Mueller Report Executive Summaries

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO VOLUME I RUSSIAN SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN The Internet Research Agency (IRA) carried out the earliest Russian interference operations identified by the investigation - a social media campaign designed to provoke and amplify political and social discord in the United States. The IRA was based in St. Petersburg, Russia, and received funding from Russian oligarch Y evgeniy Prigozhin and companies he controlled. Pri ozhin is widely reported to have ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin

In mid-2014, the IRA sent em lo mission with instructions   DELETED

The IRA later used social media accounts and interest groups to sow discord in the U.S. political system through what it termed "information warfare." The campaign evolved from a generalized program designed in 2014 and 2015 to undermine the U.S . electoral system, to a targeted operation that by early 2016 favored candidate Trump and disparaged candidate Clinton. The IRA' s operation also included the purchase of political advertisements on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities, as well as the staging of political rallies inside the United States. To organize those rallies, IRA employees posed as U.S. grassroots entities and persons and made contact with Trump supporters and Trump Campaign officials in the United States. The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the IRA. Section II of this report details the Office's investigation of the Russian social media campaign.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO VOLUME II

Our obstruction -of-justice inquiry focused on a series of actions by the President that related to the Russian -interference investigations , including the President's conduct towards the law enforcement officials overseeing the investigations and the witnesses to relevant events.

FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE OBSTRUCTION INVESTIGATION

The key issues and events we examined include the following:

