Kirsten Gillibrand Cartoons

Russia investigation 'case closed,' move on to probe Comey, Strzok: Graham

Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation should be considered "case closed" and concentration should be put on the origins of the probe, Lindsey Graham said.
Sen. Graham, R-S.C., said on "Hannity," he believed that with Mueller deciding President Trump did not collude with Russia and not to bring an obstruction of justice case against him, the investigation is over.
"When [Mueller] met with Barr personally... weeks before the report was given out, he told Barr, I can't decide about obstruction... but I did not make my decision based on DOJ policy that you can't indict a sitting president," Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, claimed.
Graham said Mueller did not find proof there was, "no collusion with the Russians. He decided not to bring a case against the president based on obstruction."
"To me, case closed. Let's look at Comey and McCabe, [former FBI Agent Peter] Strzok, [former FBI lawyer Lisa] Page [and] all these other people, and see how we got into this mess to begin with," he added.
The senator noted Connecticut federal prosecutor John Durham is examining the origins of the Russia investigation.
"Durham is going to look at all of these cast of characters to see if they broke the law. And, Barr is going to make sure that the DOJ is reformed so it's never abused in this way in the future," the South Carolina lawmaker added.
Graham said he is also awaiting a report on from Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz on potential surveillance abuses at the FBI.
"So, Horowitz will issue his report about the FISA warrant process. I will take that report and see if we need to change our laws to make sure it never happens again," he said.
"At the end of the day, you can't have people enforcing the law taking it into their own hands for political purposes."

Ex-Trump lawyer slams Mueller report as a ‘fraud,’ cites misleading quote

Ex Trump lawyer John Dowd on Monday slammed the Mueller report as a "fraud," for allegedly mispresenting a quote he had said in a voicemail.
Dowd said there will likely be more discrepancies in the future stemming from the report.
“Isn’t it ironic that this man [Mueller], who kept indicting and prosecuting people for process crimes, committed a false statement in his own report,” Dowd said.
U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes called for the release of “all backup and source information” for the Mueller report on Friday after a newly released transcript of a former Trump lawyer's 2017 voicemail message included content that did not appear in a version that was part of the special counsel's Russia investigation findings.
Nunes, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, was reacting to the release of a voicemail message that John Dowd, a former lawyer for President Trump, had left for a lawyer representing former national security adviser Michael Flynn, in which Dowd asks for a “heads up” if Flynn planned to say anything damaging about Trump to Mueller’s team.
Nunes retweeted a side-by-side comparison of the Dowd transcript text and the Mueller report text, suggesting that the Mueller report did not disclose the full Dowd message. The Mueller report had redacted the part of the voicemail where Dowd said he wanted the heads up “not only for the president but for the country” and that he wasn’t asking for “any confidential information.”
Alan Dershowitz claimed on "Hannity" Monday night that the quotation was "distorted."
"This is a very, very serious issue," he said. "The distortion of the Dowd quote is very serious. Especially since, remember, that a report by a special counsel is always going to be one-sided. Therefore, you have to trust it."
Dowd said, according to the transcript: “I understand that you can’t join the joint defense; so that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, there’s information that... implicates the president, then we’ve got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I don’t know... some issue, we got to — we got to deal with, not only for the president, but for the country. So... uh... you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads-up.”
Federal prosecutors released the transcript in a court filing. Flynn, who pleaded guilty last year to lying to federal investigators about contacts with Russians and is awaiting sentencing, said the call was an effort to obstruct his cooperation with Mueller’s probe.
Fox News' Greg Wilson and Brie Stimson contributed to this report.

Judge tosses House Dems' lawsuit over Trump's use of emergency military funds for border wall

