https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.79a8299edd17 Whitaker ‘did not deny’ talking to Trump about Cohen, personnel at SDNY, top Democrat says The Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Wednesday that former acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker “did not deny” that President Trump “called him to discuss the case” against his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, as well as decisions regarding the personnel at the federal prosecutor’s office bringing the case against Cohen. Speaking to reporters after a two-hour meeting with Whitaker, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) presented Whitaker’s closed-door comments as a contradiction of his public testimony from February, during which Whitaker said Trump never expressed his dissatisfaction with Cohen for pleading guilty to various financial crimes and lying to Congress. When asked at that hearing whether he had ever discussed the Cohen case with Trump, Whitaker refused to answer the question. “Unlike in the hearing room, Mr. Whitaker did not deny that the president called him to discuss the Michael Cohen case and personnel decisions in the Southern District,” Nadler said, referring to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which brought the case against Cohen. But Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.), who was also present for the interview, strongly disagreed with Nadler, calling it an “interpretation” — and insisting that Whitaker “said he did not talk with the president about Mr. Cohen at all, and had no conversations with the Southern District of New York.” The dispute is the latest controversy to surround Whitaker’s statements, as lawmakers argue along partisan lines about whether Whitaker misled Congress about his brief tenure as acting attorney general and his contacts with the president while overseeing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe. Whitaker did not immediately respond to a request for comment. According to Nadler, Whitaker did not refute the assertion that he was “directly involved in conversations about whether to fire one or more U.S. attorneys.” Nadler also said that Whitaker did not deny having been “involved in conversations about the scope” of the recusal of the Southern District of New York’s lead prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman, from Cohen’s case — and whether the prosecutors “went too far in pursuing the campaign finance case in which Trump is Individual-1.” But Collins countered that such conversations were internal discussions that Whitaker had with his own staff, in the course of carrying out his duties as acting attorney general. “To imply that there’s anything nefarious there is a way overreach of anything that was discussed,” Collins said. “The only thing that Mr. Whitaker said about that was he had discussions with his personal staff . . . he never had any conversations with the Southern District of New York about any case while he was acting attorney general.” When Nadler was pressed to explain what Whitaker’s purported series of non-denials meant, he simply stated that “he would not say no.” He pledged also to “analyze the new revelations and see where they lead.” Whitaker has been a lightning rod for partisan infighting since his appointment as acting attorney general, when he took over from former attorney general Jeff Sessions shortly after the midterm elections last year. His meeting with Nadler and Collins comes slightly more than a month after he testified in public before the House Judiciary Committee, pushing back against Democrats’ concerns that he could have used his position overseeing the Mueller probe to benefit Trump’s position. Republicans objected to that hearing at the time as pointless, as it took place just days before the Senate confirmed William P. Barr to serve as attorney general. “We thought the hearing shouldn't have happened, so if you want to bring him back in, then fine,” Collins said Wednesday just before the meeting with Whitaker began. “It’s the chairman’s meeting, so I’m just going to sit there and listen and see what he says.” Nadler had promised to follow up with Whitaker over purported omissions during his testimony, during which Whitaker either refused to detail the substance of conversations he had with Trump or gave answers that, in Nadler’s estimation, strained credulity. [In combative hearing, Whitaker says he did not discuss Mueller probe with Trump but dodges other inquiries] Democrats found suspect Whitaker’s assertion then that he never discussed his views regarding Mueller’s probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Whitaker was interviewing to join the White House legal team and had voiced his negative opinions about Mueller’s probe as a television pundit before Trump recommended him to be Sessions’s chief of staff. When Trump named Whitaker acting attorney general, temporarily replacing Sessions, Democrats argued that those opinions made Whitaker unfit to oversee Mueller’s probe, questioning whether Whitaker would use his position to limit the inquiry or feed valuable