Anonymous ID: 5983be May 30, 2018, 5:52 p.m. No.1592065   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Mueller obtained info alleging Trump pushed for 'Russia' reference in Comey dismissal memo: Report

 

Special counsel Robert Mueller has obtained a memo written by former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe detailing behind-the-scenes moves President Trump made before he dismissed ex-FBI Director James Comey, according to a report.

 

McCabe describes a May 2017 conversation he had with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, whose own memo provided context for Comey's firing by criticizing his handling of the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton, per the New York Times.

 

But McCabe, himself fired by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, allegedly wrote that Rosenstein told him Trump had asked that Russia be alluded to in the memo. Rosenstein did not offer specifics regarding what Trump originally wanted him to say.

 

McCabe took this as evidence Comey's ouster was related to the FBI's probe into the Trump campaign's possible ties with the Kremlin, the Times reports.

 

Spokeswomen for both McCabe and the Justice Department declined to comment to the newspaper.

 

Comey's dismissal on May 9, 2017, is an important part of Mueller's investigation as the special counsel continues to weigh potential obstruction of justice charges in regard to the FBI's probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

 

McCabe was fired from his post on March 16, less than 48 hours before he was expected to retire with a full pension.

 

Sessions said McCabe was let go due to "allegations of misconduct" leveled against him by the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General, including that he "lacked candor" on four separate occasions.

 

But McCabe's legal representation has slammed the IG's report for containing the "most egregious inaccuracies."

 

https:// www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mueller-has-memo-from-andrew-mccabe-alleging-trump-pushed-for-russia-reference-in-comey-dismissal-memo-report

Anonymous ID: 5983be May 30, 2018, 5:56 p.m. No.1592099   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Harvey Weinstein indicted on rape, criminal sex act charges

 

Longtime Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was indicted on rape and criminal sex act charges in New York City Wednesday, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. revealed.

 

Weinstein, who surrendered to police on Friday, faces charges of first and third degree rape and first degree criminal sexual act.

 

“This indictment brings the defendant another step closer to accountability for the crimes of violence with which he is now charged,” Vance said. “Our office will try this case not in the press, but in the courtroom where it belongs. The defendant’s recent assault on the integrity of the survivors of the legal process is predictable. We are confident that when the jury hears the evidence, it will reject these attacks out of hand.”

 

The indictment comes after Weinstein refused to testify before the grand jury. Weinstein’s attorney, Benjamin Brafman, claimed there was insufficient time to prepare a testimony.

 

The charges stemmed from accusations raised by former actress Lucia Evans, who claims that Weinstein coerced her to perform oral sex on him nearly 15 years ago. Another unidentified woman accused Weinstein of raping her in a hotel room.

 

The flurry of accusations against Weinstein began last fall when The New York Times reported on multiple settlements he had reached with multiple women over the span of several decades.

 

Weinstein has rejected all accusations leveled against him, and Brafman claimed Tuesday that Weinstein remains “confident he’s going to clear his name.”

 

https:// www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/harvey-weinstein-indicted-on-rape-criminal-sex-act-charges

Anonymous ID: 5983be May 30, 2018, 6:06 p.m. No.1592186   🗄️.is 🔗kun

FBI violated own rulebook by taking steps to recruit, use Trump campaign ‘spy’: Experts

 

The FBI’s own guidelines restrict the deployment of informants to spy on Americans, such as the bureau’s decision to plant a human source among Donald Trump’s presidential campaign aides.

 

The cautionary regulation is contained in the FBI’s nearly 700-page Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide. The restrictions are prompting national security analysts to say the FBI should have heeded its own rulebook, which encourages alternatives to human spies in any investigation, much less one into a presidential political campaign.

 

The FBI should have focused, they say, on Russian agents who were meddling in the election by hacking computers and by spewing false information on social media.

 

Instead, the bureau, by striking up what seemed to be innocent during President Obama’s administration, took the momentous step of recruiting a national security academic, Stefan Halper, to spy on Trump associates professional contacts.

