Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump suggested the special prosecutor's team might not be fair, impartial investigators because of previous political contributions, legal clients and personal friends. (Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)

The people that have been hired are all Hillary Clinton supporters. Some of them worked for Hillary Clinton. I mean the whole thing is ridiculous, if you want to know the truth, from that standpoint. President Trump, interview with Fox & Friends, June 23, 2017

Then who does Mueller select to help lead the independent investigation? Four top lawyers, all major donors to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Party. One of them even worked for the Clinton Foundation. Only in Washington could a rigged game like this be called independent. Pro-Trump group Great America Alliance, political ad, June 23, 2017

President Trump and his surrogates are attacking the judgment and independence of former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation and related matters. They are criticizing the political contributions of some of the attorneys hired to Muellers team, questioning the investigators independence.

Trump claimedthe attorneys are all supporters of Hillary Clinton and worked for her. The ad described the hires as a part of a rigged game.Lets dig into it.

The attacks aimed at discrediting Mueller one month into his special investigation are similar to efforts by former president Bill Clintons supporterstwo decades ago. Democrats at the timeworked to undermineKenneth Starr, special counsel whose investigations ultimately led to Clintons impeachment in the House. They painted Starr as an unethical investigator with a conflict of interest conducting a partisan witch hunt.

Mueller has hired 13 attorneys and is expected to hire more. Most are veteran attorneys at the Justice Department or the FBI, or attorneys Mueller worked with at the WilmerHale law firm, which he left in May whenhe was appointed special counsel. The members who have been made public:

Four (Quarles, Weissmann, Rhee, Prelogar) have made political contributions to Democrats and four (Zebley, Dreeben, Page, Jed) have no record of making political contributions. Previous news reports incorrectly identified Dreeben as a Democratic donor, mistaking him for a furniture designer in Chicago named Michael W. Dreeben.

Quarles gave the most political donations out of the four nearly$33,000 to various Democrats since 1999, Federal Election Commission records show. Recipients included Obama for America, Hillary for America and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Quarles is the only one who donated to Republicans. In 2005, he gave $250 to then-Sen. George Allen of Virginia.In 2015, he gave $2,500 to Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican and chairman of the House Oversight Committee who later wouldinvestigate Hillary Clintons private email server use.

Weissmann donated $4,300 total to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008 and the Democratic National Committee in 2006. Rhee gave $5,400 total to Hillary for America in 2015 and 2016; $5,800 total in 2008 and 2011 to the Obama Victory Fund; and $250 to the DNCin 2004. (Quarles and Rhee gave maximum contributions of $2,700 to Clintons 2016 presidential campaign.)Prelogar donated $500 total to Obama Victory fund in 2012 and Hillary for America in 2016.

Rhee was a partner on the defense team representing the Clinton Foundation in a lawsuit over Clintons use of her private email server. Zebley once represented a Clinton aide at WilmerHale, PolitiFact found.

So Trump twisted the facts: Not all of Muellers hires supported Clinton, and none of them worked for Clinton directly.The White House did not provide an explanation of Trumps claim.

A Great America Alliance spokesman said the ads message is that hiring four high-profile attorneys who contributed to Democrats means Mueller cannot credibly claim to conduct an investigation without some inherent bias or conflict.

An independent investigation should actually be independent and Mr. Mueller is failing to achieve that standard, the spokesman said. Stacking the investigative team with political opponents of the president will not achieve an unbiased result and we are committed to exposing this reality.

But that overlooks important context. Federal regulations prohibit the Justice Department from considering the political affiliation or political contributions of career appointees, including those appointed to the Special Counsels Office. So the implication that Mueller is making politically motivated hires is quite a stretch, as he is legally prohibited from considering their political affiliations.

Under the Rules of Professional Responsibility, attorneys are permitted to participate in matters involving their former firms clients so long as they have no confidential information about the client and did not participate in the representation, said Peter Carr, spokesman for the Special Counsels Office. Moreover,attorneys are bound by confidentiality rules and may not useinformation they learned from one client (say, Clinton Foundation) and divulge it in another case (say, the Russia probe).

