 8,000 pages of documents from the White House. Goldman says he would and says he has received no documents.  4:35 PM: Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) says the hearing has been an “outrageous violation” of due process. He says Berke was “steamrolling” over House decorum rolls and rips Nadler for not striking from the record Berke’s insinuation that Trump has been disloyal to the country. He says it is “extraordinary bizarre” that Berke was allowed to become a questioner after being a witness in the impeachment circus. Johnson says Democrats dumped thousands of pages of documents over the weekend and made it impossible for Republicans to responsibly prepare for the hearing.  4:30 PM: Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) now asking Goldman to rehash why aid to Ukraine was so important. Goldman speaks about ensuring that democracy survives in other nations.  4:25 PM: Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) asks Goldman if he is here as a partisan advocate for the Democrats. He claims he is “not a partisan.” Castor doesn’t remember if he has made any political donations. Gaetz says Goldman has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats. Gaetz wonders if he thinks he would be able to ask and answer questions if he had donated as much as Berke did. Gaetz pressures Goldman on whether he regrets his anti-Trump tweets and Goldman says he is here to answer questions about the investigation.  4:15 PM: Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL) calls the process “bizarre” because the committee will not hear from any fact witnesses. She says the American people, regardless of their politics, should feel cheated by this process. She says she fears this is setting a “dangerous precedent for the future of our republic.”  3:58 PM: Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) wants to focus on the period after Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine. Bass asks if a White House meeting has been scheduled, and Goldman says no meeting has been scheduled. Goldman says once the Ukrainians decided they were not going to issue a statement about investigating the Bidens, there was no White House meeting. Bass says the president of Ukraine is in a weaker position today when meeting with Putin because of Trump.  3:55 PM: Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) making the case that Trump had a “legitimate reason” to request an investigation from Ukraine.  3:46 PM: Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) ripping Democrats for making Sondland their featured witness and says Democrats published the phone records of Trump’s lawyer, a member of the press, and the opponent of the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.  3:40 PM: Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) establishing Trump as the “kingpin” of a plan to force a foreign government to interfere in an upcoming presidential election.  3:35 PM: Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) rips the “absurd process” that is a “kangaroo court.” He worries that Democrats have set the bar so low that it will become “irreparable.” “I’m scared for my country,” he says. Gohmert points out that the Constitution requires two witnesses for treason and is outraged that everything has been hearsay.  3:27 PM: Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) questions Goldman and asks him if there was any evidence that any government agency wanted the Bidens investigated and makes the case that Trump/Biden cases are different.  3:22 PM: Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) says the committee is “investigating the wrong guy.” He asks Castor about Hunter Biden’s involvement in “Ukrainian corruption” and points out that concerns about Hunter Biden were first raised by the Obama administration. He says the Obama administration’s concerns didn’t end there and Ambassador Yovanovitch was coached on how to answer potential “pesky” questions about the Bidens that could come up during hearings. Chabot says Biden got testy last week with a voter and says Biden’s objections are a bunch of “malarkey.”  3:16 PM: Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) now questioning Goldman about Trump/Ukraine. She asks Goldman what Trump was referring to when he wanted a “favor.” Goldman says Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate a “debunked conspiracy theory.”  3:12 PM: Hearing resumes with Rep. Sensenbrenner (R-WI) voicing his concerns about the “beginnings of a surveillance state” that he thinks is outrageous after discussing the metadata that Schiff’s committee subpoenaed/matched. He says he met Joe McCarthy twice and Democrats have made him look like a piker. He rips Democrats for their “abuse of power.” He also says Democrats thought the Mueller Report was going to be a “smoking gun” but was just a “cap pistol.”  2:37 PM: Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) now gets her five minutes. She tries to compare Trump to Nixon and make the case that Trump used a “foreign government to do his bidding” using aid that was approved by Congress on a bipartisan basis. Committee now in 15-minute recess.  2:33 PM: Collins is up grilling Goldman about the metadata. Collins says this committee should be having FISA hearings. He says the problem he has is the committee made a choice to put the phone records into the report. Collins says it was a “gratuitous drive-by.” He says he could have put in “Congressperson 1” and “Reporter 1” instead of naming the people whose numbers were matched. Collins says the Schiff report now reads like a partisan smear against people Democrats don’t like.  2:27 PM: Questioning begins with Nadler asking Goldman to explain the difference between Biden and Trump re: Ukraine. Goldman says when Biden pressured Ukraine to remove a corrupt official, he was doing it with international support while Trump’s ask for an investigation had nothing to do with official U.S. policy. Nadler asks Goldman to explain what happened with the phone records. Nadler doing his best to rehabilitate Goldman after Collins’ line of questioning. Goldman says it was just metadata and not the content of calls, texts, etc. He says they got call records and matched them up with important events that occurred in the “scheme.”  2:26 PM: After a bizarre conversation between GOP counsel Ashley Hurt Callen and Castor, committee voting on whether to take a 30-minute recess.  