House Oversight Committee
Page: 2
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the chair of the House Oversight Committee, said Friday that the House may weight impeaching President Donald Trump, but they must first wait to get the full picture of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Cummings said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that Trump’s conduct, according to the report, was “at least 100 times worse” than former President Bill Clinton’s behavior, which led to impeachment proceedings.
“We’ve got to go against this. We’ve got to expose it,” the congressman said. “A lot of people keep asking about the question of impeachment. We may very well come to that very soon, but right now let’s make sure we understand what Mueller was doing, understand what Barr was doing, and see the report in an unredacted form and all of the underlying documents.”
Cummings’ comment comes after House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that “impeachment is not worthwhile at this point.”
Source: NewsMax Politics
X
Story Stream
recent articles
Bill Priestap, left, with Michael Horowitz, DoJ inspector general.
By Eric Felten, RealClearInvestigations
April 12, 2019
Attorney General William Barr shocked official Washington Wednesday by saying what previously couldn’t be said: That the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign in 2016 involved “spying.”
The recent release of transcripts of testimony by key players in the Trump-Russia probe suggests that the spying, which Barr vowed to investigate, is not the only significant possible violation of investigative rules and ethics committed by agents, lawyers, managers, and officials at the FBI and the Department of Justice.
A catalogue of those abuses can be found in testimony Edward William Priestap provided to Congress in a closed-door interview last summer. From the end of 2015 to the end of 2018 Bill Priestap was assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, which meant he oversaw the FBI’s global counterintelligence efforts.
In that role, he managed both of the bureau’s most politically sensitive investigations: the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information and the probe into whether Donald Trump or his campaign conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election. His testimony provides rare insight into the attitudes and thoughts of officials who launched the Russia probe and the probe of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the release of whose final report is imminent.
More important, his testimony contains extensive indications of wrongdoing, including that the FBI and DoJ targeted Trump and did so with information it made no effort to verify. It paints a portrait of the Obama-era bureau as one that was unconcerned with political interference in investigations and was willing to enlist the help of close foreign allies to bring down its target. And, perhaps presaging a defense to Barr’s claim that American officials had spied on the Trump campaign, it showcases the euphemisms that can be used to disguise “spying.”
Filling In the Blanks
Priestap’s testimony took place on June 5, 2018, in Room 2226 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The questioning, by congressmen and House committee staff, focused on whether the FBI had applied the same rigor to the Clinton investigation that it had to the Trump probe.
The transcript the public can read today contains not only those questions and Priestap’s responses, but also the tell-tale redactions of anxious bureaucrats. One thing that is very clear is that the Sharpie brigades at the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice really, really didn’t want anyone to know where Bill Priestap was a week into May 2016.
Rep. Jim Jordan: Where in the world was Bill Priestap?
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
Not long into the questioning that Tuesday morning last summer, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked, “Do you ever travel oversees?”
“Yes,” said Priestap.
“How often?”
“As little as possible.”
The seeming comedy routine notwithstanding, Jordan later asked how many times in his 2½ years running the counter-intelligence shop Priestap had traveled abroad.
“I want to say three times,” he said.
“And can you tell me where you went?” Jordan asked.
“The ones I’m remembering are the [REDACTED].”
Jordan drilled in: “All three times to [REDACTED]?
Priestap said the trips he remembered “off the top of my head were all [REDACTED].”
Jordan asked whether Priestap remembered when he went to this place. Priestap said “No.”
Jordan was back at it in later rounds of questioning, asking whether Priestap had traveled to a given location at a given time in 2016. Over and again, censors from the FBI and DoJ have redacted the location and the time.
What could this exotic destination be? How is the timing of Priestap’s trip there a matter of national security? What secrets were the redactors trying to protect?
Peter Strzok: “Bill” was in London.
AP Photo/Evan Vucci
It turns out the Sharpie people weren’t nearly as thorough as they presumably thought. Newly released transcripts of congressional testimony from FBI agent Peter Strzok and lawyer Lisa Page – the paramours who worked on both the Clinton and Trump investigations – provide one answer. It’s right there on the page detailing text messages between the two on May 4, 2016. At around 9:31 that Wednesday evening, Strzok writes to say he is worried about getting a memo into shape that is expected that night or the next morning. He feels pressured even though “I don’t know that Bill will read it before he gets back from London next week.” Go to a text from the next Monday morning, May 9, and Strzok is wondering who will be receiving the daily report on the Clinton investigation, what “with Bill out.”
