Dershowitz claims critics mischaracterized reelection argument

Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor joining President Donald Trump’s legal team, speaks to reporters as the impeachment trial shifts to questions from senators, a pivotal juncture as Republicans lack the votes to block witnesses and face a potential setback in their hope of ending the trial with a quick acquittal, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2020. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 7:15 AM PT — Friday, January 31, 2020

Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz recently slammed his critics for taking his comments on presidential power out of context. In a series of tweets Thursday, Dershowitz claimed mainstream media outlets CNN, MSNBC and others “willfully distorted” his answers.

Dershowitz explained that he never said President Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign amounted to being in “national interest.” The Harvard Law professor then pointed to former President Lincoln and former President Obama as examples that “seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt.”

“Your election is in the public interest and if a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” he stated on the Senate floor.

Many pundits were quick to condemn Dershowitz and claimed his comments during the Senate impeachment trial condoned a broad interpretation of presidential power.

RELATED: Dershowitz, Purpura downplay Democrats’ case against President Trump

Original Article

Saudi Arabia denies claims crown prince hacked into Bezos’ phone

This combination of photos shows Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on June 24, 2019 and Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and CEO, in Washington, on Sept. 13, 2018. (AP Photo)

OAN Newsroom
UPDATED 2:13 PM PT — Thursday, January 23, 2020

Saudi Arabia is denying allegations Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman hacked Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ phone. On Wednesday, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud called the allegations absurd and based on false information.

“All I can say is that the allegations are completely untrue. They’re really based on conjecture and information that’s not complete. There’s no real evidence that we can see, and therefore, you know, we think it’s not a serious accusation at all.” – Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia

The United Nations is calling for a U.S. investigation into bin Salman’s alleged involvement in the hacking back in May of 2018. Sources said the prince sent Bezos a corrupted video file on WhatsApp that allowed hackers into his phone after he opened it.

FILE – In this Oct. 14, 2019 file photo, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman speaks to Russian President Vladimir Putin during the talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko, Pool)

UN officials reviewed forensic analysis, commissioned by Bezos, that alleged surveillance on the Amazon CEO was being used to influence the Washington Post’s reporting on Saudi Arabia.

Five months after the hack, Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi was killed by Saudi agents. Four months later, The National Enquirer allegedly threatened to expose private photos and messages Bezos shared with another woman while he was still married.

UN officials said the hack may lead to information regarding what Saudi officials were doing in the months prior to threats against Bezos and Khashoggi’s death.

“I think the hacking, and the demonstrated hacking of Mr. Bezos’ phone, should lead to a thorough investigation into the practices of hacking more generally by Saudi Arabia, and possibly other states,” stated UN special rapporteur Agnes Callamard.

FILE – In this Sept. 19, 2019, file photo, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos speaks during his news conference at the National Press Club in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

However, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister said the investigation lacks merit.

“The idea that the crown prince would hack Jeff Bezos’ phone is absolutely silly,” said Al-Saud. “It’s a statement based on a report by a private company that has not been vetted…(and has) no hard evidence to substantiate the claims it’s making.”

Amazon has not responded to requests for comment since the allegations came to light. However, Bezos shared a photo of himself honoring the slain Saudi journalist on Twitter.

Original Article

PI firm claims Hunter Biden is subject of criminal probes, whistleblower was on ex-VP’s secret Ukraine flight

closeMedia plays defense for Joe Biden amid Ukraine scandalVideo

Media plays defense for Joe Biden amid Ukraine scandal

Reaction and analysis from Fox News contributor Charlie Hurt and Women for Trump national co-chair Gina Loudon.

A private investigation firm made a bizarre intervention in an Arkansas court case concerning custody of Hunter Biden's alleged love child Monday, claiming in an explosive filing that former vice president Joe Biden's son is dodging their discovery requests and is "the subject of more than one criminal investigation involving fraud, money laundering and a counterfeiting scheme."

