Clinton Corruption

GOP Mocks Bill Clinton For Lecturing Trump on Oval Office Conduct: Irony ‘Should Not Be Lost on Anyone’

Former President Bill Clinton, whose presidency was engulfed by an extramarital affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, lectured President Trump for bringing “chaos” into the Oval Office during his Tuesday evening address at the Democratic National Convention, drawing a swift reaction from members of the GOP, who could not help but note the irony. Clinton kicked off his address by criticizing Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, assessing that the Wuhan virus “hit us much harder than it had to” before slamming the president’s Oval Office conduct. “At a time like this, the Oval Office should be a command center. Instead, it’s a storm center,” Clinton said. “There’s only chaos.” “Just one thing never changes: his determination to deny responsibility and shift the blame. The buck never stops there. Now, you have to decide whether to renew his contract or hire someone else,” he continued. “If you want a president who defies the job, is spending hours a day watching TV and zapping people on social media, he’s your man. Denying, distracting, and demeaning works great if you’re trying to entertain or inflame,” the former president added. “But in a real crisis, it collapses like a house of cards.” Many Republicans could not help but note the irony of Clinton criticizing Trump over proper Oval Office conduct, given his past: “The irony of Bill Clinton talking about the sanctity of the Oval Office should not be lost on anyone!” Donald Trump Jr. remarked: “With a straight face, Bill Clinton just tried to tell us ‘how’ the Oval Office should be used,” Trump campaign national press secretary Hogan Gidley said. “The absolute LAST person in the known universe I’d listen to about ‘how’ the Oval Office should be used…is Bill Clinton”: “The second night of the Convention was the parade of hypocrites. Sally Yates is concerned about politisizing [sic] DOJ? Bill Clinton wants to cleanse the Oval Office?” Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani said

This was pretty brazen even for Bill Clinton who knows no shame.  And, he wasn’t at his best.  He looked tired and old as he read from that prepared script.  It’s stunning just how tone-deaf the Clinton’s are these days..  For more, click on the text above..

Obama-era Russian Uranium One deal: What to know

As federal investigators continue to look into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, prosecutors are also probing an Obama-era sale of a uranium mining company. Attorney General Jeff Sessions last year directed federal prosecutors to look into the sale of Uranium One to a Russian company – a transaction that President Trump has called the “real Russia story.” The Hill reported that Russian officials engaged in a “racketeering scheme” to further its energy goals in the U.S. And an FBI informant recently told congressional committees that Russia paid millions to a U.S. lobbying firm in an effort to influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to make sure the deal was successful. In 2013, Rosatom, backed by the Russian state, acquired a Canadian uranium mining company, now called Uranium One, which has assets in the U.S. Uranium is a key material for making nuclear weapons. Through the deal, Russia is able to own about 20 percent of U.S. uranium production capacity. However, Colin Chilcoat, an energy affairs specialist who has written extensively about Russia’s energy deals, said that the company only extracts about 11 percent of uranium in the U.S. The deal also “doesn’t allow for that uranium to be exported at all,” Chilcoat told Fox News. “It’s not like it’s leaving the U.S. or somehow finding its way to more insidious players.” The agreement was approved by nine government agencies with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an inter-agency group that reviews how certain foreign investments can impact national security. The State Department under Clinton was one of those agencies, though Clinton told WMUR-TV in 2015 that she was not “personally involved” in the agreement. Some investors reportedly donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Former President Bill Clinton also received a $500,000 speaking fee in Russia and reportedly met with Vladimir Putin around the time of the deal, Republicans, who are largely critical of the deal, have said. The FBI had looked into the agreement and uncovered that some Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in nefarious dealings, which included extortion, bribery and kickbacks, The Hill reported. Evidence of wrongdoing by Vadim Mikerin, the Russian official overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion in the U.S. who was eventually sentenced to prison, was discovered by the FBI before the deal was approved, according to The Hill. Author Peter Schweizer – who wrote about the deal in his 2015 book “Clinton Cash” – told Fox News that there is no evidence that the people involved with approving the agreement knew that the FBI had an ongoing investigation into it. But White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told Fox News “if anyone colluded for a foreign government in [the 2016] election, it was the Clinton campaign [and] the Democrats.” Douglas Campbell, the FBI informant, alleged that Moscow paid millions of dollars to a lobbying firm to help Bill Clinton’s charities in order to influence Hillary Clinton, who was then former President Barack Obama’s secretary of state. Campbell made the claims in a 10-page statement given to the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Intelligence Committee and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Campbell said Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clinton’s Global Initiative.” “The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months,” Campbell said in the statement. “APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the US-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement.” APCO Worldwide is a global public affairs consulting agency.

