Hillary Clinton

Sen. Lindsey Graham warned Democrats if they don’t stop attacking President Trump they won’t stand a chance at beating him in the 2020 presidential election.

“The Democrats are going to get him reelected,” Graham, R-S.C., said Friday on Fox News. “I don’t think you can become the nominee of the Democratic Party without embracing impeachment. And if you’re a House member of the Democratic caucus, you’re going to get a primary if you vote against impeachment.”

Congressional Democrats have increased their scrutiny of Trump in recent weeks, launching investigations into his 2016 campaign, finances, and personal life.

Democratic leadership has tamped down talks of impeachment, suggesting the House investigations should be allowed to play out and if evidence supporting impeachment is uncovered, the party will pursue it.

Trump is “crying out” for impeachment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said this week.

Trump and allies like Graham have pointed instead to special counsel Robert Mueller’s report as the final word on Trump’s personal conduct and fitness for office.

A recent cover of the New Yorker magazine depicted Graham, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Attorney General William Barr giving Trump a shoeshine.

The suggested message is that leading Republicans are doing the president’s bidding and helping cover up his abuses of power in the White House.

“If I’m helping the president, good for me, I want him to succeed,” Graham said Friday on Fox News. “If I’m helping the president it’s good for the country because I think I’ve got something to offer him. He’s doing a really good job.”

The South Carolina senator has not always spoken so favorably about the president.

As they ran against one another in the 2016 Republican primary, Graham called Trump a “jackass” after the Trump campaign released Graham’s private phone number.

Graham has shifted his focus to alleged corruption present in the FBI and Department of Justice leading up to the 2016 election.

He and other leading Republicans have railed against a “deep state” that sought to undermine Trump and help Hillary Clinton.

“They are driving the Democratic Party over an edge,” Graham said of progressive Democrats. “Between what Trump has accomplished for this country and how crazy they’ve become, he’s gonna get reelected.”

The day after President Trump was elected, teachers canceled classes and rescheduled exams, Hillary Clinton voters cried, and some apparently began to worry about their mental health.

It’s been strangely en vogue for liberals to say the 2016 election messed them up, emotionally, spiritually, or mentally. In March 2017, the Atlantic ran a piece chronicling the sadness felt by Trump detractors following the election. The story begins: “Every time Genevieve Caffrey hears the words President Trump, ‘I feel like I was physically punched in the stomach,’ she says.”

But as much as it would signal solidarity to say your struggle with depression began on Nov. 8, 2016, most Democrats just used claims of mental health struggles as a form of “partisan cheerleading,” according to new research.

In a study published by the peer-reviewed journal SAGE Open, researchers found that mental-health-related online searches didn’t spike for Democrats after 2016. They wrote:

We find that while Democrats may report greater increases in post-election mental distress, their mental health search behavior did not change after the election. On the other hand, Spanish-speaking Latinos had clear, significant, and sustained increases in searches for “depression,” “anxiety,” “therapy,” and antidepressant medications. This suggests that for many Democrats, expressing mental distress after the election was a form of partisan cheerleading.

Significantly, Spanish-speaking Latinos did start searching mental health terms more. Considering both Trump’s rhetoric about the demographic and the media’s exaggerated fear of it, this shift makes sense. It should be concerning, whether or not you believe it to be valid.

But it’s also important to note that white Democrats who cried after the election and took mental health days off work probably didn’t suffer any real mental health problems. Nevertheless, “a full 72% of Democrats reported that the presidential election outcome was ‘a significant source of stress,’ as compared to 26% of Republicans,” the study reported.

Saying Trump makes you depressed or anxious, or was the reason you finally signed up for therapy, is one way to send a message about your beliefs and party affiliation. Another way would be to wipe off your tears and campaign for someone else.

a group of people walking in front of a sign: Protesters demonstrated against President Trump outside the State Capitol in Carson City, Nev., in 2016. Criticism of the Electoral College has increased since the 2016 presidential election.© Scott Sonner/Associated Press Protesters demonstrated against President Trump outside the State Capitol in Carson City, Nev., in 2016. Criticism of the Electoral College has increased since the 2016 presidential election.