1:39 PM: Collins, who gets 45 minutes, asks, “Where’s Adam?” Collins says Goldman is a great attorney but he is not Adam Schiff and he “doesn’t where a pin.” Collins asks Goldman if he knows what a quid pro quo means. Collins claims Biden is the only one who has done a quid pro quo re: Ukraine.  He then asks Goldman how many subpoenas were issued. Goldman says they issued six and all were denied by the executive. Collins wants to know who ordered the “match game” for members of Congress, media, etc after they issued subpoenas. He wants to know if it was him or Chairman Schiff. Collins keeps pointing out that Goldman is not answering his questions, pointing out he subpoenaed four numbers and then played “match game” to find other numbers. Goldman says he is going on record to not reveal how he conducted this investigation. Collins and Gaetz point out that Schiff should be testifying instead of Goldman but Schiff won’t even stand by his report.  1:01 PM: Berke is trying to establish that Trump did not raise questions about the Bidens until Biden officially entered the presidential race. Castor says he doesn’t know Trump did or did not.  12:55 PM: Castor says he believes the record does not support the claim that Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate Biden, Trump’s political rival. Goldman says he doesn’t think there is any other conclusion.  12:47 PM: Nadler asks Goldman if the investigative committees concluded if the president used his office for personal gain. Goldman says they did. Nadler wants to know if the evidence showed that Trump compromised the security of the United States and Goldman predictably answers that it did. Berke, despite objections from Gohmert about being a judge and a witness, is now questioning Castor. He asks Castor if Biden was a leading contender to face Trump in 2020, and Castor disagrees, saying it was too early in the process. Gohmer is outraged that a witness (Berke) is now a questioner. He says there is no rule or precedent about this. Gohmert says Berke is “inappropriate.”  12:46 PM: Nadler gets 45 minutes to question followed by Collins, who will also get 45 minutes.  12:45 PM: Castor says Trump has released and declassified the call transcript with the president of Ukraine and notes the Dems’ narrative ignores “any evidence that is not helpful to their case” like the many statements made by the Ukrainian officials that the president of Ukraine did not feel strong-armed and that there was no “quid pro quo.” Castor says Schiff should testify like Ken Starr and Robert Mueller.  12:30 PM: Castor emphasizes there was nothing unusual about suspending aid to Ukraine. Castor also says witnesses for the president should be able to make defenses without adverse inferences against them.  12:01 PM: Hearing resumes, and Castor says the evidence does not support the claims Democrats are trying to make about Ukraine. He says there is no clear evidence that Trump “acted with malicious intent.” He says the record is “riddled with hearsay, presumptions, and speculations.” He points to “conflicting and ambiguous” facts throughout the record. He notes that Prof. Turley said last week the record is heavy on presumption and thin on proof. Castor says there are legitimate questions about Burisma and the Bidens and Democrats should not dismiss them. Castor says Burisma brought Hunter Biden on its board as part of a “broad effort” to bring in well-connected Democrats at a time when they were facing investigations by Obama administration officials. Castor says at the time Hunter Biden joined the board, Joe Biden was the Obama administration’s point person re: Ukraine. Castor points out even the Washington Post said it was nepotism at best and malicious at worst. Castor also notes that election interference is not binary. He says both Russia and Ukraine can interfere and emphasizes that there were Ukrainian officials who were against Trump’s candidacy.  11:45 AM: Committee should come back from recess at any moment. Castor is up next.  11:15 AM: Goldman, trying to make the case that Trump has engaged in a pattern of behavior, says the phone call with the president of Ukraine was neither the first nor last time Trump tried to strong-arm Ukraine. He later quotes Ambassador Sondland’s testimony that “everyone was in the loop.” Goldman says the facts about the Biden investigation didn’t matter to Trump because he only wanted the political benefit from an investigation announcement.  10:55 AM: Goldman claims that Trump presents a “clear and present danger” the national security and the country’s free and fair elections. Goldman hammering the point that Putin benefits from the “baseless conspiracy theory” that Ukraine interfered in the 2020 elections.  Gohmert apparently fed up and having none of it:  10:43 AM: Goldman says he is here today because Trump abused the office of the presidency when he directed a “months-long campaign” to solicit foreign help in the 2020 election. He accuses Trump of applying increasing pressure on the president of Ukraine to make a public announcement about a Biden investigation. He also accuses Trump of an unprecedented campaign to obstruct Congress.  He, like other Democrats, praises the “courageous public servants”:  10:38 AM: Goldman now up for Dems:  10:29 AM: Castor emphasizes Ukraine’s president has said multiple times that he felt no pressure from Trump to investigate the Bidens in exchange for aid. Castor says that at the time of the July 25th call, senior executives in Ukraine did not even know that aid was paused, so there was no “leveraging play.”  10:17 AM: Castor says Democrats focused on “obstruction of justice” after their Russia collusion narrative fizzled and didn’t move the impeachment needle. He says investigations take time and there is no “easy button” and accuses Democrats of blocking all sorts of information and not seeking information that would make the process fairer. Castor says Democrats have refused to negotiate in good faith with the Trump administration about witnesses/documents. Castor repeats Prof. Turley’s remarks about how this impeachment process could set a dangerous precedent. Castor says this process relies on ambiguous facts and presumptions and speculation.  