Connect with us

News

Schiff: Still ‘Significant Evidence of Collusion’

Published

on

Adam Schiff

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), feels that there is still “significant evidence of collusion” linking Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election to President Trump’s presidential campaign, even though the Justice Department has indicated that there will be no more indictments recommended in the Mueller investigation.

“There’s a difference between compelling evidence of collusion and whether the special counsel concludes that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal charge of conspiracy,” said Schiff on ABC’s “This Week.” “As I’ve said before… I leave that decision to Bob Mueller, and I have full confidence in him.”

“I trust in his prosecutorial judgment,” Schiff added . “But that doesn’t mean, of course, that there isn’t compelling and incriminating evidence that should be shared with the American people.”

Schiff is pushing for the full release of the Mueller Report, and threatening to subpoena or even sue for its release.

“If the request [to release the report] is denied, subpoena, if the subpoenas are denied, we will haul people before congress, and yes, we will prosecute in court if necessary to get this information,” said Schiff, “And yes, you know I’ll say this, I think that Neal Katyal’s prognostication is correct. We will win that litigation.”

Katyal write an opinion piece for the Washington Post on Friday arguing that the attorney general should release the Mueller report. Katayl had drafted regulations pertaining to the release of such reports in the late 1990s.

“Should Barr not provide the report to Congress, Congress will have to subpoena it, and Congress will almost certainly win that battle,” said Katyal. “The attorney general should follow Congress’ vote and honor the values at the core of our democracy, and release the report.”

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) has made similar comments to Schiff’s today, including arguing that it may require a Supreme Court fight to force the release of the report.

View the exchange below:

Image via screen capture from video source.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Ocasio-Cortez Takes Victory Lap After Amazon Goes to NYC — Even After She Helped Block $3 Billion in Subsidies

Published

on

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was one of the progressive leaders in New York City credited with blocking $3 billion in public subsidies for Amazon to open an additional headquarters.

But Amazon is moving into NYC despite the lack of subsidies.

“The giant online retailer said it has signed a new lease for 335,000 square feet on the city’s west side in the new Hudson Yards neighborhood, where it will have more than 1,500 employees,” The Wall Street Journal reported. “Amazon is taking the space without any of the special tax credits and other inducements the company had been offered to build a new headquarters in the Queens neighborhood of Long Island City, the company said.”

“The new lease represents Amazon’s largest expansion in New York since it stunned the city by abandoning those earlier plans. Amazon pulled back after facing a backlash from some politicians and activists over the roughly $3 billion in financial incentives the city and state had extended to woo the company and the 25,000 new jobs it had pledged to create,” The Journal explained.

Ocasio-Cortez, also known as AOC, took a victory lap after her argument that the subsidies were unnecessary was vindicated.

“Won’t you look at that: Amazon is coming to NYC anyway – *without* requiring the public to finance shady deals, helipad handouts for Jeff Bezos, and corporate giveaways,” she tweeted.

Here are some of her previous thoughts on the company:

 

Continue Reading

News

GOP’s Legal Expert Insisted Clinton Had to Be Impeached to Protect the ‘Existence of Government’ and Prevent ‘Anarchy’

Published

on

During Wednesday’s Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings Democrats will call three expert witnesses and Republicans will call one. George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley is the constitutional expert chosen by Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) to represent the Republicans’ point of view, to oppose impeachment and to defend President Donald Trump.

Turley has released his 53-page opening statement, which some have already observed is more than twice as long as the combined statements of the Democrats’ three legal experts.

In it, he makes this statement that is getting a great deal of attention:

“I get it. You are mad. The President is mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My Republican friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog is mad . . . and Luna is a golden doodle and they are never mad. We are all mad and where has it taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?”

Turley will argue that Trump should not be impeached, despite writing in that same statement: “The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”

But that same Jonathan Turley had a very different position on impeaching a sitting president when that president was a Democrat. Professor Turley, in a statement written  November 9, 1998, declared that impeaching President Bill Clinton was necessary to literally protect the “existence of the government,” and to prevent “contempt for law” and “anarchy.”

Professor Turley literally suggested that were President Clinton not impeached, anarchy would rain down on the nation.

“Allegations of criminal acts in office by a president are perhaps the greatest threat to the perceived legitimacy of a government,” Professor Turley wrote back in 1998. “When there is compelling evidence of criminal acts in the Chief Executive, an entire system of laws is undermined and demands some form corrective action.”

Turley did not stop there. He continued:

In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker; it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

The allegations against President Clinton go to the very heart of the legitimacy of his office and the integrity of the political system. As an individual, a president may seek spiritual redemption in the company of friends and family. Constitutional redemption, however, is found only in the company of representatives of all three branches in the well of the Senate. It is there that legitimacy, once recklessly lost, can be regained by a president.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

His actions are dwarfed by what is charged in both the Mueller report and in the just-released House Intelligence Committee impeachment report, which spans 300 pages.

Professor Turley is getting some appropriate criticism on social media.

 

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Trump Held Undisclosed Meeting with Turkey’s Dictator Erdogan at NATO

Published

on

Not the first time a foreign power has been the first to reveal Trump met with their top leaders

President Donald Trump held an undisclosed meeting Wednesday with Turkish President Recep Erdogan during this week’s NATO summit. While Turkey is a member nation of NATO, President Erdogan is widely seen as a dictator for whom President Trump holds a special fondness.

The meeting had not appeared on President Trump’s official schedule, nor did the White House announce it later, until the Turkish government posted a photo of the two leaders in a tweet.

After the photo was released the White House put out a statement saying Trump met with Erdogan to remind him of “the importance of Turkey fulfilling its alliance commitments.”

Trump met with Erdogan at the White House last month.

The Hill reports White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley, while confirming the meeting, “did not describe the meeting either as a full bilateral meeting or a pull-aside at the summit, nor did he confirm reports that the meeting lasted a half hour.”

“Pull-asides,” when two or more leaders casually chat on the sidelines, are not uncommon during summits like NATO. This meeting did not appear to be one.

 

Related: World Leaders Caught on Camera Mocking Trump During Buckingham Palace Reception: ‘His Team’s Jaws Drop to the Floor’

This is far from the first time a foreign power has been the first to reveal Trump met with their top leaders. For example, in May of 2017 President Trump secretly met with the then the Ambassador of Russia to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, in the Oval Office. Kislyak is seen by U.S. Intelligence as a top spy and spy recruiter.

During that now infamous meeting Trump disclosed classified information, leading to an international scandal. The White House had barred all U.S. reporters from the meeting but a photographer for Tass, the official Russian news agency, was present. Tass later published the photos.

That secret meeting came just one day after fired FBI Director James Comey.

On Monday U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) lambasted Trump for appeasing Erdogan:

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2019 AlterNet Media.