Pres. Trump is correct in saying that THIS is the “real Russia story.”  To read the rest of this outstanding analysis, click on the text above.

Hillary Clinton backer paid $500G to fund women accusing Trump of sexual misconduct before Election Day, report says

One of Hillary Clinton’s wealthy pals paid $500,000 in an unsuccessful effort to fund women willing to accuse President Trump of sexual misconduct before the 2016 election, The New York Times reported Sunday. Susie Tompkins Buell, the founder of Esprit Clothing and a major Clinton campaign donor for many years, gave the money to celebrity lawyer Lisa Bloom who was working with a number of Trump accusers at the time, according to the paper’s bombshell report. Bloom solicited donors by saying she was working with women who might “find the courage to speak out” against Trump if the donors would provide funds for security, relocation and possibly a “safe house,” the paper reported. Former Clinton nemesis turned Clinton operative David Brock also donated $200,000 to the effort through a nonprofit group he founded, the paper reported in an article entitled, “Partisans, Wielding Money, Begin Seeking to Exploit Harassment Claims.” Bloom told the Times that the effort was unproductive. One woman requested $2 million then decided not to come forward. Nor did any other women. Bloom said she refunded most of the cash, keeping only some funds for out-of-pocket expenses accrued while working to vet and prepare cases. The lawyer told the paper she did not communicate with Clinton or her campaign “on any of this.” She also maintained that she represented only clients whose stories she had corroborated and disputed the premise that she offered money to coax clients to come forward, the paper reported. “It doesn’t cost anything to publicly air allegations,” Bloom said. “Security and relocation are expensive and were sorely needed in a case of this magnitude, in a country filled with so much anger, hate and violence.” The Times article said it learned of Buell and Brock’s connection to Bloom from two Democrats familiar with the financial arrangements who also said Bloom’s law firm kept the money from Brock’s nonprofit group but refunded the $500,000 that Buell contributed. Brock declined comment, according to the paper. Clinton campaign representatives said they were unaware of his work with Bloom. Buell would not comment on the financial arrangement, according to the Times. Still, she claimed she was frustrated that Trump had escaped the repercussions that have befallen many other powerful men accused of similar misconduct. The Times article expanded on a report in The Hill two weeks ago that said Bloom worked with campaign donors and tabloid media outlets during the final months of the presidential election to arrange compensation for the alleged Trump victims and a commission for herself, offering to sell their stories. In one case Bloom reportedly arranged for a donor to pay off one Trump accuser’s mortgage and attempted to score a six-figure payout for another woman. The woman with the mortgage ultimately declined to come forward after being offiered $750,000, The Hill reported. The paper reported reviewing one email exchange between one woman and Bloom that suggested political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton were solicited, without naming which ones. Bloom, who is the daughter of famous attorney Gloria Allred and, like her mother, specializes in representing women in sexual harassment cases, worked for four women who were considering accusing Trump. Two went public, and two declined.

