Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump is questioning the independence of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of election interference by the Russians because it includes people who backed his Democratic opponent in the 2016 campaign.

"I can say that the people that have been hired are all Hillary Clinton supporters," Trump said in a clip of an interview on "Fox and Friends" that will be shown Friday morning.

News outlets have reported at least three lawyers Mueller has hired to help conduct his investigation have donated almost exclusively to Democrats, including Clinton.

As part of his investigation, Mueller will probe for possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The Washington Post reported Mueller will also investigate whether Trump obstructed justice by allegedly telling former FBI Director James Comey that he hoped the bureau would end its probe of Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser. Another report Sunday said Mueller hasn't decided yet whether to investigate Trump.

In the Fox and Friends interview, Trump claimed "there has been no obstruction." He said "it's bothersome" that Mueller and Comey are friends and former colleagues.

"He's very, very good friends with Comey, which is very bothersome," Trump said. "But he's also -- we're going to have to see. I mean we're going to have to see in terms -- look, there has been no obstruction. There has been no collusion. There has been leaking by Comey. But there's been no collusion, no obstruction, and virtually everybody agrees to that. So we'll have to see."

As Trump has stepped up his attacks on Mueller, and is reportedly even considering letting him go, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have defended the former FBI director whose leadership at the helm of the bureau lasted longer than anyone since J. Edgar Hoover.

Original post:
Trump questions Mueller's investigation: It's full of 'Hillary Clinton supporters' - Washington Examiner

Seven months after the election, Hillary Clinton remains as unpopular today as she was after November's election, a new poll found.

According to Gallup, Americans' views of the Democratic presidential candidate remain unchanged, as 41 percent of people said they have a favorable view of Clinton, who challenged President Trump in last year's presidential race.

Clinton's favorability has remained unchanged over the last seven months, Gallup reported, with 43 percent of Americans saying they had a positive view of the 2016 presidential candidate in November. Her favorability dropped to 41 percent in December, and has been the same since then.

With the exception of Clinton, losing presidential candidates over the last 25 years have seen a boost of at least 4 percentage points in their favorability after the election, according to previous Gallup polls.

Mitt Romney, who challenged former President Barack Obama in 2012, and Bob Dole, who ran against former President Bill Clinton in 1996, each saw their favorability increase four points after their respective elections.

Former President George H.W. Bush, who lost to Clinton in 1992, saw his favorability rise 16 points, and Sen. John McCain, who faced off against Obama in 2008, saw a 14 percent gain in favorability.

No comparable data existed for Democrat John Kerry, Gallup said.

Clinton largely retreated from public view immediately after the election, but has since re-emerged. She gave the commencement speech at her alma mater, Wellesley College, last month, spoke about her loss at Recode's Code Conference, and has challenged Trump on Twitter.

Gallup conducted its poll of 1,009 adults from June 7 through June 11. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level, Gallup said.

Read the rest here:
Hillary Clinton as unpopular today as she was last year - Washington Examiner

Story Highlights

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans are no more likely to view Hillary Clinton favorably than they were before last year's presidential election. Forty-one percent have a favorable view of the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate, within the 41% to 43% range Gallup has recorded since November.

The latest poll, conducted June 7-11, finds that a majority of Americans continue to view Clinton unfavorably (57%), as they have in all Gallup polls on the former first lady and U.S. senator since January 2016.

After retreating from public view following her loss in November, Clinton has re-emerged -- tweeting, speaking at a college graduation, and attending a Broadway musical where she and her husband received a standing ovation.

Some appearances by the two-time presidential candidate have not been as well-received, however. In an interview last month, Clinton blamed her election loss on various factors, including weak Democratic Party infrastructure, mishandlings of an investigation by former FBI Director James Comey and biased media coverage of her campaign. Though she claimed to "take responsibility for every decision" her campaign made, many viewed her comments as shirking blame for her loss.

Meanwhile, Clinton remains a target of President Donald Trump, who continues to tweet about her months after he defeated her in the election -- including last week, when he rehashed many of the criticisms lobbed at Clinton during the campaign.

Clinton's current favorable rating is just a few percentage points higher than her all-time low -- 38%, last recorded in late August/early September 2016. Gallup has measured Americans' opinions of Clinton since 1992, finding substantial variation over time. She received her highest favorable rating of 67% in December 1998 while serving as first lady, just after the House of Representatives voted to impeach her husband, President Bill Clinton. She also received two 66% ratings in 2011 and 2012 during her tenure as secretary of state.

Losing Candidates Usually Regain Stature After the Election -- but Not Clinton

Over the past quarter century, the favorable ratings of losing presidential candidates generally have increased after the election -- some in the immediate aftermath and others in the months that followed. With the exception of John Kerry, for whom there are no comparable data, losing presidential candidates since 1992 have experienced a boost of at least four percentage points in favorability when averaging their ratings from the day after the election through the following June.