So there we have it. Bill Priestap was in London on or around May 9. Which strongly suggests that all three of the international trips taken by him during his tenure as FBI counterintelligence chief were to London.
Still, there is a reason the censors had out their Sharpies. It has to do with another question Jordan asked Priestap: “Okay. So what were you doing in [REDACTED] in the [REDACTED] of 2016?”
“So,” Priestap replied, “I went to meet with a foreign partner, foreign government partner.” In other words, almost certainly British intelligence. Not exposing our British partners has been the Justice Department’s justification for locking up secrets about the beginnings of the Trump investigation. The redactions try and fail to hide that Priestap met repeatedly with his British counterparts in 2016.
Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos was also in London. So was the FBI, around the same time.
AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File
Students of the Russia-collusion saga will recall that some of the earliest and most significant events cited as leading to the FBI’s investigation of Team Trump took place in a certain REDACTED country during a REDACTED season in 2016. It was over breakfast on April 26 in London that the mysterious Maltese professor, Joseph Mifsud, told young Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Five days later, on May 1, Papadopoulos had drinks with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in a London bar where he shared this piece of gossip/intel. And, of course, London is home to the author of the anti-Trump “dossier,” Christopher Steele.
According to the official story laid out in the New York Times, Australian officials did not pass on this new information for two months. And while Steele was retained by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS in the spring to dig up dirt on Trump for the Clinton campaign, the official story is that he did not start working with U.S. officials until the summer.
And so it is more than passingly curious that Priestap kept going to London when these significant events were occurring. Jordan asked Priestap about his second trip there: “What did it have to do with?”
Priestap demurred: “I’m not at liberty to discuss that today.”
After some dodging and weaving, Jordan came back to the question, but this time with an uncomfortable specificity: “Was your second trip then concerning the Trump-Russia investigation?” he asked.
“Sir, again, I’m just not at liberty to go into the purpose of my second trip.”
Priestap could have answered “no” without perjuring himself, he could have quickly put this matter to bed. His “I’m not at liberty” answers strongly suggest that the Trump-Russia investigation was exactly what his second trip to London was about.
Spying, Redefined
Attorney General Barr’s statement that “spying did occur” on the Trump campaign makes another part of Priestap’s testimony – about why an FBI asset in London named Stefan Halper reached out to Papadopoulos and to another Trump foreign policy adviser, Carter Page — even more significant.
Stefan Halper: also in London.
Voanews.com/Wikimedia
Weeks before Priestap’s testimony was taken last summer, the efforts of Halper, an American scholar who works in Britain, had been exposed. Republicans had been spluttering with outrage that the FBI would deploy a spy against an American presidential campaign. Democrats had been countering that while the bureau used informants, only the ignorant and uninitiated would call them spies.
Democratic staff counsel Valerie Shen tried to use her questioning of Priestap to put the spying issue to bed. “Does the FBI use spies?” she asked the assistant director for counterintelligence (who would be in a position to know).
“What do you mean?” Priestap responded. “I guess, what is your definition of a spy?”
“Good question,” said Shen. “What is your definition of a spy?”
Before Priestap answered, his lawyer, Mitch Ettinger, intervened. “Just one second,” he said. Then Ettinger – who was one of President Bill Clinton’s attorneys during the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinsky scandal – conferred with his client.
Back on the record, Priestap presented what smacks of pre-approved testimony: “I’ve not heard of nor have I referred to FBI personnel or the people we engage with as – meaning who are working in assistance to us – as spies. We do evidence and intelligence collection in furtherance of our investigations.”
Shen was happy with the answer, and so she asked Priestap to confirm it: “So in your experience the FBI doesn’t use the term ‘spy’ in any of its investigative techniques?” Priestap assured her the word is never spoken by law-enforcement professionals – except, he said (wandering dangerously off-script), when referring to “foreign spies.”
“But in terms of one of its own techniques,” Shen said, determined to get Priestap back on track, “the FBI does not refer to one of its own techniques as spying?”
“That is correct, yes.”
“With that definition in mind, would the FBI internally ever describe themselves as spying on American citizens?”
