Archive for the ‘Hillary Clinton’ Category

Trump Claims He Won New Hampshire (Which he Lost to Hillary Clinton) Because it’s a ‘Drug-Infested Den’ – Newsweek

In a phone call with Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto, Donald Trump claimed he won New Hampshire last November because its a drug-infested den.

In the call on January 27, a week after his inauguration, Trump was embroiled in a tense exchange with his Mexican counterpart over drugs coming over the southern border and why he believed a wall was necessary, according to a transcript published Thursday by The Washington Post.

Related: Trump just asked his supporters to sign a petition demanding 'a big beautiful wall' despite being president

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

We have the drug lords in Mexico that are knocking the hell out of our country, Trump said. They are sending drugs to Chicago, Los Angelesand to New York. Up in New HampshireI won New Hampshire because New Hampshire is a drug-infested denis coming from the southern border.

Trump didnt, in fact, triumph in New Hampshire in the election, losing to Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton by a 0.3 percent margin. However, he did score a resounding win in the Republican primary in the Northeastern state.

New Hampshire has the highest synthetic opioid death rate in the country. However, by far the biggest cause of overdose deaths in the state has been the powerful painkiller fentanyl. And it is China, not Mexico, that is the primary source of fentanyl in the United States, according to law enforcement officials and drug investigators.

Trump, though, insistedthat Mexico was to blame for the United Statess drug problem.

We are becoming a drug-addicted nation, and most the drugs are coming from Mexico or certainly from the southern border, he went on to say to Nieto.

President Donald Trump shakes hands with Mexico's President Enrique Pea Nieto during their bilateral meeting at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, on July 7. Carlos Barria/Reuters

The reports of Trumps comments were met by swift condemnation from New Hampshire SenatorMaggie Hassan, who tweeted,@realDonaldTrump's comments about New Hampshire are disgusting.

The Democrat added,As he knows, NH and states across America have a substance misuse crisis. To date, @POTUS has proposed policies that would severely set back our efforts to combat this devastating epidemic across party lines to actually stem the tide of this crisis.

And the senior senator from the state, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, soon followed suit. Statingthat Trump owed New Hampshire an apology, she tweeted that its absolutely unacceptable for the President to be talking about NH in this waya gross misrepresentation of NH & the epidemic.

Trump, who also alleged that drugs were being sold for less money than candy, was adamant during the call that Pea Nieto should not say publicly that his country would not pay for the wall along the southern border. Trump insisted during his campaign, and afterward, that Mexico would foot the bill.

You cannot say that to the press, he said. The press is going to go with that, and I cannot live with that. You cannot say that to the press because I cannot negotiate under those circumstances.

Read the original:
Trump Claims He Won New Hampshire (Which he Lost to Hillary Clinton) Because it's a 'Drug-Infested Den' - Newsweek

Russia Investigation: Jill Stein Explains Her Relationship to Putin, Trump and Hillary Clinton – Newsweek

To some, Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein was little more than a spoiler last November, attracting liberal voters away from Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. To others, she was a principled truth-teller who levelled a necessary critique of a moribund two-party political system.

Stein has recently been in the news because her name appeared in a Senate Judiciary Committee document request regarding collusion between Russiaand the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump. That revived longstanding, if unfounded, suspicions that Stein was somehow associated with elements within the Kremlin. Those suspicions stem, in good part, from a photograph of Stein taken in Moscow in 2015, where she was attending a conference. It shows her sitting at a dinner table with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin and former Trump adviserMichael T. Flynn.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Steinmade headlines this week after an MSNBC interview in which she explained North Korea's nuclear-weapons program as a more-or-less rational response to perceived aggression by the West. Those headlines, were, for the most part, not kind. But that doesn't seem to bother Stein. When I caught up with her earlier this week, she was uncowed in her views of Pyongyang and, well, pretty much everything else.

Lets start with a story I wrote a week-and-a-half ago, and which you called fake news. Your name was mentioned in the document request from the Senate Judiciary Committee to the lawyers of Paul Manafort and Donald Trump, Jr. Do you have any idea why your name appeared there?

It wasnt actually fake news. I slightly exaggerated in calling it fake news. Shall we say the sensationalist headline ["Russian Plot to Elect Trump IncludedJill Stein, According to Latest Gleeful Twitter Theory"] stopped just short of fake news?