The Campaign's response to reports about Russian support for Trump. During the 2016 presidential campaign , questions arose about the Russian government's apparent support for candidate Trump. After WikiLeaks released politically damaging Democratic Party emails that were reported to have been hacked by Russia, Trump publicly expressed skepticism that Russia was responsible for the hacks at the same time that he and other Campaign officials privately sought information about any further planned WikiLeaks releases. Trump also denied having any business in or connections to Russia, even though as late as June 2016 the Trump Organization had been pursuing a licensing deal for a skyscraper to be built in Russia called Trump Tower Moscow. After the election , the President expressed concerns to advisors that reports of Russia's election interference might lead the public to question the legitimacy of his election . Conduct involving FBI Director Comey and Michael Flynn. In mid-January 2017, incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn falsely denied to the Vice President, other administration officials, and FBI agents that he had talked to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about Russia 's response to U.S. sanctions on Russia for its election interference. On January 27, the day after the President was told that Flynn had lied to the Vice President and had made similar statements to the FBI, the President invited FBI Director Corney to a private dinner at the White House and told Corney that he needed loyalty. On February 14, the day after the President requested Flynn's resignation, the President told an outside advisor, "Now that we fired Flynn , the Russia thing is over." The advisor disagreed and said the investigations would continue. Later that afternoon, the President cleared the Oval Office to have a one-on-one meeting with Corney. Referring to the FBI's investigation of Flynn, the President said , "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy . T hope you can let this go." Shortly after requesting Flynn's resignation and speaking privately to Corney, the President sought to have Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the President had not directed Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak. McFarland declined because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel's Office attorney thought that the request would look like a quid pro quo for an ambassadorship she had been offered. The President's reaction to the continuing Russia investigation. Tn February 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions began to assess whether he had to recuse himself from campaign related investigations because of his role in the Trump Campaign . Tn early March, the President told White House Counsel Donald McGahn to stop Sessions from recusing. And after Sessions announced his recusal on March 2, the President expressed anger at the decision and told advisors that he should have an Attorney General who would protect him. That weekend, the President took Sessions aside at an event and urged him to "unrecuse." Later in March, Corney publicly 3 U.S. Department of Justice Aftefl'1e~· Werk Preettet // May Cetttaitt Material Preteetea Uttder Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) disclosed at a congressional hearing that the FBI was investigating "the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election," including any links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign . In the following days, the President reached out to the Director of National Intelligence and the leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) to ask them what they could do to publicly dispel the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian election-interference effort. The President also twice called Corney directly, notwithstanding guidance from McGahn to avoid direct contacts with the Department of Justice. Corney had previously assured the President that the FBI was not investigating him personally, and the President asked Corney to " lift the cloud " of the Russia investigation by saying that publicly. The President's termination of Comey. On May 3, 2017, Corney testified in a congressional hearing, but declined to answer questions about whether the President was personally under investigation. Within days, the President decided to terminate Corney. The President insisted that the termination letter, which was written for public release , state that Corney had informed the President that he was not under investigation. The day of the firing, the White House maintained that Corney's termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General that Corney should be discharged for mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But the President had decided to fire Corney before hearing from the Department of Justice. The day after firing Corney, the President told Russian officials that he had "faced great pressure because of Russia, " which had been "taken off' by Corney's firing. The next day , the President acknowledged in a television interview that he was going to fire Corney regardless of the Department of Justice's recommendation and that when he "decided to just do it," he was thinking that "this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story." In response to a question about whether he was angry with Corney about the Russia investigation, the President said, "As far as I'm concerned , I want that thing to be absolutely done properly ," adding that firing Corney "might even lengthen out the investigation." The appointment of a Special Counsel and efforts to remove him. On May 17, 2017 , the Acting Attorney General for the Russia investigation appointed a Special Counsel to conduct the investigation and related matters. The President reacted to news that a Special Counsel had been appointed by telling advisors that it was "the end of his presidency" and demanding that Sessions resign. Sessions submitted his resignation , but the President ultimately did not accept it. The President told aides that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and suggested that the Special Counsel therefore could not serve. The President's advisors told him the asserted conflicts were meritless and had already been considered by the Department of Justice. On June 14, 2017, the media report ed that the Special Counsel's Office was investigating whether the President had obstructed justice. Press reports called this "a major turning point " in the investigation: while Corney had told the President he was not under investigation , following Corney's firing , the President now was under investigation. The President reacted to this news with a series of tweets criticizing the Department of Justice and the Special Counsel's investigation. On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction , however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre. 4 U.S. Department of Justice AtterHe:) Werle Preattet // May CeHtaiH Mitteria:1 Preteetea UHder Fee. R. Crim. P. 6(e) Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel's investigation. Two days after directing McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed, the President made another attempt to affect the course of the Russia investigation. On June 19, 2017, the President met one-on-one in the Oval Office with his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, a trusted advisor outside the government, and dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions. The message said that Sessions should publicly announce that, notwithstanding his recusal from the Russia investigation , the investigation was "very unfair" to the President, the President had done nothing wrong , and Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and "let [him] move forward with investigating election meddling for future elections." Lewandowski said he understood what the President wanted Sessions to do. One month later, in another private meeting with Lewandowski on July 19, 2017 , the President asked about the status of his message for Sessions to limit the Special Counsel investigation to future election interference. Lewandowski told the President that the message would be delivered soon. Hours after that meeting, the President publicly criticized Sessions in an interview with the New York Times, and then issued a series of tweets making it clear that Sessions's job was in jeopardy. Lewandowski did not want to deliver the President's message personally , so he asked senior White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver it to Sessions. Dearborn was