While some increases have been modest, such as Mitt Romney's and Bob Dole's four-point improvements, others have been much larger, such as George H.W. Bush's 16-point and John McCain's 14-point gains in favorability.

But for Clinton, this has not been the case. Seven months after her failed bid for the presidency, she remains as unpopular now as she was then.

Typically, losing candidates' favorable ratings improve because political independents and supporters of the opposing political party grow to view the candidate more positively after the election. However, this has not happened for Clinton. Her current ratings among Republicans (11%) and independents (33%) are just as low now as last November before she lost to Trump. Democrats maintain a mostly positive view of Clinton, with 79% viewing her favorably.

Bottom Line

November's election was unlike any other before it, with both major party candidates having some of the lowest favorable ratings of any candidates in Gallup's history. This situation has had unique consequences for the losing candidate as well as the winner.

Seven months after her loss, Clinton's image remains near its record low since 1992 -- even though prior losing candidates' images improved after their defeats. Trump, like previous winners, did get an increase in favorability shortly after his win, though his current 40% favorable rating remains low in an absolute sense.

Some former Clinton supporters have been openly resentful of the failed candidate, calling her toxic and divisive, and unhelpful in any efforts to resist Trump and his agenda. Republicans, meanwhile, haven't softened to Clinton in the way they did to Gore after his 2000 loss, or the way Democrats did to Romney and McCain. To some degree, that may be an outcome of the increasingly partisan political environment, but it may also reflect Republicans' long-held and deep-seated antipathy toward Clinton.

At this point, then, it is unclear when or if Clinton's image will recover. Americans have liked Clinton most when her role was less political -- such as secretary of state or first lady weathering her husband's public scandal -- and her ratings have suffered each time she has run for office. If she doesn't seek to run again, her favorability is far less relevant and frees her from the constraints of public opinion.

Losing Presidential Candidates' Post-Election Favorable Ratings -- November to June

Historical data are available in Gallup Analytics.

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted June 7-11, 2017, with a random sample of 1,009 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is 4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.

Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 70% cellphone respondents and 30% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.

View survey methodology, complete question responses and trends.

See the original post here:
Hillary Clinton Unique With No Post-Election Image Gain - Gallup

The Supreme Courthas ruled on an important test first posed by Justice William Brennan nearly 40 years ago about property rights, as Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the Court's four liberal Justices on Friday.

In 1978, Brennan wrote for a 6-3 majority in the Penn Central v. New York City case that redefined property rights under the Fifth Amendments Takings Clause and also served as a foundation for historic preservation programs at a local level.

The current case in front of the Court, Murr v. Wisconsin, didn't involve a glamorous property such as Grand Central Station, the subject of Brennans opinion. Instead, the dispute was about a vacant vacation property, and if the parcel was part of a combined lot, or a parcel on its own.

On Friday, the majority 5-3 opinion written by Kennedy sided with the state of Wisconsin in the dispute, saying the test devised by Brennan was properly applied by the state, but that the courts also needed to include more than just Brennan's test in deciding similar disputes.

"The governmental action was a reasonable land-use regulation, enacted as part of a coordinated federal, state, and local effort to preserve the river and surrounding land," Kennedy said. "Like the ultimate question whether a regulation has gone too far, the question of the proper parcel in regulatory takings cases cannot be solved by any simple test. ...Courts must instead define the parcel in a manner that reflects reasonable expectations about the property."

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the dissent. "State law defines the boundaries of distinct parcels of land, and those boundaries should determine the 'private property' at issue in regulatory takings cases. Whether a regulation effects a taking of that property is a separate question, one in which common ownership of adjacent property may be taken into account," he said.

The Murr family has owned two riverfront lots since the 1960s; one of the lots contained a vacation cottage; the other lot wasnt developed. One lot was in the parents name while the other was in the name of a company owned by the family. The two lots were jointly conveyed to four of their children in 1994 and 1995.

In 2004, when the children began to explore selling the empty lot to pay for improvements in the cottage, they found out that a zoning law established in 1975 barred the children from selling the empty lot separate from the cottage because two adjoining lots were now owned by one entity. The zoning law also prohibited the development of the empty lot because it didnt meet minimum size requirements for an independent lot.

The dispute in front of the Supreme Court involved a concept called a parcel as a whole. In 1978, Brennan fashioned that test as part of the Penn Central decision.

A New York City commission prohibited the Penn Central Railroad from redeveloping Grand Central Station after two plans substantially changed the buildings historic look above the building. Penn Central sued, claiming it should receive full compensation for the air rights about Grand Central Station.

Brennan and the majority disagreed, saying the commissions decision wasnt a taking under the Fifth Amendment and that the railroad still could derive a reasonable economic return from the buildings use. The decision established a four-part test to determine if a property holder should receive just compensation under the Fifth Amendment if a government policy or action results in a taking of their property.

