William Barr claims Trump campaign was ‘spied’ on under Obama – live
Attorney general tells Senate subcommittee he intends to release reacted version of Mueller’s Trump-Russia report itsel
Erin Durkin in New York
Wed 10 Apr 2019 11.02 EDT
1h ago Trump on Mueller investigation: ‘Everything about it was crooked’
31m ago Barr says he believes there was ‘spying’ on Trump’s campaign
Live feed
7m ago 11:02
Lauren Gambino Lauren Gambino
Bernie Sanders on Wednesday re-introduced his Medicare for all healthcare plan, the Vermont senator’s signature domestic policy proposal that has moved from a fringe, leftwing idea to a progressive litmus test.
The new bill has support from Sanders’ fellow rivals for the 2020 Democratic nomination, including Senators Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren. They had all previously endorsed an earlier version of the bill.
Medicare for all has reshaped the debate over healthcare among Demcorats, pushing the center of gravity on the issue far to the left of what was under consideration when Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. Republicans have accused the Democrats of trying to bring socialism to the US.
Sanders envisions a complete transformation of the US healthcare system. Under Medicare for all, the US would transition to a single payer system run entirely by the federal government.
The bill is largely the same as the one he introduced in 2017. The transition would take place over a four year period, with the age of eligibility for Medicare dropping by 10 years until it reaches age 35 in year three. This differs from a House version of this bill, introduced earlier this year that calls for a two-year transition period.
The plan would cover all medically necessary care including vision and dental. There is, however, one notable change: the newer vision of the bill expands coverage to include home-and community based long-term care services. Private insurers could stay in business only to provide for care that is not covered by Medicare for all, such as elective surgery.
While Sanders likes to proudly point to polling that shows public support for universal healthcare has spiked since his 2016 run, the major barrier for would-be supporters is the price tag.
In an accompanying fact sheet, Sanders says the plan “does not represent any new spending at all. Instead, it represents a rebalance of how our current dollars are spent.” The fact sheet includes several proposals to offset the costs, including several ideas based on raising taxes on the wealthy individuals.
Attorney General William Barr declined to say whether he believes, as Donald Trump does, that the Mueller investigation was illegal or a witch hunt.
“I’m not going to characterize. It is what it is,” he said.
Warren had already released ten prior years of her taxes, according to the Post. Other Democratic presidential candidates including Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar and Jay Inslee have already released their taxes.
Robert Mueller did not indicate whether he wanted Attorney General William Barr to make a judgment about Donald Trump’s culpability for obstruction of justice.
Mueller’s report did not make a conclusion on whether Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice, instead laying out evidence on both sides. Barr, in his own summary, said he believes Trump did not commit obstruction.
Senator Patrick Leahy asked Barr whether Mueller told him that he wanted to let Congress decide about obstruction. “He didn’t say that to me, no,” Barr said. Leahy then asked if Mueller said that Barr should decide. “He didn’t say that either. But that’s generally how the Department of Justice works,” he said.
Barr said he would explain his conclusion that Trump was not guilty of obstruction, but not yet. “I don’t feel I can do it until the report is out. I think the report contains a lot of the information that would give meaning and content to the decision,” he said.
Attorney General William Barr is defending the Justice Department’s decision to argue in court that Obamacare should be thrown out in its entirety.
Reversing course, the Justice Department backed a judge’s ruling that the healthcare rule is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had previously upheld it.
“It is a defensible and reasonable legal position,” Barr said.
Barr says he believes there was ‘spying’ on Trump’s campaign
Attorney General William Barr elaborated on his statement yesterday that he is putting together a team to review the origins of the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s campaign.
He said he believes there was “spying” on Trump’s campaign, a claim the president has frequently made, and he wants to determine whether that surveillance was justified.
Ken Dilanian
(@KenDilanianNBC)
Barr on why he wants to investigate the origins of the Mueller probe: “I think spying did occur” on the Trump campaign, but “the question is whether it was adequately predicated. I’m not saying it wasn’t.”
April 10, 2019
Michael McAuliff
(@mmcauliff)
Barr says “I think spying did occur” in the Obama administration during the 2016 election. The question is whether it was “predicated.” “I have an obligation to make sure government power is not abused.”
April 10, 2019
Updated at 10.47am EDT
37m ago 10:32
Attorney General William Barr said he would not redact information from the Mueller report to protect Donald Trump’s reputation.
One of the categories of redactions he plans to make is to protect the privacy and reputational interest of third parties not charged with a crime. But when asked in Senate testimony, he said those parties do not include Trump.
“I’m talking about people in private life, not public office holders,” Barr said.
41m ago 10:28
Attorney General William Barr tells the Senate he intends to release a redacted version of the Mueller report itself, as oppose to his own summary of the report.
