Sealed response submitted in secret Supreme Court case over unnamed company fighting subpoena

The federal government filed a sealed response Friday to an unnamed foreign company’s fight to get the Supreme Court to weigh in on a mysterious grand jury subpoena rumored to be connected to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.
The filing’s contents are hidden from public view and it does not mention Mueller’s office, but was filed before a Dec. 31 deadline set by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
Details of the clash between the company and prosecutors remained unclear, but Politico reported it may involve Mueller’s team due to its secrecy.
A federal court last week ruled against the company’s effort to quash the subpoena. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held the company in contempt and rejected its arguments that its governmental ownership makes it immune from a grand jury subpoena.
The court also rejected that company’s request that it should be excused from responding to the subpoena because it violated the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and that the subpoena was unenforceable, the Hill reported.
Mueller’s team has not publicly commented on the dispute, while lawyers for President Trump said the case does not involve the president.
“We’re not involved in it — we’re not aware of the nature or scope of the litigation,” Jay Sekulow, one of the president’s lawyers, told the New York Times.
Aside from Mueller's probe into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, the special counsel has reportedly investigated actions involving other countries as well, including Turkey, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates, according to the Hill.
If the Supreme Court decides not to deal with the case, details of the fight and the identity of the company could remain secret, according to Politico.

House probe of FBI-DOJ's alleged anti-Trump, pro-Clinton bias hits unceremonious end -- with no report

House Republicans unceremoniously ended their investigation into the way the FBI and the Department of Justice handled Hillary Clinton’s email scandal and the bias allegations against President Trump.
The House probe was led by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Judiciary Committee and sought to look into allegations that the FBI and the DOJ were biased against Trump during the 2016 presidential election and favored Clinton’s candidacy.
Two Republicans chairing the committees – Reps. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and Robert Goodlatte, R-Va. – said in a letter Friday that the DOJ must appoint a special counsel to investigate the “seemingly disparate treatment” of the investigations into Clinton’s use of private emails and Trump’s alleged ties to Russia.
The letter came less than a week before the Republicans formally lose control of the House to Democrats, while both Gowdy and Goodlatte are retiring from politics.
The Democrats have long criticized the Republican-led probe as a distraction from Mueller’s Russia investigation, with U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, taunting Republicans for their unceremonious end of the probe.
“This is how the House Republican effort to undermine Mueller by ‘investigating the investigators’ ends. Not with a bang, but with a Friday, buried-in-the-holidays whimper, and one foot out the door,” he wrote in a tweet.
But both Gowdy and Goodlatte reject criticism that their investigation undermined the Mueller probe.
“Contrary to Democrat and media claims, there has been no effort to discredit the work of the special counsel,” they said. “Quite the opposite, whatever product is produced by the special counsel must be trusted by Americans and that requires asking tough but fair questions about investigative techniques both employed and not employed.”
The lawmakers sent the letter to the Justice Department and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., saying that their investigation “revealed troubling facts which exacerbated our initial questions and concerns.” The House investigation didn’t produce a full final report of the panel's findings.
Republicans say top FBI officials were biased against then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016, pointing to Peter Strzok, the disgraced FBI official who was ousted from Robert Mueller’s team and later from the agency after his anti-Trump text messages with his colleague and lover Lisa Page were revealed.
STRZOK, PAGE AND THE FBI TEXTING SCANDAL EXPLAINED
The pair exchanged more than 50,000 text messages throughout the 2016 presidential election, with many of them expressing anti-Trump sentiments. In one message, Page asked Strzok if Trump could become president, prompting his reply: “No. No he won't. We'll stop it.”
Goodlatte and Gowdy also refer to the report by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog earlier this year that claims Strzok’s anti-Trump text messages raise questions about the agency’s bias, while fired FBI Director James Comey repeatedly broke the protocol.
The lawmakers also stress in the letter that the probe into Clinton’s use of emails was too lenient and cleared her of any wrongdoing without sufficient inquiry into the controversy.
The letter urges Congress to continue the investigation, saying that “while Congress does not have the power to appoint a special counsel, Congress does have the power to continue to investigate,” and notes that “the facts uncovered thus far” merit the continuation of the probe.