One of the four parts was called the parcel of a whole. Brennan said that this Court focuses rather both on the character of the action and on the nature and extent of the interference with rights in the parcel as a wholehere, the city tax block designated as the landmark site. In that context, the Court said the Grand Central building and the air space above it was one property in terms of the Fifth Amendments Takings Clause.

The Murr familys lawyerscited another landmark Supreme Court decision, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), to support their claim that they should be able to sell the property or seek compensation from the government.

The Lucas decision said that the denial of all economic use of a property by a government regulation was a taking under the Fifth Amendment and required just compensation. The Wisconsin government has argued that the properties should be considered as a whole in the takings analysis, citing the Penn Central decision. The state appeals court ruled against the Murr family and the family filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which was accepted in January 2016.

Scott Bomboy is the editor in chief of the National Constitution Center.

Filed Under: Fifth Amendment, Supreme Court

Visit link:
Supreme Court decides Takings Clause case as term winds down - Constitution Daily (blog)

Former Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane, free on bail while she appeals her perjury conviction, invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to testify this week in a court hearing in which an accused Pittsburgh killer is challenging wiretap evidence against him.

In a complicated pretrial legal fight, Price Montgomery, an alleged drug dealer charged with fatally shooting a witness, is seeking to exploit a feud between Kane and one of her top deputies that broke out in 2014, at the same time the Attorney Generals Office had tapped Montgomerys cellphone.

Kane went on a vacation to Haiti at that time, and because of the feud had refused to sign routine paperwork authorizing deputy Adrian King to make key decisions in her absence. Nonetheless, King approved the wiretap, using an autopen to add Kanes signature to the document; the recorded conversations allegedly implicate Montgomery.

Now, Montgomery and his codefendants want the wiretap evidence barred on grounds that the tap was approved without proper legal authority.

The hearing showed howKanes tumultuous tenure as attorney general continues to have a ripple effect, almost a year after she stepped down.

Kane, who has kept a low profile since her conviction, took the stand briefly Tuesday in federal court in Pittsburgh only to decline to answer questions, according to several courtroom observers. King had testified the day before, saying that Kane approved the wiretap in a call from the airport as she left for her trip. King provided cellphone records and his notes from the call to back up his account.

King was a key witness against Kane in her criminal case. The former attorney general took note of that in explaining why she took the Fifth.

I know how this works: I say one thing. Adrian King says another. I get charged with perjury, Kane told federal prosecutors a few days before the hearing, according to defense attorney Michael DeRiso, who represents one of Montgomerys codefendants. He said prosecutors had shared notes of Kanes remarks with them.

Kane could not be reached for comment; a call to her home this week went unanswered.

Kanes lawyer for the hearing, Thomas J. Farrell, refused to say whether he was her lawyer. Federal prosecutors also declined comment. U.S. District Judge Mark R., Hornak will rule on the suppression motion in the fall.

Montgomery, 36, is charged with the Aug. 22, 2014, killing of Tina Crawford, 34, also of Pittsburgh, who was shot 10 times at her home as she was leaving to talk with federal prosecutors. Her mother was wounded in the same attack.

Two months before the shootings, Montgomery had been arrested on drug-dealing charges after police seized 1,500 bricks of heroin, more than $100,000, and 16 handguns, shotguns, and rifles in a raid.

Though the wiretap was placed by the Attorney Generals Office, federal prosecutors are pursuing the case. DeRiso said that knocking out the wiretap evidence would undermine the drug charges, but was uncertain about its impact on the charge involving the killing of the witness.

In legal papers defending Kanes right to invoke her constitutional right against self-incrimination, Farrell noted that even innocent people may cite the Fifth Amendment so as not to provide any information to authorities.

He also noted that Kanes conflict with King was explored during the 2016 trial in Montgomery County that ended with her conviction on perjury and obstruction charges.

A jury found that she lied under oath in denying that she had unlawfully leaked confidential investigative material to a newspaper in a bid to embarrass a political enemy. King, now a lawyer in Philadelphia, was a key prosecution witness, testifying that he had warned Kane not to leak material. His relationship with Kane grew chilly after he provided that advice.

Kane was sentenced to serve 10 to 23 months in jail. She has appealed her conviction to Superior Court.

Published: June 23, 2017 5:38 PM EDT

We recently asked you to support our journalism. The response, in a word, is heartening. You have encouraged us in our mission to provide quality news and watchdog journalism. Some of you have even followed through with subscriptions, which is especially gratifying. Our role as an independent, fact-based news organization has never been clearer. And our promise to you is that we will always strive to provide indispensable journalism to our community. Subscriptions are available for home delivery of the print edition and for a digital replica viewable on your mobile device or computer. Subscriptions start as low as 25 per day. We're thankful for your support in every way.

Read more from the original source:
Former AG Kane takes Fifth in wiretap case - Philly.com - Philly.com