Id like to know why you think your name was there with Russian oligarchs and Trump campaign operatives.

I think its there for the same reason that that photo keeps circulating without a single fact. There was no translator at the dinner. Putin came in very briefly. Maybe he was there for 10or 15minutes before he gave a speech in Russian. There was no translator. Nobody was introduced to anybody. My conversation was actually with the guy sitting next to me, a German diplomat.

My clear message at that conference was to challenge both U.S. and Russian militarism.

The facts do not support whatsoever the contention that I was there for some nefarious purpose, or for some kind of backroom deal. I received zero sponsorship to be there. No payment. There was nothing compromising about my being in Moscow.

Did you talk to Michael Flynn at that dinner?

He introduced himself to me just before we sat down, and I began to give him my elevator speech about the peace offensive in the Middle East, which was my policy throughout the campaign. Our conversation very quickly ended at that. Maybe two sentences about the peace offensive, which he was not interested in.

Did you have any other contact with anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign that could have led the Senate Judiciary to reasonably suspect collusion?

Zero.

Zero?

Zero. Politically, we couldnt be further apart. Culturally, we couldnt be further apart. It makes me laugh to even think of the suggestion.

But you did want to defeat Hillary Clinton, so in that sense

Well, let me say, that is fake news. That is based on an article, this contention that I thought Hillary was worse than Trump. I never said that.[Suggestions that Stein was a Trump supporter were indeeddebunked as fake news.]

My summary statement was always that I would feel terrible if Donald Trump was elected, and I would feel terrible if Hillary Clinton was elected. I feel most terrible about a voting system that restricts voters to two untrusted, widely-disliked choices.

I have never said that Hillary Clinton was better or worse than Donald Trump. I entirely avoid those comparisons.

Do you believe some of the Twitter reaction to seeing your name in those Senate Judiciary documents was rooted in the fact that many people still blame you, however rightly or not, for Clintons defeat?

Greens do not vote for Democrats. Wishing that pigs fly doesnt make them fly. You have to do the numbers. You cant just move Green votes into the Democratic column. If only pigs would fly. They dont.

But do you believe that in some way you delegitimized Clinton in the eyes of young progressives and in that way paved the way for a Trump victory?

Remember, most people who voted for Donald Trump were not voting for him. They were actually voting against the Clintons and the legacy of neoliberalism thats been throwing the American people under the bus.

Finding ways to rationalize the suppression of opposition voices is not what Democracy needs. Democracy needs more voices and more choices, especially at a time when the Democratic and Republican parties are being widely rejected by the American public.

Do you still think now, six months into the Trump presidency, that a President Clinton would have been no different than a President Trump?

I never said they were no different. Thats another trap I have learned to avoid. What I said was they are different, theyre not just different enough, to save your job, to save your life and to save the planet and the climate. We shouldnt be forced to choose between two candidates who dont meet our needs.

Youve mentioned fake news several times during our conversation. Do you believe that Russia promulgated fake news during the presidential campaign?

I have seen conflicting reports about that, and I have not been following it closely enough to give you a definitive opinion.

Do you support the recent passage of tougher sanctions against Russia that President Trump will reportedly sign? [Trump signed the sanctions Wednesday while calling it "seriously flawed."]

I think the sanctions are not going to accomplish what we need, which is to protect our election system. We need to protect it against not only hostile foreign powers, we need to protect it also against domestic partisans, against lone gangsters, and against the private election software companies who also have skin in this game. We need blanket protection. That is why I initiated a recount [after the presidential election].

Let me push back on that a little. The Koch Brothers, as far as we know, have not hacked any elections. The intelligence community has determined unanimously that, to some degree, Russia has influenced, to some degree, this past presidential election. Are you agreeing with President Trump that we should be doubtful of that assessment?

Theres not a lot I agree with President Trump on. What Im saying is that the story is not over. Unfortunately, we have seen our security agencies make some errors in the past, like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Lets say Russia did it. Simply punishing Russia doesnt keep make voting systems secure.

Doesnt it dissuade them from doing it in 2018 and 2020?

I dont think so. Well, it might dissuade them, but there are all kinds of other people waiting in line. We need an international treaty to end this intensive cyber warfare.

Some might call you an apologist for Russia for saying what you just said. So lets anticipate that charge. How do you answer it?

