FBI Comey Cartoons

Conway challenges Comey to release info on Trump's wiretap allegation

Senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway challenged FBI Director James Comey Sunday to reveal any information he might have about President Trump’s allegations that former President Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign.
“If Mr. Comey has something he’d like to say I’m sure we’re all willing to hear it,” Conway told Fox News’ Jeanine Pirro in an interview on “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “All I saw was a published news report. I didn’t see a statement from him. I don’t know what Mr. Comey knows.
“If he knows, of course he can issue a statement,” Conway said. “We know he’s not shy.”
Conway said Trump may know whether he was wiretapped because he receives different intelligence reports than other White House officials. However, she did not provide specific details.
Conway’s challenge of Comey came after the New York Times reported that the FBI director asked the Justice Department to publicly reject Trump’s assertion that he had been wiretapped. According to the paper, Comey argued that Trump’s claim falsely implied that the FBI had broken the law.
Earlier Sunday, Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that nothing matching Trump's claims had taken place.
"Absolutely, I can deny it," said Clapper, who also said that he had “no knowledge” of a request for a FISA, or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Act, order for a wiretap, which requires at least some evidence of illegal activity.
Josh Earnest, who was Obama’s press secretary, took it a step further, saying that Trump’s accusations were an attempt to deflect the attention given to contacts between then-Sen. Jeff Sessions and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the campaign season. The FBI is investigating those contacts, as is Congress.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer said without elaborating Sunday that Trump's instruction to Congress was based on "very troubling" reports "concerning potentially politically motivated investigations immediately ahead of the 2016 election." Spicer did not respond to inquiries about the reports he cited in announcing the request.
Spicer said the White House wants the congressional committees to "exercise their oversight authority to determine whether executive branch investigative powers were abused in 2016." He said there would be no further comment until the investigations are completed, a statement that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., took offense to and likened to autocratic behavior.
"It's called a wrap-up smear. You make up something. Then you have the press write about it. And then you say, everybody is writing about this charge. It's a tool of an authoritarian," Pelosi said.
Spicer's chief deputy, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said she thinks Trump is "going off of information that he's seen that has led him to believe that this is a very real potential."
Sources told Fox News that Trump’s allegations caught senior federal law enforcement officials by surprise.
Those sources said that the officials in question had no idea what Trump was talking about when the president made the allegation on social media Saturday morning. The sources also told Fox that Trump did not consult with senior officials who would have been advised of any such wiretapping operations before posting the messages.

House Judiciary Committee Dems to ask WH counsel for details of communications with FBI, DOJ

Several Democrats on the House Judiciary plan to send a letter to White House counsel Don McGahn on Monday, urging him to release information on communications between his office and the FBI and Justice Department.
“We write to express our concern regarding reports of improper contacts between your office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, concerning the FBI’s ongoing review of efforts by the Russian government to unlawfully influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Mr. Trump,” a draft of the letter reads.
The letter details the weekend’s events surrounding President Trump’s allegation that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the presidential election. The lawmakers say that reports of contact between McGahn’s office and federal law enforcement were “more troubling.”
The letter cites reports that chief of staff Reince Priebus asked the FBI Director James Comey to dispute media reports that Trump’s campaign advisers were in frequent touch with Russian intelligence agents during the election.
“If these reports are accurate, then these communications are both inappropriate and in violation of Department of Justice guidance,” the lawmakers write.
The lawmakers demand McGahn provide information of “any and all contacts or other communications (including phone contacts, emails, texts, voicemails, notes or other forms of contact, whether written, oral, or otherwise) between anyone employed by or associated with the White House and any official or representative of the FBI or the Department of Justice, relating to any investigation into Russian interference in the recent presidential election and any related matter” by March 24.
The letter was co-signed by Reps. John Conyers Jr., Mich., Jerrold Nadler, N.Y., Steve Cohen, Tenn., Hank Johnson, Ga., Ted Deutch, Fla., Luis Gutierrez, Ill., Ted Lieu, Calif., and Jamie Raskin, Md.
Trump has provided no evidence that Trump Tower was wiretapped during the presidential election. Sources told Fox News that senior federal law enforcement officials were thrown off by the tweets.
Those sources said that the officials in question had no idea what Trump was talking about when the president made the allegation on social media Saturday morning. The sources also told Fox that Trump did not consult with senior officials who would have been advised of any such wiretapping operations before posting the messages.