10:12 AM: Castor emphatically states that Trump’s actions do not show he committed high crimes and misdemeanors. He says to impeach a president that 63 million people voted for due to eight lines in a transcript is baloney. Castor points out all of the instances in which Democrats wanted to impeach Trump dating back years (Green, Tlaib, et al.). He says the “obsession” with impeaching Trump is reflecting in how the the House committees have used their subpoena power. He says Democrats subpoenaed Michael Cohen and demanded Trump’s personal tax returns. He says they also wanted Trump’s bank records going back ten years that would cover every withdrawal and credit card swipe of every member of Trump’s family, including his minor child.  10:07 AM: Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) says Berke’s remarks should be stricken from the record because they are “unparliamentary” because he was talking about Trump’s motives and characters and saying Trump is “disloyal” to America. Roll call vote on motion to table. It will, of course, pass along partisan lines.  10:05 AM: Berke claims Trump believes Trump can act as if he were above the law and put his personal and political interests above the nation’s interests and national security interests and integrity of its elections. He says we have an election coming up and that’s a reason not to postpone the impeachment discussion. He says history and future generations will be the judge, saying his sons and grandchildren will be reading about this.  9:50 AM: Berke spending his time rehashing all of the same arguments re: Trump/Ukraine about why Trump abused his power and engaged in a “quid pro quo.” Berke says none of Trump’s excuses “hold water” and have been refuted by testimony. Berke says they have not heard from all of the witnesses/seen all of the documents because Trump has obstructed the investigation. He says Trump is “replaying” the playbook from the Mueller investigation. Berke says because of the “true American patriots” who “told the story” and produced documents, they found out Trump abused his power and put his reelection interests above the country’s. “No one is above the law,” Berke says. “Not even the president.”  Berke says there is an “urgency” because Trump’s actions deal with an election that is coming up in the next year.  Berke again plays Trump’s Article II remarks to hammer him on the “abuse of power” theme and rehashing talking points from the left that have been said over and over again for the last couple of weeks.  9:35 AM: Berke (majority) and Castor (minority) get 30 minutes apiece now.  Berke dramatically says his son asked him if a president has to be a good person. He says he told his son that it is not a requirement that a president be a good person but the Constitution made clear that the “president be a person who does not abuse his power.” Berke says what is extraordinary is that Trump’s conduct violated everything the founders were concerned about. He says the “evidence is overwhelming” that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate a “political rival.” He says it’s hard to imagine that “anybody could dispute” that Trump’s actions are not impeachable offenses. He says Trump’s actions are impeachable offenses that threaten our rule of law and threaten our institutions and republic. Berke says Trump’s excuses “do not make sense” and keeps repeating that Trump put his own interests above the nation’s.  9:30 AM: Biggs keeps raising a point of order about the lack of a minority hearing day.  9:20 AM: Collins now ready to give his opening statement. Collins says this will be known as the “focus group impeachment” because “we don’t have a crime” and “nobody understands what the majority is trying to do.” Collins says the “focus group impeachment” takes words and asks people how we can use them to impeach Trump. Collins again hitting his “clock and the calendar” theme. Collins said Pelosi took “the thrill out of the room” when she instructed Democrats last week to write the articles of impeachment. Collins says the motive for the “sham impeachment” is Democrats lost to Trump in 2016 and don’t want him to win in 2020 under a booming economy. He accuses Democrats of forcing a fact-pattern against a president they don’t like. He says the “entire case is built on a presumption.” Collins also notes that Schiff, the Chair of the Intelligence Committee, is absent today and accuses him of making up a “fairy tale” when reading the Ukraine phone call transcript. Collins calls it “massive malpractice” and says Democrats don’t even care what’s in the transcript or the fact that the aid was released to Ukraine. Collins again points out the committee is not hearing from any fact witnesses. Collins says the institution that he loves is in danger with committees being used as rubber stamps. Collins said Pelosi ordered Democrats to write the articles of impeachment after one day of hearings–“facts be damned.”  9:11 AM: Nadler begins his opening statement accusing Trump of betraying his oath of office by placing his interests above the country’s. Nadler says his oath compels him to “come to the defense of the nation” even if it may cost him his job or is inconvenient. He says the framers warned “us against would-be monarchs, fake populists, and charismatic demagogues.” He says the framers knew the biggest threat could come within via an executive who puts his interests ahead of the country’s. He accuses Trump of putting himself before the country. Nadler keeps coughing. Nadler also claims that impeachment is a “serious” and “solemn” undertaking. Nadler hilariously claims that every claim the whistleblower made has been proven true. Nadler defensively claims that the House is speedily moving forward with impeachment because “the integrity of our next election is at stake”–“nothing could be more urgent.” He says Trump’s conduct represents a “continuing risk to the country.”  9:08 AM: Nadler begins the hearing after noting quorum is present. Nadler now being heckled by a protester who is escorted out of the committee room.  8:45 AM: After the Intelligence Committee counsels (Berry Berke, majority; Stephen Castor, minority) and the Judiciary Committee counsels (Daniel Goldman, majority; Castor, minority) make their presentations, Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) will get 45 minutes of questioning followed by Ranking Member Rep. Doug Collins (D-GA), who will also get 45 minutes. Then, like the last hearing, each of the Committee Members will get five minutes of questioning.