Wow..  This is a HUGE story!  It completely destroys the credibility of Lisa Bloom and all of the women she offered money to share their alleged harassment by President Trump in the weeks leading up to the election.  More fake news ginned up by the dominantly liberal mainstream media (i.e. MSNBC, CNN, etc.), and now even the “failing” liberal NY Times had to eat crow and put out this story.

Classified Documents Found Among Huma Abedin’s Emails on Weiner’s Laptop

The State Department released emails Friday that investigators found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop which were sent from his estranged wife—top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin—some of which contained classified information. At least five of the found emails were marked classified, the New York Post reports. One email from Abedin to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was preparation for a phone call with Prince Saud of Saudi Arabia. The call was intended to warn the Saudis of classified material Bradley Manning had given to Wikileaks and was about to become public. Most of the content of the emails was heavily redacted when released by the State Department: “I deeply regret the likely upcoming WikiLeaks disclosure,” read one of the talking points. “This appears to be the result of an illegal act in which a fully cleared intelligence officer stole information and gave it to a website. The person responsible will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law” the message continued. “This is the kind of information we fear may be released: details of private conversations with your government on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton released a statement after the release of the emails. “This is a major victory. After years of hard work in federal court, Judicial Watch has forced the State Department to finally allow Americans to see these public documents,” Fitton said. “It will be in keeping with our past experience that Abedin’s emails on Weiner’s laptop will include classified and other sensitive materials.” “That these government docs were on Anthony Weiner’s laptop dramatically illustrates the need for the Justice Department to finally do a serious investigation of Hillary Clinton’s and Huma Abedin’s obvious violations of law.” Judicial Watch has filed numerous lawsuits for official emails found on Clinton’s private email server to be made public.

Major kudos to Judicial Watch for its efforts in getting this information and making it available to the American public.  We the people have a right to know just how corrupt Hillary and her minions are/were.  And, we believe that Congress and/or AG Jeff Sessions need to reopen the probe into the Hillary email scandal with this new information that has come to light this past year.  It’s way past time Hillary and Huma were held to account for their clear violations of handling of classified information, among other things.

Hillary Clinton campaign, DNC accused of ‘corrupt’ money scheme in new FEC complaint

A new legal complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission alleges that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee used state chapters as strawmen to circumvent campaign donation limits and laundered the money back to her campaign. The Committee to Defend the President, a political action committee, filed its complaint with the FEC on Monday with the allegations that the Hillary Victory Fund (HVF) solicited cash from big-name donors, including Calvin Klein and “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane — money that was allegedly sent through state chapters and back to the DNC before ending up with the Clinton campaign. Officials with the committee said their filing was spurred by their own analysis of FEC reports, where they said they discovered the HVF either never transferred the money to state chapters and back to the DNC, or did so without the state chapters having actual control.

More Hillary Clinton corruption coming to light..  To read more, click on the text above..  This story is developing..

Hillary Clinton’s Approval Rating Falls to Record Low

The approval rating of former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has fallen to a record low, according to the latest Gallup poll. Clinton’s approval rating now stands at 36 percent, a five percent fall from April, while her disapproval rating has soared to a new high of 61 percent, bucking the trend of presidential candidates gaining popularity after losing an election. Since her defeat to Donald Trump last November, Clinton has found a myriad of excuses for her loss, which include James Comey and the FBI, Vladimir Putin and alleged Russian hackers, the electoral college, conservative media, misogyny amongst the electorate, and white women who did not vote for her. Clinton has primarily devoted 2017 to speaking events, where she has repeatedly denounced Donald Trump. She has also toured the U.S. promoting her latest book, What Happened, which details her view of events during the 2016 presidential campaign. In October, Clinton was also implicated in the Uranium One scandal as Secretary of State for the Obama administration, with significant evidence of collusion with Russian officials who donated huge sums of money to the Clinton Foundation at the same time as 20 percent of America’s Uranium reserves were sold to Russia. The former first lady’s husband, Bill Clinton, has also seen his approval rating fall 45 percent to its lowest level since he left office, after recently facing fresh allegations of sexual assault from four women, who claim the incidents occurred after Clinton left the White House in 2001. Although low compared to former presidents, President Donald Trump’s approval rating has risen in recent days to 42 percent amid soaring economic confidence with record stock market highs and levels of employment.

