Johnny Depp Cartoons

Just your average spoiled ass Liberal.

Just your average spoiled ass Liberal.

Just your average spoiled ass Liberal.

Just your average spoiled ass Liberal.

Mueller's team have donated to Democrats

Three members of the legal team known to have been hired so far by special counsel Robert Mueller to handle the Russia investigation have given political donations almost exclusively to Democrats, according to a CNN analysis of Federal Election Commission records.

More than half of the more than $56,000 came from just one lawyer and more than half of it was donated before the 2016 election, but two of the lawyers gave the maximum $2,700 donation to Hillary Clinton last year.

Over the weekend, news outlets including CNN identified five attorneys that Mueller has already brought on board to help investigate potential collusion between associates of President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia.

The group includes seasoned attorneys who worked on cases ranging from Watergate to the Enron fraud scandal and have represented major American companies in court. While only five attorneys have been publicly identified as working on the Russia probe, there could be more on Mueller's team.

Three of the five lawyers have donations in FEC records. They gave overwhelmingly to Democrats, totaling more than $53,000 since 1988. More than half of the donations came from just one of the lawyers, James Quarles, whom Mueller brought over from his old firm, WilmerHale.

Quarles has given nearly $33,000 to political campaigns over the years. He gave money to Democratic presidential candidates Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In addition, Quarles gave more than $10,000 to help Democrats get elected to the House and another $10,000 on the Senate side, including money to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

But Quarles is also the only lawyer among Mueller's team for which records were available who ever donated to Republicans. He gave $2,500 to Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz in 2015 and gave $250 to then-Sen. George Allen of Virginia in 2005.

Only about 30% of the donations were for elections in 2016. But Quarles and Jeannie Rhee, who also left WilmerHale to work on the Russia probe, gave the maximum contribution of $2,700 to Clinton's campaign last year.

Rhee was the second-largest donor among Mueller's known team. Rhee has donated more than $16,000 since 2008, all to Democrats. She maxed out to the Clinton campaign in 2016 and 2015, totaling $5,400. She also gave a total of $7,300 to Obama's two presidential campaigns. She has already received attention for representing the Clinton Foundation in a racketeering lawsuit brought by a conservative advocacy group, and also represented Clinton herself in a lawsuit seeking access to her private emails.

Mueller, who was appointed to be FBI director by Republican President George W. Bush, also hired Andrew Weissmann to join his team. Weissmann, who led the Enron investigation, previously gave $2,300 to Obama's first presidential campaign in 2008 and $2,000 to the Democratic National Committee in 2006, the same year Democrats won control of Congress.

FEC records do not show any donations by Weissman in the 2016 election cycle.

There also are no FEC records for Aaron Zebley, who left WilmerHale to work on the Russia investigation. Zebley once represented former Hillary Clinton aide Justin Cooper, who helped manager her private email server.

Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben has also joined Mueller's team. While there is a Michael Dreeben in the FEC database, who is identified as a deputy solicitor with the Justice Department and who gave $1000 to Hillary Clinton's senate campaign in 2006, a spokesman for Mueller's team told CNN late Monday that that is not the same person.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who endorsed Trump and was on his vice-presidential shortlist, suggested Monday that Mueller's team can't be impartial because of their past donations.

"Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair," Gingrich tweeted, reversing his previous praise for Mueller. "Look who he is hiring. Check FEC reports. Time to rethink."

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller as special counsel, told senators on Tuesday that he doesn't see any problems with the political donations from some members of Mueller's legal team.

Asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham whether political donations should prevent attorneys from working on the investigation, Rosenstein replied, "no, senator, it is not a disqualification. It is not."

Even with the questions about Mueller's team, former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who led investigations into President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, said he has confidence in the team.

"He has his head down, he's doing his job, he's assembled a fantastic team," Starr said Monday to ABC News. "That is a great, great team of complete professionals, so let's let him do his job."

There aren't any records of political donations from Mueller himself. A spokesman for Mueller declined to comment Monday afternoon about the political donations from his legal team and the criticism some of the team were partisan.

Mueller received near-universal praise since taking over the investigation on May 17. But with the investigation ramping up, Trump's legal team is looking for new ways to go on the offensive. In a TV appearance over the weekend, one of Trump's lawyers wouldn't rule out the possibility of firing Mueller.