breitbart--2019-12-11--***Live Updates*** Senate Judiciary Committee Holds FISA Abuse Hearing

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday will hold a hearing on the Department of Justice’s Inspector General’s report on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) abuse investigation.  Inspector General Michael Horowitz will testify before the committee.  4:10 PM: Graham, after saying he may have violated the Geneva Convention by not giving Horowitz a bathroom break, says after the investigation was opened with a legal predicate, it became a “nightmare” and a “criminal conspiracy to defraud the court.” He says it became an “conscious effort to deny the court exculpatory information about an American citizen.” Graham says it is clear that this was “not a counterintelligence investigation to protect Donald Trump.” He says it was opened as a counterintelligence investigation and kept going because the last thing they wanted to do was protect Trump. Graham says what worries him is bureaucrats who did not like the 2016 results had a lot of power, adding that they may not like how the American people vote but they should respect it. Graham says this is the beginning and not the end of the Judiciary Committee’s involvement–“much more to follow”–before adjourning the hearing.  3:59 PM: Blackburn says the report makes it look like the FBI acted deliberately and maliciously. She asks Horowitz about Steele’s payments as a “trusted source.” She says Steele’s association with Fusion GPS should have raised serious alarm bells. She says people at the FBI knew Steele was “untrustworthy” and exercised “very poor judgment” by continuing to use him as a source. Blackburn asks how often his office finds mistakes in a FISA application. Horowitz says he has found various issues at a higher level but this is the first time his office has done a “deep dive” into a particular application. She says it is “infuriating to the American people” that those who were involved in what she says should have been called “Operation Take Down Trump” are still getting government paychecks and benefits. She says people in her home state of Tennessee cannot believe the “maliciousness” of the “surveillance state.”  3:48 PM: Kennedy says Horowitz has “sturdy kidneys” because it’s been a long day. Kennedy said he wanted to “heave” 15 percent of the way through the report and after 25%, he thought he was “dropping acid.”  3:39 PM: Crapo establishing that there are “tons of evidence” of bias, and Horowitz admits to “significant failures” in the FISA process. But he again says he can’t say what the motivations were because he does not have enough evidence. Crapo pushing him on “intentional” versus “grossly negligent.” Crapo says it’s mind-boggling that all of these “failures” were “accidental.” Horowitz says so much of the conduct was “inexplicable” and the answers he got were “not satisfactory.” Crapo says he thinks it is explicable.  3:27 PM: Harris allowing Horowitz to establish the case that the FBI had “sufficient prediction” to investigate Trump administration officials. Harris says Barr has been “highly critical” of Horowitz’s findings and met with foreign officials in foreign lands to cast doubt that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. She accuses Barr of trying to “intimidate” the U.S. intelligence committee. Harris says Horowitz has the “power and duty” to investigate Barr. She said it happened with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Harris now hitting Giuliani and his associates for their involvement with Ukrainian officials–connecting Ukrainian officials with DOJ officials for dirt on Trump’s opponents. Harris asks if Horowitz has decided not to investigate these incidents, and Horowitz says he will “look accordingly” at any action he has the “jurisdiction to review.” Harris asks if Giuliani’s actions are “alarming” and Horowitz says they are “concerning.”  3:17 PM: Ernst says she remembers watching TV shows growing up thinking the FBI were the good guys and the agency, with its bad actors, has squandered that good will. She says Americans are justified to wonder what the FBI could do to them if they could do this to a presidential candidate.  3:08 PM: Hirono somehow is trying to establish that other FISA applications have had plenty of errors so there may not have been anything unusual here. She is now asking him about Barr’s handling of the Mueller Report.  3:05 PM: Tillis asks Horowitz if he did a report on the Russia Collusion investigation and points out Horowitz has gotten a lot of questions unrelated to the Horowitz’s during the hearing.  2:45 PM: Blumenthal is trying to make the case that Barr has been attacking Horowitz and his team. He then talks about the FISA reforms that he has been proposing this decade.  2:35 PM: Hawley says it is “extraordinary” what the DNC was able to accomplish with the garbage dossier it commissioned and says the real 2016 collusion was between the DNC and the FBI.  2:30 PM: Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) says it is unacceptable that the FBI agent (Clinesmith) doctored emails. Coons uses his time to emphasize there were no irregularities with the Mueller Report and calls for FISA reforms to safeguard civil liberties. He says he’s more in Lee’s camp than Sasse’s.  2:12 PM: Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) asks about Bruce Ohr. Horowitz says at the timing of these events he was working out of the Deputy Attorney General’s office dealing organized crime and drug trafficking. Sasse asks: “What the hell was he doing here?” Horowitz says that was precisely concern. Horowitz says Ohr’s wife had been a former independent contractor for Fusion GPS. Sasse says he’s embarrassed, as a hawk, that he is sitting two chairs from Sen. Lee because he has been arguing for the last five years with him that things like this could not happen.  Sasse now points out that Russia ran a “clunky” operation and the DOJ/FBI aren’t ready for China’s more sophisticated interference attempts deep fakes in future elections.  2:11 PM: Graham again gets Horowitz to concede nobody who worked on the Trump campaign has been convicted of colluding with the Russians on anything.  2:00 PM: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) says she wants to “tone things down a bit.” She asks Horowitz if he thinks interference by a foreign government constitutes a national security threat. He answers that it does, and Klobuchar asks if anything in the report calls into question that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and is ongoing. Horowitz says nothing calls all of that into question.  1:45 PM: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) says the report lays out a “stunning indictment of the FBI and the Department of Justice” and shows a “pattern of an abuse of power.” He says “this pattern of facts” makes him angry and the facts in the report need to be understood. He says they will be “deeply chilling” to everyone who understands the facts. Horowitz says the purpose of the report is to lay out the facts to the public. Cruz hammering the 17 major errors the report found. He says these weren’t typos but were “grotesque abuses of power.” He points out the FBI knew the subsource was not reliable but told the FISA court that the source was truthful. Cruz says this was the most effective opposition research in history and the FBI were the hatchet men.  1:25 PM: Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) says it’s crazy to think that the IG report “exonerates” the FBI. He says there is no planet on which this report indicates that things were okay within the FBI. Lee says Comey “stunningly” declared that the report found that the FBI fulfilled its mission and upheld the Constitution. Lee says it is “stunning” that Comey reached such a conclusion. Lee says the report is a “scathing indictment” of the FBI and the agents involved. Lee says the report calls into question the “legitimacy of the entire FISA program.” Lee says the report concludes, “way too generously” in his view, that there was no intentional misconduct on the part of the agents. He notes that the report also talks about the agents’ “serious performance failures” and Horowitz did not receive “satisfactory explanations” for them. Lee says this is the failure that Comey irresponsibly considers a fulfilled mission. “I think not,” Lee says. He says every American should be “terrified” by the IG report.  1:15 PM: Durbin rips Graham’s “flowery” and “heated” opening remarks. Durbin trying to establish that Strzok and Page weren’t in charge. Horowitz says FBI agents can’t tie their “personal views to their individual acts.” Durbin, like other Democrats, trying to make the hearing about Giuliani. Durbin wants to know if Giuliani was bluffing with his remarks in 2016 or if he had moles in the NY FBI office.  