I think we are in an era of McCarthyism. If you think the Russians are the only ones committing cybersecurity intrusions, I say good luck to you. Time to start reading the cybersecurity literature out there.

After your MSNBC interview earlier this week, some accused you of excusing North Koreas nuclear ambitions. Id like for you to respond.

I suggest you take a look at [Secretary of State]Rex Tillersons statement, where he went much further than me. I think some people fall victim to this foreigner-bashing, the regime-change playbook. This is how you prepare the nation to exercise regime change. Let me ask you: How did that work out for us in Libya? And how did that work out for us in Iraq? Regime change is not a great idea, but part of regime change is absolutely dehumanizing and demonizing the person youre about to go after.

Now, thats not to defend the human rights record of North Korea, which is off the charts. Nonetheless, we gotta be able to deal with people as people. Thats what Rex Tillerson and [former Director of National Intelligence]James Clapper are saying now.

Didnt President Obama try strategic patience? That appears to have not been entirely successful.

Unfortunately, strategic patience did not include negotiation. Negotiation has not been tried since the mid-90s. And, actually, it worked very well. We basically froze the North Koreans nuclear program for eight years, until George W. Bush came along and declared the Axis of Evil. And not only did he declare the Axis of Evil, he initiated a first strike nuclear attack policy against North Korea. This is why North Korea is backed into a corner, feeling they need a nuclear weapon if theyre going to survive.

Thats what the war exercises have been about. We have been conducting war exercises for well over 10 years. These war exercises essentially rehearse dropping nuclear bombs on North Korea.

You can imagine that they might be feeling defensive.

If we back off from that position, history tells us, it works pretty well.

Would you be willing to serve as an envoy to North Korea to try to broker some sort of deal with Pyongyang?

Would I? Yes, I mean, I dont think Im the person with the credentials to do it. I understand there is a movement afoot to send Rex Tillerson there for that purpose. I think thatd be great. Id be more than happy to accompany him, but I dont think thats gonna happen.

My last question for you. I want to understand why you think youve been the victim of so much criticism from the left and center left. The Democratic establishment has blamed you for its losses. Why do they continue to return to you?

This is par for the course when youre part of the political opposition. If Im perceived as a threat, I take that as a compliment. The Democrats are not doing a lot of introspection about why they have lost support. Things arent changing inside the Democratic Party. And a lot of people are losing patience with that. Part of their defense, I think, is to try to discredit the faces of opposition.

Go here to read the rest:
Russia Investigation: Jill Stein Explains Her Relationship to Putin, Trump and Hillary Clinton - Newsweek

Hillary Clinton’s Favorite New Pantsuit Comes from a Brand Co-Founded by Two Millennial Women – PEOPLE.com

Winning the popular votebutlosing the presidency in the Electoral Collegehas hardly seenHillary Clintonwallowing in sweats. Sure, she went through a phase ofwalking the backwoods of upstate New York and indulging the selfie requests of fellow hikers.And shes admitted to finding comfort in play time with her grandchildren and a glass (or two) of chardonnay.But the former first lady, senator and secretary of state is clearly moving on. Sheswritten a new memoir coming out in the fall,playfullypromoted her namesake pumps designed by Katy Perry,and now is giving her iconic lob-and-pantsuit look a fresh twist with the young suit brand Argent, a line designed by two millennial women.

Toreceive her Champion of the Century Award from Planned Parenthood back in May, Clinton selected a suit jacket fittingly created by two young, female designersand with a pretty budget-friendly price. (Somewhere between the Ann Taylor pieces in Clintons closet and thea very pricey look by Giorgio Armanishes also worn.)

RELATED PHOTOS:13 Things We Can Learn from Hillary Clintons #TBT Photos

Click here to subscribe to the PeopleStyle Newsletter for amazing shopping discounts, cant-live-without beauty products and more

Clintons $358 limited-edition basketweave tie blazer was from Argent, a business wear-focused label created by 31-year-old co-founders Sali Christeson and Eleanor Turner. The line features a number of pieces perfect for any young professional, including blazers, blouses, dressy slacks, and more classic pieces with a modern twist your mom would undoubtedly approve of.

