Month: March 2019

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer doubled down on his commitment not to provide additional funding for the border wall while he spoke on the Senate floor on Thursday.

“I want to be crystal clear — there will be no additional appropriations to pay for the border wall,” Schumer said. “It’s done.”

Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi got into a heated exchange with President Donald Trump on Tuesday while meeting in the Oval Office to see if they can agree upon a deal to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and various other departments.

Congress previously passed legislation that would fund the federal government for two weeks in order to avert a shutdown. Trump has been facing threats, and even threatening, to shutdown the government in light of the funding bill’s Dec. 21 expiration.

While Trump has been demanding $5 billion to build a wall along the southern border, Schumer has been adamant in maintaining the 2018 levels of roughly $1.3 million. The New York senator cautioned Trump that Democrats would be willing to wait until they take back control of the House to pass a yearlong funding stopgap which would provide border funding at the level they see fit.

While speaking on the Senate floor, Schumer dismissed funding for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border as “not a serious proposal” and called it a “throwaway idea” used to “fire up his base.”

Pelosi has also been vehemently opposed to a border wall, claiming that it would be “immoral, ineffective and expensive.”

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe claimed in an interview that aired Sunday that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was “absolutely serious” about wearing a wire during White House meetings with President Donald Trump.

“The deputy attorney general offered to wear a wire into the White House,” McCabe said in an interview with “60 Minutes.”

“Now, he was not joking. He was absolutely serious. And in fact, he brought it up in the next meeting we had,” added McCabe.

McCabe, who was fired on March 16, 2018, also claimed that Rosenstein expressed confidence that he could successfully record Trump at the White House.

“I never get searched when I go into the White House. I could easily wear a recording device. They wouldn’t know it was there,” McCabe quoted Rosenstein as saying.

McCabe’s remarks are in line with reports about what the former FBI official wrote in memos following his meetings with Rosenstein and other Justice Department officials. The New York Times first reported McCabe’s claims on Sept. 21, 2018, though McCabe’s “60 Minutes” interview is the first time he’s confirmed the matter on the record. Other FBI officials have told Congress that McCabe discussed Rosenstein’s remarks with them.

Rosenstein and the Justice Department have disputed McCabe’s claims. Unnamed Justice Department officials have told reporters that Rosenstein was joking about wearing a wire. The Justice Department called McCabe’s claims “inaccurate and factually incorrect,” in a statement to “60 Minutes.” The agency also claimed that the “deputy attorney general never authorized any recording [of the president].”

McCabe said that Rosenstein brought up the idea of wearing a wire during a discussion about whether Trump was thinking about the Russia investigation when he decided to fire former FBI Director James Comey.

Rosenstein helped Trump in that effort by writing a memo recommending Comey’s ouster over his handling of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email investigation.

McCabe claimed that he did not consider taking Rosenstein up on his offer to surveil Trump.

“I never actually considered taking him up on the offer. I did discuss it with my general counsel and my leadership team back at the FBI after he brought it up the first time,” he said.

Republican Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney responded on Tuesday after the University of Wyoming’s new slogan “The World Needs More Cowboys” drew criticism for being “racist” and “sexist.”

“The world DOES need more Cowboys,” Cheney told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Cowboys and cowgirls embody the no-nonsense, never-back-down grit at the heart of our Wyoming heritage.”

The cowboy has long been the University of Wyoming’s logo and mascot, however, outrage ensued after the college released a promotional video in July which introduced the new tagline “The World Needs More Cowboys.” Nearly two dozen faculty members have complained since its release, claiming it represents genocide.

Interestingly, the promotional video explains what makes a cowboy and addresses the inclusiveness of the logo despite the criticism otherwise.

“The world needs more cowboys and not just the kind that sweep you off your feet and ride you off into the sunset — ours are diverse cowboys who come in every sex, shape, color and creed,” the video outlines. “It’s not what you are that makes you a cowboy or cowgirl, but who you are. It’s a shared spirit. It’s the spirit of the underdog, the trailblazer.”

WATCH:

“Washington could learn a lot from Wyoming’s values of courage, leadership, and hard work, and those principles are exemplified in the University of Wyoming’s slogan,” Cheney added.