“No.”
So there we have it with all the decisive logic of a Socratic dialogue: The FBI could not possibly have spied on the Trump campaign because bureau lingo includes neither the noun “spy” nor the verb “to spy.” Whatever informants may have been employed, whatever tools of surveillance may have been utilized, the FBI did not spy on the Trump campaign – didn’t spy by definition, as the bureau doesn’t use the term (except, of course, to describe the very same activities when undertaken by foreigners).
What’s telling about this line of questioning is that it inadvertently confirms Republican suspicions — and Attorney General Barr’s assertion. If House Democrats believed there had been no spying on the Trump campaign, they could have asked Priestap whether the FBI ever spies on Americans, given the common meaning of the verb “to spy.” They could have flat-out asked whether the FBI had spied on Trump World. Instead, Democratic counsel asked whether, given the FBI’s definition of spying, the bureau would “internally ever describe themselves as spying on American citizens.” It would seem that Democrats were every bit as convinced as Republicans that the FBI spied on Trump’s people.
Interpreting ‘Political Interference’
Later in the day, Democratic lawyer Shen seemed to be engaged in more damage control when she asked Priestap whether “political interference in the Department of Justice or FBI investigation [is] ever proper?”
Surprisingly, Priestap said it was: “In my opinion, I can imagine situations where it would be proper.” He explained that the political appointees in an administration might determine “that the national security interests of the country outweigh the law enforcement/prosecutive interest of the FBI and Department of Justice.”
Shen then appeared to push him to clean up his answer, suggesting that what Priestap was describing wasn’t “a political determination” but “a policy interpretation balancing national security and law enforcement.”
“Yeah. I guess,” Priestap said. “And maybe I misunderstood your question.” Then what does he do but repeat his belief that political appointees — and “by political, I could imagine, for example, the National Security Council” — might act on the notion that national security outweighs other considerations.”
“Right. Yeah. Right,” Shen said. “Let me rephrase.” She explained she wasn’t asking about decisions political officials make, but rather, decisions officials make for political reasons. Then came the rephrased question: “Is interference in a Department of Justice or FBI investigation ever proper when motivated by purely political considerations?” [Emphasis added]
“Not in my opinion,” responded Priestap.
What Shen was laboring to establish was that the only sort of investigative behavior that could be called political interference was when someone at DoJ or FBI acted out of “purely political considerations.” That’s a standard that leaves plenty of room for politics.
Targeting Trump?
But does it leave room enough for the “dossier”? The political abuse foremost in Republican minds was, and remains, that collection of howlers and hearsay allegedly compiled by Christopher Steele, who was sold to the public as a high-minded former British spy instead of a man being paid by the Clinton campaign to dirty up Trump. Steele’s efforts were lapped up by the FBI and DoJ even though the lawmen knew Steele was peddling political work-product — opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Carter Page: Was he the real quarry, or was Donald Trump?
Willy Sanjuan/Invision/AP
In particular, Republicans have charged that Steele’s dossier was presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court without full disclosure of its partisan origins, thus perpetrating a fraud on the FISA court. The accusation was formalized in May 2018, when Republicans demanded the appointment of a second special counsel because, they claimed, “the FBI and DOJ used politically biased, unverified sources to obtain warrants issued by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISA Court) that aided in the surveillance of U.S. citizens, including Carter Page.”
Shen, the House Oversight Committee minority counsel, brushed that accusation aside with what appeared to be an unambiguous and definitive question: “Mr. Priestap,” she asked, “are you aware of any instances of the FBI and DOJ ever using politically biased, unverified sources in order to obtain a FISA warrant?”
Priestap gave the most unambiguous and definitive of answers: “No.” One might be tempted to think that was an endorsement of the dossier, a confirmation that the FISA warrant applications were largely based on information that was neither politically biased nor unverified. But that would be taking the question and the answer on face value, when something rather less straightforward was going on.
Shen followed with another broad, all-encompassing question about the propriety of the FBI and DoJ’s behavior: “Are you aware,” she asked Priestap, “of any instances where the FBI or DOJ did not present what constituted credible and sufficient evidence to justify a FISA warrant?”
Priestap’s response is a textbook case of circular logic: “If it’s not justified, the court doesn’t approve it. So, like, if we’re not meeting the standard required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the requests are turned down.”