The Justice Departments ethics experts found Mueller and those he hired from his former firm are consistent with DOJ rules, Carr said. This was despite concerns over WilmerHales representation of Trumps former campaign manager Paul Manafort, son-in-law Jared Kushner and daughter Ivanka Trump.

Mueller reports to Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein. In a June 13 Senate hearing, Rosenstein said it is not a disqualification for a lawyer in the Special Counsels Office to have made a political donation, and that as a general matter, it is not a disqualification for a lawyer to have represented Clinton in the past.

That Rhee represented the Clinton Foundation is irrelevant, said Stephen Gillers, expert in legal ethics at the New York University School of Law:The Mueller investigation is not about Clintons emails. The two matters are apples and oranges. A lawyer could work on both.

In fact, the lead defense attorney that Rhee worked with on the Clinton Foundation case now represents Kushner and Ivanka Trump.

Trump mischaracterized the donations from Muellers attorneys and falsely claimed some even worked for Hillary Clinton. Four out of eight attorneys made public so far have contributed to Democrats, including Clinton and Obama. The other four have no record of political contributions.

One attorney who donatedthe maximum amount to Clintons 2016 presidential campaign represented the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 lawsuit. Another attorney who made no political donations represented a Clinton aide at one point. Both attorneys worked for WilmerHale, a firm that also represents Trumps former campaign manager, daughter and son-in-law.

Further, Trump and the ad use these political contributions to suggestbias orconflict of interest. But that twists the facts that misleads the public to believe there is something nefarious going on. Legally and under federal ethics rules, there is no conflict of interest. The DOJ is legally barred from discriminating career appointees based on political affiliation, so Mueller cant decide his team based on their contributions. That half of the publicly named special counsel attorneys donated to Democrats is not an indication that Mueller has failed to achieve a standard of independence. We award Three Pinocchios.

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Keep tabs on Trumps promises with our Trump Promise Tracker

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

Do you rate this claim as true or false? More Pinocchios for false, fewer based on your opinion of the statement's truthfulness. (The check mark means you think the statement is true, not that you agree with the rating.)

We need to verify that you are an actual person.

This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population.

Read more from the original source:
Do Russia probe attorneys' donations to Democrats threaten their independence? - Washington Post

The records indicate that past Democratic primary voters turned out at nearly the same rate as past Republican primary voters (Primary vote history is the most readily available measure of partisanship in a state without party registration, like Georgia.)

Over all, 75 percent of voters who last voted in a Democratic primary turned out in the second round of voting, compared with 76 percent of those who last voted in a Republican primary. The turnout rate among voters who have never voted in a primary was 34 percent.

This might not sound like a great Democratic turnout, but it is pretty rare for the Democratic turnout rate to roughly match the Republican turnout rate, at least in a high-turnout election. Certainly, thats been true in Georgias Sixth: In 2014, Republican primary voters turned out at an eight-point higher rate than Democratic primary voters did, 77 percent to 69 percent. In the 2016 election, it was a three-point gap, 89 percent to 86 percent.

It has been true nationwide as well. According to an Upshot analysis of data from L2, a nonpartisan voter file vendor, the Democratic turnout did not match the Republican turnout rate in any recent national election, including 2006, 2008 and 2012. Iowa has complete official turnout history dating to 1982, and Democrats havent exceeded the Republican turnout rate in any of the general elections over that period in the state.

The point is: This is about as good as it gets for Democrats, at least in a reasonably high-turnout election (unusual and imbalanced turnout patterns are more common in lower-turnout contests, when even a slight enthusiasm edge translates to a big change in the composition of the electorate).

The result is that the partisan makeup of the electorate past Republican primary voters outnumbering Democrats by 24.5 points was a lot more like the 2016 presidential election than the 2014 midterm electorate, or even our estimates for a more typical midterm electorate.

The bad news for Democrats is that the Republican turnout edge was larger than in the first round of voting in April, when Republican primary voters outnumbered Democrats by 23.7 points. Thats not because Democratic turnout was weaker in the first round than the second round; turnout was up across the board. Its just that the Republican turnout, which was particularly weak in the first round, increased by more than the Democratic turnout increased.