The man who helped invent scratch-off lottery tickets now has his sights set on a bigger prize: overhauling the way the United States elects presidents.

On Tuesday, Nevada became the latest state to pass a bill that would grant its electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote across the country, not just in Nevada. The movement is the brainchild of John Koza, a co-founder of National Popular Vote, an organization that is working to eliminate the influence of the Electoral College.

If Nevada’s governor signs the bill, the state will become the 15th — plus the District of Columbia — to join an interstate pact of states promising to switch to the new system. Those states, including Nevada, have a total of 195 electoral votes. The pact would take effect once enough states have joined to guarantee the national winner 270 electoral votes, ensuring election.

Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter

Enforcement, however, could be very difficult without congressional approval, according to constitutional law experts. And the pact would be highly vulnerable to legal challenges, they say.

But while it may seem quixotic, momentum is building. So far in 2019, Colorado, New Mexico and Delaware have passed laws joining the pact. Maine and Oregon may take similar steps this year.

Mr. Koza said he and his colleagues have been lobbying state legislators across the country since 2006 to enact such bills. An Electoral College hobbyist since the 1960s, he watched in frustration in 2004 as the presidential election between President George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, John Kerry, came down to a few battleground states.

It wasn’t right, and it happened again, year after year, he said: “Everybody’s vote should count. But entire campaigns run around a couple of states and that, in turn, distorts government policy.”

In a presidential election, the Constitution grants states a certain number of electors, equal to their combined representation in the House and the Senate, and the electors choose the president. In general, the candidate who wins the most popular votes in each state gets all that state’s electors, though a handful of states use different rules. The candidate who gets the majority of the electoral votes becomes president.

But, as in the 2016 election, that is not always the candidate who won the overall popular vote. In 2016, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received some three million more votes than President Trump, but the states she won gave her fewer electoral votes than Mr. Trump received.

In all, five presidents in American history have won office while losing the popular vote, including two of the last three: Mr. Trump and Mr. Bush.

Many Democrats believe the current system unfairly favors rural states with smaller populations, which are often strongly Republican.

Of course, not everyone likes the idea of moving away from the current Electoral College system.

In Colorado, with Democrats in control of both the legislature and the governor’s seat, a measure like Nevada’s passed and was signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis in March. But it set off an outcry among conservatives in the state. No Republicans supported it.

On the state House floor, one legislator suggested renaming the measure the “We Really, Really, Really, Really, Really Hate Donald Trump Act of 2019.”

Jerry Sonnenberg, a Republican state senator in Colorado who opposed the bill, said he believed the change would weaken the electoral power of sparsely populated rural states like Wyoming and Utah, while strengthening states like California and New York.

In his view, the Electoral College was created so that “people in rural areas did not get overrun by the masses.”

“I think it’s completely appropriate that we keep the Electoral College,” he said.

For his part, Mr. Koza said the effort goes far beyond Mr. Trump. “The visible public problem right now with the electoral system is that the candidate who came in second gets the White House,” he said. “But the real problem is that very few states get the attention of the presidential campaigns.”

He believes the movement will not reach a critical mass until the 2024 election, when Mr. Trump most likely would not be on the ballot.

Sanford Levinson, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Texas at Austin, is sharply critical of the Electoral College system, but does not believe the interstate pact would solve all of the problems inherent to America’s election design.

The Constitution gives disproportionate representation to smaller states in the Electoral College, he said, but he believes the entire system should be replaced, not just circumvented. A popular majority should decide the presidency directly, he said, through runoff elections or tiered-candidate ballots.

“I want to emphasize that I rarely engage in Founder-bashing,” he said. “I don’t think these were stupid arguments in 1787. But times change.”

Even if enough states sign on to the pact to make it effective, Mr. Levinson said he anticipates significant legal challenges if the proposal is not sanctioned by Congress as well.