“So, in other words,” said the Democratic counsel, “by definition, if you presented information and a FISA court approved it, that would constitute credible sufficient information?”
“In my opinion,” said Priestap, “yes.”
Sit back and savor that exchange for a moment. One of the most senior officials in the Federal Bureau of Investigation – an organization that regularly refers for prosecution people who don’t tell the full truth – champions this peculiar standard of credibility: If you can snooker a FISA court judge, the information used to traduce the court is rendered by definition “credible sufficient information.” What is the condition of the FBI if its leaders think whatever you can get past a judge is good enough?
This strange concept of legal alchemy aside, the question remains whether the dossier was used merely as a vehicle to get information on Carter Page, or whether the real quarry was Donald Trump himself. As before, Shen was unintentionally helpful at winkling inadvertent truths out of her cooperative witness. It started with the softest of softballs: “Are you aware of any FBI investigations motivated by political bias?”
“I am not.”
“Are you aware of any Justice Department investigations motivated by political bias?”
“No.”
“Are you aware of any actions ever taken to damage the Trump campaign at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”
“No.”
And there Shen might have left it, having elicited basic denials that the FBI and Justice had abused their power. But then she pushed her luck, asking a question that wasn’t worded quite carefully enough: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken to personally target Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”
Priestap must have pulled quite the face because Shen immediately declared, “I’ll rephrase.” Here’s how she tried it the second time: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken against Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”
Before Priestap can answer, his lawyer, Mitch Ettinger, interjected: “I think you need to rephrase your question.”
At which point Shen’s Democratic colleague Janet Kim jumped in to help: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken against Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI for the purpose of politically undercutting him?”
At last, Priestap was able to say, “No.”
That long road to “no” strong suggests that the highest levels of Justice and the FBI personally targeted Trump and took action against him. The only caveat is that Priestap believes none of that targeted action was done to undercut Trump politically. That may be so (however much the savvy observer may think otherwise). But it doesn’t blunt the main takeaway — that the bureau and DoJ targeted Trump.
In Summary…
So what did we learn from Bill Priestap’s compendious and revealing testimony?
- We learned that the FBI and Justice targeted and took action against Trump.
- We learned that the FBI, according to Priestap, is incapable of securing a FISA warrant with information that isn’t credible, although the judge’s approval of the warrant means by definition that the information is credible.
- We learned that the FBI believes political interference in an investigation can be proper as long as the bureau isn’t acting purely politically.
- We learned that the FBI did send at least one asset to do to the Trump campaign an activity that even the bureau would call “spying” — if it were done by foreign operatives.
- We learned that the origins of the Trump-Russia tale will never be fully understood until the part played by British intelligence is made clear.
That’s an awful lot to take away from one largely neglected transcript. But it suggests just how much remains unknown about the Trump-Russia investigation while providing a glimpse at the people that want to keep it that way.
Related Articles
A former White House official who was accused of overturning security clearances for people who were found to have “serious disqualifying issues” will appear before the House Oversight Committee on April 23, The Washington Post reports.
Carl Kline, the former White House personnel security director, will testify as part of the panel’s investigation into security clearances in President Donald Trump’s White House. A whistleblower in his office accused him of granting security clearances to people that she and some of her fellow employees had found issue with.
“I regret the circumstances that have resulted in the committee on Oversight and Reform electing to subpoena Carl Kline, despite our legitimate offer to have him appear voluntarily,” Kline’s lawyer, Robert N. Driscoll, wrote in a letter to the committee.
Tricia Newbold, the whistleblower, told the committee last March that Kline overruled several clearance-denial recommendations, including a clearance application from White House adviser Jared Kushner, and subsequently retaliated when she complained.
“By corollary, it is not Mr. Kline’s role to comment on the strength of any such assertions, but to comply with instructions from the White House regarding appropriate scope of testimony,” Driscoll wrote. “I fully understand you may not see things the same way, but it is my sincere hope that we can avoid a harmful and costly inter-branch dispute that has a 40-plus year public servant and military veteran hanging in the balance.”
Source: NewsMax Politics
House Republicans are reportedly warning drug companies that complying with a Democratic-led committee probe of drug prices could potentially hurt their stock prices.