 

Mr. Halper was a “confidential human source,” an official category of spy that is regulated by the FBI’s domestic investigations directive. The FBI completed an updated document in 2013 and posted online a redacted version in 2016.

Human sources are regulated under a program called “Otherwise Illegal Activity,” or OIA. It is called “otherwise illegal” because spying on Americans would be against the law if, as the policy says, the spying is “engaged in by a person acting without authorization.”

Thus, the protocol says the confidential informant must be approved by the Justice Department, meaning an Obama political appointee might have given the go-ahead in summer 2016.

 

The guideline says a human source should be used only in limited circumstances, which includes “when that information or evidence is not reasonably available without participation in the OIA.”

 

The rules also say that “otherwise illegal activity” should be “limited or minimized in scope to only that which is reasonably necessary.”

 

A U.S. official told The Washington Times that the bureau should have targeted Russian intelligence officials first to determine whether there was evidence that they were contacting or colluding with Trump people before authorizing domestic spying by what the source called an “agent provocateur.”

 

John Dowd, President Trump’s former defense counsel, said the FBI had a duty to notify, not spy on, Trump people.

 

“If you are concerned that the Russians are trying to penetrate a campaign or meddle with the election campaign process, you include the candidates and their top security professionals in that effort,” Mr. Dowd told The Times.

 

Obama Justice Department officials considered informing the Trump campaign that it was the target of Russian intelligence but opted not to, according to the final majority Republican report from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

 

The committee report recommended: “When consistent with national security, the intelligence community should immediately inform U.S. presidential candidates when it discovers a legitimate counter-intelligence threat to the campaign, and promptly notify Congress.”

 

J.D. Gordon, a former Pentagon spokesman and Trump campaign national security adviser, rejected Democrats’ arguments that the FBI informant was protecting the Republican candidate.

 

“Obama associates are misleading Americans about FBI surveillance of the Trump campaign,” he said. “If the FBI merely wanted to ‘protect’ the campaign and avoid tipping off the Russians, as we’re being told, they should have informed Mr. Trump of specific allegations about suspected individuals before the surveillance began. Failing that, it looks like one large sting-and-smear operation against the entire campaign, including Mr. Trump.”

 

https:// www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/30/fbi-guidelines-stefan-halper-shouldnt-be-used-spy-/

Anonymous ID: 5983be May 30, 2018, 6:19 p.m. No.1592320   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Blockbuster term: Justices could determine limits of courts’ ability to check Trump administration

 

Gerrymandering, First Amendment protections, and Trump’s tweets on Supreme Court’s docket

 

he Supreme Court over the next month is poised to upend the way the country picks representatives to Congress, decide whether the First Amendment protects people who refuse to do business with same-sex couples and rule on whether President Trump’s tweets can be used in court to derail his agenda.

 

After what analysts described as a lackluster term last year, this year is shaping up to deliver a series of blockbuster rulings that will signal to lower courts how they should treat the unorthodox Mr. Trump.

 

The biggest test comes on the president’s travel ban. His opponents have begged the justices to hold Mr. Trump’s campaign-era tweets against him, saying his comments about Muslims taint the travel policy he announced once he took office.

 

Led by Hawaii, the case is also the first big test of the blue state anti-Trump resistance to reach the high court, and analysts said it will test how far the court will go in acting as a brake on the administration.

 

“The travel ban case presents the court with the opportunity to look behind the texts of the travel ban itself and the rationale offered by the government to the anti-Muslim animus expressed by Donald Trump not just on the campaign trail but several times since he has been in office,” said Robert Tuttle, a law professor at George Washington University.

 

Mr. Tuttle said he could see the court upholding the current version of the policy.

 

Lower appeals courts have taken a skeptical view of Mr. Trump’s policy, which restricts admission of citizens from a number of countries that don’t fully cooperate with U.S. travel policies, but the justices seemed more open to the policy during oral argument.

 

Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, said a win for Mr. Trump will also send a message to the district courts against the issuance of nationwide injunctions against the president’s policies.

