Barr told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he had appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham as a special counsel in October under the same federal regulations that governed special counsel Robert Mueller in the original Russia probe. He said Durham's investigation has been narrowing to focus more on the conduct of FBI agents who worked on the Russia investigation, known by the code name of Crossfire Hurricane.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Under the regulations, a special counsel can be fired only by the attorney general and for specific reasons such as misconduct, dereliction of duty or conflict of interest. An attorney general must document such reasons in writing.

The FBI in July 2016 began investigating whether the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to sway the outcome of the presidential election. That probe was inherited nearly a year later by special counsel Mueller, who ultimately did not find enough evidence to charge Trump or any of his associates with conspiring with Russia.

The early months of the investigation, when agents obtained secret surveillance warrants targeting a former Trump campaign aide, have long been scrutinized by the president and other critics of the probe who say the FBI made significant errors. An inspector general report last year backed up that criticism but did not find evidence that mistakes in the surveillance applications and other problems with the probe were driven by partisan bias.

Barr decided "the best thing to do would be to appoint them under the same regulation that covered Bob Mueller, to provide Durham and his team some assurance that they'd be able to complete their work regardless of the outcome of the election," he said Tuesday.

President-elect Joe Biden's transition team didn't immediately comment on the appointment.

The current investigation, a criminal probe, had begun very broadly but has since "narrowed considerably" and now "really is focused on the activities of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation within the FBI," Barr said. He said he expects Durham would detail whether any additional prosecutions will be brought and make public a report of the investigation's findings.

Durham's investigation has resulted in one prosecution so far: a guilty plea by a former FBI lawyer who admitted altering an email.

In an Oct. 19 order, obtained by The Associated Press, Barr says Durham is authorized "to investigate whether any federal official, employee or any person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence or law enforcement activities" directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, anyone associated with the campaigns or the Trump administration.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Russia meddling probe to continue as new special counsel announced appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A month before America goes to the polls, viewers got a show that they normally don't get on prime time television, with the two contenders throwing mud at each other and calling one another clown "clown" and "liar" on the debate stage in Cleaveland.

  Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

But unlike the pundits in the studios, those who tuned in from home got what they had been clamoring for after months of having to listen to boring speeches and rallies, contested Supreme Court seats and alleged tax improprieties. Finally, they got to hear the candidates battle it out as if this was a large family meal where everyone goes at each other.

Biden had a bad night, with his lackluster performance underscoring his inability to put forth his own agenda. Rather than being proactive, he was reactive. He sounded like a broken record, attacking Trump for his mismanagement of the coronavirus crisis. Biden's biggest mistake was his decision not to talk from his heart, except on one occasion, when he spoke emotionally, staring directly to the camera and sharing with the American people his son's ordeal with drugs. This endeared him with millions of Americans, but only for a brief moment. During the rest of the debate he was mostly on the defensive, trying to refute Trump's accusations rather than making a positive case for himself.

Even when Trump practically handed him the floor and asked him to reveal whom he would appoint to the Supreme Court if he were president, Biden refused to answer. It's doubtful there is even one voter who came out of this debate with a clear sense of why Biden is running for president; even veteran pundits are scratching their heads in their attempt to finally pin down what's motivating Biden and what vision he wants to articulate. Biden has not shown he has the fire in his belly to run for president, unlike his rival, who is running as if he is the underdog. Biden can at least take comfort from the fact that he stood toe to toe with the most powerful man on earth and did not fall into the trap Trump had laid by casting him as senile and unfit to serve.

The bottom line is that Trump won the debate, if only because Biden let him have the floor all to himself most of the time. In fact, Trump did away with the rules right at the outset, even telling moderator Chris Wallace that he was in fact debating him.

Trump's overarching goal was to exude strength and to put the coronavirus crisis on the back burner. In that metric, he can claim victory. Biden, on the other hand, showed weakness throughout the entire evening, especially when asked how he would react if, on Election Night, the outcome would not be immediately clear. Rather than say that he would declare victory as soon as he viably can in order to show how tough he is, he spoke at length about how everyone has to wait for all the votes to be counted.

Biden had many opportunities throughout the debate to articulate his vision for America, to talk about his late son Beau who succumbed to cancer, and to relate with voters with a story that would win the sympathy, and votes, of the American people. But instead, he chose to wage the same old attack on Trump, with his monotonic voice, warning America that the president was dangerous. As if Americans aren't mature enough to make up their own minds.

But despite pundits insisting this was a horror show, the voters got what they wanted. They wanted a real fight, and they got one, unlike four years ago, when Hillary Clinton tried to take the high road, all but ensuring she would come off as detached and cold, contributing to her ultimate defeat. Biden at least engaged Trump on the same level, and tried to punch back with matching, albeit unbecoming, rhetoric. But Biden failed to take a step further and instead of showing energy and video, he stuck to the regular tit-for-tat.