Text of ObamaCare replacement bill coming this week, source says

Rep. Buddy Carter shares preview of GOP health care plan

Top Republican lawmakers plan to release the text of their bill to replace ObamaCare this week, a GOP aide told Fox News late Sunday.
The aide said staffers met with Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney on Friday to resolve outstanding issues with the bill. Health care committees from both houses of Congress worked with the White House to tie up any loose ends.
The aide added that House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., Health and Human Services secretary Tom Price and Mulvaney took part in a conference call Saturday to help "close out open issues."
"We are now at the culmination of a years-long process to keep our promise to the American people," said Ryan spokeswoman AshLee Strong.
Earlier Sunday, House Republicans tried to staunch criticism about a secretive and stalled process by revealing some specifics and vowing the full bill would soon be available for review.
“This plan will be out next week, and everybody will have a chance to see it,” Georgia Rep. Buddy Carter, a pharmacy owner and Republican member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told Fox News’ “America’s News Headquarters.”
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a physician with his own ObamaCare replacement plan, last week staged a media event in the Capitol building -- complete with a portable copy machine -- to find a draft of what he called House Republican leadership’s “secret” bill.
Ryan has dismissed such allegations by Paul and congressional Democrats, vowing last week that the bill would go through an open committee process.
The Wisconsin lawmaker and other top House Republicans have also insisted that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which associates costs with the bill, knows the details of the measure and claimed that revealing too much information could give critics an opportunity to defeat the bill before it’s even made public.
Essentially every elected Washington Republican, including President Trump, campaigned on a promise to repeal and replace ObamaCare amid increasing consumer costs and dwindling options.
However, Americans are concerned that repeal efforts will result in roughly 11 million people losing their health care coverage without a replacement.
Carter said that under the new plan, Americans with pre-existing medical conditions will qualify for coverage, like they did under President Obama’s 2010 Affordable Care Act.
He also said the replacement plan will still allow young adults to stay on their parents’ plans and include health saving accounts, which he described as “stalwarts” features.
Carter, whose Commerce committee will be a key House panel in reviewing the ObamaCare draft bill, also said insurance plans won’t be limited to the states in which they were bought and that ObamaCare’s so-called “individual mandate, or penalty for not buying insurance, will not be included.
“We've said we're trying to get a plan that is more accessible, more affordable and that's patient centered,” Carter said. “That's the key.”

Trump to reportedly sign revised travel ban order

100% Americanized?

A revised executive order temporarily banning the entry of people from several Middle Eastern and African countries and halting the nation’s refugee program is set to go to President Trump on Monday, a White House official said.
The White House official spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
The administration has repeatedly pushed back the signing of the new executive order as it has worked to better coordinate with agencies that it will need to implement the ban. The new order has been in the works since shortly after a federal court blocked Trump’s initial effort.
Trump was elected in November in large part on a national security platform that included stronger U.S. borders and putting an end to ISIS and other radical Islamic terror groups.
One of his first official acts after taking office in late-January was to sign executive orders that temporarily halted the U.S. refugee program and travel from seven mostly-Muslim, Middle Eastern and African countries.
The orders have been held up in a federal appeals court since early-February, with Trump weighing his options but making clear as recently as last week that he fully intends to fulfill his campaign pledge.
“The vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country,” Trump said during his address to a joint session of Congress last week.
“It is not compassionate, but reckless to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur,” he said.  “We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America. And we cannot allow our nation to become a sanctuary for extremists … That is why my administration has been working on improved vetting procedures, and we will shortly take new steps to keep our nation safe.”
The federal appeals court temporarily blocked parts of Trump’s executive orders and halted the travel ban, then denied the administration’s request to immediately lift the ban. Critics of the ban argue it was hastily crafted with parts lacking adequate constitutional authority.
To be sure, uncertainty about the status of green card holders caused confusion and sparked major protests at international airports across the country on the Saturday after Trump signed the executive order, which was followed by administration officials promptly issuing guidance on legal permanent U.S. residents, or green card holders, to exempt them from the ban.
According to a draft version of the new order outlined to lawmakers late last week, citizens of Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria and Libya will face a 90-day suspension of visa processing as the administration continues to analyze how to enhance vetting procedures.
The revised order is expected to remove Iraq from the list of countries that would be subject to a 90-day travel ban. That follows pressure from the Pentagon and State Department, which had urged the White House to reconsider, given Iraq's key role in fighting ISIS.
Other changes are also expected, including making clear that all existing visas will be honored and no longer singling out Syrian refugees for an indefinite ban. Syrian refugees will now be treated like other refugees and be subjected to a 120-day suspension of the refugee program.
The new version is also expected to remove language that would give priority to religious minorities. Critics had accused the administration of adding such language to help Christians get into the United States while excluding Muslims.