The university has also defended the slogan and will continue to use it for the upcoming year.

“While we recognize there are some who don’t like the tagline, the response to our campaign has been overwhelmingly positive, and we are making plans to continue with the campaign for a second year,” Chad Baldwin, Associate Vice President for Marketing and Communications for the University of Wyoming told TheDCNF.

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s open consideration of an independent, third-party bid for the White House has numerous Democratic political operatives and candidates sounding the alarm.

“I have a concern that if he did run, that essentially, it would provide Donald Trump with his best hope of getting re-elected,” Julian Castro — a former Housing and Urban Development secretary under the Obama administration and a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate himself — said Sunday when asked by CNN about Schultz’s possible run. “I would suggest to Mr. Schultz to truly think about the negative impact that that might make.”

The Texas Democrat is far from the only one to allege that a third-party bid from Schultz would ultimately split progressive and moderate voters, paving the way for Trump to secure a second term.

“[email protected] running for POTUS as an independent would put the froth on @realDonaldTrump’s Cinnamon Dolce Latte, splitting the opposition and making Trump’s low ceiling potentially high enough,” David Axelrod, former President Barack Obama’s campaign manager, tweeted Monday.

“The best thing that Howard Schultz can do for the country is invest in education, voting rights, civil rights, and climate advocacy,” Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz wrote Saturday on Twitter. “There is zero appetite for this, and there is an urgent need for the Democratic candidate to win in 2020.”

The reactions come as Schultz, a businessman with a net worth well over $3 billion, is reportedly considering an independent bid for the White House.

Since stepping down as CEO of Starbucks, Schultz has held discussion with both Republican and Democratic advisers over the possibility of mounting a third-party run. If he chooses to make the plunge, the Seattle-based businessman would be able to rely on his vast wealth and a steep network he’s accumulated from years of running an international business and past philanthropic endeavors.

Despite being a “lifelong Democrat,” Schultz believes an independent bid could help bridge the political divide he believes is ruining the country.

Starbucks undertook a number of notably progressive initiatives under his leadership, such as a plan to hire 10,000 refugees. However, Schultz has also made more fiscally conservative comments over the years, such as decrying entitlement spending and the “false promises” of single-payer health care proposals and guaranteed federal jobs.

Despite his strong anti-Trump rhetoric, Schultz’s flirtations with an independent bid has left many left Democrats fuming.

“I have two words for Howard Schultz on a potential run for president as an independent: Just. Don’t,” said Washington State Democratic Party Chair Tina Podlodowski in a Friday statement. “Too much is at stake to make this about the ambitions of any one person.”

The business mogul is expected to give more details on his possible White House run on Sunday night in an exclusive interview with “60 Minutes.”

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that an Obama-era labor law that made businesses responsible for labor violations committed by contractors was too broad, Reuters reports.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled in 2015 that companies and franchisers with “indirect and direct control” of employees could be held liable for labor violations committed by contractors or franchisees. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the board did not sufficiently define “indirect” control and sent the 2015 decision back to the board for a more restricted explanation.

The 2015 NLRB ruling overturned more than two decades of precedent while placing businesses at increased risk of violating labor laws. The ruling also empowered unions to negotiate directly with a franchise’s corporate headquarters if franchisee employees sought to unionize.

Franchisers, companies and pro-business groups have sought to have the ruling overturned. An attempt by President Donald Trump’s NLRB fell flat after Republican board member William Emanuel was forced to retroactively recuse himself from ruling in a case that would affect the 2015.

The NLRB proposed a new definition of the “joint employer standard” in September that would restrict the responsibility of employer labor violations to companies that have “direct control” of employees. The board is expected to pass a final rule by June.

The Obama NLRB’s decision threatened to topple the current franchise business model as franchisers tried to navigate or avoid the additional liability the law forced them to take on. Most franchisers began pulling back support for franchisee businesses.

Prior to the 2015 ruling, franchisers offered advice and counseling to franchisees on topics such as running a business and employee relations. After the 2015 ruling, many franchisers began pulling back that support and guidance to avoid being classified as an employer with “indirect control.”