On the same day that D&A Investigations filed its "Notice of Fraud and Counterfeiting and Production of Evidence", which was first reported by The Daily Mail and obtained by Fox News, Lunden Alexis Roberts authored her own motion seeking "primary physical and legal custody" of the child she said she had with Biden. Lunden also demanded attorneys' fees and a hearing concerning visitation rights.


The court in Independence County, Ark. quickly struck the D&A filing from the record, saying it violated state procedural rules for joining an ongoing case as an intervening party. Ordinarily, the rules require that intervening parties share a "question of law or fact in common" with the existing case.

Hunter Biden, in his own motion to strike the firm's claims, told the court that the allegations were false and scandalous, and a transparent attempt to garner media attention.

D&A told Fox News Tuesday to expect an additional filing soon — and hinted that more incriminating details concerning Hunter Biden's business dealings would soon come to light.


The firm, which worked with Casey Anthony's defense team, separately told Fox News that its investigators have found that the intelligence community whistleblower at the center of the Democrats' impeachment against President Trump accompanied Joe Biden when he traveled to Ukraine in March 2016 and pressured the country's government to fire its top prosecutor by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid.

"I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars," Biden boasted at a conference after leaving office. "I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in –, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b–ch. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

However, publicly available records show that Joe Biden did not officially travel to Ukraine in 2016.

Hunter Biden and Joe Biden pictured in April 2016. (Photo by Teresa Kroeger/Getty Images for World Food Program USA)

Hunter Biden and Joe Biden pictured in April 2016. (Photo by Teresa Kroeger/Getty Images for World Food Program USA)

In its filing, D&A investigations asserted that Hunter Biden and his business associates "established bank and financial accounts with Morgan Stanley et al" for the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings Limited for a "money laundering scheme," among other ventures.

One alleged scheme "accumulated $156,073,944.24," according to the document.

D&A claimed its filing was necessary because Biden was failing to answer "reasonable" and "basic" questions, and said it had been "actively investigating" Biden and his partners "since 8 August 2016."

Hunter Biden was a board member of Burisma, which had been under investigation before then-Vice President Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor. In his July 25 call with Ukraine's president that ultimately led to his impeachment, President Trump suggested the Ukrainians look into the circumstances of the prosecutor's termination, including Joe Biden's boast that he had the prosecutor fired.

"Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it…It sounds horrible to me," Trump said on the phone call. State Department officials flagged Hunter Biden's apparent conflict of interest at the time but were shrugged off by the vice president's office.

Joe Biden has denied knowing anything about his son's business dealings. Fox News has obtained a photograph showing the former vice president golfing with Hunter and a Burisma executive, and Hunter Biden has previously said he discussed his business dealings on one occasion with his father.


The 28-year-old Roberts, in her filing, said Hunter Biden has "had no involvement in the child's life since the child's birth, never interacted with the child, never parented the child," and "could not identify the child out of a photo lineup."

DNA tests have allegedly confirmed "with scientific certainty" that Hunter Biden is the biological father of Roberts' baby, according to court documents filed in November.

Joe Biden tangled with a Fox News reporter when asked about that development.

Joe Biden on son Hunter's paternity case: 'That's a private matter, I have no comment'Video

“I’m wondering if you have a comment on this report, and court filing, out of Arkansas that your son Hunter just made you a grandfather again,” Fox News’ Peter Doocy asked.

“No, that’s a private matter and I have no comment,” Biden fired back before attacking the reporter.

“Only you would ask that,” Biden said. “You’re a good man. You’re a good man. Classy.”

Earlier this month, Hunter Biden's private life again spilled out into the public sphere when Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., brought up his admitted past substance abuse issues.

The Florida lawmaker referenced an article published this past July in The New Yorker, which included interviews with Hunter Biden and reported on a 2016 car accident the younger Biden was involved in. According to that story, employees at a rental car agency claimed they found a crack pipe inside the vehicle. It also quoted Hunter Biden describing his attempts to buy crack cocaine in a Los Angeles homeless encampment.