Gregg Jarrett: How an FBI official with a political agenda corrupted both Mueller, Comey investigations

How is it possible that Hillary Clinton escaped criminal indictment for mishandling classified documents despite incriminating evidence that she violated the Espionage Act? Why did Donald Trump become the target of a criminal investigation for allegedly conspiring with Russia to influence the presidential election despite no evidence that he ever did so? The answer, it seems, comes down to one person who played a vital role in both cases: Peter Strzok, deputy director of counterintelligence at the FBI. Strzok was exchanging politically charged texts with an FBI lawyer that denigrated Trump and lauded Clinton at the same time he was leading the bureau’s criminal investigation of Clinton. He is also the one who changed the critical wording of then-FBI Director James Comey’s description of Clinton’s handling of classified material that resulted in no charges being brought against her. Then, Strzok reportedly signed the document launching the 2016 investigation into Russia’s meddling in the election and whether the Trump campaign played any role. After leading the FBI’s probe into Trump, he then joined Robert Mueller’s special counsel team as an integral investigator. Thus, it appears that one man with a strident political agenda accomplished his twin goals of clearing Clinton and accusing Trump, evidence be damned. And then he was caught. The Department of Justice inspector general, Michael Horowitz, discovered the electronic texts Strzok exchanged with his lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page. The messages were so politically incendiary and so threatened the integrity of Mueller’s investigation that Strzok was quietly canned over the summer from the special counsel team, where he was a pivotal participant. Did Mueller or anyone else notify Congress that both the Trump investigation –and the Clinton case before it– were corrupted? Of course not. This was covered up. Mueller surely knew that if the truth were revealed, it would further discredit a Trump-Russia probe that had already taken on the stench of dead fish. The House Intelligence Committee could smell it and knew something was amiss. It demanded answers. But the Justice Department and the FBI refused to respond or otherwise produce relevant documents that the committee subpoenaed. They are still stonewalling many of Congress’s valid requests and should now face contempt charges. Importantly, all of the anti-Trump and pro-Clinton messages should be made public. Americans should decide for themselves whether our system of justice has been compromised by unscrupulous influences. Just how rife with political prejudice and corrupt motives is the special counsel’s investigation? Instead of choosing prosecutors who could be neutral, fair and objective, Mueller stacked his staff with Democratic donors. Apparently, he conducted little or no vetting of both prosecutors and investigators. How else does one explain the presence of Strzok and Lisa Page on the investigative team? It appears that Mueller selected people of a particular political persuasion without discerning review or scrutiny. We were supposed to simply trust Mueller’s judgment, notwithstanding his own disqualifying conflict of interest under the special counsel statute that demanded his recusal. The Trump-Russia investigation is now awash in illegitimacy. Mueller and those who work for him have squandered all credibility. It is imperative that the special counsel be dismissed, the current staff fired, and a new counsel appointed to re-evaluate the evidence objectively. Do not expect Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to make these changes. He, too, should be removed in his capacity as Mueller’s supervisor. As both a witness and prosecutor, Rosenstein has his own conspicuous and disabling conflict of interest. Yet he has refused to step aside. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is duty-bound to remove both Mueller and Rosenstein. Given what we know about the composition of the special counsel team, there may well be others who harbor a blatant political bias and have expressed their animus toward Trump in emails or texts. The computer accounts of the entire staff need to be examined by Congress and the DOJ Inspector General. Failing that, news organizations should file a request under the Freedom of Information Act. The examination should begin with Andrew Weissmann, who has close ties to Hui Chen, whom he hired at the Justice Department and with whom he worked at the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York. Documents show the DOJ approved a salary for her position of $711,800 for two years of work, which is more than the attorney general earns.