• The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction forbidding Texas from stripping Planned Parenthood of Medicaid Funds.
• The decision is also significant for its harsh criticism of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. 
• The case will now return to a federal trial court, where Planned Parenthood will have another chance to secure an injunction against Texas. 

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction forbidding Texas from stripping Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funds Thursday, while stridently criticizing the abortion-provider for its rhetoric and medical practices.

“Planned Parenthood’s reprehensible conduct, captured in undercover videos, proves that it is not a ‘qualified’ provider under the Medicaid Act, so we are confident we will ultimately prevail,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement after Thursday’s ruling.

The case arose after a pro-life group called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood violating medical and ethical standards codified in federal law and state regulations. Texas terminated its Medicaid provider agreement with Planned Parenthood shortly thereafter, citing infractions documented in the videos.

In turn, Planned Parenthood asked a federal court to restore its Medicaid funding. Thursday’s ruling — which related to a jurisdictional issue in that case — is especially striking for its numerous rebukes of Planned Parenthood. Judge Edith Jones, a Ronald Reagan appointee, delivered the opinion.

Perhaps the most noteworthy of the decision’s reprimands is a graphic depiction of post-abortion fetal remains taken from a CMP video on the fourth page of the opinion. A small arm is visible in the picture. Texas cited the manner in which Planned Parenthood disposes of fetal remains as one reason for terminating their Medicaid eligibility.

In another instance, the decision all but accuses Planned Parenthood of breaking federal law banning partial birth abortions. The ruling highlights a CMP video in which an administrator called Dr. Tram Nguyen said doctors at one facility could evacuate an intact fetus — thereby breaking federal law — provided they sign a form that they did not “intend” to do so. Such procedures allow researchers to recover organs like the thymus or the liver.

Later in the opinion, the panel chides Planned Parenthood for failing to engage with Nguyen’s comments in court filings.

“The plaintiffs’ briefing with regard to the substance of the discussions contained in the videos is curiously silent,” the decision reads.

Planned Parenthood has denied that they intentionally alter abortion procedures for such purposes.

The panel also dismissed Planned Parenthood’s claim that the CMP videos were “deceptively edited,” a soundbite that redounded across the press after the tapes first appeared.

“The record reflects that [the Texas Office of Inspector General] had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited,” a footnote in the decision reads. “And [Planned Parenthood] did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage.”

Finally the panel accused the judiciary of politicking on abortion cases. Ordinarily, providers like Planned Parenthood must challenge Medicaid termination decisions in an administrative forum and state court before seeking a federal court’s intervention. By allowing Planned Parenthood to skip directly to federal court — as the trial court did here — the 5th Circuit said that judges are engaging in ideological favoritism.

“Had [Texas] terminated the Medicaid provider agreements of any other type of health care provider, the incongruity of allowing that provider to use patient litigation proxies to avoid administrative review and [reach] federal court would be obvious and unacceptable,” the ruling reads.

The decision comes as pro-life activists gather in Washington in advance of Friday’s March for Life.

The question before the 5th Circuit did not relate to abortion directly: after Texas disqualified Planned Parenthood from Medicaid eligibility, the abortion-provider sued, claiming the federal Medicaid statute allowed them to do so. A federal district judge agreed, allowed the lawsuit to proceed. The 5th Circuit had to decide whether that decision was correct.

The federal appeals courts are divided over the answer to that question. Though the Supreme Court generally intervenes when the circuits disagree over the same question of law, the justices denied review in a related controversy from Kansas in December 2018, drawing a vigorous dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch which accused the Court of playing politics.

In that instance, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined with the Court’s liberal bloc, effectively preserving a pro-Planned Parenthood decision in the lower court.

The 5th Circuit’s Thursday decision concluded that they are bound by precedent to find that Planned Parenthood can proceed with its lawsuit in federal court under the Medicaid statute, though Jones wrote a concurrence to her own majority opinion urging the full 5th Circuit to revisit that question.

However, the 5th Circuit gave Texas a partial victory, finding that the trial court assessed Planned Parenthood’s request for an injunction under the wrong standard. The panel lifted the injunction, and ordered the lower court judge to reconsider Planned Parenthood’s request under a different standard which is more accommodating of Texas.