“I found this very extensive profile in The New Yorker,” Gaetz said before detailing some of the article’s more sordid details on Biden. “I don’t want to make light of anybody’s substance abuse issues, I know the president is working real hard to solve those throughout the country, but it’s a little hard to believe that Burisma hired Hunter Biden to resolve their international disputes when he could not resolve his own dispute with Hertz rental car over leaving cocaine and a crack pipe in the car.”

Republican lawmakers have questioned why Hunter Biden was being paid upwards of $50,000 a month by Burisma at the same time his father was leading the Obama administration's diplomatic dealings with Kiev. Though the timing raised concerns among anti-corruption advocates, neither the former vice president nor his son has been formally accused of breaking the law.

Fox News' Brian Flood contributed to this report.

Original Article

Jeff Flake claims Senate Republicans, not just Trump, are on trial

closePresident Trump takes aim at House Speaker Pelosi for not sending articles of impeachment to the SenateVideo

President Trump takes aim at House Speaker Pelosi for not sending articles of impeachment to the Senate

Trump accuses Nancy Pelosi of 'playing games' with impeachment; chief White House correspondent John Roberts reports.

Former Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., is warning his former colleagues in the Senate that they, along with President Trump, will be on trial when the articles of impeachment eventually move from the House to the upper chamber.

“President Trump is on trial. But in a very real sense, so are you. And so is the political party to which we belong,” Flake writes in an op-ed for The Washington Post Friday.


Flake, who left the Senate this year after having staked out a vocally anti-Trump stance, wrote after the House voted for two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The articles are expected to soon go to the Senate for a trial, although there are indications House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., may delay the articles being transmitted. In the Senate, Trump is almost certain of acquittal unless there is a sudden and dramatic shift of Republicans in favor of impeachment.

Flake urges Republicans to consider the evidence, but at the same time not to repeat House Republican assertions the president hasn’t done anything wrong: “He has.”

“The willingness of House Republicans to bend to the president’s will by attempting to shift blame with the promotion of bizarre and debunked conspiracy theories has been an appalling spectacle,” Flake argues. “It will have long-term ramifications for the country and the party, to say nothing of individual reputations.”


He asks what Republicans would have done if President Barack Obama had engaged in the same behavior, in regards to Ukraine.

Breaking down media coverage of impeachment voteVideo

“I know the answer to that question with certainty, and so do you. You would have understood with striking clarity the threat it posed, and you would have known exactly what to do,” he says.

While Flake says he does not envy Republican senators’ task, he urges them to avoid “an alternate reality that would have us believe in things that obviously are not true, in the service of executive behavior that we never would have encouraged and a theory of executive power that we have always found abhorrent.”

“If there ever was a time to put country over party, it is now,” he writes. “And by putting country over party, you might just save the Grand Old Party before it’s too late.”

There have been no public signs so far of any mass defection against Trump by GOP senators. Despite rumors that a number of Republicans in the House may break off, no GOP members in the lower chamber voted for impeachment — while a few Democrats voted against.


It isn’t the first time Flake has indicated he believes that a Senate conviction of Trump is in the realm of possibility. He claimed in September that close to three dozen Republican senators would back ousting the president if the vote was held in private.

"I heard someone say if there were a private vote there would be 30 Republican votes. That's not true," Flake said on Slate's "What Next" podcast. "There would be at least 35."

Fox News’ Joseph Wulfsohn contributed to this report.

Original Article

Trump admin proposes further restrictions on asylum claims from criminal migrants

closeAppeals court sides with Trump administration on asylum ruleVideo

Appeals court sides with Trump administration on asylum rule

An appeals court has sided with President Trump on an asylum rule to limit claims from Central America.

The Trump administration on Wednesday proposed a rule that would expand the list of crimes, including some misdemeanors, for which a migrant can be barred from being granted asylum in the U.S.