No kidding!!  To read the rest of this spot-on legal op/ed by former defense attorney, and current Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett, click on the text above.  Excellent!!

Mueller is ‘compromised,’ should resign: GOP congressional resolution states

A Republican congressman from Florida introduced a resolution Friday urging Special Counsel Robert Mueller to resign from the Russia probe, saying the one-time FBI director has his own conflicts of interest. Rep. Matt Gaetz said Mr. Mueller, who was FBI director in 2010, botched an investigation into Russian attempts to bribe and extort their way to a deal to buy a portion of U.S. uranium resources. Mr. Gaetz said the Justice Department sat on information for four years and silenced a whistleblower who tried to alert Congress to questionable activity. “These deeply troubling events took place when Mr. Mueller was the Director of the FBI. As such, his impartiality is hopelessly compromised. He must step down immediately,” Mr. Rep. Gaetz said. The resolution wouldn’t be binding but, were it to gain a vote and pass, would be a stunning statement of no confidence in the man leading the probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. Earlier this week Mr. Mueller announced indictments against two former Trump campaign officials on lobbying disclosure and tax evasion charges, and secured a guilty plea from a campaign foreign policy advisor for lying to FBI agents over contacts with Russian-backed operatives.

Robert Mueller’s appointment as the special counsel was tainted from the get-go.  He and his protege, James Comey, had not only a professional relationship.  But, they had a personal one as well.  So, right there, we had clear conflict of interest as Mr. Mueller clearly could not be objective or impartial with respect to Mr. Comey.  These latest revelations only add.  Unfortunately, due to “optics” and politics, Trump really cannot remove him, even though he technically has the power to do so.  More members of Congress need to step forward and put pressure on Mr. Mueller to step down, if he doesn’t have the personal integrity to do so on his own.

Gregg Jarrett: Still no evidence of Trump-Russia ‘collusion’ – but Hillary is a different matter