He plans to make redactions in four categories, the most controversial of which may be protecting the privacy of people who have not been charged with crimes.
52m ago 10:17
On the day of the deadline House Democrats gave the IRS to turn over Donald Trump’s taxes, Trump again refused to release them.
“I would love to give them, but I’m not going to do it while I’m under audit. It’s very simple,” Trump said outside the White House.
The House Ways and Means committee has requested the returns from the IRS under a law that allows them to obtain the taxes of any citizen.
Trump noted he won the election despite breaking with the practice of all nominees in recent history and refusing to release them. “Frankly the people don’t care,” he said.
Peter Baker
(@peterbakernyt)
Every president’s taxes are audited automatically under IRS policy and yet every president over the last four decades has released their returns anyway. t.co/ypgC3afchx
April 10, 2019
Updated at 10.33am EDT
US politics live
William Barr
Trump administration
Trump-Russia investigation
© 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
ABCNews
As Democrats’ deadline for Trump’s tax returns looms, he doubles down: ‘I won’t do it’
By Lucien Bruggeman
Apr 10, 2019, 11:17 AM ET
WATCH: Congressional Democrats have requested President Donald Trump’s taxes, but both sides are digging in for what could be a long fight.
On the day House Democrats marked as a deadline for the IRS to respond to their request for President Donald Trump’s tax returns, the president on Wednesday doubled down on his position that he won’t be making them public – at least for now.
In doing so, the president reiterated his oft-cited rationale for withholding his tax information: claiming they were under audit – although that has never been confirmed.
“I would love to give them, but I’m not going to do it while I’m under audit. It’s very simple,” Trump told reporters gathered at the White House South Lawn as he left for a trip to Texas.
President Donald Trump speaks to the press prior to departing on Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, April 10, 2019.
But less than 24 hours earlier, the president’s own IRS commissioner, Charles Rettig, told lawmakers there are no rules prohibiting a taxpayer under audit from releasing their tax information, when asked at a congressional hearing.
"I think I’ve answered that question,” Rettig told the House Appropriations Committee during a budget hearing on Wednesday. “No,” he said.
Rettig faces a Wednesday deadline to respond to a letter from the Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., who last week formally requested Trump’s business and personal tax information dating back to 2013.
In a hearing Wednesday morning before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Rettig declined to say whether he would comply with Democrats’ request.
“We received the letter, we’re working on the letter with counsel, and we anticipate responding,” Rettig told the panel.
© 2019 ABC News Internet Ventures. All rights reserved.
Annulment Clause:::
Two attorneys general from the District of Columbia and Maryland have filed lawsuits arguing the Trump International Hotel in Washington.
Trump hotels exempted from ban on foreign payments under new stance
A narrow justice department interpretation of the emoluments clause gives countries leeway to curry favor with the president via commercial deals
Peter Stone in Washington
Tue 9 Apr 2019 02.00 EDT Last modified on Wed 10 Apr 2019 07.42 EDT
The Department of Justice has adopted a narrow interpretation of a law meant to bar foreign interests from corrupting federal officials, giving Saudi Arabia, China and other countries leeway to curry favor with Donald Trump via deals with his hotels, condos, trademarks and golf courses, legal and national security experts say.
The so-called foreign emoluments clause was intended to curb presidents and other government officials from accepting gifts and benefits from foreign governments unless Congress consents.
But in a forthcoming article in the Indiana Law Journal, the Washington University Law professor Kathleen Clark reveals justice department filings have recently changed tack. The new interpretation, Clark says, is contained in justice filings responding to recent lawsuits lodged by attorneys generals and members of Congress.
Clark’s article notes that in more than 50 legal opinions over some 150 years justice department lawyers have interpreted the clause in a way that barred any foreign payments or gifts except for ones Congress approved. But filings by the department since June 2017 reveal a new interpretation that “… would permit the president – and all federal officials – to accept unlimited amounts of money from foreign governments, as long as the money comes through commercial transactions with an entity owned by the federal official,” the professor writes.
The justice department stance now closely parallels arguments made in a January 2017 position paper by Trump Organization lawyer Sheri Dillon and several of her law partners. On 11 January 2017, just days before he was sworn in, Dillon said Trump isn’t accepting any payments in his “official capacity” as president, as the income is only related to his private business. “Paying for a hotel room is not a gift or a present, and it has nothing to do with an office,” Dillon said.
That goes against what many experts believe.
“For over a hundred years, the justice department has strictly interpreted the constitution’s anti-corruption emoluments clause to prohibit federal officials from accepting anything of value from foreign governments, absent congressional consent,” Clark told the Guardian.