uncomforta ble with the task and did not follow through. Efforts to prevent public disclosure of evidence. In the summer of 2017 , the President learned that media outlets were asking questions about the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr., and a Russian lawyer who was said to be offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." On several occasions, the President directed aides not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the emails would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited. Before the emails became public, the President edited a press statement for Trump Jr. by deleting a line that acknowledged that the meeting was with "an individual who [Trump Jr.] was told might have information helpful to the campaign" and instead said only that the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children. When the press asked questions about the President 's involvement in Trump Jr.' s statement, the President's personal lawyer repeatedly denied the President had played any role. Further efforts to have the Attorney General take control of the investigation. In early summer 2017 , the President called Sessions at home and again asked him to reverse his recusal from the Russia investigation. Sessions did not reverse his recusal. In October 2017, the President met privately with Sessions in the Oval Office and asked him to "take [a] look" at investigating Clinton. In December 2017 , shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty pursuant to a cooperation agreement, the President met with Sessions in the Oval Office and suggested, according to notes taken by a senior advisor, that if Sessio ns unrecused and took back supervision of the Russia investigation, he would be a "hero." The President told Sessions, "I'm not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly." In response , Sessions volunteered that he had never seen anything "improper " on the campaign and told the President there was a "w hole new leadership team" in place. He did not unrecuse. Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed. In early 2018, the press reported that the President had directed McGahn to 5 U.S. Department of Justice Attot1Aey Wot1k Protittet // Muy CoHtuiA Muteriul Proteeteti UAtiet' Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. The President reacted to the news stories by directing White House officials to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn told those officials that the media reports were accurate in stating that the President had directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed. The President then met with McGahn in the Oval Office and again pressured him to deny the reports. In the same meeting , the President also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel about the President 's effort to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes of his conversations with the President. McGahn refused to back away from what he remembered happening and perceived the President to be testing his mettle. Conduct towards Flynn, Manafort,~. After Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement with the President and began cooperating with the government, the President 's personal counsel left a message for Flynn 's attorneys reminding them of the President 's warm feelings towards Flynn, which he said "still remains," and asking for a "heads up" if Flynn knew "information that implicates the President." When Flynn 's counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to a joint defense agreement, the President's personal counsel said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn 's actions reflected "hostility" towards the President. During Manafort 's prosecution and when the jury in his criminal. trial was deliberating , the President praised Manafort in public, said that Manafort was being treated unfairly, and declined to rule out a pardon. After Manafort was convicted, the President called Manafort "a brave man" for refusing to "break" and said that "fli in " "almost ou ht to be Conduct involving Michael Cohen. The President 's conduct towards Michael Cohen , a former Trump Organization executive, changed from praise for Cohen when he falsely minimized the President's involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project , to castigation of Cohen when he became a cooperating witness. From September 2015 to June 2016, Cohen had pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project on behalf of the Trump Organization and had briefed candidate Trump on the project numerous times, including discussing whether Trump should travel to Russia to advance the deal. In 2017 , Cohen provided false testimony to Congress about the project, including stating that he had only briefed Trump on the project three times and never discussed travel to Russia with him, in an effort to adhere to a "party line" that Cohen said was developed to minimize the President's connections to Russia. While preparing for his congressional testimony , Cohen had extensive discussions with the President 's personal counsel, who , according to Cohen , said that Cohen should "stay on message" and not contradict the President. After the FBI searched Cohen's home and office in April 2018 , the President publicly asserted that Cohen would not "flip," contacted him directly to tell him to "stay strong," and privately passed messages of support to him. Cohen also discussed pardons with the President's personal counsel and believed that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of. But after Cohen began cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly criticized him, called him a "rat," and suggested that his family memb ers had committed crimes. 6 U.S. Department of Justice Attein1ey Werk Pre,1foet // Mtt)' Cm,taiH Material Preiteetea Ut1aer Fee. R. Crim. P. 6(e) Overarching factual issues. We did not make a traditional prosecution decision about these facts, but the evidence we obtained supports several general statements about the President 's conduct. Several features of the conduct we investigated distinguish it from typical obstruction-of justice cases. First, the investigation concerned the President , and some of his actions , such as firing the FBI director , involved facially lawful acts within his Article II authority, which raises constitutional issues discussed below. At the same time , the President's position as the head of the Executive Branch provided him with unique and powerful mean s of influencing official proceedings, subordinate officers , and potential witnesses-all of which is relevant to a potential obstruction-of-justice analysis. Second , unlike cases in which a subject engages in obstruction of justice to cover up a crime , the evidence we obtained did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. Although the obstruction statutes do not require proof of such a crime, the absence of that evidence affects the analysis of the President's intent and requires consideration of other possible motives for his conduct. Third , many of the President's acts directed at witnesses, including discouragement of cooperation with the government and suggestions of possible future pardons , took place in public view. That circumstance is unusual, but no principle of law excludes public acts from the reach of the obstruction laws. If the likely effect of public acts is to influence witnesses or alter their testimony, the harm to the justice system's integrity is the same. Although the series of events we investigated involved discrete acts, the overall pattern of the President's conduct towards the investigations can shed light on the nature of the President 's acts and the inferences that can be drawn about his intent. In particular, the actions we investigated can be divided into two phases , reflecting a possible shift in the President's motives. The first phase covered the period from the President 's first interactions with Corney through the President 's firing of Corney. During that time , the President had been repeatedly told he was not personally under investigation. Soon after the firing of Corney and the appointment of the Special Counsel, however, the President became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction-of-justice inquiry. At that point , the President engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the inve~tigation , non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witne sses not to cooperate with the investigation. Judgments about the nature of the President 's motives during each phase would be informed by the totality of the evidence.

STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSES

The President's counsel raised statutory and constitutional defenses to a possible obstruction-of-justice analysis of the conduct we investigated. We concluded that none of those legal defenses provided a basis for declining to investigate the facts. Statutory defenses. Consistent with precedent and the Department of Justice's general approach to interpreting obstruction statutes , we concluded that several statutes could apply here. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 , 1505, 1512(b)(3) , 1512(c)(2). Section 1512(c)(2) is an omnibus obstruction-of-justice provision that covers a range of obstructive acts directed at pending or contemplated official proceedings . No principle of statutory construction justifies narrowing the provision to cover only conduct that impairs the integrity or availability of evidence. Sections 1503 and 1505 also offer broad protection against obstructive acts directed at pending grand jury , 7 U.S. Department of Justice Attemey Werle Predttet // May CeHtaiH Material Preteeted UH.tier Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) judicial, administrative, and congressional proceedings , and they are supplemented by a provision in Section 1512(6) aimed specifically at conduct intended to prevent or hinder the communication to law enforcement of information related to a federal crime. Constitutional defenses. As for constitutional defenses arising from the President's status as the head of the Executive Branch, we recognized that the Department of Justice and the courts have not. definitively resolved these issues. We therefore examined those issues through the framework established by Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues. The Department of Justice and the President's personal counsel have recognized that the President is subject to statutes that prohibit obstruction of justice by bribing a witness or suborning perjury because that conduct does not implicate his constitutional authority. With respect to whether the President ca,n be found to have obstructed justice by exercising his powers under Article II of the Constitution, we concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice .

Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution does not categorically and permanently immunize a President for obstructing justice through the use of his Article II powers . The separation-of-powers doctrine authorizes Congress to protect official proceedings, including those of courts and grand juries, from corrupt, obstructive acts regard less of their source. We also concluded that any inroad on presidential authority that would occur from prohibiting corrupt acts does not undermine the President's ability to fulfill his constitutional mission. The term "corruptly " sets a demanding standard. It requires a concrete showing that a person acted with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others. A preclusion of"corrupt" official action does not diminish the President's ability to exercise Article II powers. For example , the proper supervision of criminal law does not demand freedom for the President to act with a corrupt intention of shielding himself from criminal punishment , avoiding financial liability, or preventing personal embarrassment. To the contrary , a statute that prohibits official action undertaken for such corrupt purposes furthers, rather than hinders, the impartial and evenhanded administration of the law. It also aligns with the President's constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Finally, we concluded that in the rare case in which a criminal investigation of the President 's conduct is justified, inquiries to determine whether the President acted for a corrupt motive should not impermissibly chill his performance of his constitutionally assigned duties. The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President 's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.

CONCLUSION

Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment , we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

Will Congress have AG Bar hearings?

Can Congress make Attorney General Barr testify? Here are the rules

Congress has three methods at its disposal to seek compliance with a subpoena by holding a witness in contempt, and all have shortcomings.

William Barr testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 15.Andrew Harnik / AP file

April 29, 2019, 12:11 PM CDT

By Ken Dilanian

WASHINGTON — House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., is threatening to subpoena Attorney General William Barr, who has told the committee he may refuse to appear at a hearing Thursday unless members abandon their plan to have him questioned by staff lawyers.

It's one of many potential subpoena battles brewing between Congress and the Trump administration, which is showing an increasing willingness to stiff-arm congressional oversight committees.

So what practical options does Congress have to enforce its wishes?

No easy ones, as it turns out.

Congress has three methods at its disposal to seek compliance with a subpoena by holding a witness in contempt, according the Congressional Research Service. Each has problems.

Under the doctrine of "inherent contempt," the House or Senate could send members of its security force to arrest and detain the witness. There is precedent for this in U.S. history, but not recent precedent — it hasn't been used since 1935.