Washington, D.C., district court Judge Trevor McFadden threw out House Democrats' lawsuit seeking an injunction against President Trump's emergency border wall funding reallocation, saying that the matter is fundamentally a political dispute and that the politicians lack standing to make a legal case.
Trump had declared a national emergency this past February over the humanitarian crisis at the southern border, following Congress' failure to fund his border wall legislatively. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Democrats then filed suit in April, charging that Trump was "stealing from appropriated funds” by moving $6.7 billion from other projects toward border wall construction.
Democrats argued that the White House had "flouted the fundamental separation-of-powers principles and usurped for itself legislative power specifically vested by the Constitution in Congress."
But, in his ruling, McFadden, a Trump appointee, suggested Democrats were trying to circumvent the political process.
"This case presents a close question about the appropriate role of the Judiciary in resolving disputes between the other two branches of the Federal Government. To be clear, the court does not imply that Congress may never sue the Executive to protect its powers," McFadden wrote in his opinion. "The Court declines to take sides in this fight between the House and the President."
McFadden's ruling contrasted with U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam’s injunction last week, which blocked the administration from using the reallocated funds for projects in specific areas in Texas and Arizona. Gilliam had been appointed by then-President Barack Obama.
McFadden began by focusing on two guiding Supreme Court cases he called "lodestars"-- the 2015 case Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, and the 1997 case Raines v. Byrd.
"Read together, Raines and Arizona State Legislature create a spectrum of sorts," McFadden wrote. "On one end, individual legislators lack standing to allege a generalized harm to Congress’s Article I power. On the other end, both chambers of a state legislature do have standing to challenge a nullification of their legislative authority brought about through a referendum."
But, McFadden quickly distinguished the Arizona State Legislature case, which found institutional standing for legislators only in a limited instance. The Arizona case, the judge noted, "does not touch or concern the question whether Congress has standing to bring a suit against the President," and the Supreme Court has found there was "no federal analogue to Arizona’s initiative power."
Democrats' dispute was more similar to the one in the Raines case, McFadden wrote. Under the framework and factors considered in Raines -- including how similar matters have been handled historically, and the availability of other remedies besides litigation -- McFadden ruled that House Democrats lacked standing.
Concerning past historical practice, the Trump administration argued in its brief that when Congress was concerned about "unauthorized Executive Branch spending in the aftermath of World War I, it responded not by threatening litigation, but by creating the General Accounting Office." The judge cited that argument approvingly in his opinion, calling it "persuasive."
Examples of hotly debated political questions being resolved without involving the courts, McFadden continued, "abound" throughout history.
For example, McFadden wrote, in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt "fired an official from his Senate-confirmed position at the Federal Trade Commission. ...The President removed the official without providing a reason. ... The Senate likely had a 'strong[] claim of diminution of' its Advice and Consent power. ... Yet the Senate made no effort to challenge this action in court."
Additionally, McFadden said Democrats retained constitutional legislative options with which to remedy their objections about the president's purported misuse of the Appropriations Clause. Under Supreme Court precedent in the Raines case, McFadden asserted, the existence of those additional options suggested Democrats lacked standing.
McFadden noted in particular that Democrats retained the power to modify or even repeal the appropriations law if they wanted to "exempt future appropriations" from the Trump administration's reach.

This May 29 photo released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection showed some of 1,036 migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas, the largest that the Border Patrol says it has ever encountered. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection via AP)

Because the White House had not "nullified" that legislative power, McFadden wrote, there was no urgent need for judicial intervention sufficient to override the considerations of the political question doctrine, which holds that courts generally stay out of politically sensitive matters best left to voters.
"Congress has several political arrows in its quiver to counter perceived threats to its sphere of power," McFadden wrote. "These tools show that this lawsuit is not a last resort for the House. And this fact is also exemplified by the many other cases across the country challenging the administration's planned construction of the border wall."
McFadden continued: "The House retains the institutional tools necessary to remedy any harm caused to this power by the Administration’s actions. Its Members can, with a two-thirds majority, override the President’s veto of the resolution voiding the National Emergency Declaration. They did not. It can amend appropriations laws to expressly restrict the transfer or spending of funds for a border wall under Sections 284 and 2808. Indeed, it appears to be doing so."
The judge added that House Democrats had the burden of demonstrating that they had standing -- a difficult hurdle for any plaintiff to clear, which involves showing a particularized injury that the court can address.
To that end, McFadden quoted former Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the seminal 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, in which Marshall wrote, the "province of the [C[ourt is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to enquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion."
McFadden also wrote, quoting from another Supreme Court case, "Intervening in a contest between the House and President over the border wall would entangle the Court 'in a power contest nearly at the height of its political tension' and would 'risk damaging the public confidence that is vital to the functioning of the Judicial Branch.'"
Lawmakers expressly approved only $1.375 billion in the weeks after the shutdown, to go toward funding to 55 miles of wall along the southern border. But, Trump said that was inadequate, and he pushed ahead by moving funds from other Homeland Security projects previously approved by legislators. In his budget request earlier this year, Trump formally requested another $8.6 billion from Congress, saying that would be sufficient to build more than 700 miles of wall.
The emergency-appropriated funding alone could be used to build more than 230 miles of barriers.
At a hearing in May, McFadden hinted that courts should stay out of the matter -- and suggested an appeal was imminent regardless.
"I’m not sure how much necessarily our views will carry the day for the courts above us," McFadden said at the hearing.
Disagreement already has been brewing in the lower courts, setting the stage for appellate panels to step in. Gillam, the Northern District of California judge who ruled last month that Trump was likely breaking the law by reallocating the wall funds, blocked some projects slated for immediate construction in Yuma and El Paso.
"In short, the position that when Congress declines the Executive’s request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds without Congress does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic," Gilliam wrote.