Mr. Ossoff countered the increased Republican turnout with an equal increase in turnout among voters who have never voted in a primary, who most likely backed him by a big margin. Its an inescapable conclusion: There isnt another way he could have received 48 percent of the vote in an electorate where Republican primary voters outnumbered Democrats, 49 percent to 25 percent. Demographics also offer clues that these voters backed Mr. Ossoff; the voters who havent voted in a primary are far younger and more diverse than those who have.

Over all, voters who had never voted in a primary represented 25 percent of the electorate, up from 18 percent in the first round.

The nonwhite and youth share of the electorate also increased. Over all, 18-to-29-year-old voters represented 10.6 percent of the electorate, up from 7.4 percent in Round 1, and more than halfway between the 6 percent in the 2014 midterm elections and 13.6 percent in the 2016 presidential election. It was also up from the 2016 presidential primary, when they represented 7.9 percent of voters in the district.

Similarly, the white non-Hispanic share of voters (as indicated on their voter registration form) fell to 74 percent of the electorate, down from 75.6 percent in the first round of voting. That, too, was about halfway between 2014, when white voters represented 79 percent of the electorate, and the 2016 presidential electorate, when 71.4 percent of voters were white. Turnout of Asian-American voters, in particular, was high basically matching their share of the 2016 electorate.

There was probably one big exception: Mr. Ossoff did not benefit from such a favorable turnout among black voters. They represented 9.3 percent of voters, the same percentage as in the first round of voting. It was also lower than the 9.4 percent from 2014 or 10.6 percent in 2016.

The stability of the black share of the electorate is pretty striking. In theory, higher turnout ought to have increased the black share of the electorate as a matter of course, just as it increased the share of other low-turnout young and nonwhite, nonblack voting groups. Our pre-election estimate was that black voters would represent 10 percent of the electorate in the second round of voting; our estimate before the first round was 9.5 percent.

From the perspective of campaign mechanics, this was a prime opportunity for Democrats: two elections for field organizing, millions of dollars, a high-profile national race, and great data (the same data used here makes it easy for campaigns to target black voters). Even so, black turnout lagged.

Taken together, these two factors higher Republican turnout and higher youth and nonwhite turnout roughly canceled out.

Democrats, unsurprisingly, are disappointed by losing in Georgia. The recriminations are already underway. There are, undoubtedly, things that Democrats can hope to do better next time. There always are.

But the turnout probably isnt the thing that should keep Democrats up at night. The strong Democratic turnout fits a longer-term pattern of Democrats matching G.O.P. turnout in midterm elections when the Republicans hold the White House, essentially yielding the same partisan breakdown as a presidential election. If the same thing happens in 2018, Democrats will be much better off than they were in 2014 or 2012.

The bad news for Democrats, of course, is that even this sort of turnout is no guarantee of victory. The battle for control of the House will be fought in large part in Republican-leaning districts like Georgias Sixth, and a strong Democratic turnout alone probably wont be enough to win a high-turnout election. In many districts, the Democrats will be burdened by the additional challenge of mobilizing young, nonwhite and perhaps especially black voters.

Even a very impressive turnout like the one in Georgias Sixth might still leave them with an electorate no more favorable than the one that elected Donald J. Trump in November.

Follow this link:
Democrats' Turnout in Georgia Blew Past Typical Off-Year Levels - New York Times

The House Ethics Committee said Monday it is reviewing charges lodged against two high-profile Democratic lawmakers and a senior Democratic aide.

The lawmakers facing an ethics review are Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and the longest-serving sitting House member, and Rep. Ben Ray Lujn (N.M.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The staffer is Michael E. Collins, chief of staff to Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.).

Statements released Monday by the Ethics Committee did not detail the allegations against the three men, which were forwarded to the committee by the independent Office of Congressional Ethics based on a substantial reason to believe a violation has occurred.

The cases will come up for further review on Aug. 9, at which point the Office of Congressional Ethicsreport in each case will be made public and the Ethics Committee can launch a more serious investigation, dismiss the allegations or extend its review.