As such, the state has a much better chance of prevailing when the matter returns to the trial court for further proceedings.

Texas awards approximately $3.4 million to Planned Parenthood affiliates through Medicaid annually. The decision notes this is a “smidgen” of the revenue Planned Parenthood’s Texas affiliates generate each year, which runs over $57 million.

A Republican National Committee (RNC) committeeman sent an email out to fellow members asking for an amendment to existing rules which would guarantee President Donald Trump become the presumptive GOP nominee in 2020 Wednesday.

RNC National Committeeman for the Virgin Islands, Jevon O.A. Williams, sent the email to RNC members, obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation, just hours after The Washington Post published an op-ed by Utah Republican Senator-elect Mitt Romney, which bashed Trump and his presidency. Williams said in order to close “loopholes in the re-nomination campaign” the RNC should change the rules at their winter meeting in January, making Trump the Republican nominee, so that no one in the party could run against him in the 2020 presidential campaign.

“Imagine my surprise when I read the junior senator-elect from Utah’s unprecedented rebuke of President Donald J. Trump in an op-ed on the pages of The Washington Post that ran before he was even sworn into office. I couldn’t believe this was coming from our party’s 2012 nominee, who, despite differences in politics, still professes to be a Republican. With Republicans like him who needs Democrats,” Williams said in the email to RNC members.

Williams said the rules in place do not take into account an incumbent president running for re-election, saying the proposed resolution would “declare” him the 2020 Republican presidential nominee.

“I am asking for your support to take the unprecedented step of amending the rules to close loopholes in the re-nomination campaign, including Rule 40. These rules, as I read them and has been reported in the press, didn’t take into account an incumbent president running for re-election,” Williams continued.

“Beyond a rules amendment, I also ask for your support of a resolution declaring the RNC’s unanimous and unequivocal endorsement of President Trump for re-nomination. This resolution would also declare him the presumptive nominee in 2020. I intend for both of these items to be acted upon at the winter meeting later this month, including, if necessary, by suspending the rules to take up this business,” he concluded.

Hours later, RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Romney’s niece, responded to his op-ed which criticized Trump, saying his “attack” in the op-ed is “disappointing and unproductive.”

Trump responded to the op-ed early Wednesday morning, saying he hope Romney won’t be a “Flake” in the Senate, also saying “I won big, and he didn’t. He should be happy for all Republicans. Be a TEAM player & WIN!”

Romney will be sworn in as the next senator from Utah Thursday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the U.S. Senate will take up a criminal justice reform bill backed by President Donald Trump, on the House floor Tuesday morning.

McConnell said in his speech it is likely the Senate will work between Christmas and New Year’s, “if necessary,” in order to pass criminal justice reform legislation before 2019. The Senate will now take on the bipartisan bill called the “First Step Act,” after pressure from the White House and other members of the Senate who have been pushing for the legislation to be passed.

“At the request of the president and following improvements to the legislation that has been secured by several members, the Senate will take up the recently revised criminal justice bill this month. I intend to turn to the new text as early as the end of this week. So as a result of this additional legislative business, members should now be prepared to work between Christmas and New Year’s, if necessary, in order to complete our work,” McConnell said in his floor speech Tuesday.

“Let me say that again. Unless we approach all this work in a highly collaborative, productive way and take real advantage of unanimous consent to expedite proceedings, it is virtually certain that the Senate will need to be in session between Christmas and New Year’s in order to complete this work,” McConnell continued.

Trump has endorsed the bill, which includes both prison and sentencing reforms, and wants to pass the legislation before Democrats take control of the House on Jan. 3.

Funding for the government was set to expire on Dec. 7. However, the House passed a two-week resolution to avoid a government shutdown by unanimous consent in a voice vote, meaning members did not have to be present for the vote. The bill was then approved by the Senate, which is in session, funding the government until Dec. 21.

• Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence that the Trump campaign or any Trump associates conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
• That finding deals a heavy blow to Democrats and some in the media who have pushed at least seven different theories of collusion over the past two-plus years.
• Many of those theories derived from the infamous Steele dossier.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller put a nail in the coffin for the numerous conspiracy theories that the Trump campaign worked with Russian operatives to influence the 2016 election.