 

“If the court rules for Trump, it will send a message to the lower courts that it is unacceptable for them to join the resistance no matter what they may think about the president’s motives,” Mr. Levey said. The travel case, known officially as Trump v. Hawaii, is one of 29 rulings the justices are expected to deliver by the end of June, when the 2017-2018 session concludes.

 

Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law, said the most important takeaway from the term thus far is the court’s slow pace in issuing its decisions.

 

It is also the first full session for Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, who set court-watchers atwitter this year when he sided with the four Democrat-appointed justices in ruling against a law allowing legal immigrants to be deported if they commit a violent crime. He said the law was too vague in defining what constituted “crimes of violence.”

 

Mr. Levey said Justice Gorsuch could be the deciding factor in many of the pending high-profile cases. The early signs are that the court has become more conservative since he filled the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

 

https:// www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/30/supreme-court-term-consider-

trump-tweets-and-trave/

Anonymous ID: 5983be May 30, 2018, 6:35 p.m. No.1592485   🗄️.is 🔗kun

NYT Whitewashes Democrats’ Ties To Anti-Semite Farrakhan

 

Several Democrats have ties to anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan

The New York Times whitewashed those connections

NYT wrote that conservative media is trying “to tar Democrats by linking them to” the anti-Semite

 

The New York Times whitewashed several Democrats’ ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in an article that ran in Wednesday’s paper.

 

Farrakhan is a notorious racist and anti-Semite who has praised Adolf Hitler as a “very great man,” called white people “devils,” blamed Jews in Hollywood for gay marriage and described Jews as “satanic.”

 

Several congressional Democrats have ties to Farrakhan and the leaders of Women’s March have publicly declared their support for him.

 

The Times’s article on Wednesday focused on Democratic congressional candidate Leslie Cockburn, a former journalist running to replace Virginia Republican Rep. Tom Garrett. Virginia Republicans have accused Cockburn of anti-Semitism over an anti-Israel book that she authored in 1991.

 

The Times portrayed the accusations against Cockburn as emblematic of a larger battle on the Left.

 

“[F]or the Democratic Party, Ms. Cockburn’s candidacy could come to represent more than a single House seat,” wrote reporters Thomas Kaplan and Michael Tackett. The two reporters went on to paint a misleading picture of Democratic ties to Farrakhan.

 

That paragraph was misleading in three ways.

 

First, as The Daily Caller reported and as a Washington Post fact-check confirmed, Ellison actually misled the public for years about his relationship with Farrakhan.

 

The Times’s depiction — that Ellison “spent years trying to get beyond past associations with Louis Farrakhan” — resembles Ellison’s own spin. Here’s how Ellison answered questions about his ties to Farrakhan in a Dec. 14, 2016 appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”

 

WaPo awarded that claim “Four Pinocchios” — the worst possible rating in the D.C. paper’s fact-check system.

 

Second, The NYT claimed that “conservative news media continues to try to tar Democrats by linking them to Mr. Farrakhan” and linked to a DCNF article. The NYT did not reach out to TheDCNF for comment and didn’t respond to a request for comment on this report.

 

In addition to impugning this reporter’s motives without citing any evidence whatsoever, The Times portrayed reporting on Democrats’ Farrakhan ties as akin to a smear.

 

The Times did not mention that Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis praised Farrakhan in three different interviews with this reporter in February and March, including in a March 5 interview where Davis said he wasn’t bothered by Farrakhan’s answer to “the Jewish question.”

 

Davis’ hometown paper, the Chicago Tribune, slammed the congressman for his relationship with Farrakhan in an editorial that cited TheDCNF’s reporting.

 

Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii called Farrakhan “unacceptable in a progressive coalition or any political coalition” on March 8 after Farrakhan again accused Jews of secretly controlling the FBI to persecute black people.

 

“Antisemitism [sic] has no place in American society,” Schatz wrote.

 

That same day, Democratic South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn declined to condemn Farrakhan‘s anti-Semitism in a statement addressing why he shared a stage with the Nation of Islam leader. Clyburn, the number three Democrat in the House, still has yet to denounce Farrakhan.

 

http:// dailycaller.com/2018/05/30/nyt-whitewashes-democrats-farrakhan/