“What if it turns out that the Republican candidate comes in first, but doesn’t get the majority of the vote, and California says, ‘Wait, we don’t see a reason why our electors should vote for the candidate who didn’t get a majority,’” he said. “Could the other states enforce it, or not?”

Mr. Koza intends to keep pushing ahead anyway. Most state legislatures adjourn their sessions by the end of June, so for the rest of the year, he and his colleagues, including the movement’s other co-founder, Barry Fadem, will strategize about what comes next.

Mr. Koza said his approach today is similar to the one he used while lobbying to create state lotteries in the 1970s and 1980s: Take your time and build relationships, vote by vote.

“This is sort of a seasonal business — I tell people it’s like selling fruit,” Mr. Koza said.

Spread the love

File this in the “not surprising” cabinet. Of the 14 states plus the District of Columbia who have signed on for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, none of them voted for President Trump in 2016. So as of today, the 189 electoral college votes that have been promised to the winner of the popular vote in the presidential election were votes that went to Hillary Clinton anyway.

That doesn’t mean this isn’t a real threat. If they’re able to get to the 270-vote mark, the level necessary to trigger the compact and elect the President, that would mean they were able to take some states that voted for Trump in 2016. But that’s not the real threat, here.

As some states move forward with efforts to prevent President Trump from appearing on their ballots unless he releases his tax returns, the combination of the two efforts could make it literally impossible for President Trump to win reelection.

There were very good reasons the founding fathers did not want the popular vote to determine the presidency. The first and biggest is a fear of mob rule. Oppression by the majority is a natural and unfair concept that, in theory, could change the way our nation operates for decades to come. Because so much Democratic power is concentrated in large cities on the coasts, it is easier for them to unify behind a leftist message and dominate the elections. Democrat-heavy New York City has more people than 38 states.

Read More:

Source: The Washington Pundit

Judging by their public words and actions, it feels like President Trump wants impeachment more than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

It’s been pretty clear since Democrats took over the House of Representatives that Pelosi has been desperately trying to avoid impeachment. She’s remained resistant even in the face of increased calls by rank and file members to at least launch some sort of impeachment inquiry. It’s pretty clear that Pelosi wants to pursue a strategy of keeping up Congressional investigations to embarrass Trump, while passing various parts of the Democratic agenda that are publicly popular and have consensus support among Democrats but that Republicans will block, thus tee-ing up the argument for 2020.

Despite Trump’s unpopularity, multiple polls have found that a majority of the public opposes impeaching him. The release of the Robert Mueller report actually made impeachment less likely, because its inability to establish Trump campaign coordination with Russia or to recommend obstruction charges, made it a lot easier for Republicans to oppose impeaching Trump. Even if we assume Senate Republicans would protect Trump from being removed from office no matter the evidence, if the evidence were more powerful, they’d have to do so at much greater political cost than they are able to now. At the current moment, even Sens. Susan Collins and Cory Gardner, the two Republican incumbents up for reelection in states won by Hillary Clinton, have not felt any pressure to impeach.

It seems that Trump and Republican political strategists have reached pretty much the same conclusion as Pelosi and the rest of Democratic leadership: that impeaching Trump would backfire and be a tremendous political gift. Were Democrats to pursue impeachment, it would suck up all the oxygen in Washington and allow Trump to wrap up all accusations against him into an impeachment gambit that does not have any public support. He’d be able to rally his base around him while Democrats are divided, and would argue it proves that the Democrats have no agenda beyond obstruction. And he knows it could never actually succeed given that he has the protection of Senate Republicans.

We’re already starting to see some of these arguments get trotted out. Trump has repeatedly argued that Democrats want impeachment because they know they can’t win in 2020. On Wednesday, he argued:

The House Republican Conference’s rapid response team sent out an email Tuesday with the subject line, “The Democrats’ Agenda Is Impeachment.” It read:

Since claiming the House majority, Democrats have been focused on taking down President Trump at any cost. They’ve spent months conducting sham hearings and baseless investigations, despite Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report concluding there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Despite the fact that they have failed to produce on any of the issues that truly matter for the American people, Speaker Pelosi is, as noted on CNN today by Politico’s John Bresnahan, now under tremendous pressure to devote all their time and attention to impeachment.