‘Instead of defending the republic against foreign influence, the department is defending Trump’s ability to receive money from foreign governments.’ Photograph: Ethan Miller/Getty
“In 2017, the department reversed course, adopting arguments nearly identical to those put forward by Trump’s private sector lawyers. Instead of defending the republic against foreign influence, the department is defending Trump’s ability to receive money from foreign governments,” Clark added.
A justice department spokesperson declined to comment, but pointed to its filings in the emoluments lawsuits which Clark has noted contain five arguments similar to those used by Trump’s business lawyers. Among the key justice arguments is that the foreign emoluments clause only was intended to prohibit the president accepting gifts and employment compensation from a foreign government, but allows him to benefit from what it calls “commercial transactions”.
Other legal scholars also voice strong qualms about the justice department’s current position on emoluments and criticize the administration’s lax attitude about conflicts involving Trump and his business empire.
“The heart of the matter is that these are clauses meant to guard against undue foreign influence and conflicts of interest,” John Mikhail, a professor at Georgetown Law Center, said.
There’s a perception among lobbyists for foreign governments that the White House is for sale
Robert Baer, CIA veteran
Two attorneys general from the District of Columbia and Maryland have filed lawsuits arguing the Trump International Hotel in Washington, where numerous foreign and state delegations have stayed or hosted events, has violated the anti corruption clauses. Some 200 members of Congress have also filed a lawsuit alleging that Trump has conflicts of interest in at least 25 countries.
The inspector general at the General Services Administration, which oversees the government-owned Old Post Office building leased by the Trump International Hotel, has faulted the agency for “improperly ignoring (the) emoluments clauses” and for conflicts of interest involving the hotel while Trump is in office.
Former intelligence officials also expressed concerns. “There’s a perception among lobbyists for foreign governments that the White House is for sale,” said Robert Baer, a 21 year CIA veteran with a Middle East background. “It’s a counter intelligence nightmare.”
The Trump Organization did pledge that while Trump was president it would donate any profits from foreign entities to the treasury. To that end it has written checks for $342,000 to the government covering the years 2017 and 2018. But some ethics watchdogs have questioned the methodology for calculating these payments, arguing it doesn’t account for foreign revenues to Trump businesses which overall have had yearly losses.
Further critics note that while Trump opted to let his two sons run his real estate businesses, and pledged he would not be involved with it as long as he was president, he has not been shy about publicly touting his properties including his Scottish golf course.
A chief focus of critics and the emolument lawsuits has been the Trump International Hotel which has become a mini mecca for numerous foreign delegations – including ones from Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Turkey and the Philippines – who have used it for overnight stays and various meetings.
When foreign powers patronize the president’s businesses it creates an enormous national security risk
Mike Carpenter
The hotel is leased from the GSA for 60 years and located on Pennsylvania Avenue just a few blocks from the White House. The IG’s report this January said the lease should have been reviewed again with Trump’s election to determine if it was in violation of the emoluments clause.
Critics of Trump’s ongoing ties to the Trump International and his business empire also note that some countries with major political and business problems in Washington have frequented his properties. “It appears that President Trump may be benefiting from foreign use of his properties designed to influence his decisions,” said the former Republican congressman Mickey Edwards.
For instance, a 60-person Malaysian government delegation stayed at Trump International in the fall of 2017 at a time when the justice department was conducting a major corruption investigation of Malaysian officials including the then prime minister, Najib Razak, who had a White House meeting with Trump during their stay, as first reported by radio station WAMU and Reveal.
Meanwhile, lobbyists for Saudi Arabia, which has aggressively courted Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, spent at least $270,000 at his DC hotel after Trump won the election, booking 500 rooms over an estimated three-month period, according to a Washington Post report.
Last March, a Saudi delegation traveling with the country’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman seemed to enjoy a lavish stay at Trump’s New York hotel, which helped to reverse a two-year revenue decline at the property, according to the Washington Post.
These foreign dealings with Trump hotels are exhibit A for many critics of the weak kneed enforcement of the emoluments clause in the Trump era.
“This administration gives off every appearance of turning the White House into a giant cash register,” said Mikhail. “ Rather than drawing bright lines between the Trump Organization and the Trump administration they seem intent on blurring those lines.”
The lawsuits have to wend their way through the courts – which could see tough battles given mixed court rulings thus far. But critics in Congress and outside are raising more questions about emoluments and Trump’s business conflicts as new issues keep arising.
“Congress now must conduct independent oversight so the American people can determine for themselves whether the President is acting in our nation’s best interests or his own,” said congressman Elijah Cummings, the chairman of the House committee on oversight and reform.
Mike Carpenter, who served on the National Security Council in the Obama years, added: “When foreign powers patronize the president’s businesses it creates an enormous national security risk.”
• This article was amended on 10 April 2019. An earlier version said that the Trump Organization had written checks for $342m to the government covering the years 2017 and 2018, when it should have been $342,000.
© 2019 Guardian News & Media