Clinton Uranium Russia Cartoons

Arrests made after some 'March 4 Trump' rallies turn violent

Trump Supporters

Trump Supporter

On the left is how the democrats want to protest, on the right a trump supporter.

Democrats should be proud of themselves, beating up on old people that support Trump.

This is how democrats peacefully demonstrate.

Democrats do not want to talk.

Arrests were made in some spots across the U.S. as hundreds of people railed in support President Trump Saturday.

Demonstrators from Colorado’s state capitol to Trump Tower in New York and the Washington Monument were seen carrying life-size cardboard cutouts of Trump as well as waving “Deplorables for Trump” signs.
However, not every rally went off without a hitch.
Police in Berkeley, Calif. said 10 people were arrested after Trump supporters and counter-protesters clashed during a rally that turned violent and left seven injured. None of the injured was hospitalized.
Meanwhile, six people protesting the rally in St. Paul, Minn. were arrested on felony riot charges after they lit fireworks inside the Minnesota State Capitol and fled, police said. About 400 people attended the event, and about 50 people showed up to protest it.
In Nashville, two people were arrested as protesters clashed with Trump supporters at the Tennessee Capitol. In Olympia, Wash., state police said four demonstrators were arrested at a support of Trump rally, KOMO-TV reported. The station reported that the demonstrators are accused of assaulting a police officer.
Near Mar-a-Lago, the Palm Beach Post reported that people on both sides exchanged profanity. Trump's motorcade briefly stopped so he could wave at supporters.
In Ohio, Trump supporter Margaret Howe, 57, of Pataskala, said she increasingly fears civil war.
"We did not want to have something like this happen," she said, adding, "We came out today because Trump deserves to see he still has people for him. It's just all sad."
A group of counter protesters gathered nearby, separated from the rally by police tape. They chanted "No Trump. No KKK. No fascist USA" and held signs with messages like "Your vote was a hate crime."
In other parts of the country, rallies were relatively peaceful.
In northwestern Pennsylvania, the Erie Times-News reported that about 100 people gathered at a square in downtown Erie for a similar demonstration. "We've got to get the whole country united behind this man," said Richard Brozell, 75, who along with his wife braved the mid-20s temperatures and stiff wind chill to attend
In Augusta, Maine, more than 100 people turned out for the event that was supposed to last three hours, but ended early because of freezing temperatures.
In Miami, supporters continued a rally while sipping espressos outside a Cuban restaurant, the Miami Herald reported.
At a North Carolina rally, speakers said the dishonest media and left wing politicians were bordering on sedition in their opposition to the Republican president. Some men were seen walking through the Raleigh crowd carrying a Trump flag as well as a Confederate flag. Gathered just behind the rally was a handful of protesters, some of whom blew air horns in an attempt to disrupt the event.
In Indianapolis, about 30 Trump supporters rallied at the Indiana Statehouse in Indianapolis to denounce what they see as unfair treatment of the Republican. A local organizer, 61-year-old Patty Collins, of Indianapolis, said Trump's critics "aren't giving him a chance."
Trump supporters turned out Saturday in Phoenix. Media outlets reported that several hundred people participated in the Phoenix event held on a lawn at the State Capitol.
In Texas, Austin police say about 300 people rallied in support of Trump in a gathering outside the Capitol during rain. Organizer Jennifer Drabbant said there have been so many protests against Trump that she and others wanted to show there are people who support him.
Scores of people have rallied in Virginia Beach, Virginia, in a show of support for Trump. The Virginian-Pilot reports around 200 Trump backers showed up Saturday for the event at a park. Some held American flags and others wore "Make America Great Again" hats and Trump T-shirts.
In Lansing, Michigan, about 200 Trump supporters rallied on one side of the state Capitol while 100 critics gathered on another side.
"Agree with President Trump or not, he is our president, and I think what I see happening in D.C. and with the Democrats — it can't stand," said Gary Taylor, 60.

Five Questions About the Clintons and a Uranium Company April 24, 2015

Amy Davidson is a New Yorker staff writer.

1. Was there a quid pro quo? Based on the Times reporting, there was certainly a lot of quid (millions in donations that made it to a Clinton charity; a half-million-dollar speaker’s fee) and multiple quos (American diplomatic intervention with the Russians; approvals when the Russian firm offered a very “generous” price for Uranium One). The Clinton perspective is that, although the approvals were delivered by the State Department when Clinton led it, there is no evidence that she personally delivered them, or of the “pro” in the equation. The Clinton campaign, in its response to the Times, noted that other agencies also had a voice in the approval process, and gave the Times a statement from someone on the approvals committee saying that Clinton hadn’t “intervened.” The Clinton spokesman wouldn’t comment on whether Clinton was briefed about the matter. She was cc’d on a cable that mentioned the request for diplomatic help, but if there is a note in which she follows up with a directive—an e-mail, say—the Times doesn’t seem to have it.

