Eric Swalwell won't back down from Trump-Russia collusion claims: 'He can sue me'

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., said Monday he's ready for President Trump to sue him because he refuses to back down from his public assertions that there was evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia. During an interview on MSNBC, the California Democrat was asked to respond to a Trump re-election campaign memo asking TV producers to challenge their guests, including Swalwell, who in the past said there was proof of collusion. The memo was sent after Attorney General William Barr released a summary of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation which was unable to determine there was collusion between members of Trump's team and the Kremlin.

"To that I would say the only person who has made false statements about Russia is Donald Trump," Swalwell said on MSNBC. "And I stand by what I said about seeing evidence of collusion and if he has a problem with that, he can sue me. And I promise you I would win in court."

Swalwell, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, is quoted in the memo from a March 2018 interview on CNN saying, "In our investigation, we saw strong evidence of collusion." He was referring to his panel's Russia investigation. That inquiry took place when the House Intelligence Committee was in GOP control and concluded last February there was no collusion. Democrats complained that the investigation wrapped up prematurely, and now that the committee is being led by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., another person who has argued there is evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, a revamped investigation into Trump and people around him is underway.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/eric-swalwell-wont-back-down-from-trump-russia-collusion-claims-he-can-sue-me

The Kavanaugh effect: Kennedy's retirement looms large in gerrymandering case

Two cases before the Supreme Court Tuesday could yield rulings where the replacement of Justice Anthony Kennedy by Justice Brett Kavanaugh is acutely felt. The cases are related to partisan gerrymandering. Kavanaugh, the court's newest member and former judge on the federal appeals court in the District of Columbia, has yet to confront partisanship in the redistricting process, leaving his view shrouded in mystery.

“We don’t really have a good track record to draw on, and it’s a bit of a mystery going into this how some of the most conservative justices are going to view gerrymandering at this point,” Campaign Legal Center Vice President Paul Smith said. But the key to earning Kavanaugh’s vote could be conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, whose lead Kavanaugh appears to be following.

“If it turns out one or more of the plaintiff groups here have found a way to appeal to Chief Justice Roberts, I think it would be very possible to get Kavanaugh as well,” Smith said. Partisan gerrymandering opponents had looked to Kennedy as the swing vote, as he previously suggested a voting map may be so infected with politics it is unconstitutional. But the composition of the court changed after Kennedy’s retirement last year, and his replacement by Kavanaugh shifted the Supreme Court rightward. Conservatives tend to think the courts should not have a role in deciding how states draw districts.

The justices will hear arguments in cases involving congressional districts in North Carolina and Maryland, which lower courts struck down as unconstitutional because of an excessive injection of politics. The cases raise the question of whether extreme partisan gerrymandering runs afoul of the Constitution, which was posed to the justices last term. But the court issued technical rulings in challenges to voting maps from Maryland — before the court again Tuesday — and Wisconsin.

Kavanaugh hasn’t ruled on any redistricting cases so his views on the issue are unknown, and while he clerked for Kennedy on the Supreme Court, he is “his own man, he’s his own justice, he has his own views,” Loyola Law School professor Justin Levitt said. “I think he shares Justice Kennedy’s concerns and the concern of a lot of the justices with the use of state power to punish people for what they believe,” Levitt said. “There’s only one person who knows how far that principle will carry, and I’m not him. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see Kavanaugh, like the other justices on the court, really putting the questions for the advocates for the states about whether this is constitutionally acceptable.” The challenge to Maryland’s 6th Congressional District was brought by GOP voters who say the state’s Democrats retaliated against them for their support of Republicans in violation of the First Amendment.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/the-kavanaugh-effect-kennedys-retirement-looms-large-in-gerrymandering-case

>>5889317

Forgot to add this.

Supreme Court declines to take up Mueller-related case involving mystery company

Supreme Court declines to take up Mueller-related case involving mystery company

by Melissa Quinn

| March 25, 2019 11:02 AM

Print this article

Sign up for News from Washington Examiner

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge from an unnamed, foreign-owned company fighting a grand jury subpoena related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The court did not provide a reason for denying the petition from the company urging the justices to hear the case, and there were no noted dissents.

The company, known as “Corporation A” owned by "Country A,” has been fighting a subpoena issued by a federal grand jury last year as part of Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The corporation argued it did not have to comply with the subpoena because it was immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. But a lower court disagreed and ordered the company to comply with the subpoena or incur a $50,000 daily fine.

The federal appeals court in the District of Columbia affirmed the lower court’s ruling. In January, the mystery company asked the Supreme Court to freeze the financial fees, but the high court declined to do so. As a result, fines began accruing Jan. 15. The case involving the unknown company has remained one of the mysteries of Mueller’s probe, which lasted nearly two years and concluded Friday. Mueller delivered his report to Attorney General William Barr late Friday, setting up a fight over which details of the long-awaited investigation will be made public.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court-declines-to-take-up-mueller-related-case-involving-mystery-company

Podesta: ‘I Accept’ Mueller’s Conclusion on Conspiracy Between Trump Camp and Russia

On Monday’s “CBS This Morning,” former Clinton Campaign Chair John Podesta stated that he accepts Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s conclusion that there wasn’t sufficient evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Podesta said, “I think he’s a great professional, and he did a thorough investigation of this. He also found that there were 100 incidences where agents of the Russian government talked to members of the Trump campaign, and there were 28 meetings. He concluded ultimately that there was not beyond a reasonable doubt evidence of a conspiracy, and I accept that conclusion. But I think it’s important for us to see the whole report, not just Mr. Barr’s four-page summary of it, as well.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/03/25/podesta-i-accept-muellers-conclusion-on-conspiracy-between-trump-camp-and-russia/

Very interesting statement here…who did he talk to..hmm