In the modern world, the House sergeant-at-arms isn't going to be able to arrest the attorney general, who is protected by an armed FBI security detail. As one former White House official once put it, only half in jest, "They have a lot of guns over there."

Attorney General Barr threatens to skip House hearing

APRIL 29, 201908:45

The second method involves seeking to hold a witness in criminal contempt under federal criminal statutes 2 U.S.C. §§192 and 194. The statutes make it a crime to fail to comply with a lawful congressional subpoena, and call for the House or Senate to refer a criminal contempt citation to the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, which can seek an indictment from a grand jury.

The problem with this in the current case: All federal prosecutors, including all 90-plus U.S. attorneys, work for Barr, and would be under no obligation to pursue a contempt charge.

That leaves a third option — Congress can seek a civil contempt citation from a judge. The Judiciary Committee, for example, could sue Barr in district court, providing a simple majority of the full House voted to authorize such an action.

"If the individual still refuses to comply, he may be tried by the court in summary proceedings for contempt of court, with sanctions being imposed to coerce their compliance," the Congressional Research Service said in a 2017 paper.

A recent precedent for this happens to involve the House Judiciary Committee, then controlled by Democrats under the George W. Bush administration.

At issue was a congressional investigation into the firing of several U.S. attorneys.

The committee subpoenaed former White House counsel Harriet Miers, and the White House instructed her not to comply, citing executive privilege. It made the same instruction regarding a document subpoena to Josh Bolten, the White House chief of staff.

Both were held in contempt of Congress, and the speaker of the House asked the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., to pursue the matter.

Nadler: Obstruction of justice impeachable, 'if proven'

APRIL 21, 201900:25

But the federal prosecutor declined to do that, citing a Justice Department policy of not prosecuting a White House official for criminal contempt of Congress if that official had invoked executive privilege at the behest of the president.

Congress sued, and a district court judge sided with lawmakers. The Bush administration appealed and President Barack Obama took office while the case was still pending. The new administration settled the case, granting Congress access to some of the documents it sought and allowing sworn testimony from Miers.

By then, a year and a half after Congress issued the subpoena, the oversight issue largely was moot.

Much the same thing happened when the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee sought to subpoena Attorney General Eric Holder in 2012 over a scandal involving a gun investigation known as Operation Fast and Furious.

This time, the Obama Justice Department refused to prosecute a congressional contempt citation against the attorney general. A court battle dragged on, and it wasn't until January 2016 that a court ordered the Justice Department to produce some documents. The Obama administration appealed, and the case lingered until President Donald Trump took office.

In March of last year, the Trump Justice Department settled the case by agreeing to release some records.

"The Department of Justice under my watch is committed to transparency and the rule of law," then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement.

Now that it's Democrats making the demands, the ardor for transparency at the Justice Department appears to have cooled a bit.

Ken Dilanian

Ken Dilanian is a national security reporter for the NBC News Investigative Unit.

10,000 Little Lies—Who is lying?

Trump reaches 10,000 'false or misleading' claims in office, Washington Post 'Fact Checker' finds

Dylan Stableford

Senior Editor

,

Yahoo News•April 29, 2019

President Trump speaks during a rally in Green Bay, Wis., on Saturday. (Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

More

President Trump passed a historic milestone in his presidency over the weekend.

The Washington Post, which has been tracking the truthfulness of the president’s public assertions in tweets, speeches, interviews and press conferences, reports that Trump surpassed 10,000 false and misleading statements since his inauguration.

On Friday, the president passed the 10,000 mark by making 49 false or misleading claims — including 24 in a speech at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in Indianapolis. At his rally in Green Bay, Wis., Saturday, Trump made 61 false or misleading claims, for a total of 10,111 claims in 828 days, or an average of more than 12 per day.

According to the Post’s Glenn Kessler, who keeps a database of Trump falsehoods, Trump averaged less than five false claims a day during his first 100 days in office. And it took the president 601 days to reach 5,000, averaging about eight per day. But it took him just 226 days to double that total.

“The tsunami of untruths just keeps looming larger and larger,” Kessler wrote in his “Fact Checker” column.