Christeson and Turner told Glamour they even got the chance to meet Clinton, with Sali saying, We had the opportunity to meet her at an event at San Francisco. We shared what we are doing with her, and we just felt like she got it and was excited. And from there she and Huma [Abedin] started wearing the pieces. Its just a symbolic honor at its simplest. And clearly the former Democratic presidential nominee was just as impressed with these two young ladies, saying toNew York magazine of the brands suits,They make them all in New York, and theyre not unreasonably priced.I just want to support more of these young-women-owned businesses, and I think its so sweet that they are making pantsuits!

What do you think of Hillarys new pantsuit? Do you want to buy pieces from this brand? Sound off below!

See the rest here:
Hillary Clinton's Favorite New Pantsuit Comes from a Brand Co-Founded by Two Millennial Women - PEOPLE.com

25 Million Clinton Votes Weren’t Fake – FactCheck.org

Q: Did NPR report that a study found over 25 million Hillary Clinton votes were completely fraudulent, and that she actually lost the popular vote?

A: No. That claim was made in a story that conflates a 2012 article about inaccuracies in voter registration rolls with actual fraudulent votes.

Saw something about NPR doing a study finding there were 25 million fraudulent votes for Hillary meaning she did not win the popular vote. Any truth?

NPR did not report that a study found over 25 million Hillary Clinton votes were completely fraudulent, meaning that the Democratic candidate actually lost the popular vote by a huge margin. Nor is there a study by the Pew Center claiming that over 800,000 non-citizens voted for Clinton.

Those false claims were made in an itempublished July 26on Conservativearmy88.com that Facebook users flagged as potentially fake news. The same story appearedJan. 29 on YourNewsWire.com, which was based in part on anearlier articlefrom Infowars a conservative website notorious for advancing conspiracy theories and publishing thinly sourced reports.

Inthis case, YourNewsWire.com and later conservativearmy88.com misrepresented the Infowars story, which did not claim that Clinton received more than 25 million fraudulent votes in the 2016 presidential election. That would be more than one-third of hernearly 66 millionvotes.

First, lets look at what Infowars wrote.

Infowars, Jan. 27: A study revealing that over 800,000 non-citizens voted for Hillary Clinton doesnt account for dead and fraudulent voters, which accounted for over 25 million registered voters during the 2012 presidential election and little has changed since then.

Illegal alien voters combined with dead and multiple state voters could easily explain Clintons popular vote margin over Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, especially considering that her victory came from Democratic-controlled counties known for illegal immigration and loose voter ID laws such as in New York and California.

A report by the Pew Center on the States finds that more than 1.8 million dead people are currently registered to vote, and 24 million registrations are either invalid or inaccurate, NPR reported in 2012, which is ironic given how NPR is heavily controlled by Democrats.

NPR did report in 2012 on astudy by the Pew Center on the States that found that about 24 million voting registrations in the U.S. were invalid or inaccurate, including more than 1.8 million deceased persons who were still on the voter registration rolls.

Of course, the Pew report made no claims about the outcome of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Still, YourNewsWire.com went beyond NPRs reporting to falsely state, A study published by NPR reveals that over 25 million Hillary Clinton votes were completely fraudulent, meaning that the Democratic candidate actually lost the popular vote by a huge margin.

Aswe havewritten,when President Donald Trump also misrepresented the 2012 Pew report, inaccuracies in voter registration rolls are not the same as actual fraudulent votes.

The authors of the Pew report said their study showed that voter rolls are susceptible to fraud, though they did not claim it was evidence of actual fraud. Rather, they said that it was evidence of the need to upgrade and update voter registration systems.

In a tweet on Nov. 28, 2016, the primary author of the report, David Becker, said:

In addition, there is no study by the Pew Center that says more than 800,000 noncitizens voted for Clinton in 2016, as the YourNewsWire.com story claims.

In its story,Infowarsreferred toa study revealing that over 800,000 non-citizens voted for Hillary Clinton, but it wasnt a Pew study. In fact, there was no study at all that made such a claim.

Infowars misrepresented the work of Old Dominion University political scientist Jesse Richman. The website did not mention Richman, but it linked to aJan. 26 articleby the Washington Times about Richman specifically a blog posthe wrote that refuted Trumps claim about voter fraud.

Trump claimedin a tweet on Nov. 27, 2016, that he would havewon the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally. Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes. Drawing on his 2014 studyof noncitizen votingin the 2008 election, Richmanextrapolated that Clinton could have received 834,318 additional votes from noncitizens.(Richmans 2014 study,as wehavewritten, is controversial and has been disputed a point that Richman noted in his blog post.)

Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November, theTimeswrote. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 [sic] net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.

In aJan. 27 blog postresponding to the WashingtonTimesarticle, Richman made clear that he was not asserting that Clinton actually received 834,318 votes (the Times incorrectly said 834,381 votes). He said he doesnt know how many noncitizens may have voted for Clinton.

What extrapolation I did to the 2016 election was purely and explicitly and exclusively for the purpose of pointing out that my 2014 study of the 2008 election did not provide evidence of voter fraud at the level some Trump administration people were claiming it did, Richman wrote.

In an update to that post, Richman added, As I have no national data specifically for 2016 I do not have a specific point estimate for that year.

Editors note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebookto help identify and label viral fake news stories flagged by readers on the social media network.

Adl-Tabatabai, Sean. NPR: 25 Million Votes For Clinton Completely Fake She Lost Popular Vote. Yournewswire.com. 29 Jan 2017.

Daniels, Kit. Bombshell: At Least 25 Million Dead and Fraudulent Registered Voters in 2016. Infowars.com. 27 Jan 2017.

Scarborough, Rowan. Trump argument bolstered: Clinton could have received 800,000 votes from noncitizens. Washington Times. 26 Jan 2017.

Richman, Jesse, et al. Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections? Electoral Studies, Volume 36. Dec 2014.

Ansolabehere, Stephen, et al. The perils of cherry picking low frequency events in large sample surveys. Electoral Studies, Volume 40. Jul 2015.

Daniels, Kit. Bombshell: At Least 25 Million Dead and Fraudulent Registered Voters in 2016. Infowars.com. 27 Jan 2017.

Pew Center on the States. Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient. Feb 2012.

Fessler, Pam. Study: 1.8 Million Dead People Still Registered To Vote. NPR. 14 Feb 2012.

Farley, Robert. Trumps Bogus Voter Fraud Claims. FactCheck.org. 19 Oct 2016.

Farley, Robert. More Bogus Voter Fraud from Trump. 21 Oct 2016

Farley, Robert. Trump Sticks With Bogus Voter Fraud Claims. 28 Nov 2016

Farley, Robert. Trumps Bogus Voter Fraud Claims Revisited. 25 Jan 2017.

Farley, Robert. More Trump Deception on Voter Fraud. 26 Jan 2017.

Richman, Jesse. I do not support the Washington Times Piece. Old Dominion University. Blog post. 31 Jan 2017.

Richman, Jesse. Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire margin of Trumps popular vote loss to Clinton? Old Dominion University. Blog post. 24 Jan 2017.

Link:
25 Million Clinton Votes Weren't Fake - FactCheck.org

House Judiciary Chairman’s Priority: Investigating Hillary Clinton – Bloomberg

Between Russian meddling in last years election, Donald Trumps decision to fire FBI Director James Comey and the presidents public drubbing of Attorney General Jeff Sessions,the House Judiciary Committee has a lot it could be looking into.

But its Republican chairman, Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, has a different priority: investigating Hillary Clinton.

Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Goodlatte has called for new scrutiny of decisions made by President Barack Obamas Justice Department in its probe of Clintons use of a private email server, as well as alleged Clinton ties to foreign governments and the leaking of classified information.

Thats put House Democrats in the odd position of praising another Republican -- Goodlattes Senate counterpart, Chuck Grassley of Iowa. The Senate Judiciary chairman has threatened to subpoena Trumps son to testify about possible collusion with Russia during the presidential campaign and demanded records about Russian interactions with Trump family members and campaign officials.

"Weve got to give Grassley and the Senate credit,"Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, a House Judiciary Committee Democrat, said at a hearing last week. "They are not over there denying the reality of what is going on."

Republicans in Congress have struggled to calibrate their approaches to the Russia investigation and the current administrations actions, with many of them torn between protecting a Republican administration from partisan attacks and conducting defensive oversight in case significant wrongdoing emerges.

The House Judiciary panel has remained unusually standoffish. When Democrats on the panel triedlast week to force through a resolution demanding more information on Sessionss role in Comeys firing, Goodlatte and Republicans on the panel turned it into a request demanding new probes into Clinton.

Goodlatte has done zero - absolutely zero -- as chairman to look into these things," Jerrold Nadler of New York, a Democrat on the House Judiciary panel, said in an interview. "Certainly, Senator Grassley doesnt agree with that thinking."