Over the past two years, at least seven main theories of collusion have appeared in the press and through the infamous Steele dossier.

Former Trump associates Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone were all alleged at various points to have colluded with Russia. The infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was also alleged to be where collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia occurred.

And then there was the case of Peter Smith, the late GOP operative who allegedly worked with hackers to track down Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails.

The theories percolated in the media, often stoked by Democrats like California Rep. Adam Schiff, who said he saw “more than circumstantial evidence” of collusion.

But Mueller dispelled those theories in a report of his 22-month investigation.

“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller wrote, according to Attorney General William Barr.

Mueller found no evidence that Trump, his associates, or other Americans worked with Russians to release emails through WikiLeaks. He also found no evidence that Trump associates helped the Internet Research Agency, a Russian company that planted disinformation on American social media networks.

Here are those seven conspiracy theories.

Carter Page

The Steele dossier alleges that Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser, took part in a “well-developed conspiracy of co-operation” between the Trump campaign and Russian leadership. According to former British spy Christopher Steele, Page was working under the direction of Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign chairman, to carry out the conspiracy.

“The reason for using WikiLeaks was ‘plausible deniability’ and the operation had been conducted with the full knowledge and support of TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team,” alleged Steele in a memo in late July 2016.

In exchange for the help, Trump’s team agreed to side with Russia on the Ukraine issue.

According to Steele’s Aug. 10, 2016 memo, Page had “conceived and promoted” the idea of releasing stolen DNC emails through WikiLeaks in order to swing Democrats away from Hillary Clinton and towards Bernie Sanders.

Steele also claimed that Page met in Moscow with two Kremlin insiders, Igor Sechin and Igor Diveykin, in early July 2016. Diveykin is alleged in the dossier to have told Page about blackmail material on both Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Page has vehemently denied the allegations from the dossier, which the FBI used to obtain four surveillance warrants against the former Trump aide.

Page was not charged in the Mueller investigation.

George Papadopoulos

The FBI’s initial collusion theory involved Papadopoulos, a 32-year-old energy consultant.

On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into Papadopoulos based on a tip the bureau had received from the Australian government.

Alexander Downer, the Australian High Commissioner to the U.K., had claimed that during a May 10, 2016 meeting in London, Papadopoulos told him that Russia had information on Hillary Clinton that it planned to release later in the campaign.

Papadopoulos claims that two weeks before that meeting, he had breakfast in London with another diplomat, Joseph Mifsud, who told him that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands” of her emails.

Papadopoulos insists that he did not tell anyone on the campaign about Mifsud’s remarks and that he did not view, handle or disseminate Clinton emails.

He pleaded guilty on Oct. 5, 2017 to lying to the FBI about the extent of his contacts with Mifsud, but he was never charged with a more serious crime.

He served a 14-day prison term and is releasing a book on Tuesday.

Michael Cohen

The former Trump lawyer is accused in the dossier of visiting Prague in August 2016 to meet with Kremlin officials for the purposes of paying off hackers.

“The agenda comprised questions on how deniable cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the CLINTON campaign,” reads Steele’s Dec. 13, 2016 memo.

The dossier’s allegations against Cohen were viewed as some of the strongest claims of collusion that have surfaced during Russia gate.

Cohen vehemently denied the claims ever since BuzzFeed published the dossier. On Feb. 27, after he had been sentenced in the special counsel’s probe to three years in prison, Cohen testified that he has never been to Prague.

The testimony was seen as a knockout blow for the dossier’s credibility. Mueller’s findings seemingly ended all debate on the matter.

Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison on Dec. 12 on charges of tax evasion, bank fraud, illegal campaign contributions and making false statements to Congress.

Paul Manafort

In addition to being linked in the dossier to Carter Page, the former Trump campaign chairman was found to have sent cryptic emails during the campaign referencing Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who was locked in a business dispute with Manafort.

The special counsel also focused Manafort’s role in sending polling data during the campaign to two Russian oligarchs.

“If he needs private briefings we can accommodate,” Manafort wrote in an email to an associate on July 7, 2016, The Washington Post has reported.