Mueller Cartoons

Giuliani accuses Mueller of destroying evidence, calls for investigation

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 1:36 PM PT — Thursday, Dec. 27, 2018

President Trump’s attorney is calling for an investigation into special counsel Robert Mueller.
In an interview Thursday, Rudy Giuliani accused Mueller’s office of destroying evidence by allowing text messages sent between former FBI officials Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page to be erased.
Giuliani claimed those text messages would have shown the mind and tactics of one of Mueller’s lead prosecutors at the start of the Russia probe.
He said a second special counsel should be appointed to investigate Mueller’s possible role in the missing texts.
“How about destroying the 19,00 texts of Stzrok and Page right in the middle of them texting each other — ‘we hate Trump, we’re going to get Trump, we’re going to prevent him from being president, we’re going to have an insurance policy if he becomes president’ — and then all of a sudden, just coincidentally, they’re in charge of the investigation that could potentially remove him from office…that should be investigated fully,” stated Giuliani.
His comments come after a Department of Justice inspector general report found the government phones of Stzrok and Page had been wiped clean by technicians.

GOP share of Latino vote steady under Trump, bolstered by evangelicals and vets

Republicans are holding onto a steady share of the Latino vote in the Trump era. With a president who targets immigrants from Latin America, some analysts predicted a Latino backlash against the GOP. But it hasn’t happened. Data from AP’s VoteCast survey suggests Republicans are holding on to support from Latino evangelicals and veterans. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)

There is a larger bloc of reliable Republican Latinos than many think, as the GOP’s position among Latinos in America has not weakened during the Trump administration — this, despite presidential rhetoric against immigrants and the party’s shift to the right on immigration.
In November’s elections, 32 percent of Latinos voted for Republicans, according to AP VoteCast data. The survey of more than 115,000 midterm voters — including 7,738 Latino voters — was conducted for The Associated Press by NORC at the University of Chicago.
Other surveys also found roughly one-third of Latinos supporting the GOP. Data from the Pew Research Center and from exit polls suggest that a comparable share, about three in 10 Latino voters, supported Trump in 2016. That tracks the share of Latinos supporting Republicans for the last decade.
The VoteCast data shows that, like white voters, Latinos are split by gender — 61 percent of men voted Democratic in November, while 69 percent of women did. And while Republican-leaning Latinos can be found everywhere in the country, two groups stand out as especially likely to back the GOP — evangelicals and veterans.
Evangelicals comprised about one-quarter of Latino voters, and veterans were 13 percent. Both groups were about evenly split between the two parties. Mike Madrid, a Republican strategist in California, said those groups have reliably provided the GOP with many Latino votes for years.
“They stick and they do not go away,” Madrid said. Much as with Trump’s own core white voters, attacks on the president and other Republicans for being anti-immigrant “just make them dig in even more,” he added.
The Rev. Sam Rodriguez of Sacramento, California, one of Trump’s spiritual advisers, said evangelical Latinos have a clear reason to vote Republican. “Why do 30 percent of Latinos still support Trump? Because of the Democratic Party’s obsession with abortion,” Rodriguez said. “It’s life and religious liberty, and everything else follows.”
Pedro Gonzalez has faith in Donald Trump and his party.
The 55-year-old Colombian immigrant is a pastor at an evangelical church in suburban Denver. Initially turned off by Trump in 2016, he’s been heartened by the president’s steps to protect religious groups and appoint judges who oppose abortion rights. More important, Gonzalez sees Trump’s presidency as part of a divine plan.
“It doesn’t matter what I think,” Gonzalez said of the president. “He was put there.”
Some conservative Latinos say their political leanings make them feel more like a minority than their ethnicity does. Irina Vilariño, 43, a Miami restaurateur and Cuban immigrant, said she had presidential bumper stickers for Sen. John McCain, Mitt Romney and Trump scratched off her car. She said she never suffered from discrimination growing up in a predominantly white south Florida community, “but I remember during the McCain campaign being discriminated against because I supported him.”
The 2018 election was good to Democrats, but Florida disappointed them. They couldn’t convince enough of the state’s often right-leaning Cuban-American voters to support Sen. Bill Nelson, who was ousted by the GOP’s Spanish-speaking Gov. Rick Scott, or rally behind Democrats’ gubernatorial candidate, Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, who lost to Republican Rep. Ron DeSantis.
Still, in the rest of the country, there were signs that pleased Democrats. Latinos voted at high rates in an election that saw record-setting turnout among all demographic groups. Latinos normally have among the worst midterm turnout rates, and while official data won’t be available for months, a number of formerly-Republican congressional districts in California and New Mexico flipped Democratic.
That’s why Republicans shouldn’t take comfort in being able to consistently win about one-third of Latinos, said Madrid. They’re still losing two-thirds of an electorate that’s being goaded into the voting booth by Trump.
“That is contributing to the death spiral of the Republican Party — even if it holds at 30 percent,” Madrid said. “That’s a route to death, it’s just a slower one.”
Gonzalez, the pastor, sees the trend in Colorado. He distributed literature across Spanish-speaking congregations supporting Republican gubernatorial candidate Walker Stapleton, who was crushed by Democratic Rep. Jared Polis as the GOP lost every race for statewide office.
Gonzalez understands the anger among some Latinos at the GOP and Trump for what he says is a false impression of a solely hardline immigration stance. “In the community that is not informed, that is following the rhetoric of the media, there’s a view that Donald Trump is a bad guy,” Gonzalez said. Evangelicals “understand that he’s there to defend values.”