information about the investigation to Trump and his lawyer. Whitaker has firmly denied doing anything of the kind. Nadler’s claim that Whitaker didn’t deny speaking with Trump about Cohen’s case and personnel decisions at the Southern District of New York now raises new questions about his testimony. It is was not immediately clear, however, whether Wednesday’s meeting is the precursor to another public hearing with the former acting attorney general, or simply an effort to wrap up lingering suspicions about the completeness of Whitaker’s testimony as the panel prepares to receive Mueller’s final report. SDNY seems to have continued interest in Cohen. A New York lawyer revealed Wednesday that federal prosecutors there have requested documents from him about his cryptic interactions with the president’s former personal attorney soon after the FBI raided Cohen’s house in April. The lawyer, Robert Costello, said in a statement Wednesday that he was preparing to provide the materials to the U.S. attorney’s office, and accused Cohen or his lawyer of having “selectively” leaked copies of their email exchanges “to bolster the false narrative that they originally tried to peddle in the media last week.” CNN reported earlier in the day that Costello had told Cohen he could “sleep well tonight” because he had “friends in high places,” according to emails the network said it reviewed. CNN reported that Costello said he was in touch with Trump lawyer Rudolph Giuliani, who thanked him for opening a “back channel” of communication to Cohen. The communications are important because Cohen recently alleged to lawmakers that Trump allies dangled the prospect of a pardon to him after the FBI raid, though he has also acknowledged he directed his own attorney, Stephen Ryan, to approach Giuliani about a possible pardon. Costello’s emails could be viewed as evidence supporting the assertion that a pardon was dangled to Cohen — though CNN reported the emails it reviewed never specifically referenced a pardon. Costello disputed he was trying to send a furtive signal. “To repeat myself, Michael Cohen and his counsel’s interpretation of events is utter nonsense,” he said in the statement. “ This statement: ‘Sleep Well tonight, you have friends in high places’ was a tongue-in-cheek reference to a Garth Brooks song, to a client whose state of mind was highly disturbed and had suggested to us that he was suicidal. We were simply trying to be decent human beings. There is no hidden message.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...-calling-for-mueller-report-to-be-made-public Graham blocks resolution calling for Mueller report to be made public Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked for unanimous consent for the nonbinding resolution, which cleared the House 420-0, to be passed by the Senate before they leave town for a weeklong recess. "There is no good reason, no good reason that the special counsel's report should not be made public. The American people are overwhelmingly for the report being made public. They have a right to see it. No one should stand in the way of that," Schumer said from the Senate floor. But Graham, a close ally of Trump's who chairs the Judiciary Committee, objected after Schumer refused to amend the House-passed resolution to include a provision calling on the Justice Department (DOJ) to appoint a special counsel to investigate DOJ misconduct in the handling of the investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's email use and the Carter Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications.
Lindsey Graham Just Issued a FISA Abuse, Clinton Ultimatum on the Release of Mueller's Special Counsel Report https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/03/14/its-on-lindsey-graham-wants-the-mueller-report-released-only-when-a-new-special-counsel-is-launched-to-investigate-fisa-abuse-n2543151
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...first-time-there-should-be-no-mueller-report/ Trump suggests, for the first time, there should be ‘no Mueller report’ President Trump suggested Friday, for what appears to be the first time, that there should be no Mueller report. After running through highly questionable allegations about the origins of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe, Trump concluded, “Then the Special Counsel ... should never have been appointed and there should be no Mueller Report. This was an illegal & conflicted investigation in search of a crime.” Trump doesn’t technically say the Mueller report shouldn’t be released; he instead says the report should never have been written in the first place because the investigation wasn’t warranted. But it’s not difficult to connect the dots. Trump has demurred when asked whether the report should be released publicly, saying simply that it will be up to Attorney General William P. Barr. And given the House’s vote Thursday, Trump’s tweets are difficult to separate from the prospect of a publicly released Mueller report.
Trump blocking the Mueller report and the democrat nominee promising to release it if elected would be gold for democrats in 2020.