GOP Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina — leaders of the conservative House Freedom Caucus —sent letters to CEOs of 12 drug companies, implying leaks by House Oversight Committee head Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., could hurt the companies, BuzzFeed News reported.
Cummings requested information in January as part of a probe into how the industry sets prescription prices, the news outlet noted. But the conservative lawmakers warned what’s being sought is sensitive data “that would likely harm the competitiveness of your company if disclosed publicly.”
They accuse Cummings of “releasing cherry-picked excerpts from a highly sensitive closed-door interview” conducted in an investigation into White House security clearances. “This is not the first time he has released sensitive information unilaterally,” their letter states.
Cummings pushed back, saying about the top Republican on his committee: “Rep. Jordan is on the absolute wrong side here.”
“He would rather protect drug company ‘stock prices’ than the interests of the American people,” Cummings said in his statement, the news outlet reported.
Jordan’s office argued the letter doesn’t tell companies not to respond to Cummings’ requests, but encourages their cooperation with “responsible and legitimate” oversight, BuzzFeed News reported.
Related Stories:
Source: NewsMax Politics
FILE PHOTO – Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney of U.S. President Donald Trump, arrives to testify to the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 6, 2019. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
April 5, 2019
(Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen has received requests for information from at least six government entities since late February, according to a letter from Cohen’s attorney to Democratic lawmakers, a sign of ongoing interest in evidence Cohen may have on his former boss.
The letter was sent by Lanny Davis on Thursday to the Democratic heads of four congressional committees asking that they attest in writing to his cooperation so far and the need to make him available to continue assisting with their probes.
Davis said he hoped federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York would take that into consideration and file a motion to have his sentence reduced and postpone the start of his prison term so he can readily assist investigators.
Cohen, who is due to start a three-year prison term on May 6, is still going through a recently accessed hard drive with more than 14 million files, including e-mails, voice recordings and attachments from his computers and phones, Davis said.
“It is our hope that the authorities in the Southern District of New York will consider this total picture of cooperation … and the particular facts involved here to grant Mr. Cohen a reduced term,” Davis wrote.
Cohen was one of Trump’s closest aides and once said he would “take a bullet” for him. But he turned against Trump last year and is cooperating with prosecutors after pleading guilty to tax evasion, bank fraud and campaign finance violations.
Cohen testified before a handful of congressional committees in late February including a dramatic televised hearing in front of the House Oversight Committee in which he denounced the president as a “conman” and a “cheat” and accused Trump of breaking the law while in office.
“There is no doubt that Mr. Cohen’s testimony, both public and private, has contributed substantially, with documents and other evidence, to triggering additional areas for investigation by law enforcement authorities and the Congress,” Davis wrote.
Davis did not identify the six government entities.
(Reporting by Nathan Layne in New York; Editing by Daniel Wallis)
Source: OANN
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., March 22, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
April 4, 2019
By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The FBI is examining whether a Chinese woman who bluffed her way into President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort last weekend had any links to Chinese intelligence or political influence operations, two U.S. government sources said on Thursday.
In a case that renewed concerns about security at Trump’s private club in Florida, the U.S. Secret Service arrested Yujing Zhang on Saturday after she got through perimeter checkpoints and raised suspicions when questioned about her visit.
When she was arrested, Zhang was carrying four cellphones, a laptop computer, an external hard drive and a thumb drive containing what investigators described as “malicious malware.”
Federal authorities charged Zhang with making false statements and entering a restricted area. She is being held in custody pending a court hearing next week.
Since he took office in January 2017, Trump has regularly visited Mar-a-Lago, a commercial business in Palm Beach that he still owns and where he is in close and frequent contact with club members and guests, dining and socializing.
Congressional Democrats raised questions on Wednesday about security at the club but Trump brushed off the concerns, calling the incident a “fluke” and praising the Secret Service.
Two current government sources said that the FBI was looking into possible counter-intelligence implications of the incident, however.
Zhang told one Secret Service agent she was at Mar-a-Lago to use the swimming pool and later told another agent she was there to attend a U.N. Chinese American Association event. A receptionist determined no such event was scheduled and Zhang was escorted off the premises and arrested.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said on Wednesday the leadership of the group Zhang identified as her host had “apparent connections” to a Chinese Communist Party unit called the United Front Work Department.