CORRECTION: This story has been updated to reflect the Mueller team spokesman telling CNN that the Dreeben identified in FEC records as a deputy solicitor with the Justice Department who donated to Clinton in 2006 is not the same person working for Mueller.

CNN's Evan Perez contributed to this report.

 

Trump says Comey-Mueller friendship 'bothersome'

Fair investigation by Mueller?

Comey-Mueller friendship

President Trump on Friday called the investigation into allegations of Russia collusion and claims he obstructed justice “ridiculous” while saying special counsel Robert Mueller’s friendship with fired FBI Director James Comey “is very bothersome,” during a wide-ranging interview on “Fox & Friends” that also touched on his stalled legislative agenda and the health care debate.
“Robert Mueller is an honorable man and hopefully he’ll come up with an honorable conclusion,” Trump said, though he noted that Mueller and Comey were “very, very good friends” and also criticized the makeup of Mueller’s growing team of attorneys involved in the investigation.
“I can say that the people that have been hired are all Hillary Clinton supporters, some of them worked for Hillary Clinton,” Trump said. “I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous if you want to know the truth.”
A day earlier, Trump revealed on Twitter that he had not taped conversations between himself and Comey – addressing a question he helped raise in the first place – but on Friday he said his strategy in suggesting possible recordings was all about keeping Comey honest.
NO TAPES: TRUMP SAID HE DIDN'T RECORD COMEY
“When he found out that there may be tapes out there…I think his story may have changed,” Trump said. “I mean you’ll have to take a look at that because then he has to tell what actually happened at the events.”
He added: “[The suggestion] wasn’t very stupid. He did admit that what I said was right and, if you look further back before he heard about that, maybe he wasn’t admitting that.”
Comey had been reluctant to say in public what he later revealed he told Trump three times in private – that the president was not the subject of any FBI investigation. But after Trump’s “tapes” tweet, Comey leaked to The New York Times the contents of highly-detailed memos regarding his one-on-one meetings with Trump, a development that eventually spurred congressional testimony and ultimately led Comey to admit he assured Trump multiple times he wasn’t the subject of a federal probe.
Trump claimed a victory in getting Comey to confess the personal reassurances he’d given him – and also in instigating the testimony during which Comey stunningly revealed he engineered the post-firing leak to The Times.
“There has been no obstruction, there has been no collusion – there has been leaking, by Comey,” Trump said on Friday.
Of course, Comey’s revelations also prompted the eventual appointment of Mueller to oversee the investigation, which reportedly began focusing on if Trump obstructed the Russia investigation by firing Comey on May 9.
GOP SENATORS UNVEIL OBAMACARE OVERHAUL
Turning to the contentious battle to pass a new health care legislation, Trump said the four Republican senators -- Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Ron Johnson -- who on Thursday said they weren't yet ready to vote "yes" for the GOP's Senate bill were "four good guys and four friends of mine." He expressed optimism the quartet would eventually drop their opposition.
"I think we're going to get there, we have four very good people..and we'll see if we can take care of them," Trump said.
The president also stressed how quickly the GOP has been able to send a health care overhaul package to the Senate, even if the process has been messy at times.
"I've done in five months what other people haven't done in years," Trump said.
FOUR KEY REPUBLICANS COME OUT AGAINST GOP HEALTH BILL
And though it appeared the bill would eventually have to pass with little or no Democratic support, Trump expressed hope Democrats would eventually decide to work with Republicans on issues ranging from infrastructure funding to tax reform.
“They are, right now, obstructionists,” Trump said. “All they wanna do is obstruct. I think they’d do much better as a party if they tried to get along with us."
He added: “I think the American public is tired of obstructionists.
“Boy, would the people love to see the two parties getting together and coming up with the perfect health care plan."