1:05 PM: Hearing resumes, and Cornyn says it is important to “root out illegality, mendacity, deception” in the FBI. He says he can’t think of anything more damaging to the intelligence community than what Horowitz and his team have uncovered in their IG report. Cornyn asks if the court knew what Horowitz knew now if it would have issued a warrant… Horowitz says they would not sign a warrant if they knew that not all of the relevant information was included but says he does not want to comment on what judges would have done, etc. Cornyn asks what’s the difference between “surveillance” and “spying”–Cornyn thinks there is no difference while Horowitz refers to the law. Cornyn also mentions that there is a higher standard to surveil a U.S. citizen than a foreign agent because of rights granted to the citizen under the Bill of Rights.  12:05 PM: Leahy, based on a couple of pro-Trump messages, trying to establish the FBI also had pro-Trump biases. Leahy using his time to slam Giuliani and asks if Horowitz is concerned about Giuliani “running around in Europe”…  11:56 AM: Grassley asks if anyone has been prosecuted and Horowitz says nobody that he is aware of. Grassley wants to know if anybody in the FBI was concerned that their agents were providing FISA courts with inaccurate information. Grassley asks if the Trump campaign was treated differently than other campaigns, and Horowitz gives a roundabout answer, saying they were treated differently because of the “net result.” Grassley asks how can the FBI repair trust after the botched briefings during the 2016 election cycle. Horowitz says there “needs to be clear guidance and rules.”  11:36 AM: Feinstein says Horowitz’s report says the FBI had an “adequate predicate” to open its investigation. Horowitz points to information the FBI got from a “friendly foreign government.” Feinstein continuing to go after Barr and now using her time to ask if the whistleblower in the Ukraine investigation should be identified. Horowitz says the whistleblower should get “complete confidentiality” under the “very important provision” in the law. Feinstein says Trump has “relentlessly attacked” Strzok and Page and tries to rehabilitate them.  11:30 AM: Graham asks, if this is a counterintelligence investigation, who should they be trying to investigate? Horowitz answers the “election process,” including the “candidate” and the “American people.” Horowitz says the FBI never briefed the Trump campaign like they did the Clinton campaign. Graham asks if the investigation was legitimate if they never briefed the Trump campaign…  Graham says if what the FBI did “doesn’t bother you, you hate Trump way too much.”  Graham emphasizes the FBI knew Page was not a Russian agent but continued to surveil him and the Trump campaign.  11:15 AM: Graham asks if the report vindicates Comey, and Horowitz punts and says the report doesn’t vindicate anybody. Horowitz says Steele’s bias needed to be disclosed to the court. When Graham asks if this is the “best and the brightest,” Horowitz says he hopes others aren’t following their leads. Horowitz won’t talk about Clinesmith because he is not in the report and says he does not know what motivated him to alter the emails.  10:56 AM: Horowitz now giving his opening statement. Horowitz says they went through one million documents and commends his team for conducting “independent oversight.” He says after the FBI opened its investigation, it conducted “consensually monitored” meetings between sources and individuals associated with the Trump campaign. He says the they found that the operation received the “necessary approvals” under FBI policy. He says he didn’t find evidence that “political evidence” or “improper motivation” influenced the investigation. Horowitz now talking about the numerous violations by the FBI that made it seem the probable cause was stronger than it seemed when applying for FISA warrants. Horowitz says the courts should have been given more complete and accurate information, and “that did not occur.” He says Page’s surveillance continued even thought the FBI was gathering information that made its probable cause case weaker. He points to the failures of the supervisors in the chain of command and says “it’s incumbent on the entire chain of command” to “take the necessary steps” for proper oversight and talks about their “performance failures.”  10:48 AM: Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) praises the inspector general who “tells it as they see it.” Calls it a “saving grace.” Feinstein said Horowitz pledged to Congress last year to investigate whether political bias played a role in the FBI’s investigation and “kept his promise.” Feinstein says on the question of bias, Horowitz found “no evidence” of anti-Trump bias. Feinstein claims, citing the report, there is “no deep state” and the investigation wasn’t motivated by politics. She believes it is time to move on from the “false claims of political bias.” Feinstein now turning the tables and saying Republicans should be concerned about politically-motivated investigations by Trump and his attorney general.  10:26 AM: Graham rips Kevin Clinesmith and points out he was referred for prosecution for falsification of evidence. He marvels at how he was caught altering CIA emails about Carter Page. Graham says Clinesmith falsified the evidence because he did not want the investigation to stop. Graham points out Clinesmith texted “Viva La Resistance” after Trump got elected because of all of the “smelly people.” Graham says if you have met Carter Page the one thing you will not accuse him of is being James Bond. Graham says when they first applied for a FISA warrant, internal lawyers said they didn’t have enough evidence and McCabe suggested that they look at the Steele Dossier to get them “over the hump.” Graham says they then introduced the Dossier into the warrant application process and “it worked.” “Without this dossier, they go nowhere. With it, they are off to the races,” Graham says. Graham says the FBI didn’t tell the court that Steele was being paid by a company being paid by the Democrats to find dirt on Trump. Trump says Steele “was on a mission to get Donald Trump.” Graham notes Bruce Ohr mentioned that Steele was worried that his network could get disrupted if Trump got elected because Trump could appoint different people and take action against his “source network.” Graham mentions the “golden shower” in the Steele Dossier. Graham says if you read the document the first thing you think of is that “they got something on Donald Trump” but “it’s a bunch of a crap.” Graham says after the source of the report disavowed everything in the report, the FBI didn’t slow down and used the “garbage” for two more warrants. Graham says they were “on a mission” to protect all the “smelly people from Trump.” Graham says this could happen the next time because there are plenty of passionate people on his side that he would never want investigating the other side. Graham says if they can do this to a presidential candidate, imagine what they can do to you. He says “we can’t write this off as just being about one man or one event.” Graham says the system in the hands of a few bad people can do a lot of damage. He says he is hawkish but if corrections aren’t made, his support will be lost.  10:22 AM: Graham describes Peter Strzok and Lisa Page as two “central characters in this debacle.” Graham says people in newsrooms agree with what Strzok and Page’s texts about Trump. Graham reading Strzok’s and Page’s greatest hits, including the “insurance policy” and “Walmart” texts.  10:08 AM: Graham says he may take longer than 20 minutes for his opening remarks. Graham says if a Democrat were president, the headlines would be different and would blame the FBI for taking the law into its own hands. Graham says the people who were in charge of this investigation were handpicked by Andrew McCabe. Graham shreds McCabe as notes he is now at CNN. Graham wants to know are these people the best of the best, and hopes the answer to that is “no” or he will be “incredibly depressed.” Graham emphasizes he FBI never made an effort to brief Trump. He wonders why and hopes he can get an answer. He says a “counterintelligence investigation is a good thing until it becomes a bad thing.”  Graham says the “few irregularities” become a massive criminal conspiracy to defraud the FISA court and keep an operation open against a sitting U.S. president violating nearly every law. Graham says Trump’s time will come and go but what happened here can never happen again because the “system failed” and people at the highest level of the government took the law into their own hands. Graham says Horowitz’s team actually discovered abuses of power that he didn’t know could exist in 2019. He says it’s as if J. Edgar Hoover came back to life along with an FBI that had a chip on its shoulder and wanted to find out what was going on in everybody’s lives.  10:01 AM: Hearing is about to get started as Judiciary Committee Chairman Graham (R-SC) arrives.  9:45 AM: Horowitz arrives and is making his way to the Hart Senate Office Building for the hearing.