In Iraq, Trump meets soldier who rejoined Army for him

During his surprise trip to Iraq this week, President Trump shook hands with an Army soldier who said he went back into the military for the president.
“And I’m here because of you, so we have something in common,” Trump said with gratitude at the dining hall at al-Asad Air Base, Iraq, on Wednesday.
“Keep America great,” the soldier said to Trump, while taking a selfie with the president.
The soldier serves with the Brave Rifles, the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, formerly the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, currently stationed at Fort Hood.
Addressing troops at the airbase in western Iraq late Wednesday, Trump defended his decision to pull forces from neighboring Syria, declaring of Islamic State militants: “We’ve knocked them out. We’ve knocked them silly.”
Trump told his audience in Iraq that the decision to withdraw the roughly 2,000 troops from Syria illustrated his quest to put “America first.”
Trump campaigned for office on a platform of ending U.S. involvement in foreign trouble spots, such as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq. The Pentagon also is said to be developing plans to withdraw up to half of the 14,000 American troops still serving in Afghanistan.
“We’re no longer the suckers, folks,” Trump said at al-Asad Air Base, about 100 miles west of Baghdad. “We’re respected again as a nation.”
The base where Trump spoke is about 155 miles from Hajin, a Syrian town near the Iraqi border where Kurdish fighters are still battling Islamic State extremists.
“I made it clear from the beginning that our mission in Syria was to strip ISIS of its military strongholds,” said Trump, who wore an olive green bomber-style jacket as chants of “USA! USA!” greeted him.
“We’ll be watching ISIS very closely,” said Trump, who was joined by first lady Melania Trump, but no members of his Cabinet or lawmakers. “We’ll be watching them very, very closely, the remnants of ISIS.”
Trump said he had no plans to withdraw the 5,200 U.S. forces in Iraq. That’s down from about 170,000 in 2007 at the height of the surge of U.S. forces to combat sectarian violence unleashed by the U.S.-led invasion to topple dictator Saddam Hussein.
Trump said that after U.S. troops in Syria return home, Iraq could still be used to stage attacks on ISIS militants.

How the partial government shutdown came to be: A look behind the scenes

“We must cultivate our garden.” – "Candide" by Voltaire
The cultivation of the third government shutdown of 2018 began with a late-night Senate quorum call on Dec. 19.
Not an ersatz quorum call where a clerk reads “Mr. Alexander” and then falls silent for 15 minutes before uttering the next name on the scroll, “Ms. Baldwin.” Heaven knows when they would ever get to “Mr. Barrasso” or Mr. Bennet.”
No. The Senate was in a live quorum call in an effort to coerce senators to the chamber to eventually vote to fund the government. In this instance, the Senate was truly trying to determine whether Sens. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., John Barrasso, R-Wyo., Michael Bennet, D-Colo., and their 96 colleagues were present. A moment later, the Senate determined there wasn’t a quorum in the chamber. So the next vote was to “instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request the attendance of absent senators.”
In other words, if you’re a senator, you had better hop-to because they are about to bring the heat.
The live quorum call and Sergeant at Arms request was a crafty maneuver by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who planned to advance the stopgap spending bill without new border-wall funding. But McConnell wanted all 100 senators -- or as many were around late that Wednesday -- to be on hand so no one could complain he pulled a fast one. McConnell submitted the legislation to a voice vote. That is to say, not a roll-call tally, but a vote where everyone in favor hollers yea and those opposed shout nay.

McConnell wanted all 100 senators -- or as many were around late that Wednesday -- to be on hand so no one could complain he pulled a fast one.