In sum, impeachment is set to become their entire agenda, full stop

If Trump were eager to avoid impeachment, it seems he would guarantee his ability to do that by throwing a few bones to Congressional investigators in terms of document requests or access to testimony that wouldn’t actually do him any harm. That would bolster Pelosi’s argument within her caucus that it’s worthwhile to let investigations run their course. Instead, Trump has vowed to fight all of the Congressional subpoenas and is following through. This has put Democratic leaders in the position tap dancing around the question, trying to both portray Trump as really really really really crossing the line, but then stopping short of impeachment. The results have been pretty amusing actually.

Pelosi said Trump was “becoming self-impeachable.” Asked about this, House Judiciary Committee Chair went off on a tirade about how Trump’s defiance of subpoenas was “a way of neutering Congress, of making sure that Congress can’t do its job, of turning the country into a dictatorship of a monarchical president.” He said that it was a “constitutional crisis,” and yet when asked about the prospects for impeachment, he said, “Impeachment is a decision for down the road.”

We seem to be witnessing this bizarre game of political chicken over impeachment, with Trump eager for a collision and Democrats absolutely petrified of the prospect.

The Nevada Senate passed a bill that would give the state’s Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide, CNN reported on Wednesday.

The bill passed 12-8, and if Gov. Steve Sisolak signs the measure into law, Nevada would become the latest state to join the National Popular Vote interstate compact, a deal among participating states to give their Electoral College votes to whoever won the popular vote nationwide, as opposed to the winner of the popular vote in their state.

Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have so far passed legislation to join the compact, which will only go into effect if the cumulative total of the states’ electoral votes reaches the 270 needed for a majority.

The total is currently at 189, and Nevada’s six electoral votes would boost the number to 195.

There have only been five times where a presidential candidate has been elected without winning the popular vote since the Electoral College was created in 1787, including in the last election, when Donald Trump captured the Electoral College despite receiving nearly three million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton, according to The Hill.

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has brought the issue into the spotlight, saying during a CNN town hall in March that she backs abolishing the Electoral College.

“My view is that every vote matters, and the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting, and that means get rid of the Electoral College – and every vote counts,” she said.

Other Democratic candidates also have stated their opposition to the Electoral College.

Source: NewsMax Politics

Former Rep. Trey Gowdy stunned House investigators recently by all but announcing the existence of secret FBI recordings of Trump campaign foreign policy volunteer adviser George Papadopoulos, made in the summer of 2016 by an undercover FBI operation.

Gowdy made the revelation in an interview Sunday with Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo.

“There are a lot of serious questions that need to be asked” during Attorney General William Barr’s investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, Gowdy said. Among them: “Where are the transcripts, if any exist, between the informants and the telephone calls to George Papadopoulos?”

Papadopoulos, an energy consultant, was approached by at least two FBI informants in London in 2016. One was an academic, Stefan Halper, who had a long relationship with the FBI, and the other was an undercover investigator who went by the alias “Azra Turk.”

The reason Papadopoulos’ experience is so important is because the FBI has cited it as the reason the bureau officially began the Trump-Russia investigation, known as Crossfire Hurricane, on July 31, 2016. The FBI said that Australian diplomats, who talked with Papadopoulos in London, told U.S. government officials that Papadopoulos said Russia had damaging information about Hillary Clinton. After that, the FBI reportedly sent “Azra Turk” to London and also used other resources to find out what was going on with Papadopoulos. They created a record of their work, according to Gowdy.

“If the bureau is going to send an informant in, the informant is going to be wired,” Gowdy said. “And if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls, there’s going to be a transcript of that.”

Gowdy cast his statement as a hypothetical, but it did not veil much of anything. “Some of us have been fortunate to know whether or not those transcripts exist, but they haven’t been made public,” he said.