breitbart--2019-12-16--House Judiciary Committee Report Accuses Trump of 'Bribery,' 'Honest Services Fraud'

House Judiciary Committee Report Accuses Trump of 'Bribery,' 'Honest Services Fraud' -- Not in Articles

The House Judiciary Committee’s new report accompanying articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump accuses him of committing the crimes of bribery and honest services fraud, though neither is mentioned in the articles of impeachment.  The report, released Monday ahead of Wednesday’s anticipated vote on impeachment, accuses Trump of violating 18 U.S.C. § 201 — federal criminal bribery — because he “demanded” an announcement of investigations, which the report describes as a thing of “value.” In return, the report alleges, the president was influenced in his performance of official acts. (The report disagrees with recent Supreme Court precedent that a “meeting” is not an “official act.”) In addition, the report rejects that there was “any public purpose” associated with Trump’s request for investigations.  Moreover, the Judiciary Committee report adds a new, previously undebated crime — namely, honest services fraud: “In addition to committing the crime of bribery, President Trump knowingly and willfully orchestrated a scheme to defraud the American people of his honest services as President of the United States. In doing so, he betrayed his position of trust and the duty he owed the citizenry to be an honest fiduciary of their trust,” the report declares.  The two crimes appear to have been included in the report to address Republican criticisms that President Trump has not been accused of violating any law, making him the first president to be impeached without a crime alleged.  However, the articles of impeachment do not refer to either crime. The absence of “bribery” was noteworthy, as the Democrats had suggested for weeks that they planned to impeach the president on that basis.  Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


buzzfeed--2019-05-09--The House Judiciary Committee Voted To Hold Bill Barr In Contempt

WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee voted 24–16 Wednesday to hold Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt for refusing to turn over an unredacted copy of special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report as well as Mueller’s investigative files.    The vote is the first step — the resolution will go before the full House next. If Democrats want to sue Barr and the Justice Department to enforce their subpoena, they’ll have to specifically vote to do so, regardless of the final outcome of the contempt proceedings.    On Wednesday morning, before the vote, the Justice Department sent a letter notifying the committee that President Donald Trump had asserted executive privilege over all of the information — Mueller’s unredacted report and millions of pages of underlying evidence from the investigation — covered by the subpoena.  It is the first time Trump has invoked executive privilege to shield information from Congress. It’s not the final word from the president on this information, though. The Justice Department said it was a broad, “protective” assertion of privilege to stop the records from being disclosed while the White House does a “full review.” There is precedent for this kind of move. In a letter to Trump on Wednesday, Barr cited a 1996 legal opinion from then–attorney general Janet Reno concluding that then-president Bill Clinton could assert "protective" privilege over a set of White House–counsel documents in the face of a congressional subpoena and contempt vote while the White House did a complete review.  "Faced with Chairman [Jerry] Nadler’s blatant abuse of power, and at the Attorney General’s request, the President has no other option than to make a protective assertion of executive privilege," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement.    Speaking to reporters after the vote, Nadler said, "We've talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis. We are now in it." Making a reference to Ben Franklin and the founding of the country, Nadler said the US is in a "time of testing whether we can keep a republic or whether this republic is destined to change into a different, more tyrannical form of government as other republics have over the centuries."  Impeaching Trump "may not be the best answer," Nadler said, but he decried overreach by the president. "We must resist this. This is far broader than Republican or Democratic or even the rights of Congress. This is whether we can put limits on the power of the president — any president — and hold the president, any president, accountable. We cannot flinch," he said.  Ranking Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia said the contempt motion was due to sour grapes among Democrats because the Mueller report did not find that the Trump administration colluded with Russia during the 2016 election. Collins said that Democrats did not get grounds to impeach Trump, and “as a result, they’re angry.”    During the hearing, Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson, also of Georgia, broached the subject of impeaching Trump, in a break with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has repeatedly quashed impeachment speculation. Johnson said that Congress has constitutional responsibilities to engage in. “One of which is possibly impeachment,” he said. “How can we impeach without getting the documents? So we must get this document.”  The committee's subpoena had demanded that Barr produce the full Mueller report and other records related to the investigation by May 1. The House Judiciary Committee issued the subpoena April 18, the day Barr publicly released a redacted version of the report. Barr offered members of Congress the opportunity to read a less redacted version in private, but Democrats largely rejected the offer and demanded to see the full document.  One of the Justice Department's objections to the subpoena is that federal law prohibits the disclosure of grand jury information, which was one of the categories of redactions in the report. The subpoena doesn't exclude grand jury material, but Nadler clarified during Wednesday's hearing that Democrats weren't demanding information that would require breaking the law, and the committee adopted an amendment to that effect.  In a statement after Wednesday's contempt vote, Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec said it was "deeply disappointing that elected representatives of the American people have chosen to engage in such inappropriate political theatrics."    "Regrettably, Chairman Nadler’s actions have prematurely terminated the accommodation process and forced the President to assert executive privilege to preserve the status quo. No one, including Chairman Nadler and his Committee, will force the Department of Justice to break the law," Kupec said.  A BuzzFeed News review of the public version of Mueller’s 448-page report showed that approximately a third of the pages had a redaction, and most were in the first volume, which focused on the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. The redactions ranged from a single word to an entire page. According to the Justice Department, members of Congress were allowed to see 98.5% of the report, including 99.9% of the second volume, which dealt with the investigation into whether Trump had obstructed justice.


buzzfeed--2019-08-16--The House Judiciary Committee Will Come Back To Washington Early To Work On Gun Control Legislation

WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee will officially return a few days early from its summer break to work on gun control legislation, following mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.  The committee says that members will return for a Sept. 4 meeting to mark up three new pieces of legislation, including a bill that would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, a bill prohibiting people convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes from purchasing a gun, and the House version of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s proposal to give grants to states that enact so-called red flag laws that allow police to seize guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others.  While some members have called for the full Congress to return as soon as possible, cutting the summer break short by even a few days upstages Senate Republicans who have been slow to bring gun legislation to the floor. The Senate left for its August recess a week after the House did and shows no signs of reconvening. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that the Senate will have “serious discussions” about gun control when it returns from recess. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had previously confirmed that the House panel would return early, but the Washington Post reported that Democrats were privately fighting over which bills to take up.  The House of Representatives has already passed two bills to strengthen background checks for gun sales — one that would expand background checks for nearly all gun sales and another that would close the “Charleston loophole,” which allows a gun sale to automatically go through if a background check is not completed within three days.  "There is more that we can and must do to address the gun violence epidemic. We will not sit idly by," said Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler in a statement. "I call on my Senate colleagues to join us in this effort by swiftly passing gun safety bills the House has already passed and also by acting on the additional bills we will be considering."  In a call with Democratic members Aug. 5, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed back on the idea that the full House should return early, Politico reported. Pelosi argued that members should keep the focus on McConnell, who has refused to take up the House’s gun control bills.  The House left Washington on July 25 for a six-week break to work with constituents at home and campaign for reelection. The full House is slated to return Sept. 9.  The Judiciary Committee is expected to hold another hearing Sept. 25 with a focus on military-style weapons. The shooters in El Paso and Dayton opened fire on their victims using military-style guns, both of which were legally obtained.  Nadler’s committee held a hearing in April about the rise of white nationalism and hate crimes.