This speaks to some larger questions about political corruption. How do you prove it? Maybe the uranium people simply cared deeply about the undeniably good work the foundation is doing, and would have received the help and approvals anyway. In cases like this, though, how does the public maintain its trust? Doing so becomes harder when the money is less visible, which leads to the second question:

2. Did the Clintons meet their disclosure requirements? The Times writes, of the $2.35 million from Telfer’s family foundation, “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.” This is one of the more striking details in the story, because it seems so clear-cut that the donation ought to have been disclosed. Moreover, the Times says that the foundation did not explain the lapse. I also asked the foundation to explain its reasoning. The picture one is left with is convoluted and, in the end, more troubling than if the lapse had been a simple oversight. The legalisms can be confusing, so bear with me:

 the Clinton Foundation has several components, including the Clinton Global Initiative and—this is the key one—the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, formerly known as the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative. The memorandum of understanding makes it clear that the donor-disclosure requirement applies to each part of the foundation.

Craig Minassian, a Clinton Foundation spokesman, pointed out, though, that there are two legally separate but almost identically named entities: the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership and the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada). The second one is a Canadian charitable vehicle that Giustra set up—doing it this way helps Canadian donors get tax benefits. It also, to the foundation’s mind, obliterates the disclosure requirements. (There are also limits on what a Canadian charity is allowed to disclose.) Minassian added, “As complex as they may seem, these programs were set up to do philanthropic work with maximum impact, period. Critics will say what they want, but that doesn’t change the facts that these social enterprise programs are addressing poverty alleviation and other global challenges in innovative ways.” Minassian compared the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) to entirely independent nonprofits, like AmFAR or Malaria no More, which have their own donors and then give money to the foundation’s work.

This does not make a lot of sense unless you have an instinct for the most legalistic of legalisms. Unlike AmFAR, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) has the Clinton name on it. Money given to the Canadian entity goes exclusively to the foundation. Per an agency agreement, all of its work is done by the foundation, too. The Web site that has the C.G.E.P. name on it also has the Clinton Foundation logo and Bill Clinton’s picture; it also has a copyright notice naming the Canadian entity as the site’s owner. Anyone visiting the site would be justifiably confused. They are, in other words, effectively intermingled.

And what would it mean if the Canadian explanation flew—that the Clintons could allow a foreign businessman to set up a foreign charity, bearing their name, through which people in other countries could make secret multi-million-dollar donations to their charity’s work? That structural opacity calls the Clintons’ claims about disclosure into question. If the memorandum of understanding indeed allowed for that, it was not as strong a document as the public was led to believe—it is precisely the sort of entanglement one would want to know about. (In that way, the Canadian charity presents some of the same transparency issues as a super PAC.) At the very least, it is a reckless use of the Clinton name, allowing others to trade on it.

3. Did the Clintons personally profit? In most stories about dubious foundation donors, the retort from Clinton supporters is that the only beneficiaries have been the world’s poorest people. This ignores the way vanity and influence are their own currencies—but it is an argument, and the foundation does some truly great work. In this case, though, Bill Clinton also accepted a five-hundred-thousand-dollar speaking fee for an event in Moscow, paid for by a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin. That was in June, 2010, the Times reports, “the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One”—a deal that the Russian bank was promoting and thus could profit from. Did Bill Clinton do anything to help after taking their money? The Times doesn’t know. But there is a bigger question: Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State? In a separate story, breaking down some of the hundred million dollars in speaking fees that Bill Clinton has collected, the Washington Post notes, “The multiple avenues through which the Clintons and their causes have accepted financial support have provided a variety of ways for wealthy interests in the United States and abroad to build friendly relations with a potential future president.”

4. Putting aside who got rich, did this series of uranium deals damage or compromise national security? That this is even a question is one reason the story is, so to speak, radioactive. According to the Times, “the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” Pravda has said that it makes Russia stronger. What that means, practically, is something that will probably be debated as the election proceeds.

5. Is this cherry-picking or low-hanging fruit? Put another way, how many more stories about the Clintons and money will there be before we make it to November, 2016? The optimistic view, if you support Hillary Clinton or are simply depressed by meretriciousness, is that the Times reporters combed the Schweizer book and that this story was the worst they found. The pessimistic view is that it was an obvious one to start with, for all the reasons above, and that some names that stand out less than Uranium One and ARMZ will lead to other stories. Are the Clintons correct in saying that there is an attack machine geared up to go after them? Of course. But why have they made it so easy?