Gowdy strongly suggested at least one of the transcripts has information that would be exculpatory for Papadopoulos.

“Very little in this Russia probe, I’m afraid, is going to persuade people who hate Trump or who love Trump,” he said. “But there is some information in these transcripts that I think has the potential to be a game-changer, if it’s ever made public.”

“You say there’s exculpatory evidence,” replied Bartiromo, “and when people see that, they’re going to say, wait, why wasn’t this presented to the court earlier?”

“Yes,” said Gowdy. “You know, [Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe] is rightfully exercised over the obligations that the government has to tell the whole truth to a court when you are seeking permission to spy or do surveillance on an American. And part of that includes the responsibility of providing exculpatory information or information that tends to show the person didn’t do something wrong. If you have exculpatory information, and you don’t share it with the court, that ain’t good. I have seen it. [Ratcliffe] has seen it. I would love for your viewers to see it.”

Gowdy did not say so directly, but he clearly suggested the transcripts could change some views of the origins and legitimacy of the Trump-Russia investigation. In this way: The FBI received the Australian information. It dispatched investigators to London to learn what was going on with Papadopoulos. If the investigators confirmed the Australians’ tip, then the investigation would surely continue and intensify. But what if the FBI did not confirm the Australians’ information? And what if, after failing to confirm that information, the bureau pressed on with the investigation anyway?

Finally, what if the FBI, which mentioned Papadopoulos in the application submitted to the secret FISA court for a warrant to wiretap Carter Page, did not tell the court that its own informants and agents had gathered information relevant to the case?

That’s a lot of what-ifs. Until the documents are released, there is no way for the public to know if that is what actually happened.

The Mueller report tells only part of the Papadopoulos story. The report recounts how a mysterious Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud told Papadopoulos, in April 2016, that “he had learned that the Russians had ‘dirt’ on candidate Hillary Clinton.” Then, according to Mueller: “On May 6, 2016, 10 days after that meeting with Mifsud, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton.”

The “foreign government” was Australia. The report goes on to say: “The foreign government conveyed this information to the U.S. government on July 26, 2016, a few days after WikiLeaks’s release of Clinton-related emails. The FBI opened its investigation of potential coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign a few days later based on the information.”

Well, what did that investigation find, as far as Papadopoulos was concerned? The Mueller report is mostly silent about that. It is not clear why that is, but it appears Mueller did not spend much time thinking about whether his investigation was built on a firm foundation, nor did he dwell on information that might undermine his probe. In any event, Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the timing of his contacts with Mifsud, was never accused of being part of any conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. Neither was any other person associated with the campaign, or any other American, for that matter.

But Papadopoulos was the key, according to the official version of the beginning of the Trump-Russia probe. The FBI set the Trump-Russia investigation into motion immediately after the Australians’ tip. What they found is in the transcripts Gowdy discussed. And those transcripts are still classified.

Republicans have called on President Trump to declassify some key documents in the Trump-Russia case. Most press attention on the matter, such as it has been, has focused on the GOP request to release additional portions of the Page wiretap application. But Republicans have called for the declassification of more than that, although they can’t publicly describe information whose existence is classified.

Last November, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., then the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, appeared on Fox News to discuss the material he wants to be declassified. “I think there is some reluctance in the White House to actually — to actually go out and release all the documents, the four buckets, as we call them,” Nunes said. The four buckets, he continued, were 1) passages from the Carter Page wiretap application; 2) the FBI’s 302 reports from Justice Department official Bruce Ohr; 3) a set of FBI emails; and 4) “the exculpatory evidence.”

It’s a reasonable guess that “exculpatory evidence” was a reference to the Papadopoulos transcripts, which Gowdy also described as exculpatory. It’s unclear if that information could be a game-changer, as Gowdy said. But Americans need to know what it is.

In the days leading up to Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign, a top Republican opposition research firm was brimming with requests from political reporters angling for dirt.

America Rising, a political action committee that shared details of its internal inquiries with The Daily Beast, said the asks came from a dozen or more reporters and ranged from broad questions to more tailored points of interest.