"Because asylum is a discretionary benefit, aliens who are eligible for asylum are not automatically entitled to it," the rule says. "Rather, after demonstrating eligibility, aliens must further meet their burden of showing that the Attorney General or Secretary should exercise his or her discretion to grant asylum."

The proposed regulation, announced by the departments of Justice and Homeland Security, would provide seven additional restrictions for asylum eligibility to those already in place.


The rule would then bar any migrants convicted of a felony under federal or state law, as well as offenses including alien smuggling, illegal re-entry or a crime involving criminal street gang activity.

The rule would also bar migrants from claiming asylum who had been convicted of offenses including driving under the influence (DUI) and domestic violence.

Most controversially, the rule would also apply to misdemeanors related to false identification, drug possession and welfare fraud — something likely to raise the ire of pro-migrant and other civil rights groups.


The rule would only apply to crimes that had been committed in the U.S., meaning it would mostly target those migrants already in the U.S. or who had been removed from the U.S. and then attempted to re-enter.

These restrictions would be in addition to existing barriers already in place — including for terrorist activity and for “particularly serious crimes.” The rule would also remove provisions that require the reconsideration of a discretionary decision to deny asylum by officials — a move that officials say would reduce costs and make the courts more efficient.

Inside newly converted ICE detention center in Louisiana where migrants await their fatesVideo

It marks the latest move by the administration to cut down on dangerous or fraudulent asylum seekers coming into the country. The administration has secured a series of regional agreements that involve migrants sent to other countries for asylum claims, including with Mexico and Guatemala.


Within the homeland, the administration has taken a tougher line on "sanctuary cities," or jurisdictions that do not comply with detainers filed by federal immigration officials requesting that criminal illegal immigrants be held by local authorities until federal officials can take them into custody and begin deportation proceedings.

The proposed rule will be up for publication consideration and the comment period ends on Jan. 21.

Original Article

Biden slams Warren, claims she’d rule by ‘executive order,’ refuse to work with GOP to unite country if elected

closeCould Biden take 2020 if he promised to only serve one term?Video

Could Biden take 2020 if he promised to only serve one term?

'The Daily Briefing' host Dana Perino reacts to the Biden campaign's bold strategy.

Former Vice President Joe Biden said Thursday that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., would take the unorthodox approach of ruling “by executive order,” if elected president after she scoffed at the idea of working together with Republicans to unite the country on a slew of her progressive policy proposals.

Top-tier Democratic rivals have begun swiping at each other amid tightening polls ahead of February's presidential primary and caucus in New Hampshire and Iowa, respectively, when the 2020 election season — and the battle to take on President Trump next November — gets underway in earnest.


Biden, who trailed Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in a University of California at Berkeley poll released this week, made the remarks about Warren at a fundraiser in the San Francisco Bay Area — one of three such events he had scheduled for the day in one of the Democratic Party's stronghold regions. He took aim at Warren without mentioning her by name.

“I read a speech by one of my — good person — one of my opponents, saying that, you know, 'Biden says we’re going to have to work with Republicans to get stuff passed,’” Biden said in Palo Alto. “I thought, ‘Well, OK — how are you going to do it, by executive order?’”

“This particular person said, ‘He thinks he can actually unify the country. You can’t unify the country.’ Well, guys, if we can’t unify the country you all ought to go home now, because nothing’s going to happen except by executive order,” Biden continued.

“And last time I knew it, a president is not allowed to say, ‘This is how I’m changing the tax structure; this is how I’m changing the environment.’ … You need to actually get a consensus in the constitutional process,” Biden said. “And we can unify the country.”

"Last time I knew it, a president is not allowed to say, ‘This is how I’m changing the tax structure; this is how I’m changing the environment.’ … You need to actually get a consensus in the constitutional process.”

— Joe Biden

Biden seemed to react to a comment made earlier in the day in New Hampshire by Warren who — also without naming her targets – took aim at Biden before refocusing her remarks on an opponent they have in common, South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

“We know that one Democratic candidate walked into a room of wealthy donors this year to promise that ‘nothing would fundamentally change’ if he’s elected president,” Warren said of Biden during her address at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College.