The shock registered in television studios over the unpresidential debate was hardly shared by the average voters in the rustbelt towns in Ohio and Pennsylvania. In fact, they actually liked the authenticity on display. It's probably safe to say that Trump's resolve was more appealing to them than Biden's boring soliloquies, but at least the former vice president managed to stay on both feet. If he wants to gain momentum, he would have to put on his A-game in the next two debates. On the other hand, all through the campaign, he has preferred to run a passive campaign and to stay ahead in the polls just by being the anti-Trump. This strategy, which gives the stage to Trump, did not deliver Clinton a victory in 2016.

It would be a stretch to say that either candidate managed to make voters switch over to their side. This year, the electorate has pretty much made up its minds, at least that's what the polls show. But the two candidates can still use the debate by squeezing some political points. Trump has to drive home that Biden spoke for 90 minutes without offering anything new, to cast him as a puppet that has no clear direction. Biden has to declare victory, and hammer home the fact that he managed to stand for 90 minutes against Trump and fight back, and then he has to criss-cross America and finally lay forth a vision. Trump managed to show that he is the toughest guy in the neighborhood who has no mercy on anyone, whom America's enemies will not want to irritate. In the suburbs of Philadelphia, in Iowa's farms and the factories in Michigan, voters will appreciate people like that.

Anyone who thinks Trump hurt himself in this debate electorally should think again. In 2016 people were convinced that his dark rhetoric and rudeness would turn voters off, but it only boosted their interest in the unorthodox candidate and his unfiltered approach.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Pundits saw a horror show, but voters got what they wanted appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Knesset held a confidence vote to approve the newly appointed ministers and to appoint Netanyahu as the head of the new government. Netanyahu then took the oath of office for the fifth time as prime minister.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Netanyahu's power-sharing agreement with former election rival, Blue and White leader Benny Gantz, opens the way to proceed toward the application of Israeli sovereignty over Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria as part of the newly released Trump administration peace plan.

Under his accord with Gantz, after three inconclusive elections, Netanyahu will remain prime minister for 18 months before handing over to his new partner. Gantz, a former Israel Defense Forces chief, will be Netanyahu's defense minister and also the second in the command in the government.

"The people wanted unity, and that is what it got," Netanyahu told parliament, citing a desire to avoid a fourth election after three inconclusive ballots since April 2019, and a national battle against the coronavirus crisis. He added that "time has come to extend Israeli sovereignty," Netanyahu said, vowing to deliver on his election pledge.

Speaking after him, Gantz said: "Finally, there is a government in Israel, the longest political crisis in Israel is now over and it is time to end this era of fragmentation and incitement and begin the era of unity and reconciliation.

Israel's longest-serving leader, Netanyahu, now 70, first came to power in 1996 and has served three consecutive terms since 2009. He goes on trial on May 24 on charges of bribery, breach of trust and fraud, which he denies.

With a record 36 ministers, the cabinet will be the largest in Israel's history, a reflection of weeks of deal-making that bolstered Netanyahu's reputation as a political survivor.

The post Netanyahu wins confidence of Knesset, takes oath of office appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"DNC rigged it! Bernie drops out!" was the headline on a Trump campaign fundraising email on Wednesday. "It's official: Crazy Bernie is dropping out of the race. Democrats never wanted anything to do with Crazy Bernie – it was RIGGED against him from the start."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

That's certainly the president making the best of a bad situation (for him), inflaming the passions of Sanders supporters who already suspect establishment Democrats were secretly cheering for progressives such as Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren to lose, thus making a general election campaign against Trump easier.

But it's not just Trump who's singing from that hymnal. People on the left are, too.

Progressive cartoonist and commentator Ted Rall unsparingly criticized establishment Democrats in general – and Biden in particular – as abusive spouses, metaphorically beating the progressive Left for their votes and offering no love in return.

"Like the victim of an abusive alcoholic parent or spouse, (progressive voters) will … wallow in magical thinking and project good intentions upon a candidate who has given them no reason to think he has changed," Rall wrote in a Wednesday column. "Maybe dad isn't drunk tonight. Maybe Biden is secretly liberal." (Emphasis in original.)

Rall says Biden could easily dispel progressive fears by signaling he will make liberal appointments to his cabinet and to the most important position of all, his vice president. But he discouraged them from holding their breath: "With Joe Biden, there's even more reason than usual to believe that nothing good can come out of standing by him," Rall writes.

So Trump and the progressive Left are upset at the same thing: the fact that Joe Biden isn't a progressive liberal and won't become one.

And he won.