But 10 weeks after O’Rourke’s official launch, those requests are virtually nonexistent.

“The requests for oppo on him have completely died off,” a staffer at the oppo group said.

The lack of oppo requests suggests a larger problem looming over O’Rourke’s campaign: a visible decline in public interest. Once elevated to the top of Democratic watch-lists, the former congressman is now registering in single digits in several national polls, nosediving from 12 percent in a Quinnipiac poll conducted in March to just 5 percent in the same survey in April.

And while he’s beginning to roll out new hires in key voting states, some say he’s already fallen behind other candidates whose field operations have been interfacing with voters for months.

America Rising, which has cornered the market on opposition research on the nearly two dozen presidential contenders, has tracked what it considers a steady decline in the public’s interest in O’Rourke.

The Republican National Committee, known for slinging insults about Democrats into mainstream consciousness, has not received any requests from reporters for O’Rourke information in recent weeks, according to a senior official.

Typically, a high level of curiosity in revealing a candidate’s political past is one indicator of their perceived viability. And a noticeable downtick in interest could signal an enthusiasm gap between where O’Rourke started and where he’s ended up in two months.

O’Rourke, himself, seemed to acknowledge the flagging interest in a recent  interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

“I recognize I can do a better job also of talking to a national audience,” O’Rourke said. “I hope that I’m continuing to do better over time, but we’ve been extraordinarily fortunate with the campaign that we’ve run so far.”

His next big chance will be Tuesday night, when he’ll appear in his first CNN town hall at 10 p.m. from Drake University in Des Moines. The network has previously hosted such events for several of his rivals, giving a boost to some lesser-known candidates early into their campaigns. On Monday, O’Rourke told reporters he would participate in a Fox News town hall, a general-election strategy favored by some 2020 hopefuls as an attempt to reach voters beyond the traditional Democratic base.

But according to an analysis shared with The Daily Beast by Media Matters, a nonprofit that tracks right-wing coverage, even Fox News’ daily mentions of O’Rourke online have visibly declined since he announced his bid, indicating that he may no longer be considered a serious threat as a Democratic contender.

O’Rourke’s campaign sees it differently: “From my perspective there’s been no decline of oppo to respond to,” a source within the campaign said. Press requests from print and television outlets, including bookers in charge of getting candidates on the air, have not declined since the launch, the campaign source added.

While it’s still early to plot ad buys—the Iowa caucuses are nine months away—a source who tracks ad information for multiple political campaigns says that O’Rourke’s failure to get into that world early coincides with a frenzied campaign that’s no longer top-of-mind for voters.

“It fits with an overall theme of his campaign being a little disorganized,” the source who analyzes political ads said. “He had such a moment in 2018 but it seems to have fizzled out.”

While no pollsters or ad makers have been hired, a source within O’Rourke’s campaign first told The Daily Beast that they have been in initial discussions with various polling, data, and analytics firms, as well as outfits who do campaign ads. Bringing on a pollster had not previously been a top priority, the source said, adding that the campaign has been focused on talking to voters in 154 town halls and traveling to 116 cities.

O’Rourke has made recent inroads on the political staffing front, bringing on Jen O’Malley Dillon, Jeff Berman, and Rob Flaherty, top talent from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s campaigns, among other recent national and state hires. But he has missed out on other high-level talent who wandered to other campaigns, multiple sources said.

Meanwhile, other presidential campaigns have already hired staffers who previously worked with or expressed interest in O’Rourke. Shelby Cole, a top O’Rourke aide who helped him raise an eye-popping $80 million during his Senate campaign, joined California Sen. Kamala Harris’ team as its digital fundraising director. Emmy Ruiz, who served as Clinton’s state director in Nevada and Colorado in 2016, was thought to be seriously weighing joining O’Rourke before he announced, according to multiple Democratic sources unaffiliated with current campaigns. She later joined Harris as a senior adviser.

One top Democratic operative admitted to eyeing O’Rourke for months, but changed candidate loyalty after reading his announcement article in Vanity Fair.