Judge orders Paul Manafort to be transferred to New York City’s notorious Rikers Island

Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who was sentenced earlier this year to four years in prison for tax and bank fraud related to his work advising Ukrainian politicians, will be transferred later this week from a minimum security facility in Pennsylvania to New York City’s Rikers Island, a source close to Manafort told Fox News.
Rikers Island is the famous jail in the shadow of LaGuardia Airport. It has been the temporary home of some of the most high-profile violent criminals in the city, including  David Berkowitz, the Son of Sam; and Mark David Chapman, the man who killed John Lennon.
"He’s not a mob boss," the source close to Manafort said.
A New York State judge ordered the transfer at the request of New York City District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr. He will be held in solitary confinement for his own protection, the source said. The move is expected to happen as early as Thursday.
Vance, a Democrat, said in March that a New York grand jury charged Manafort with 16 counts including residential mortgage fraud, falsifying business records and other charges. He said at the time that “no one is beyond the law in New York.” Manafort cannot be pardoned by President Trump for state crimes.
Vance’s office did not immediately respond to an email from Fox News late Monday. Manafort’s defense team is planning an appeal, according to the source.
Manafort’s conviction in August made him the first campaign associate of President Trump found guilty by a jury as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis emphasized ahead of sentencing that the Manafort case was not about Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Ellis said that the guidelines of sentencing Manafort to between 19 and 24 years in prison were "excessive for this case." Manafort will receive credit for the nine months he's already served. Manafort was also hit with a $50,000 fine.
Prosecutors said Manafort, 69, hid income earned from political work overseas from the IRS while fraudulently obtaining millions in bank loans. Manafort had pleaded not guilty to all 18 counts in the case.
He is still facing additional years in prison from another case: After his conviction in Virginia, Manafort pleaded guilty in Washington to foreign lobbying violations and witness tampering as part of a plea deal with prosecutors. He has not yet been sentenced in that case, and Mueller’s team recently asked a federal judge to sentence him to 24 years in prison and order him to pay as much as a $24 million fine.
Fox News' Alex Pappas and Danielle Wallace contributed to this report

Mayor Bill de Blasio Cartoons

Trump calls London’s mayor ‘the twin of de Blasio, except shorter’

President Trump landed in the U.K. on Monday for the start of a weeklong journey that is largely ceremonial and continued his barrage of criticism for London Mayor Sadiq Khan who recently penned a critical column of the president he sees as a "global threat."
Prior to departing from Washington on Sunday, Trump called Khan the "twin" of New York City’s liberal Mayor Bill deBlasio “except shorter.”
The New York mayor, a Trump critic himself, is 6'5. Khan is 5'6, according to reports.
The London mayor recently said Trump was not in the “same class” as his predecessors. Prior to Trump’s visit, Khan wrote a column titled, “It’s un-British to roll out the red carpet for Donald Trump.”
Khan pointed out Trump’s most controversial policy initiatives and likened them to the actions of European dictators of the 1930s and 40s.
“Donald Trump is just one of the most egregious examples of a growing global threat,” Khan wrote. “The far right is on the rise around the world, threatening our hard-won rights and freedoms and the values that have defined our liberal, democratic societies for more than seventy years.”
Trump told reporters that he does not give Khan much thought, but went on to compare him to de Blasio, who announced his bid for president. Trump has called de Blasio “the worst mayor in the history of New York City,” according to The New York Post.
Despite playing down how much thought he gives Khan, Trump continued the attack Monday and said on Twitter that Khan reminds him of "our very dumb and incompetent Mayor of NYC." He called Khan a "stone cold loser."
Trump attempted to clarify that he would not let Khan dampen his trip and said he looks forward to the visit, which includes a state visit and an audience with Queen Elizabeth II in London
Trump will be in the U.K. from Monday to Wednesday to commemorate the 75th anniversary of D-Day, which comes at a tumultuous time in British politics, with Prime Minister Theresa May due to step down on Friday.
Trump has weighed into the debate on who should replace May and threw his support behind former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.
Fox News' Adam Shaw contributed to this report

Roger Stone post calls for former CIA Director John Brennan to be 'hung for treason': report

John Brennan

Longtime Trump associate Roger Stone reportedly called for former CIA Director John Brennan to be “hung for treason” in a now-deleted social media message posted Saturday night.
Stone, a veteran Republican political consultant, called out Brennan in a series of Instagram videos and posts, Newsweek reported.
One post featured an image of Brennan with the caption: “This psycho must be charged, tried, convicted...and hung for treason,” according to a screenshot published by the outlet.
It was reportedly deleted an hour later. Robert Buschel, Stone's attorney, did not immediately respond to an email from Fox News for comment.
Brennan, who served as former President Barack Obama’s CIA director, has been accused by Republicans–along with former FBI Director James Comey—of relying too heavily on the much reported dossier, compiled by British intelligence official Christopher Steele, to launch the Justice Department’s investigation into the Trump campaign and its suspected ties to Russia.
Brennan has denied that the dossier played a role in the intelligence community’s surveillance program.
Stone, who briefly worked for Trump’s presidential campaign, has been charged by Special Counsel Robert Mueller with witness tampering, obstruction and making false statements. He entered a plea of not guilty.