A few senators called yea. None declared nay.
And with that, the Senate had approved the emergency spending bill. It would keep the government funded through Feb. 8.
But the House had to sync up.
The House Rules Committee is the way station for most legislation en route to the House floor. The Rules panel does just what it says it does. It establishes “rules” for debate. Parameters of how the House will handle a given bill, such as a time allotment and what amendments, if any, are even in order. If you don’t have a “rule” from the Rules Committee, you can’t consider the bill. The same goes if the full House defeats the “rule” on the floor.
The House GOP leadership controls the Rules Committee. The leadership mandates time and amendment restrictions. But late on Dec. 19, Republican members of the Rules Committee realized they had a problem. The Senate had just approved a bill without new wall funding. The Senate did so without debate or even a roll call vote. Orders from the Republican high command were to prepare a “rule” for the Senate-OK'd measure and put the legislation on the floor the next day. But there was a lot of angst among GOPers on the Rules Committee. Many of them didn’t want to craft a rule without border-wall funding. Moreover, rank-and-file Republicans were reluctant to consider a bill without new wall money. Hard-line Trump administration officials were coaxing Republicans to put up a fight for the wall. They argued that the GOP should back a bill with no new wall dollars only if it had a “majority of the majority” in the House. After all, this was a last-ditch effort.
Rules Committee Republicans faced a conundrum. They sensed a potential revolt by GOPers. They could follow marching orders and create a “rule” based around the construct of the Senate bill. The rule itself would likely require a weird coalition of some Republicans and lots of Democrats just to pass. Same with the bill. Or, the rule could crumble on the floor and go down to defeat. That would be a true embarrassment to Republicans and spark a mutiny.
Why did the Republican leadership misread the rank-and-file so badly? Why the noise about a border wall when the GOP was ready to fold? Why hand over the keys of the castle to the Democrats early?
You thought the comments about the macaroni-and-cheese dish by Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms were ugly on Twitter? This was about to get uglier.
“We decided to stay and fight,” said one House Republican.
Seven members of the House Rules Committee showed up to the 11 p.m. ET meeting on Dec. 19. Not a single Democrat on the committee surfaced. The panel first heard concerns from Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., about the disposal of nuclear waste. Then members of the Freedom Caucus made their appeals about the wall.
The hour grew late. It was after midnight. Key administration officials were out of pocket. The same with senior House Republican leaders.
The Rules Committee Republicans recessed their meeting. Not adjourned. But recessed “subject to the call of the chair.” That means they were coming back -- but exactly when wasn’t clear. But that’s what you do on Capitol Hill when there’s uncertainty. You recess the House, Senate or a committee “subject to the call of the chair.” Most significantly, the committee filed no “rule” for the Senate-passed stopgap spending bill. It would be up to the House Republican leadership to decide how to proceed on Thursday morning.

That’s what you do on Capitol Hill when there’s uncertainty: You recess the House, Senate or a committee “subject to the call of the chair.”

House Republicans met in a conference at 9 a.m. the next day, Dec. 20. Multiple sources tell FOX News that House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., asked GOPers to approve the Senate bill. The speaker explained how passing the interim spending bill now without new border-wall funding would make Democrats look bad in February. Democrats would be trying to launch their new House majority while bogged down in a spending fight with the administration just after President Trump’s State of the Union speech.
Mr. Trump phoned the Speaker a few moments into the conference meeting. Ryan excused himself. The gig was up. House Republicans would aim to pass a bill that funded the government but included $5 billion for the border wall.
“It was one last chance to stand up for our majority,” said one House Republican.
Later that night, the House approved the funding measure with wall money. The House and Senate were out of alignment. There was almost no way the Senate could tackle a bill with the wall. The partial government shutdown was all but a fait accompli.
Some questions:
McConnell put the “clean” spending bill on the floor Dec. 19. The Kentucky Republican repeatedly doubted there would be a shutdown. Did McConnell misread President Trump? Did the president and the White House mislead McConnell? Did House Republican leaders mislead McConnell?
How did Ryan and other House GOP leaders initially misread the White House and the desire of rank-and-file Republicans? Did they inflate the vote count of what a “majority of the majority” could support? Did the White House mislead Ryan into thinking the president would sign a Band-Aid bill without wall money?
And then there’s House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. She argued for weeks that Republicans couldn’t pass a bill on their own with wall funding. Pelosi is the best vote counter in Washington in decades. How did Pelosi misinterpret things? Or did Pelosi’s bravado backfire and provoke Republicans to vote yea? Regardless, the outcome on the wall vote was a shot across the bow of the speaker-in-waiting from the soon-to-be loyal opposition.
“We must cultivate our garden,” declared Candide. House Republicans knew what awaited them if they caved again with no new wall dollars. President Trump and most GOPers had long cultivated the expectation of a border wall. Perhaps even better yet, they cultivated a skirmish with Democrats if they refused to fund the wall. For if Republicans didn’t “cultivate their garden” when it came to the border wall, they may well find themselves cultivating something else: an insurrection with the conservative base.