In April 2016, shortly after he joined the Trump team, Manafort asked the same associate in an email how he could use his new position to “get whole.”

The email has widely been interpreted as Manafort suggesting that he would use his job on the Trump campaign to settle his debts with Deripaska.

But little came of Manafort’s links to Deripaska. Manafort was convicted in federal court in Virginia on Aug. 21, 2018 on charges related to his Ukraine consulting work. He cooperated with the special counsel after pleading guilty on Sept. 14, 2018 to working as an unregistered foreign agent of Ukraine.

The special counsel’s office hinted at times that prosecutors had evidence that dealt with the core issues of the investigation, but they never presented the evidence during court hearings.

Manafort was sentenced to seven-and-a-half years in prison on March 13.

Trump Tower

Democrats have seized on a June 9, 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a group of Russians as the strongest verifiable evidence of collusion to emerge during the Russia saga.

Trump Jr. accepted the meeting after receiving an email on June 3, 2016 from Rob Goldstone, a music publicist who worked for Russian pop star Emin Agalarov.

In the email, Goldstone said that Agalarov’s billionaire father had met with Russia’s “Crown prosecutor” and wanted to offer the Trump campaign “with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very helpful to your father.”

Trump Jr. enthusiastically accepted, writing: “If it is what you say I love it.”

Goldstone responded to say that a “Russian government attorney” would fly to the U.S. for the meeting.

Trump Jr. attended the meeting with Manafort and Jared Kushner. Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya attended along with Goldstone and several other Russians.

All attendees have claimed that the meeting was a waste of time and that no information regarding the campaign was exchanged.

Veselnitskaya provided the campaign with a short memo containing research compiled by Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that, ironically, commissioned the Steele dossier. Veselnitskaya was working at the time with Fusion GPS on an investigation of Bill Browder, a London-based financier who spearheaded the Magnitsky Act, a sanctions law opposed by the Kremlin.

Mueller investigated the Trump Tower meeting. Goldstone and other attendees appeared before Mueller’s grand jury.

Goldstone responded to Mueller’s finding of no collusion in a message to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“After 2 years, Robert Mueller has delivered his report, stating there was no collusion in the 2016 Presidential election,” Goldstone said.

“That includes my email to Donald Trump Jr. and the subsequent Trump Tower meeting…which as I have stated from the beginning, had nothing to do with collusion.”

Veselnitskaya was indicted by prosecutors in Manhattan related to her work against Bill Browder. No other Trump Tower attendees other than Manafort were charged by the special counsel.

Roger Stone/Jerome Corsi

One theory of collusion that emerged over the past year was that Trump confidant Roger Stone and conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi were somehow linked to WikiLeaks.

Prosecutors keyed in on Stone because of tweets he sent and remarks he made in August 2016 that suggested he had some inside knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans to release emails stolen from Democrats.

Stone said in interviews that he had communications with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. On Aug. 21, 2016 he tweeted that it would “soon [be] the Podesta’s time in the barrel.”

Stone has insisted that he had no direct contact with WikiLeaks or Assange. He also claims that he did not know that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails would be released by WikiLeaks in October 2016.

Instead, he’s maintained that he received tips about the timing and seriousness of the email releases from Randy Credico, a left-wing activist who is friends with a WikiLeaks attorney.

Stone released text messages that showed Credico providing information about the timing of the email releases.

Corsi was a focus because of emails he sent in August 2016 in which he suggested he had inside knowledge of WikiLeaks’ plans.

“Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps,” Corsi wrote in the Aug. 2, 2016, email to Stone, seemingly referring to Assange, who lives under asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

“One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.”

“Time to let more than Podesta to be exposed as in bed w enemy if they are not ready to drop HRC.”

Corsi was offered a plea deal by the special counsel but says he rejected it. Prosecutors wanted him to plead guilty to making false statements about exchanging WikiLeaks-related emails with Stone.

Corsi claims that he deduced on his own that WikiLeaks had Podesta’s emails and that he had no contact with anyone affiliated with the group.

Stone was indicted by the special counsel on Jan. 24, but not on charges related to conspiracy with Russia or WikiLeaks. He was instead charged with making false statements to the House Intelligence Committee regarding his discussions about WikiLeaks with associates and Trump campaign officials.