Referring to Buttigieg, she continued: “Unlike some candidates for the Democratic nomination, I’m not betting my agenda on the naive hope that if Democrats adopt Republican critiques of progressive policies or make vague calls for unity, that somehow the wealthy and well-connected will stand down.”

Elizabeth Warren critiques rivals in New Hampshire policy speechVideo

Warren — who has eschewed fundraisers with top-dollar donors during her presidential bid as she instead focuses nearly entirely on small-dollar grassroots contributions — once again criticized Biden and Buttigieg for mingling with wealthy donors.

Though ranking third in California, Biden remains the narrow Democratic front-runner in national polls, according to the Mercury News of San Jose. Biden also is capitalizing on big-money donors in Silicon Valley after their home-state Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., dropped out of the primary race, according to a report in Politico this week.

On Thursday, Biden appeared at an event at the home of Sarah and Greg Sands, founder of the venture capital firm Costanoa Ventures. He then attended a fundraiser in San Francisco hosted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and her husband, financier Richard Blum, before heading to a third event across the city hosted by attorney Joe Cotchett, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.


Biden took heat from Warren and Sanders in October for forming a super PAC to accept unlimited donations from billionaires and corporate elites to cure his fundraising woes. He had previously promised not to accept super PAC donations when he first announced his candidacy in April.

According to the Federal Election Commission, Biden raised $38 million from April through September. That figure means Biden falls in fifth place when it comes to fundraising dollars among Democratic presidential candidates. He has only raised about half as much as Sanders, who does not accept super PAC donations.

Biden’s campaign also has struggled with shortcomings in available cash on hand. The most recent federal fundraising report said he has just $8 million in cash on hand compared to Sanders’ $33 million, Warren’s $25 million and Buttigieg’s $23 million.

Democrats are also now contending with the seemingly limitless potential funding of campaign newcomer Michael Bloomberg, a multibillionaire who joined the race in late November — though the former New York City mayor has struggled in the polls.

Fox News' Paul Steinhauser and Tara Prindiville contributed to this report.

Original Article

Supreme Court offers sympathetic ear to insurers over $12B in ObamaCare claims

closeSupreme Court to hear arguments in private insurers’ suit against US governmentVideo

Supreme Court to hear arguments in private insurers’ suit against US government

USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy fellow Christen Young weighs in.

Private health insurers are poised to prevail Tuesday at the Supreme Court over claims the federal government owes them billions of dollars from a now-defunct financial incentive program in the Affordable Care Act.

It is the fifth time the justices have heard legal challenges to the 2010 Affordable Care, but the current issue has little of the partisan rancor of previous disputes, such as individual mandates and contraception coverage.


At issue now is whether Congress appropriately limited funding to private companies after earlier promising them a financial stopgap against losses.

Health providers in six states say they are the victims of a federal "bait-and-switch," by agreeing to participate in an Obamacare program designed to expand coverage plans to uninsured and underinsured customers.

Those companies say they are owed $12 billion in subsidies from the pooled funds, to compensate for losses. But the Trump administration argues Congress properly made the choice to stop funding, and that the companies were never in a contractual relationship with the government.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested the insurers went into the so-called "risk corridor" program with its eyes wide open.

"You make a case at some length about the reliance of the insurance companies, they were basically seduced into this program, but they have good lawyers," he said. "I would have thought at some point they would have sat down and said: well, why don't we insist upon an appropriations provision before we put ourselves on the hook for $12 billion?"


But Justice Elena Kagan was skeptical.

"Are you saying the insurers would have done the same thing without the promise to pay?" she asked, turning aside the government's argument. Insurance firms "pay in, that's obligatory. We [the government] commit ourselves to paying out. It turns out, if we feel like it. What kind of a statute is that?"