A source familiar with Trump administration policy on China said the department was part of the Communist Party’s Central Committee operation in Beijing, located “right across” from the compound which houses Chinese leaders.
A former U.S. government expert on Chinese intelligence operations, who asked not to be named while discussing sensitive information, said investigators would want to know, “Why, exactly, was she there? A decoy, a diversion, a feint, probing the perimeter for a substantive operation?”
The White House declined to comment on the FBI’s counter-intelligence investigation or related questions, and referred questions to the Secret Service, which had no immediate comment.
Representative Elijah Cummings, the Democratic chairman of the U.S. House Oversight Committee, said the Secret Service, which protects the president, will brief him and top committee Republican Jim Jordan on the incident.
(Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Sonya Hepinstall)
Source: OANN
President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner was denied a security clearance last year by the White House personnel security office but the decision was overruled by a political appointee, according to a new report.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday evening that whistleblower Tricia Newbold told staff members of the House Oversight Committee that another career employee in the security office and herself ruled Kushner had enough “significant disqualifying factors” that his clearance was denied for his role as a senior White House adviser.
Carl Kline, a political appointee who heads the White House security office, reportedly told Newbold the issues discovered in Kushner’s background — concerns regarding foreign influence, his business interests outside of government, and his personal conduct — happened before he became a government employee. Kline then signed off on Kushner’s application to receive a top secret clearance May 1, 2018 — more than 12 months after the process began.
Security clearance issues have dogged Kushner for months. It was reported in February Trump ordered then-White House chief of staff John Kelly to give Kushner a clearance last year — a request Kelly documented in writing because he was uncomfortable with it.
In an interview this week, Kushner said he complied with all investigations and disclosed all of his business holdings when he applied for the clearance.
Source: NewsMax America
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., March 22, 2019. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/File Photo
April 3, 2019
By Mark Hosenball and Susan Cornwell
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Congressional Democrats raised questions on Wednesday about security at President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida after a Chinese woman carrying electronic devices bluffed her way through security checks last weekend.
Representative Elijah Cummings, the Democratic chairman of the U.S. House Oversight Committee, said that the Secret Service, which protects the president, will brief him and top committee Republican Jim Jordan on the incident.
“I am not going to allow the president to be in jeopardy or his family,” Cummings told Reuters, adding that if the Secret Service needs “to change some things down there in Florida, we want to know.”
In the Senate, three leading Democrats asked FBI Director Christopher Wray and the Director of National Intelligence to look into issues raised by the incident.
Chinese citizen Yujing Zhang talked her way past checkpoints into the exclusive Trump resort while the president was golfing nearby. After Zhang got inside the resort perimeter, Mar-a-Lago and Secret Service personnel grew suspicious.
When she became aggressive under questioning, she was detained by the Secret Service and later charged with making false statements and entering a restricted area.
After detaining her, investigators found in Zhang’s possession four cellphones, a laptop computer, an external hard drive device and a thumb drive, the Secret Service said in a court filing. Initial examination of the thumb drive determined it contained “malicious malware,” the Secret Service said.
Zhang’s ability to get inside Mar-a-Lago without credentials or an appointment “raises very serious questions regarding security vulnerabilities,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Shumer and senators Dianne Feinstein and Mark Warner, the top Democrats on the Judiciary and Intelligence committees.
“The apparent ease with which Ms. Zhang gained access to the facility during the president’s weekend visit raises concerns about the system for screening visitors, including the reliance on determinations made by Mar-a-Lago employees,” the senators wrote, suggesting that Zhang’s success in getting inside the compound had “serious national security implications.”
The Democratic senators asked the FBI and DNI to assess the risks posed by the handling of classified information at a facility like Mar-a-Lago, which is open to the public.
The lawmakers also asked the agencies and the Secret Service to suggest measures “needed to detect and deter adversary governments or their agents” from conducting spy operations at Trump properties.
The White House referred questions about the matter to the Secret Service, which did not respond to queries about the congressional inquiries.
(Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Alistair Bell)
Source: OANN
FILE PHOTO – The U.S. Capitol is seen after Special Counsel Robert Mueller reportedly handed in a long awaited report on his investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 presidential election and any potential wrongdoing by U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, U.S., March 22, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
April 3, 2019
By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee was expected to vote on Wednesday to subpoena Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s full, unredacted report and underlying evidence from his investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
If the motion passes, it would be a marked escalation of congressional pressure on the Trump administration to hand over all that Mueller documented during his 22-month probe, including grand jury evidence.