Texas Border Cartoons

Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke helps stranded migrants dropped off by ICE in El Paso

In this Thursday, Nov. 29, 2018 photo, a migrant family from Central America waits outside the Annunciation House shelter in El Paso, Texas, after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer drops them off. (AP Photo/Russell Contreras)

Where's the Father of these Kids?

Congressman Beto O’Rourke is seeking donations to help support more than 200 migrants allegedly stranded at a bus station in Texas.
O’Rourke was in El Paso Monday, where he asked the public to donate money to a group which helps house, feed and clothe mostly illegal aliens. The migrants were reportedly dropped off at a Greyhound station by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials over the weekend after being released from detention.
O’Rourke spoke about needing more time from authorities in the future, so they can find somewhere to go.
“We’re trying to ensure that ICE gives the community notice next time, when they know that there’s not going to be space in existing migrant shelters, to give the community 24-hours heads up so that we can find hotel rooms, beds, alternative shelters, food, volunteers, everything that these people will need to make sure that they are okay,” he stated.
This comes amid the partial government shutdown, where negotiations are underway over a dollar amount for a border wall.
The congressman’s visit also comes as many continue to speculate about a potential 2020 run against President Trump.

Trump visits troops in Germany after surprise Iraq stop

President Trump made his second unannounced visit to U.S. troops abroad on Wednesday, according to reports.
On his way back from meeting troops in Iraq, Trump stopped at Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany for refueling and met with service members there.
Trump slowly made his way down a rope line at the German base, shaking hands, signing autographs, chatting and posing for selfies. Some service members held up “Make America Great Again” caps for Trump to sign.
The president’s earlier visit to a base in western Iraq, about 100 miles west of Baghdad, was his first to U.S. forces in harm’s way overseas.
He said it’s because of U.S. military gains against the Islamic State terror group that he can withdraw 2,000 forces from Syria. Trump said the U.S. mission in Syria was to strip ISIS of its military strongholds — not to be a nation builder. He said that’s a job that should be shouldered by other rich nations — reiterating his America First policies and an ideology that challenges America’s role as global cop.
Trump met with U.S. diplomats and senior military leaders and wished troops a happy holiday.
On Trump’s meeting with senior military leaders, Trump Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said: “The generals and President Trump came up with a powerful plan that will allow us to continue our path to total victory. People will see results in a short period of time.”
Asked whether “total victory” referred to the Islamic State group, she said, “It certainly has to do with that.”
Aboard Air Force One, Sanders told reporters that Iraq’s prime minister had accepted an invitation from Trump to visit the White House.
The two leaders spoke by phone. They did not meet when Trump was in Iraq.
The White House said security concerns and the short notice of the trip prevented Trump from meeting with Adel Abdul-Mahdi.
Abdul-Mahdi’s office said in a statement that “differences in points of view over the arrangements” prevented the two from meeting face-to-face, but they discussed security issues and Trump’s order to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria over the phone.
Trump’s visit didn’t come without local opposition.
The head of a powerful Iraqi militia that enjoys backing from Iran is threatening to expel U.S. forces from Iraq after the unannounced visit.
Qais Khazali, the head of the Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia, promised on Twitter that Iraq’s parliament would vote to expel U.S. forces from Iraq, or the militia and others would force them out by “other means.”
Khazali is an avowed opponent of the U.S. who rose to prominence as a leader in the Shiite insurgency against the U.S. occupation. He was detained by British and U.S. forces in Iraq from 2007 to 2010.
Asaib Ahl al-Haq is represented in Iraq’s parliament by the Binaa bloc, one of the two rival coalitions which together control nearly all the seats in the lawmaking body.
Likewise, the head of one of two main blocs in Iraq’s Parliament is denouncing Trump’s unannounced visit, calling it a “blatant violation of Iraq’s sovereignty.”
Iraq’s government has close military and diplomatic ties with Washington, though few parties want to be seen as overly close to the U.S.
The Islah bloc is considered closer to the U.S. than the rival Binaa bloc, which espouses close ties with Iran.