Trudeau: Trump does listen, NAFTA will remain

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Thursday said that--contrary to public perception-- President Trump does in fact listen to opposing views.
Once the crowd in Toronto stopped laughing, Trudeau continued, "No, I can understand the laughter but there's a lot of politicians who have a deep, vested interest in being right all the time and therefore close themselves off sometimes to facts or evidence or differing opinions."
He continued, “What I’ve found from this president is he will listen to arguments made. He will look at the ensemble of facts and proposals of impacts you put together, and he will be open to shifting his position.”
Perhaps being labeled a politician who "shifts positions" falls short of praise in the U.S., Trudeau appears to show a willingness to engage in meaningful dialog with his southern neighbor.
Trudeau, 45, and former President Obama, 55, got along famously. There was speculation early on in Trump's presidency that he and Trudeau would clash. To be sure, if there is a major international topic, they disagree: trade, immigration and climate.
Trudeau is a liberal who champions free trade and has welcomed 40,000 Syrian refugees. He calls himself a feminist and women make up half his Cabinet.
He made the comments in Toronto at an event co-sponsored by The New York Times.
Perhaps the most important issue facing the two countries are Trump's plans for the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Trump has called the deal "the worst" trade deal in history and threatened to back out. Trump has since agreed to renegotiate.
Trudeau told the audience that he is “100 percent” certain that NAFTA will be in place by 2018.
“NAFTA will remain a hugely important and successful trade deal for both our countries,” Trudeau said.
Brian Mulroney, the former Canadian prime minister, said in an interview in February that he believes that Trump and Trudeau will have a fine relationship.
“I know both of them. I know their skills and some of their attributes and their talents,” Mulroney said. “I think they are going to find a lot to be happy about.”

Rep. Gowdy Condemns Leaks From Meeting with Intelligence Director

Bailey Comment: All of this crap coming from the liberal left will continue until the traitors are put in jail instead of being protected by the government.

A top GOP congressman warns fellow lawmakers about leaking information from closed meetings after details emerge from the director of national intelligence’s private congressional testimony.
South Carolina lawmaker Trey Gowdy appeared outraged after he says his Thursday meeting with Dan Coats wouldn’t be leaked, but just hours later specific details from the meeting were given to the press.
It comes after Coats met with House investigators, reportedly about the probe into President Trump and Russia.
While Gowdy made it clear he wouldn’t leak information, others didn’t follow suit.
Gowdy said he doesn’t know who leaked the information because their were eight other people in the room.

White House wants more ‘outrage’ over Johnny Depp comments

WASHINGTON — The White House on Friday complained about a “lack of outrage” towards violent language aimed at President Trump, “Julius Caesar” in which the assassinated Roman emperor is dressed and made up to look like Trump.

“I think it’s troubling, whether it’s that or Johnny Depp’s comments,” Spicer told reporters. “It is, frankly, my belief, real troubling the lack of outrage that we’ve seen in some of these instances where people have said what they have said with respect to the president and the actions that should be taken.”

Earlier, Depp apologized for controversial remarks he made Thursday at England’s Glastonbury Festival, during which he asked the audience, “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?” The “21 Jump Street” actor described it as a “bad joke.”

Spicer continued, “The president’s made it clear we should denounce violence in all of its forms. And I think if we’re going to hold to that standard, then we should all agree that that standard should be universally called out.”

The spokesman also said, “It’s concerning when you see a pattern that these comments get made, these actions get depicted, and the lack of attention that they get when it’s on our side.Spicer’s comments came after Trump signed a bill designed to help fix the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Asked about the apparent disconnect, Spicer said it was important to “condemn” all calls to political violence but said he was “not aware” of Baldasaro’s comments.

“But again, I’ll say right now that I don’t think that we should be resorting to that kind of language with respect to anybody in our country,” Spicer said.

The Secret Service is “aware” of Depp’s comments, according to spokesperson Mason Brayman. But Brayman declined to say whether the remarks would rate a visit from agency officers. “For operational security reasons, we do not discuss specifically or in general terms the means and methods of how we conduct our protective responsibilities,” Brayman said.

Robert Mueller Cartoons

Gregg Jarrett: Will Mueller & Comey use a false case of obstruction to trigger impeachment?