Yes, it took him time to get going, as Sanders and Pete Buttigieg won in early states that have never been kind to Biden. Later, however, Biden – moderate, centrist, establishment as they come – came roaring back.

Was it rigged, as Trump claims? Well, only if you define rigged as "getting the most votes." Sure, the Democratic National Committee may have preferred a Biden victory to a Sanders victory, but so did primary voters. After the fiasco of 2016, party leaders were more hands-off than usual thanks to campaign rules that Sanders himself helped write.

And those rules produced Biden as the nominee.

The question now: Where do the Democrats go from here? Rall notes in his piece that "intransigent #BernieOrBusters will cast about for a third-party vote, write-in Bernie or sit out the election in November."

But there are undoubtedly fewer progressives such as Rall, who see only marginal difference between another four years of Trump and four years of Biden, than there are those who believe, as Biden has said, that "four more years of Donald Trump will fundamentally alter the character of this nation."

And whether he's on the campaign trail or not, Sanders won't be going away anytime soon. That's a good thing. Whether you agreed with his agenda or not, you have to at least appreciate his ability to identify the issues. Why is it, after all, that America is the only major county in the world that doesn't guarantee health care to its citizens as a right? Or what are the long-term effects of a growing wealth gap between the very rich and the very poor? Don't corporate special interests have outsize influence in Washington?

Millions of people responded to Sanders' campaign when he raised those questions. And while he didn't win the nomination, the eventual winner might do well to consider why his message resonated so well.

Reprinted with permission from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. 

The post Can Biden win over disaffected liberal voters? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The possibility the pandemic could last into the fall, or flare again as millions of voters are set to choose the nation's next president, has state and local officials scrambling for alternatives to help keep voters safe.

The most-discussed proposals are to make mail-in voting available to all eligible voters nationwide and to expand early in-person voting to limit the crowds on Election Day.

But election officials say those changes will be costly and complex in a country where traditional voting remains ingrained. About six of every 10 ballots were cast in person on Election Day in 2016, Census data shows.

Democrats fell far short in their effort to include at least $2 billion to help virus-proof the November elections as part of a $2.2-trillion coronavirus stimulus bill that was passed by the US House on Friday. The package devotes $400 million to bolster vote by mail and early voting, expand facilities and hire more poll workers.

"Congress failed to include sufficient, urgently needed funds in the stimulus to help states run elections in a time of pandemic," said Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. "This could wreak havoc in November."

Republicans opposed to spending big on balloting changes viewed it as an attempt by Democrats to impose a one-size-fits-all solution on states. Democrats said the price tag reflected the enormity of the task of safeguarding the vote during a pandemic.

Benjamin Hovland, chairman of the US Election Assistance Commission, which provides resources and information to election officials nationwide, said the change requires planning – and time is running out.

"You can't just flip a switch and vote by mail, this is a very involved process," Hovland said. "A lot of what is possible in November will be determined now."

Some officials in both parties still worry they could lose out in a nationwide vote-by-mail system.

Democrats fear it could disenfranchise minorities and low-income voters who tend to move more frequently or lack reliable access to mail service. Republicans cite concerns about voter fraud, and they worry that older voters confused by a new voting system and rural residents with slow mail delivery could be left out.

Fears about the outbreak, which has now infected more than 85,000 Americans and killed over 1,200, have started to affect Americans' intentions to vote. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken March 18-24, 63% of adults questioned said they were "completely certain" to vote in November. But that figure dropped to 56% when the respondents were asked to project their behavior if coronavirus were still a factor on Election Day.

"If nothing changes by November, there will be a lot of voters who are disenfranchised," said Sylvia Albert, voting and elections director for good-government watchdog Common Cause.

The health crisis has already upended the Democratic race to pick a challenger to face incumbent Republican President Donald Trump.

Three states scheduled to proceed with their April 4 Democratic nominating contests – Wyoming, Hawaii and Alaska – have scrapped in-person voting entirely and will only permit voting by mail. Ohio and at least eight other states pushed their primaries back to May or June.

Postponement looks unlikely for the November presidential election, which is set by law and would require action by Congress to move.

"The election is going to happen in November, so we have to put the procedures in place now to make sure it happens safely and fairly," said Jonathan Diaz, legal counsel for voting rights at the Washington-based Campaign Legal Center.

Introducing a vote-by-mail system in new locales will require election officials to pay for new paper ballots and thick security envelopes, and to buy expensive new machines to sort and tabulate them.

But one of the biggest challenges will be familiarizing people with a new way of voting in a very short time, said Tina Barton, the city clerk and chief elections official in Rochester Hills, Michigan.

"It's going to take a massive education campaign not only to train all your clerks on a new process but also to educate voters," Barton said.