Lawmakers were expected to vote along party lines to authorize the panel’s Democratic chairman, Jerrold Nadler, to subpoena Mueller’s material, as well as documents and testimony from five former Trump aides, including one-time political advisor Steve Bannon and former White House Counsel Donald McGahn.
The committee’s focus shifted to subpoenas when it became clear that Attorney General William Barr would ignore a Democratic demand for him to turn over the full report by April 2. Barr has pledged to share a redacted copy of the nearly 400-page report with Congress and the public by mid-April, if not sooner.
Democrats, who hold a seven-seat majority on the 41-member Judiciary Committee, fear that Barr could use redactions to suppress evidence of potential misconduct by Trump and his campaign that could be vital to their congressional oversight agenda.
Barr’s March 24 summary of the Mueller report said the special counsel did not establish that Trump campaign officials conspired with Russia during the presidential election but also did not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice. Barr also said Mueller’s team had not found enough proof to warrant bringing obstruction charges against the president.
Trump has long denied any collusion with Russia or obstruction of justice. Moscow says it did not try to interfere in the election, even though U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that it secretly trying to sway U.S. voters in Trump’s favor.
NEW LEGAL FRONT
A subpoena would open a new legal front against the Trump administration by Democrats who won control of the House in last year’s congressional elections. But it is not clear if the Justice Department would simply hand over all the documents they now seek.
The Department could ignore the subpoena, running the risk of being held in contempt of Congress, and prepare for a lengthy battle in the courts.
Democrats have pledged to fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to enforce a subpoena and obtain the full report.
“We need that report turned over. Look at every prior case of independent counsel and special counsel, they’ve turned over the entire report within a day or two,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, a House Judiciary Democrat. “What’s taking place here is a sharp break from precedent.”
It was not clear when Nadler might start issuing subpoenas, if authorized to do so.
Trump took a dig on Tuesday at Nadler and House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, one of the president’s strongest critics in Congress about the Russia investigation.
“There is no amount of testimony or document production that can satisfy Jerry Nadler or Shifty Adam Schiff. It is now time to focus exclusively on properly running our great Country!”
Republicans contend that Barr is being transparent under Justice Department regulations adopted after former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in the 1990s, which allow the attorney general to be circumspect in what he releases. They also contend that Democrats are seeking grand jury material that federal law precludes the Justice Department from sharing.
“It’s unfortunate that a body meant to uphold the law has grown so desperate that it’s patently misrepresenting the law,”
Representative Doug Collins, the committee’s top Republican, said this week.
The committee was due to meet to consider the subpoena resolution after Nadler and five other Democratic House oversight committee chairs wrote to Barr, giving him one last chance to produce an unredacted Mueller report.
In addition to McGahn and Bannon, the committee was expected to authorize subpoenas for former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and former White House deputy counsel Ann Donaldson.
The five former Trump aides were among 81 people, agencies and other entities that received document requests on March 4 as part of the committee’s obstruction and corruption investigation of Trump and his associates.
(Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Alistair Bell)
Source: OANN
Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform Committee Elijah Cummings (D-MD) waves his gavel as Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney of U.S. President Donald Trump, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., February 27, 2019. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
April 1, 2019
By Ginger Gibson and Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings on Monday threatened to begin subpoenaing current and former White House officials as part of his panel’s investigation of security clearances issued under President Donald Trump, including that of his son-in-law Jared Kushner.
In a letter to White House Counsel Pat Cipollone on Monday, Cummings said his panel would look to authorize a subpoena for former White House personnel security director Carl Kline at a committee meeting on Tuesday. He called on the White House to forestall additional subpoenas by providing documents sought by the committee.
Cummings letter was the second sent from Congress on Monday warning the White House of pending subpoenas as the Democratic-controlled Congress seeks to compel the administration to comply with wide-ranging investigations.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler informed the administration on Monday that he intends to subpoena Special Counsel Robert Muller’s full report on his investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
(Writing by David Morgan; Reporting by Ginger Gibson, Mark Hosenball and David Morgan; Editing by Bill Trott)
Source: OANN
MAGA One Radio