buzzfeed--2019-09-12--The House Judiciary Committee Passed Rules For Its Trump Impeachment Investigation

WASHINGTON — A House Democratic committee voted to carve out terms of its investigation of President Donald Trump, inching them closer on the issue of impeachment.  The committee voted along party lines Thursday morning, 24–17, with all Democrats in favor and all Republicans opposing, and will shape the panel’s procedures on further impeachment hearings as it continues its Trump investigation.  The resolution passed by the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday maps out responsibilities of committee members in the investigation, including chair Jerry Nadler. The congressman can now authorize other congressional committees to conduct their own investigations into alleged misconduct by Trump as part of the impeachment investigation. Judiciary Committee members and counsel will get up to an hour to question witnesses rather than the usual five minutes per hearing, some of which may be held behind closed doors. The chair, after consulting the top Republican on the committee, can also invite the president’s counsel to review and respond in writing to the material discussed in closed-door meetings.  “The resolution before us represents the necessary next step in our investigation of corruption, obstruction, and abuse of power,” said Nadler, reiterating that the committee is officially conducting an investigation on impeachment, a topic many House members seem to be confused about. “This Committee is engaged in an investigation that will allow us to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with respect to President Trump.”  This step marks the most significant move by the House Judiciary since Aug. 1, when the 118th Democratic House member came out publicly to support impeachment, tilting the number of pro-impeachment members in the caucus to the majority.  Republicans objected to Thursday’s vote, pegging the hearing as a “charade” and an opportunity for Democrats to try to influence the 2020 presidential election. During his opening statement, ranking member Doug Collins accused Democrats of mocking the constitution and in doing so “will stop at nothing to ensure the American people hear only non-stop, day-after-day, baseless accusations against the president.” Collins called the investigation “a giant Instagram filter,” likening it to “something it’s not.”  Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz introduced an amendment that would restrict House counsel from questioning witnesses, but it was struck down by Democratic committee members.  As the committee moves forward, aides told reporters Monday, the public can anticipate hearings on election security and possible violations of the emoluments clause — a constitutional measure that prohibits sitting presidents from receiving gifts or anything of value from a foreign government.  Trump recently made headlines when, during the G7 summit last month, he suggested next year’s meeting be held at one of his properties. Democrats have also raised concerns about foreign spending at Trump’s hotel in Washington, DC.  While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team have said they support Nadler’s efforts and investigation, they’ve held the line on actually impeaching Trump, arguing that the public doesn’t support it.  Leadership’s desire to keep the conversation off of impeachment — motivated, in large part, by the need to protect incumbent Democrats in moderate districts — has led to some mixed messaging among House Democrats, with more than half of their members pushing for action. On Wednesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the second-highest-ranking Democrat in the House, told reporters that the House wasn’t in an impeachment investigation, but later had to walk those comments back.  Pelosi was dogged by questions about the issue in her weekly press conference Thursday and grew frustrated when asked if she would concede that the House is conducting an impeachment investigation.  “Do I concede? Have you not been paying attention to what we’ve been doing for the last three months? We are legislating ... we’re investigating, as six committees have been doing for months ... and we are litigating. … I stand by what we have been doing all along,” Pelosi responded. “I support what is happening in the Judiciary Committee, because that enables them to do their process of interrogation and investigation.”  Pelosi tried to shut down further questions about impeachment, saying she wouldn’t comment further, but was later asked if she’s uncomfortable referring to the Judiciary Committee’s work as an “impeachment” investigation. “Why is it that you’re hung up on a word over here when lives are at stake over there?” Pelosi asked, arguing that reporters are the only ones focused on the issue.  As reporters pushed back, Pelosi added, “I travel the entire country. Come with me sometime. And you’ll hear what the American people are saying. They understand that impeachment is a very divisive measure, but if we have to go there, we’ll have to go there. But we can’t go there unless we have the facts.”


cnbc--2019-04-01--House Judiciary Committee plans to vote to subpoena the complete Mueller report

House Judiciary Committee plans to vote to subpoena the 'complete' Mueller report