There seems to be at least two reasons for the growing number of falsehoods: Trump’s belligerent reaction to special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, which Trump continues to falsely claim exonerated him, and the president’s inability to tell the truth about his promised border wall.

According to the Post, about 20 percent of the Trump’s false and misleading claims are about immigration issues. And his “most repeated” false claim — 160 times — is that his border wall is being built. It isn’t.

“Congress balked at funding the concrete wall he envisioned,” the Post noted, “so he has tried to pitch bollard fencing and repairs of existing barriers as ‘a wall.’”

Trump’s false claims extend to other topics as well, including environmental issues, trade, tax cuts, NATO funding and the economy.

Kessler’s count is confined to checkable matters of fact and doesn’t include what could be construed as opinion. Trump’s comments about the deadly 2017 “Unite the Right” march in Charlottesville, that there “were very fine people, on both sides” — cited by former Vice President Joe Biden in announcing his presidential race —was not included in the count.

Fact-checking Trump, though, is not an exact science. The Toronto Star, which has also been keeping track of Trump’s false claims, had Trump at less than half the Post’s figure (4,913) through April 24.

At the rally in Wisconsin, the president launched a series of false and misleading attacks on Democrats, claiming that the Green New Deal will require every building in Manhattan be replaced (it won’t) and saying Democrats support the killing of healthy babies that have been born (they do not).

"The baby is born," Trump said. "The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. I don't think so."

The president was referring to a Republican bill passed by the Wisconsin state legislature that says doctors who do not provide medical care to babies who are born alive after a failed abortion attempt could face life in prison. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers said he would veto the bill because such laws already exist.

___Above is from: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-has-made-10000-false-and-misleading-claims-washington-post-fact-checker-145444166.html

Boone County government announces vacancies

Boone County government announces vacancies

MOST POPULAR

Posted Apr 27, 2019 at 2:20 PMUpdated Apr 27, 2019 at 2:20 PM

BOONE COUNTY — The Boone County government recently announced vacancies on various volunteer boards.

The boards and vacancy numbers are sanitary district, two; conservation easement and farmland protection, two; board of review, two; board of appeals, one; fire protection district No. 1, one; zoning board of appeals, two; regional planning commission, one.

Interested parties are asked to send a letter and/or resume expressing their interest and qualifications along with their contact information by May 10 to Boone County Board Chairman Karl Johnson, Administration Campus, 1212 Logan Ave., Suite 102, Belvidere, IL 61008.

What Pro-life should mean

Catholic Nun Explains Pro-Life In A Way That Will Stun Many (Especially Republican Lawmakers)

Leslie Salzillo

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday July 30, 2015 · 7:00 AM CDT

In one simple quote, Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. sums up the hypocrisy of many in the 'pro-life' movement:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

This quote applies well to many Republican lawmakers who continue to introduce/pass restrictive misogynist laws against woman's reproductive rights. At the same time, the GOP works to shut down women's health clinics, with a special vengeance towards Planned Parenthood (#StandWithPP). You don't see these Right Wing anti-choice extremists adopting children from unplanned pregnancies or putting funds into sex education.

But you do see Republican lawmakers cut access to birth control, which prevents abortions. You do see the GOP's 54 attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and their $24 billion Government Shutdown, both to destroy universal health reform which protects the needs of millions of American children. And you do see Republican lawmakers cut government programs like school lunches for children and block government financial aid to familieswho are homeless and/or in need.

The goals of these so-called anti-choice/'pro-life' hypocrites are not about fetuses or children once born, their agenda is about controlling women's bodies and women's futures. How great to hear Sister Joan Chittister, a Benedictine nun, define the pro-life/anti-choice GOP double talk so well. An outspoken advocate for women, Sister Joan Chittister is a lecturer and author of 50 books. Holding a Ph.D. from Penn State University, she is also a research associate in a division of Cambridge University. Other subjects of her writing include women in the church and society, human rights, peace and justice, religious life and spirituality. She has appeared in the media on numerous shows including Meet the Press, 60 Minutes, Bill Moyers, BBC, NPR, and Oprah Winfrey.You can visit Joan Chittister's website at Joan Chittister.org.