Over the weekend, the mainstream media was absolutely giddy with delight upon learning there would be an indictment by special counsel, Robert Mueller. This was proof positive, they insisted, that Trump “colluded” with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election. Their exuberance was the equivalent of a two day-long tailgate party. Too bad it was premature. The celebration came to a crashing end when the indictments of Paul Manafort and his business associate, Rick Gates, were unsealed Monday morning. It turns out the charges are, basically, a tax fraud case. The two men stand accused of hiding their income from their lobbying work for Ukraine in order to avoid paying taxes, then lying about it. That’s it. The 31-page indictment makes no mention of Trump or Russia or “collusion.” The media seemed as dejected as a kid who wakes up on Christmas morning, only to find there are no presents under the tree. Gee whiz. The truth is, it should have come as no surprise to anyone, much less the media, that Manafort was in legal jeopardy for his business dealings. The FBI raided his home over the summer. It was later learned that the FBI wiretapped his conversations as far back as 2014. And it was widely reported that Manafort had been told by Mueller’s team that he would be criminally charged. The media became even more dispirited when they read through the indictment, discovering that nearly all of Manafort’s alleged wrongdoing substantially pre-dates his brief stint as chairman of the Trump campaign. In other words, there is no connection to either Trump or his campaign. Somewhere, I’m sure, ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Van Jones were crying. Again. Just like the tears they shed on camera election night when Hillary lost. But wait. Shortly after the indictments were unsealed, the media’s spirits were suddenly boosted when the special counsel revealed that a former adviser to Trump pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian national during his time on the Trump campaign. Surely this was evidence of illegal “collusion,” right? Wrong. George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to the FBI. He was not charged with so-called “collusion” because no such crime exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters. It has no application to elections and political campaigns. It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that. They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal codes. But that did not stop them from accusing Donald Trump, Jr., of illegally conspiring with the Russians when he met with a Russian lawyer to obtain information on Hillary Clinton. What law did he break? None. The Federal Election Commission has made it clear that it is perfectly lawful for foreign nationals to be involved in campaigns, as long as they are not paid and do not donate money. Which brings us to Hillary Clinton. It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier.” The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns. It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121). This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done. Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained. In this sense, it could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity. But that’s not all. Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. Secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia. If this proves to be a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme, it would constitute a myriad of crimes, including bribery (18 USC 201-b), mail fraud (18 USC 1341), and wire fraud (18 USC 1343). It might also qualify for racketeering charges (18 USC 1961-1968), if her foundation is determined to have been used as a criminal enterprise. Despite all the incriminating evidence, Clinton has managed to avoid being pursued by a special counsel. Trump, on the other hand, is being chased by Robert Mueller and his team, notwithstanding a dearth of evidence. The indictments of Manafort and Gates now present a unique opportunity to challenge the authority of the special counsel. Until now, no one had legal “standing” to argue in court that the appointment of Mueller was illegal. The criminal charges change all that. The two defendants will be able to argue before a judge that Mueller’s appointment by Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein violated the special counsel law. As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes. Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction. Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein directed him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable. To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable. If the federal judge agrees, Mueller and his team would be disbanded by judicial order. The Department of Justice would have to seek a new indictment of Manafort and Gates without the special counsel or drop the case entirely. The naming of Robert Mueller was tainted with disqualifying conflicts of interest from the beginning. Fired FBI Director James Comey admitted he leaked presidential memos to the media for the sole purpose of triggering the appointment of a special counsel who just happens to be Comey’s longtime friend, ally and partner. It is no coincidence that Rosenstein appointed Mueller. We now know both men were overseeing the corrupt Uranium One sale which involved Russian bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering. They appear to have kept it secret, even hiding it from Congress which would surely have cancelled the transaction involving a vital national security asset. A cover-up? It has the stench of one. How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia matter if the integrity and impartiality of Mueller and Rosenstein has been compromised by their suspected cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case? Both men should resign. And a new special counsel should be appointed – this time to investigate Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.

Agreed!!  And well said, Gregg!!  Gregg Jarrett is a former defense attorney, and current Fox News legal analyst.

Hillary Clinton Spotted Cavorting with Focus of Mueller Investigation, Tony Podesta

Former Secretary of State and two-time losing Democrat candidate for President Hillary Clinton was spotted meeting this weekend with figures who feature prominently in an investigation into corruption, spearheaded by special counsel Robert Mueller. Tony Podesta and Sidney Blumenthal both appeared at Clinton’s 70th birthday party held at Elizabeth Frawley Bagley’s house in Washington, DC, on Sunday, Politico reported. Podesta’s appearance is uncomfortable for Clinton because he and his brother, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta, are currently a focus of Mueller’s corruption investigation with their political consultancy business, the Podesta Group. The Podesta Group came under the microscope for working with lobbyist Paul Manafort who Mueller indicted on Monday for tax evasion and other charges. Long before he joined Trump’s campaign, in 2012, Manafort worked with the Podestas to lobby Congress on behalf of Ukraine’s bid to join the European Union. Only hours after news of Mueller’s indictment of Manafort broke, Tony Podesta announced that he was stepping down from the firm that bears his name. Podesta handed over the operational reins to firm CEO Kimberley Fritts, according to reports on Monday afternoon. Podesta reportedly said he felt he needed to confront the Mueller investigation as an individual and not while representing the Podesta Group. White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders Huckabee pointed out that Mueller’s indictments thus far prove that his investigation has “nothing to do with the president.” “Today’s announcement has nothing to do with the president, and has nothing to do with the president’s campaign or his campaign activity,” Sanders told reporters at the White House on Monday. Sanders also noted that Trump hasn’t spoken to Manafort in months. “The last known conversation was back all the way to February, and as far as anything beyond that, with Paul, I’m not sure.”