The House Judiciary Committee on Monday laid out plans to issue subpoenas for special counsel Robert Mueller's "full and complete" report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election, as well as the raw evidence that supports it.  The committee, led by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., set a Wednesday morning date to mark up a resolution to authorize the subpoenas. Members will be able to vote on the resolution at the hearing.  "As I have made clear, Congress requires the full and complete Special Counsel report, without redactions, as well as access to the underlying evidence," Nadler said in a statement.  Nadler's resolution would also issue subpoenas to five former associates of President Donald Trump, including former White House counsel Don McGahn, former top strategist Steve Bannon and former communications director Hope Hicks.  Democrats' preparations to try to force the release of Mueller's report follow their growing complaints about Attorney General William Barr's handling of the findings, which was delivered to him by the special counsel on March 22. Two days later, Barr sent a four-page summary of the "principal conclusions" to House and Senate Judiciary committee leaders, claiming, "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 and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also concluded, based on the report, that there wasn't enough evidence to establish that Trump obstructed justice. Barr quotes Mueller as saying that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."  Trump and his supporters claimed "total and complete exoneration" from the summary, while Democrats demanded that Barr immediately release the entire report without redactions.  Barr, in a letter sent to Congress on Friday, said he expects to deliver a version of the nearly 400-page report to lawmakers by mid-April, "if not sooner." He said the material being redacted includes grand jury-related information, as well as information that could reveal U.S. sources and methods or confidential details about ongoing investigations.  Nadler other Democratic leaders had set a Tuesday deadline for Barr to hand over the long-awaited report. The Judiciary Committee's top Republican, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, called that deadline "arbitrary."  Much of the contention about the report concerns what, if anything, is required by law to be redacted.  Barr's most recent letter states that any material in the report subject to the federal rules on grand juries "by law cannot be made public." But Democrats have pointed to past examples, such as the Watergate scandal, when federal Judge John Sirica in March 1974 granted special prosecutor Leon Jaworski's request to give grand jury materials to the House Judiciary Committee.  "This is political theater," a senior administration official told NBC News on Monday. "Chairman Nadler is demanding the release of secret grand jury information and classified material – which is against the law. He should allow the Attorney General to complete his work and stop playing politics."  Collins, responding to Nadler's announcement Monday morning, took Barr's stance. "Judiciary Democrats have escalated from setting arbitrary deadlines to demanding unredacted material that Congress does not, in truth, require and that the law does not allow to be shared outside the Justice Department," Collins said.  "It's unfortunate that a body meant to uphold the law has grown so desperate that it's patently misrepresenting the law, even as the attorney general has already demonstrated transparency above and beyond what is required."  In addition to McGahn, Hicks and Bannon, the Judiciary Committee will also vote on whether to issue subpoenas for Trump's former chief of staff, Reince Priebus, and ex-White House counsel Ann Donaldson, who had also served as McGahn's chief of staff.  "These individuals may have received documents from the White House relevant to the special counsel investigation and the Committee's investigation, or their outside counsel may have," Nadler's press release said.  In early March, Nadler's committee launched a sweeping corruption probe into Trump and dozens of his associates and his family members.  That probe is intended to look into alleged obstruction of justice by Trump and others and the "alleged cover-up of violations of the law"; alleged corruption in areas including violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause "and other criminal misuses of official positions for personal gain"; and alleged abuses of power, such as attacking the press and misusing the presidential pardon power.  Some of the 81 people and entities asked to provide documents have yet to respond, or have publicly refused to comply with the probe, Nadler said.  "I am particularly concerned about reports that documents relevant to the Special Counsel investigation were sent outside the White House, waving applicable privileges," he added. "To this end, I have asked the Committee to authorize me to issue subpoenas, if necessary, to compel the production of documents and testimony."


cnbc--2019-04-18--House Judiciary Chairman Nadler calls special counsel Robert Mueller to testify by May 23

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., called on special counsel Robert Mueller to testify before his committee "no later than May 23."  The letter to Mueller was made public on Nadler's Twitter account minutes after Attorney General William Barr said Thursday that the nearly two-year Russia probe found "no collusion" between President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and the Kremlin.  "As I have already communicated to the Department of Justice, I request your testimony before the Judiciary committee as soon as possible," Nadler wrote to Mueller. "But, in any event, no later than May 23, 2019. I look forward to working with you on a mutually agreeable date."  "We cannot take Attorney General Barr's word for it. We must read the full Mueller report, and the underlying evidence," he later tweeted.  Barr told reporters Thursday that he has "no objection to Bob Mueller personally testifying."  The report had not been made public when Barr spoke at the Department of Justice. Mueller was not present at the event.  "The bottom line," Barr said, was that "after nearly two years of investigation, thousands of subpoenas, and hundreds of warrants and witness interviews, the Special Counsel confirmed that the Russian government sponsored efforts to illegally interfere with the 2016 presidential election but did not find that the Trump campaign or other Americans colluded in those schemes."  Nadler's committee, which holds authority to launch an impeachment inquiry against Trump, demanded that Barr release the entire Mueller report and its underlying evidence without redactions. His committee authorized a subpoena for such a report in early April.  Barr said that a version "with all redactions removed except those relating to grand-jury information" will later be made available for some members of Congress. The report was released later Thursday.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also called for Mueller to testify in the House and Senate in order to "restore public trust in the handling of the Special Council's Investigation."


cnbc--2019-04-21--House Judiciary Chairman Nadler says obstruction evidence against Trump impeachable if proven

House Judiciary Chairman Nadler says obstruction evidence against Trump 'impeachable' if proven

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler said Sunday that evidence of obstruction by President Donald Trump laid out in the Mueller report would be impeachable if proven.  "If proven, some of this would be impeachable, yes," Nadler said on Meet the Press. "Obstruction of justice if proven would be impeachable."     However, Nadler said House Democrats have not opened an impeachment inquiry. The judiciary chairman's comments come on the heels of the release of a redacted version of Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and whether or not the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin.  Mueller documented extensive ties between Russians and Trump campaign officials, but concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy.  On obstruction, Mueller pointedly declined to exonerate Trump, laying out several instances in which the president sought to curtail the Russia investigation.  Several leading Democrats have called for impeachment proceedings against the president in the wake of the Mueller report. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a 2020 presidential candidate, on Friday called on Congress to begin the process of removing Trump from office through impeachment proceedings.  But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , prior to the release of the Mueller report, had stated that she opposes impeachment due to Republican control of the Senate and over concerns that it would only further divide the country.


cnbc--2019-04-22--House Judiciary Committee issues subpoena to former White House counsel Don McGahn

The subpoena calls for McGahn to provide documents to the committee by May 7, and to testify May 21. The documents requested cover a wide range of topics, including those related to the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Trump campaign officials and a Russian lawyer, potential pardons for Trump associates and Mueller's alleged conflicts of interest.  The demand for documents and testimony drew backlash from the committee's Republicans.  "For the second time in four days, the chairman has issued a subpoena prematurely and contrary to his pledge not 'to issue a subpoena every time we have a disagreement with the administration.'" Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the committee, said in a statement.  "Don McGahn sat for more than 30 hours of interviews with the special counsel's investigation, and the chairman has answered that with a stunning 36-item subpoena," the Georgia Republican said. "Instead of looking at material that Attorney General Barr has already made available, Democrats prefer to demand additional materials they know are subject to constitutional and common-law privileges and cannot be produced."  The subpoena comes as pressure mounts on Democrats to make a decision on impeachment.  "Some of this would be impeachable," Nadler said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," referring to the findings of Mueller's investigation. "Obstruction of justice, if proven, would be impeachable."