Will we see the Mueller report? Actually, there are two — and Bill Barr can’t hide the second one House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said on MSNBC that he was prepared to do whatever is necessary to see the report and also get access to the underlying evidence, including calling Mueller to testify and going to court. But he has an ace up his sleeve that he isn’t talking about. A couple of weeks ago former SDNY prosecutor Nelson W. Cunningham, who served as general counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Joe Biden was chair (and was also a White House lawyer under Bill Clinton), wrote a piece for the Daily Beast in which he clarified that the “Mueller report” is actually two reports. Recall that some time back we learned that the FBI had opened a counterintelligence investigation into whether the president of the United States was a Russian agent — knowingly or otherwise — and that that investigation was then folded into Mueller’s mandate. As I noted at the time, former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe made quite a point of that during his book tour, even describing how he briefed the Gang of Eight congressional leaders about that decision. If you wondered why McCabe thought that was so important, this may be the reason: Counterintelligence investigations must be reported directly to Congress. Cunningham wrote: Significantly, unlike a final criminal report, a Mueller counterintelligence report cannot be bottled up. By statute it must be shared with Congress. The House and Senate intelligence committees are legally entitled to be given reports, in writing, of significant intelligence and counterintelligence activities or failures. Mueller’s findings will certainly qualify. Done well (and Mueller and his team seem to do everything well), it will provide a much richer, broader narrative description of Russia’s effort to interfere in 2016, the nature of any links or cooperation between the Russians and the Trump campaign, and whether Trump or his associates were witting or unwitting assets for the Russians (including by obstructing the investigation) — as well perhaps as conclusions for action. Frank Figliuzzi, a former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence, backed this up on MSNBC this week: The Mueller case at heart is an intelligence case. So what does that mean for the report, the content and the access Congress will have to it? It means that the House and Senate intelligence committees, because at it’s a CI case, are going to be able to demand a briefing on results and significant developments … . I’m telling you, Adam Schiff may have more power than anyone else to get the most out of that Mueller inquiry and get the most transparency. So I think, intriguingly, the most sensitive part of the case may be the way Congress gets the most insight into it. When Schiff says he will bring Mueller to testify, I’m guessing that this what he’s talking about. It might take place behind closed doors because the counterintelligence report is likely to contain classified information the public cannot see. But if Mueller is clever and Schiff is agile, they should be able to create a narrative that can be shared with the public about what happened (and is still happening) that is not subject to Department of Justice restrictions. This evidence will almost certainly inform the House leadership’s decision on impeachment. Who knows, it might even be enough to move a few Republicans to do their duty.
https://www.businessinsider.com/barr-mueller-report-white-house-executive-privilege-2019-3 The White House will get the Mueller report before the public does in case it wants to make redactions, Barr says Attorney General William Barr will send the special counsel Robert Mueller's report on the Russia investigation to the White House before the public sees it, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Tuesday. Graham said Barr told him he would send the report to the White House first in case it wants to claim executive privilege over any parts. Mueller's full report is likely to contain crucial details about the motivations behind the myriad contacts and meetings President Donald Trump's associates had with Russians, as well as Trump's repeated deference to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump's defense lawyers have previously said they want a chance to review and "correct" the Mueller report before it's made public. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Tuesday that Attorney General William Barr told him he would send the special counsel Robert Mueller's final report on the Russia investigation to the White House before the public sees it, in case it wants to claim executive privilege over any parts. Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, also said Barr told him it would most likely take "weeks, not months," to make a version of Mueller's final report public. Barr on Sunday released his own summary of Mueller's report, saying it did not find sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Barr said Mueller declined to come to a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice in the investigation and instead laid out all the evidence prosecutors had collected before handing in his findings to Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Barr and Rosenstein said there was not sufficient evidence to determine whether Trump obstructed justice. Their conclusion alarmed legal experts, who said Barr's past comments on the obstruction inquiry may have compromised his ability to make impartial decisions about that aspect of the investigation.