The Committee notes that the mere fact of a referral or an extension, and the mandatory disclosure of such an extension and the name of the subject of the matter, does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred, or reflect any judgment on behalf of the Committee, the panel said in each case.

A spokesman for Lujn, who is in charge of electing Democrats to the House, said the investigation is linked to a complaint filed by a conservative watchdog group last year about the sit-in led by Democrats on the House floor in response to the Orlando nightclub shooting.

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust said Lujn improperly used images of Democrats on the House floor in fundraising emails. Do you stand with us? one Lujn solicitation read. Chip in $24 toward our emergency fundraising goal $1 for every hour weve been in the well of the House chamber demanding action.

This announcement is the result of a frivolous complaint, filed by a highly partisan outside group about activities during the sit-in last year a complaint that is without merit, said spokesman Joe Shoemaker. Congressman Lujn is committed to abiding by House rules, is confident he has done so in this case, and looks forward to a timely resolution by the Ethics Committee.

The Conyers investigation appears to concern the departure of a former staffer to the 88-year-old congressman. On Feb. 8, the OCE found the aide, Cynthia Martin, received compensation from the House of Representatives at a time when she may no longer have been working for the House for several months last year a violation of House rules that could implicate Conyers if he approved or was aware of improper payments.

This is not a new controversy, but rather involves the same matter that the Office of Congressional Ethics released back in February, said a statement released Monday by a Conyers spokeswoman. Rep. Conyers office has worked diligently at all times to comply with the rules, is cooperating with the Ethics Committee, and is confident that this matter can be swiftly resolved.

Brenda Jones, a spokesman for Lewis, did not describe the nature of the allegations against Collins, but said that Collins respects the process of ethics review and is cooperating with the committee.

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trustfiled a separate complaint against Collins in January, alleging that he improperly held dual roles on Lewiss official staff and his campaign and that in the latter role, he accepted an excessive salary of $27,495. Collins denied any wrongdoing at the time.

Read more:
House Ethics Committee is reviewing allegations against three Democrats - Washington Post

By Jon Ossoff By Jon Ossoff June 26 at 4:04 PM

Jon Ossoff is chief executive of Insight TWI and was the Democratic candidate for Congress in the special election for Georgias 6th Congressional District.

On Nov. 9, Americans awakened to a startling reality: In the absence of broad, enduring citizen engagement, the door is left open for darkness to creep in and gain a foothold in our democracy.

Amid that awakening, I launched my improbable campaign for Georgias 6th Congressional District.It grew into something bigger than I could have imagined.

Here in Georgia, in a district considered safe for Republicans for decades, we built a grass-roots organization powered by thousands of volunteers and hundreds of thousands of small-dollar donors.

The right wings national apparatus fully mobilized to defend the status quo in Washington at any cost. I was defeated. But we put up a hell of a fight.

Grass-roots politics, linking small-dollar fundraising to massive local volunteer organization, showed that it can rival the power of a right-wing machine comprising super PACs backed by entrenched interests and mega-donors. These outside groups were forced to spend nearly $20 million defending a seat gerrymandered never to be competitive.

From the beginning I believed that to compete in this district we had to run a different kind of campaign a campaign that put grass-roots organizing and personal contact with voters above all else. And our campaign tapped into and grew a grass-roots movement the likes of which Georgia had never seen before. This community stood up with undaunted fighting spirit, participating in the largest field program ever run in a U.S. House race and driving a get-out-the-vote effort that brought Democratic turnout in this special election up to general election levels.

The campaign reached out to tens of thousands of voters who had never heard directly from a campaign before. Some 10,000 more people voted for a Democrat in this off-year special election than did for Barack Obama in this district in 2012. Thousands of Democrats and new voters considered extremely unlikely to turn out made their voices heard.

The intraparty disputes that dominate national commentary on Democratic politics were nowhere to be found in the 6th District. On the ground, Democrats were committed to strike the first blow of this new era on behalf of decency and progress.