The photo of Sister Joan Chittister is from her book: 'Joan Chittister: Her Journey from Certainty to Faith’ by Tom Roberts. Excerpts of the above story were taken from an earlier Daily Kos piece: 'Anti-Choice Extremists Shut Down Planned Parenthood Website.'

Special thanks to Facebook page Pro-Choice Liberals .

Above is from:  https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/7/30/1407166/-Catholic-Nun-Explains-Pro-Life-In-A-Way-That-May-Stun-The-Masses

Boone County administrator on leave of absence

Boone County administrator on leave of absence

By Chris Green
Staff writer

Posted Apr 17, 2019 at 9:20 PMUpdated Apr 17, 2019 at 9:20 PM

BELVIDERE — Long-time Boone County Administrator Ken Terrinoni has taken an extended leave of absence due to an undisclosed illness.

“He suffered a medical emergency about a week ago,” said Boone County Board Chairman Karl Johnson.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family.”

Terrinoni, 58, has served the county for more than 30 years, Johnson said.

Deputy Administrator Dan Streed is acting in his place.

Chris Green: 815-987-1241; cgreen@rrstar.com; @chrisfgreen

Above is from:  https://www.rrstar.com/news/20190417/boone-county-administrator-on-leave-of-absence

Crystal Lake 5 year old missing

DCFS has long history with family of missing Crystal Lake 5-year-old, agency confirms as police raid boy's home

Police search for 5-year-old Andrew “AJ” Freund, who went missing from his family's Crystal Lake home on April 17, 2018.

(Stacey Wescott/Chicago Tribune)

Amanda Marrazzo, Robert McCoppinChicago Tribune

The whereabouts of a 5-year-old Crystal Lake boy remained unknown Friday, a day after he was reported missing, but police said their investigation was focusing on his home and that they don’t believe he was abducted.

Late Friday afternoon, a team of police in about seven vehicles pulled up to the house and went inside. At least one of them said, “Crystal Lake police. We got a search warrant.”

Some of them later emerged outside, but then returned into the house carrying unfolded boxes. Later in the evening, police could be seen leaving the home.

In another development late Friday afternoon, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services said it has had contact with the family of the boy, Andrew “AJ” Freund, since he was born in 2013 with opiates in his system. DCFS continued having contact off and on until late 2018, a spokesman said. A younger son was placed into DCFS custody, officials said.

Andrew was last seen at bedtime, about 9 p.m., on Wednesday in the family home in the first block of Dole Avenue in the northwest suburb. After waking up Thursday morning and being unable to find him in the home, Andrew’s parents reported the boy missing, police said.

After a daylong search on Thursday, police in a news release Friday said, “In reviewing all investigative information thus far, there is no indication that would lead police to believe that an abduction had taken place.” They also said: “Information obtained currently has police focusing on the residence.”

Canine teams that were used during the investigation “only picked up Andrew’s scent within the residence indicating that Andrew had not walked away on foot,” police said.

A neighbor who lives across the street said that the boy’s father, also named Andrew Freund, left the home through the back door about 2 p.m. Friday and began walking down Dole Avenue. While he was walking, he said, “Find my son … find my son,” according to the neighbor, Janelle Butler.

Butler said police approached him and tried to keep others away from him, but not before he made a plea to media members who were at the scene.

“AJ, please come home,” he said. “We love you very much. You’re not in any trouble. We’re just worried to death. Please, please come home.”

Five-year-old Andrew "AJ" Freund has been missing from his Crystal Lake home since Wednesday, April 17. While answering questions for the police, his mother Joann Cunningham felt she was being considered as a suspect, and called for a lawyer. Her attorney George Kililis answered questions for the Tribune outside the family's home today.

Later, the boy’s mother, JoAnn Cunningham, returned to the home. Her attorney, who was with her, told the Tribune she had been questioned by police Thursday.

The attorney, George Kililis, said he was contacted by a friend of Cunningham’s after the mother said she felt she was being considered a suspect. Kililis said she was cooperating fully with police.

Kililis said the mother is “depressed” and “sad.”