“I was definitely interested in him back in January and February,” the veteran operative said, who has since joined another presidential campaign in a top position.   

“The Vanity Fair story fed a fear I had, which was that he was a little too fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants,” the veteran operative said. “I just felt that he hadn’t totally thought this through. So that kind of soured me on him.”

—Asawin Suebsaeng contributed reporting for this article.

The Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas Tuesday ordering two more of President Donald Trump’s former advisers — Hope Hicks and Annie Donaldson — to testify before the panel and hand over documents.

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York wants Hicks, the former White House communications director, and Donaldson, who was deputy to former White House counsel Don McGahn, to undergo questioning in his panel’s efforts to pursue findings by Special Counsel Robert Mueller concerning possible obstruction of justice by Trump.

“I have issued these subpoenas today to two critical witnesses who have worked closely with the president,” Nadler said in a statement. “We are seeking the information in order to conduct proper oversight, consider potential legislation and perform our constitutional duties.”

The aggressive move by Nadler came just hours after McGahn defied a committee subpoena for his testimony, refusing to attend a scheduled Judiciary hearing at the direction of the White House.

Nadler said after McGahn’s failure to show up that his committee will fight the White House’s assertion of immunity and obtain McGahn’s testimony, ‘even if we have to go to court to secure it.’

Hicks, who was subpoenaed to testify on June 24, had been one of Trump’s longest-serving and most trusted advisers. She left the White House last year and is now chief communications officer for Fox Corp., owner of Trump’s favorite cable news channel.

According to Mueller’s report, Trump asked Hicks to keep quiet about potentially damaging emails sent by his son, Donald Trump Jr. Hicks, who was interviewed by Mueller’s team, also helped prepare a misleading statement about the purpose of a 2016 meeting by Trump Jr. and other advisers at Trump Tower with Russians who promised to offer political dirt on Democrat Hillary Clinton.

As McGahn’s chief of staff, Donaldson had a close-up view of how the attorney handled Trump’s demands and any alleged misconduct. Her notes are cited extensively in Mueller’s report.


In March 2017, when then-FBI Director James Comey briefed congressional leaders on the investigation into Russian election interference, Donaldson said in a note, “POTUS in panic/chaos … Need binders to put in front of POTUS. (1) All things related to Russia.’

In June 2017, Donaldson was a witness to McGahn’s threat to resign after Trump ordered him to have Mueller fired. McGahn didn’t carry out that order.

McGahn had been the first former White House employee to receive a subpoena for congressional testimony since the public release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s redacted report.

But Trump since has declared that his administration will fight “all the subpoenas.”

In addition to Nadler’s latest subpoenas, which were authorized by the Judiciary Committee on April 3, other potential legal showdowns loom in his committee’s investigation of Trump, his finances and whether he tried to obstruct justice.

Source: NewsMax Politics

Fox News’ Sean Hannity said Monday that allegations that President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia will be proven false once new information is released.

“At this hour, your federal government is in possession of transcripts from 2016 featuring secretly recorded conversations between FBI informants and one-time trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos,” Hannity said during his Monday night show.

Papadopoulos reportedly told the House Judiciary Committee that the FBI had asked him to wear a wire while attending a meeting with a foreign professor who said they had compromising information on Trump’s 2016 rival Hillary Clinton.

“According to those who have seen these transcripts, its contents are chock-full of clear irrefutable, incontrovertible, exculpatory evidence proving Trump-Russia collusion was always a hoax from the get-go. This includes former congressman Trey Gowdy who is now calling these documents ‘game changing.'”

Gowdy previously told Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo that “some of us have been fortunate enough to know whether or not those transcripts exist. But they haven’t been made public, and I think one, in particular … has the potential to actually persuade people. Very little in this Russia probe I’m afraid is going to persuade people who hate Trump or love Trump. But there is some information in these transcripts that has the potential to be a game-changer if it’s ever made public.”

Source: NewsMax Politics

[There are no radio stations in the database]