We ran an economy-first campaign centered on local prosperity and opportunity. I focused on the development of metro Atlanta into a world-class commercial capital, on affordable higher education and technical training, on research and development to drive innovation in Georgias tech sector, on renewal of our transportation infrastructure and a commitment to fiscal responsibility, on pointing out that taxpayers are rightfully upset that the federal government wastes hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

We paired this economic platform with an unwavering support for a womans right to choose, Americans with preexisting conditions, criminal-justice reform, Medicare and Medicaid, voting rights, immigration reform, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, anti-corruption efforts and U.S. leadership to fight climate change. We built a coalition that generated massive Democratic turnout, engaged communities long ignored by local political leadership, and final vote tallies will likely show that we won a majority of independents. And in districts like Georgias 6th, we will not compete unless we build coalitions.

I remained committed to civility and optimism throughout the campaign, and I remain committed to civility and optimism now. Hope, decency and unity are not mere catchwords. Theyre essential to the defense of our republic at a time when hatred and deception have become the dominant forces in American politics.

Its difficult to convey the depth of my gratitude to the hundreds of thousands of people who made this effort possible, giving new voice and agency to thousands of Georgians. In particular, the extraordinary determination and hard work of female activists here in Georgia was the beating heart of the campaign. The grass-roots organization that we built neighborhood by neighborhood is intact, battle-hardened and ready for the future.

We lost, but I am proud of the campaign we ran, and I am proud of my community for standing up against the odds. I launched this campaign believing that America can become stronger, more prosperous and more secure only if we stay true to the values that unite us. I still believe that, and Im not done fighting.

Follow this link:
Jon Ossoff: Lessons for Democrats from the Georgia election - Washington Post

As the night progressed, Bookers vigil on the steps attracted more and more senators. | Getty

By Seung Min Kim

06/26/2017 04:05 PM EDT

Updated 06/26/2017 11:11 PM EDT

Its time again for Senate Democrats to burn the midnight oil.

Senate Democrats launched yet another night of floor speeches on Monday night castigating the GOPs plan to repeal and replace Obamacare a talk-a-thon led by Sens. Patty Murray of Washington and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii that ran several hours after the Senates 5:30 p.m. votes.

Story Continued Below

And while Democrats took turns taking the floor inside the chamber, a much more rambunctious rally was unfolding outside on the Capitol steps in the relatively cool June night. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), along with Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), settled outside shortly after 7 p.m. and began streaming their talk blasting the GOPs efforts to dismantle the seven-year-old health care law.

As the night progressed, Bookers vigil on the steps attracted more and more senators, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat, joined in. Several other Democratic senators including Sens. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Jeff Merkley of Oregon joined in for large chunks of the impromptu demonstration that attracted hundreds.

Right now, the biggest enemy we face is not a handful of senators blocking health care for millions, but its the silence of the many who have the power to do something about this, Booker said around 11 p.m. as the assembly was winding down. Remember, the power of the people is greater than the people in power let your voice be heard.

Murphy told the crowd that the senators didnt give anybody a heads up that several hundred people would gather at the Capitol steps. Booker urged the masses to Snapchat with the various senators who were there, adding: Extra points if you tell Durbin what a Snapchat is. And the normally soft-toned Casey roared to the group: The issue of health care is a matter of basic justice.

Light up the switchboard! Durbin roared to the group. Get on the phones dont be afraid to tweet.

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Earlier on the floor, kicking off the round of speeches Monday evening was Hirono, who recently underwent treatment for kidney cancer and has spoken about her diagnosis as shes made her case against Republican efforts to dismantle Obamacare. Hirono is having a second surgery on Tuesday for a lesion on her rib, a spokesman said.

Democrats are going to keep sharing our stories," Murray said, "and the stories of our constituents to make sure people understand how devastating and mean Trumpcare would be for the people we represent, and to do everything we can to keep up the pressure to stop it."

Ben Wikler, the Washington director for MoveOn.org, on Twitter urged other liberal activists to pack the galleries in the Senate chamber Monday night to show support for Democrats and their late-night speech marathon.

Democrats also led a round of floor speeches last Monday that ended shortly after midnight.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Read more here:
Senate Democrats rally against GOP health-care bill - Politico