Her hope, Kililis said, “is at some point (Andrew) is going to walk through the door.”

“Our focus is on finding the child,” Kililis said. “She is devastated. She’s worried.

“She’s innocent of any wrongdoing. All she cares about is her little boy. That’s it.”

He said Cunningham is asking for the public’s “help and compassion.”

Kililis also said the mother is seven months pregnant.

DCFS, which has the job of protecting children from abuse, released the following statement Friday: “The department’s involvement with Andrew Freund began with his birth in 2013 and continued on and off through the end of 2018. The last contact between DCFS child protection staff and Andrew’s family was in December of 2018 while investigating allegations of abuse and neglect.”

DCFS released a timeline highlighting interactions between DCFS and Andrew’s family:

An undated photo of Andrew “AJ” Freund, who was last seen about 9 p.m. Wednesday in his family's Crystal Lake home. (Family photo)

•In October 2013, DCFS investigated an allegation of neglect by the mother and found there was credible evidence to substantiate the allegation. Andrew was born with opiates in his body.

•The following month, DCFS took Andrew into protective custody. He was placed in a foster home and not returned to his own home until June 2015. The case was closed in April 2016.

•In March 2018, DCFS investigated allegations of neglect by the father and mother, but concluded they were unfounded. The mother agreed to re-enter treatment.

•On Dec. 18, 2018, DCFS investigated another allegation of abuse and neglect by the mother, and the boy was temporarily removed by police, but he was returned to the home after the allegations were ruled unfounded. There was no evidence to support allegations of deplorable conditions in the home, and bruising on the child was attributed to the dog.

On Thursday, Andrew’s younger brother was placed in another home under a DCFS safety plan.

Police said they were reviewing all tips and leads. The department said it has no reason to believe there is a threat to the community.

Crystal Lake detectives were working with members of the FBI and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Police said 15 police agencies helped with the search on Thursday. About 373 acres were covered during a foot search and nearly 500 acres were covered via aerial search by drones.

About 6 p.m. Thursday, a sonar team began to scan the waters of Crystal Lake. Sonar technicians used cameras to search under all the docks and piers along the entire shore of Crystal Lake and also used side-scan sonar techniques on the lake itself off the main beach area. The search ended about 10 p.m.

Andrew has blond hair and was wearing a Mario sweatshirt and black sweatpants when he was last seen. He is about 3 feet 5 inches tall and weighs about 70 pounds.

Quirine Dahlquist, who lives around the corner from the home where AJ apparently went missing, said Thursday she was walking around the neighborhood searching for him, as were others. “I’m freaking out for the family and I don’t even know them,” she said.

Janelle Butler, a neighbor of Andrew “AJ” Freund, describes the scene in Crystal Lake as authorities search for the missing boy on April 18, 2019. (Stacey Wescott/Chicago Tribune)

Bob Atkinson, who lives nearby, also was helping in the search. “It’s upsetting,” he said. “You think it’s not gonna happen in my backyard and it did.”

Atkinson also said he had seen the family on walks around the neighborhood, which he described as “typical middle class.”

Butler said Thursday evening that officers came to her house just after 8 a.m. and told her the boy was missing. Officers with dogs searched the neighborhood, up and down the streets and backyards.

Butler described the neighborhood as “extremely safe.” She said there are always people walking and taking their dogs out and that if a child were wandering the streets, someone would have called police.

“I hope he’s OK,” Butler said. “It’s heartbreaking.”

Tom McIntyre placed a bouquet of flowers on the ground near the home and shook a police officer’s hand. McIntyre, who lives nearby, said he is “just sad” for the family and wanted to do “just something.”

“My prayers and thoughts are with the family,” he said. “(I would) never think this will happen in my community.”

Authorities ask anyone with information to call the Crystal Lake Police Department at 815-356-3620. Anyone with a cellphone who has information regarding the child can send an anonymous tip to the department by texting the word CLPDTIP along with the tip information to 847411 (tip411).

Chicago Tribune’s Stacey Wescott and WGN-TV contributed.

Amanda Marrazzo is a freelance reporter.

Above is from:  https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/ct-met-crystal-lake-missing-boy-andrew-freund-20190419-story.html