Peter Smith

One of the more bizarre collusion conspiracy theories involved Peter Smith, a GOP donor and political operative who lived in Chicago.

The Wall Street Journal first reported in June 2017 that Smith worked with numerous conservative operatives and hackers to obtain the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton deleted from her private server.

The conspiracy theory came to encompass close Trump associates, including Michael Flynn. Smith wrote in correspondence that he had been in contact with Flynn regarding the effort to hunt down Clinton’s emails.

The Wall Street Journal reported last year that Mueller was asking witnesses about the Smith operation. The story festered in the media, with follow-up reporting from BuzzFeed.

Smith died by suicide on May 14, 2017.

• A California state lawmaker introduced a bill to ban paper receipts starting in 2022.
• Environmentalists say the bill will also protect people from “toxins” in paper receipts, including BPA.
• However, experts and regulatory agencies say BPA is safe at current levels and not harmful.

A Democratic state lawmaker introduced legislation to get rid of paper receipts, but is using a bizarre justification for why paper receipts should be taken out of stores — they’re full of toxins.

Assemblyman Phil Ting, the bill’s sponsor, and his environmental allies say chemicals found on most receipts are coated with “toxins,” in particular, one called Bisphenol A (BPA).

“Almost all of these receipts have BPA,” Ting said during a press conference, adding BPA “is harmful to the environment, harmful to our health.”

“There’s a negative impact on the environment with these receipts, the inability to recycle them, as well as the contact with BPA.”

Ting’s bill would require all California businesses to offer digital receipts by January 2022, and only give paper ones to customers that specifically request them. Supporters say banning receipts would keep customers and workers from being exposed to “toxins” on receipts.

However, the politician’s depiction of BPA as a “toxin” differs from the opinions of experts and most international regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“Eliminating paper receipts is fine — nobody really wants them, anyway,” Alex Berezow, vice president of scientific affairs at the American Council on Science and Health, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“But we shouldn’t fabricate reasons to support this policy,” Berezow said. “The minuscule amounts of BPA in receipt paper aren’t even remotely harmful.”

BPA is an industrial chemical used to make hard, clear plastics. The chemical is found in water bottles and beverage containers people use every day. For years, environmentalists have argued it’s a dangerous “toxin” that needs to be taken out of circulation.

But the FDA says “BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods.” FDA based its opinion on reviews of hundreds of scientific studies. In February, the FDA released an extremely comprehensive study that looked at the effect of BPA in rats. Based on those results, the FDA said: “BPA is safe for the currently authorized uses in food containers and packaging.”

In 2012 and 2013, the FDA no longer allowed for BPA to be used in baby bottles or formula packaging. The FDA stressed, though, that amending its regulations for infant products “is not based on safety,” but because industry stopped using the chemical in those products.

Green America, the environmental group backing the bill, however, said people face serious health risks from toxins absorbed into people’s skin when they touch receipts. The group said BPA is linked to “serious health problems, including numerous types of cancer, diabetes, and reproductive issues.”

“Over time, this legislation would prevent millions of trees from being logged for paper receipts, which fewer and fewer consumers want, and which often go straight to landfills,” Green America’s climate and recycling director Beth Porter said in a statement.

Green America cited an Ecology Center paper that estimated 93 percent of paper receipts are coated with BPA and BPS. Sounds scary, but do receipts actually pose a threat to public health?

Ting’s proposal mirrors a statewide ban on plastic straws in California that went into effect at the beginning of 2019. The cities of San Francisco and Seattle also passed laws to ban plastic straws last year, and the U.K. became the first country to pass a nationwide ban on plastic straws.

Ting also said his bill would “free consumers” of the burden of having to decide what to do with their receipts, like finding a trash can or a drawer to stuff them in. Apparently, having your email inbox cluttered is much more convenient.

“My understanding is already most retailers, especially most large retailers, their software, their point-of-sale systems, already can do this, so we’re giving them enough time to be able to implement it,” Ting said.

The cost? “We don’t have a cost estimate right now,” Ting told reporters Tuesday.