The original funding program was designed as a safeguard to lure private insurers into the health market exchanges, amid initial uncertainty over how many people would participate and how much it would cost. Those companies with customers with more expensive medical needs would be reimbursed, while companies with lower costs would pay into the pool.

But Congress in 2016 let the program expire amid concern over the program's rising deficits, and stopped further government payments.

At issue in the high court's subdued oral arguments was what further financial obligation the government had, and the limits of "must pay" reimbursement in the initial language of the law.

Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether courts should offer "special solicitude for insurance companies" to bring these kinds of cases.

Justice Stephen Breyer countered, "Why does the government not have to pay its contracts, just like anybody else?"

Justice Brett Kavanaugh worried about the broader implications.

"If we were to rule for you, everyone will be on notice going forward, private parties and Congress itself, that "shall pay" doesn't obligate actual payments," he said. "If we rule against you, Congress also will be on notice going forward that it needs to include 'subject to appropriations' kind of language in any mandatory statute. My question is, if we rule against you, are there other existing statutory problems lurking out there in the interim?"

The consolidated cases argued Monday are: Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. (18-1023); Moda Health Plan, Inc. v. U.S. (18-1028); Land of Lincoln Mutual Health v. U.S. (18-1038). A ruling is expected by spring 2020.

There are currently a range of legal challenges to other provisions of the ACA, including executive orders by the Trump administration seeking to eliminate or reduce sections of the law.

And the Supreme Court is likely to be confronted in coming months with another Obamacare case, one with far greater implications.

A federal judge in Texas late last year struck down the law’s individual mandate, and with it the entire ACA. A federal appeals court is now expected to issue a ruling shortly, and the justices could then put it on the docket and rule on the merits next year.


Texas and 19 other states had brought suit, saying when Congress eliminated the tax penalty for Americans who fail to purchase health insurance, the main funding mechanism of the law made the entire law invalid.

The Trump administration is no longer defending the law in court, leaving it to about 21 other states and the Democratic-led House of Representatives to serve as main plaintiffs.

Original Article

Comey claims vindication after Horowitz FISA report: ‘So it was all lies’

closePresident Trump says findings from DOJ inspector general's report are far worse than imaginedVideo

President Trump says findings from DOJ inspector general's report are far worse than imagined

Trump speaks after Department of Justice watchdog releases report on Russia investigation.

Former FBI director James Comey seized on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) report findings Monday to claim vindication over the bureau’s handling of the Trump-Russia probe in 2016, saying criticism of the probe “was all lies” — even though the inspector general also faulted the FBI’s handling of surveillance warrants in the report.

DOJ inspector general Michael E. Horowitz’s report, released Monday, said investigators found no intentional misconduct or political bias surrounding efforts to launch that 2016 probe.

“So it was all lies,” Comey tweeted, in an apparent reference to President Trump’s claims that the FBI wrongly investigated his ties to Russia. “No treason. No spying on the campaign. No tapping Trumps wires. It was just good people trying to protect America.”


Comey, in his tweet and in a Washington Post op-ed, appeared to downplay the “significant concerns” cited in the report over the bureau’s efforts to seek the highly controversial FISA warrant to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in the early months of the investigation. The IG probe identified at least 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in the Page applications and said a new audit into the FISA process would take place.

“Although it took two years, the truth is finally out,” Comey wrote in his op-ed.

Others investigating the origins of the probe were less charitable.

“Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened,” U.S. Attorney John Durham said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Attorney General William Barr ripped the FBI’s “intrusive” investigation after the release of Horowitz’s review, saying it was launched based on the “thinnest of suspicions.”


“The inspector general’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken,” Barr said in a statement.

The release came as Washington has been consumed with an impeachment inquiry into President Trump. The House Judiciary Committee was holding the inquiry’s latest hearing Monday, days after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Democrats were moving forward with plans to bring articles of impeachment against the president over his dealings with Ukraine. The president repeatedly has denied doing anything wrong.

Original Article