Goodlatte, who didnt respond to a request for an interview, has said there are plenty of other investigations underway, including by the House and Senate Intelligence panels, as well as a continuing FBI probe led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

"Until Mr. Muellers investigation is complete, it is redundant for the House of Representatives to engage in fact-gathering on many of the same issues he is investigating," Goodlatte said at a hearing last week.

Given all the probes, he said theres no reason for his panel to use taxpayer dollars to investigate the Trump campaigns connections -- or lack thereof -- to the Russian government."

John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee, does credit Goodlatte for trying to schedule a briefing with Mueller, where the pair are expected get an update on his probe. But unless Goodlatte and his committee gets more involved in doing its own work, Conyers warns "lasting damage" could be inflicted on the Justice Department on Goodlattes watch.

Nadler added that it is the responsibility of the Judiciary Committee to oversee or even protect the independence of the Justice Department and FBI, and thats whats at stake now, he says.

Both the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees are looking into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. The Senate Judiciary panel is also looking into Trumps dismissal of Comey, who had been leading the investigation into Russias meddling any possible connections to the Trump camp.

But concern from lawmakers from both parties has continued to rise in recent weeks, fueled by Trumps repeated public criticisms of Sessions for recusing himself from the Justice Departments Russia probe. Lawmakers from both parties have said they stood by Sessions and that the presidents comments were inappropriate.

Yet rather than turn to those issues, Goodlatte and the Republican members of his panel sent a letter to Sessions demanding he appoint a second special counsel to investigate troubling, unanswered questions related to Trumps Democratic opponent in the election, as well as several officials appointed by Obama.

Many congressional entities have been engaged in oversight of Russian influence on the election, but a comprehensive investigation into the 2016 presidential campaign and its aftermath must, similarly, be free of even the suggestion of political interference, they wrote.

Goodlatte, 64, is a conservative Republican representing some of the reddest parts of Virginia. He has a lifetime grade of A from the National Rifle Association and branded as unconstitutional the Obama administrations plan to defer deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants.

His panel is also the one that would have jurisdiction over any impeachment proceeding, a step that several Democrats have called for. For that to happen, the Republican-dominated House would have to authorize the Judiciary Committee to investigate, and then Goodlattes panel would vote on whether theres enough evidence for impeachment.

While Goodlatte has been willing over the years to collaborate with Democrats on some issues, Russia isnt one of them.

"This president is a threat to this nation, to its constitution, to its democracy -- and we are doing nothing to respond, said Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, a House Judiciary Committee Democrat, at a hearing last week. Except, lets go back and look at Hillary Clintons emails?"

Get the latest on global politics in your inbox, every day.

Get our newsletter daily.

Grassley, who for months has defended the Trump administration, recently has taken a harder line. Last week, Grassleys committee held a hearing that touched on whether the Kremlin might have been behind a June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. Grassley also joined with his panels top Democrat,Dianne Feinstein of California, in using the threat of subpoenas to force former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and Trump Jr. to provide documents and sit down for interviews.

When Trump recently began publicly criticizing Sessions,a former senator from Alabama, over his recusal from the Russia investigation, Grassley said his panel wouldnt consider confirming a replacement this year.

Goodlatte has been silent on Trumps criticisms of Sessions, which has left Democrats in the unusual position of defending the former senator from Alabama.

"Whatever we think about the political views of Attorney General Sessions, this conduct is not right. It is not normal. And it deserves the immediate attention of this committee," Conyers said during last weeks hearing.

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee say they back Goodlattes position.

"The Democrats make sure that just about all we talk about in Judiciary is Russia -- even though they dont even know how to find Russia on the map, said Representative Trent Franks of Arizona in an interview. They just want to use it as a political bludgeon against Trump."

Andy Biggs of Arizona, another Republican on the panel, says there are plenty of Russia investigations already underway. Like Goodlatte, he sees a need to investigate Obama administration officials, saying there are unresolved questions about Clintons emails and other topics.

Those need to be answered, he said at last weeks hearing.

Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland has a different view: "If all this is simply meant to somehow distract and divert from the ongoing special counsel investigation and somehow to create the idea of symmetry and parity, that strikes me as antithetical to the purposes of this committee."

Read more here:
House Judiciary Chairman's Priority: Investigating Hillary Clinton - Bloomberg