“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”  -- DOJ opinion, October 16, 2000
The Department of Justice has long held that it would be unconstitutional to criminally charge and prosecute a sitting president. The Constitution itself expressly states that “indictment, trial, judgment and punishment” can occur only after a president is convicted upon impeachment (Article 1, Section 3).
However, there is nothing to prevent a special counsel from investigating a president and leveling an accusation with no formal charge. The accusation could be completely manufactured and meritless. Proving it in a court of law would be irrelevant because impeachment is a political act, not a legal one.
A similar scenario has played out before. Independent Counsel Ken Starr investigated President Bill Clinton and leveled accusations of obstruction and perjury which then triggered Clinton’s impeachment.  After he was acquitted and left office, Clinton was never indicted because prosecutors knew the case lacked the kind of proof needed in court.
So, is this what special counsel Robert Mueller and fired FBI Director James Comey have in mind? Are they now acting in concert to conjure a case of obstruction where none exists … for the sole purpose of precipitating possible impeachment proceedings? There is nothing to stop them from doing it.
It is a legitimate question, given their cozy relationship. They also have a motive to harm President Trump – retaliation for the firing of Comey.
Mueller Has Unfettered Discretion
Mueller, as special counsel, has unlimited latitude and unchecked discretion.  Because he cannot indict the president, he is unconstrained by the usual burden of proof to which prosecutors must adhere in bringing a case.    
The Washington Post reports that Mueller is investigating whether Trump obstructed justice during a White House meeting with Comey and in his subsequent termination. If the Post story is true, the president should be concerned that he may not be treated fairly. Why?

Is Mueller determined to exact retribution for the firing of his good friend? Will he be tempted to ignore the law, the paucity of evidence, and the normal requirements of proof in order to bring a specious case of obstruction against the president?

Because on its face, there is no obstruction of justice. Trump’s alleged statement to Comey bears no resemblance to the requirements of the statute.  “Hoping” that “a good guy” will be cleared is not a “corrupt act” as the law defines it and as the U.S. Supreme Court interprets it. There must be a lie, threat or bribe.  Comey alleges none.  
Moreover, the act must be, as the high court said, “immoral, depraved or evil.”  An expression of compassion is the antithesis of that. Therefore, under no legal interpretation could the president have obstructed justice.
Forgotten in all of this is the fact that the president denies he ever uttered the words ascribed to him. With no known witnesses, no reasonable prosecutor would ever consider bringing such a case based on one person’s word.  It is the definition of reasonable doubt.
As for Comey’s firing, it is evidence of nothing. Comey admitted this himself when he wrote, “A president can fire an FBI Director for any reason, or no reason at all.” He reiterated the point during his Senate testimony.
Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to end an investigation, which Comey also admitted, albeit reluctantly.
Even if Trump canned Comey out of frustration because the Director refused to tell the public that the president was not suspected of Russian collusion, it is still not the corrupt act required for obstruction of justice.
Why, then, would an obstruction investigation be undertaken at all?
Mueller Has Not Recused Himself
The special counsel’s failure to disqualify himself as the law demands invites suspicion that any desire to bring an obstruction case rests not in the law and the facts, but in something else.
As explained before, the special counsel statute requires Mueller to step down if he has a “personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.”  It then defines personal relationship as a “friendship… normally viewed as likely to induce partiality” (28 CFR 45.2).  
The Mueller-Comey friendship is well-documented and indisputable. They have long been friends, allies and partners.  Their bond is driven by a mentor-protégé relationship which makes the likelihood of favoritism and partiality self-evident.    
Yet Mueller shows no sign of disqualifying himself from the case in which his close friend is the pivotal witness. It is an acute conflict of interest. Even the appearance of a conflict merits mandatory recusal.
Perhaps this means that the special counsel is not investigating an obstruction charge against the president, as the Post claims. Maybe the reporting based on anonymous sources is erroneous.
But if there is such a probe, then Americans are entitled to wonder why Mueller has not recused himself.
Is he determined to exact retribution for the firing of his good friend?  Will he be tempted to ignore the law, the paucity of evidence, and the normal requirements of proof in order to bring a specious case of obstruction against the president - knowing full well that Congress might take it up as grounds for impeachment once the accusation is made?
It is also suspicious that the Acting Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, has not recused himself.  As Mueller’s boss, he oversees the investigation.  If obstruction is, in fact, being examined, then Rosenstein is a key witness in the firing of Comey.  It is inconceivable that Rosenstein could serve in the capacity of both prosecutor and witness without rendering the entire matter a charade.
Trump has referred to Mueller as “conflicted” and has questioned the objectivity of Rosenstein.  But the president and his legal team have yet to mount a strong public case that both men should be allowed nowhere near the investigation.
If it becomes clear that obstruction of justice is the subject of the special counsel’s probe, President Trump should not fire Mueller and Rosenstein.  Instead, he should demand they resign so that a fair and impartial special counsel can be appointed to preside.
Anything less might permit a false case of obstruction to trigger a debate in Congress over impeachment.
Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.