The Brennan Center estimated the cost of ensuring vote-by-mail was available for all voters could be up to $1.4 billion, with postage alone costing $600 million.

Currently, every state allows some voters to cast ballots sent through the mail. Five states – Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington – conduct elections entirely by mail.

The post Coronavirus emerges as major threat to US election process appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Shortly after the exit polls showing Likud beating the left-wing alliance Blue and White 37 to 34 in the seat projections, Netanyahu tweeted the words "Thank you" with a picture of a red heart.

תודה

— Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) March 2, 2020

He later added another tweet, essentially declaring victory, saying "A great victory for the Right." Channel 12 News further reported that he called right-wing party leaders and vowed to "form a national government."

The post Netanyahu says 'Thank you' after Likud gets upper hand in election appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Video: i24NEWS

The post WATCH: The i24NEWS-Israel Hayom election program appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The day before the Feb. 11 New Hampshire primary, President Donald Trump suggested Republicans might want to cross over and "vote for the weakest candidate possible of the Democrats" – but by the time Trump made that remark, the deadline to register for the primary had passed.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Nevada's Democratic Party, however, allows same-day registration for the caucus – which Democrats have credited with expanding the number of registered Democrats in the Silver State. The party said in a news release that 10,000 people had signed up for the Democratic Party during four days of early voting.

But the system also enables non-Democrats to chime in on the party's nominating process.

"It was kind of a way of demonstrating how absurd I think it is to have same-day registration as well as early voting for a caucus," Muth said. "So my wife and I last Sunday went to an early voting site, we changed parties right there on the spot. We caucused for Bernie."

Muth attended the Nevada Republican Central Committee on Saturday, where the party voted to bind Nevada's 22 delegates to President Donald Trump.

Muth explained that he chose Sanders, not because he thought Sanders would be the easiest Democrat to beat, but because he thought a contest between Trump and the Vermont senator would provide "a great civics lesson for the entire country, comparing an absolute avowed socialist versus an absolute avowed capitalist."

"It would be a dream election," Muth said. "The nightmare would be if Sanders won, of course. But, look, if Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump, we've already lost it."

The couple could have switched back to the GOP the next day, but Muth offered, he's thinking of starting a group, "Democrats for Trump."

Muth mentioned the party switch in his email newsletter, suggesting to fellow Republicans that they re-register and vote in the Democratic caucus. A couple of dozen people told him they thought they might do the same thing, he said.

But Stewart Boss, communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said on Twitter there wouldn't be an impact from Muth's efforts.

"To be clear: Chuck Muth is a joke and literally nothing in entrance polls indicates this was in any way common or had real impacts on overall caucus results," Boss tweeted.

Reprinted with permission from the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

The post He is a Republican activist, but caucused for Bernie Sanders appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The new poll, conducted by the Maagar Mochot polling institute, shows that neither political bloc would be able to muster a majority in the 120-seat Knesset: The Right-Haredim bloc is projected to secure 56 seats, whereas the Left and Arab parties would have a combined 57 seats.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

MK Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beytenu, which has refused to endorse any bloc but would support a national unity government, continues to hold the balance of power according to the poll, which has it at seven seats.

While the Left could theoretically swear in a minority government, it would have to rely on the Arab parties and Yisrael Beytenu to abstain when it presents it to the Knesset plenum for a confidence vote.

Blue and White, an alliance of center and left-wing parties that is expected to get the greatest share of the vote, has vowed to avoid any situation in which it would swear in a government that would rely on the Arab parties.

Blue and White Chairman Benny Gantz has previously been open to the idea of a unity government with Likud, but he has made it contingent on Likud leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, stepping down in order to tend to his legal troubles. Netanyahu is standing trial in three cases, with the trial expected to drag on for at least a year.

Voter turnout could have a disproportionate outcome and could create major upsets, especially for the smaller parties. Some 62% of respondents said they were definitely going to vote on March 2, while an additional 24% said they were very likely to vote.

Some 71 % of Jews who define themselves as secular said they would go and vote, higher than those in the national-religious sector (61%) and traditional Jews (60%). Some 57% of Haredi voters, and 51% of Arab voters said the same.

The far-right Otzma Yehudit party, which failed to cross get enough votes in the September 2019 election, will most likely end up below the electoral threshold of four seats this time as well. The poll shows that it would garner only 1% of the vote, translating into zero Knesset seats.

Some 45% of respondents said Netanyahu is best suited for the role of prime minister, compared to 35% who chose Gantz.

The poll was conducted using a representative sample of 506 eligible voters in Israel. The margin of error is 4.4 percentage points.

The post March 2 election unlikely to resolve political crisis, poll shows appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

In 2017, the Likud successfully passed a new law in the Knesset dubbed the V15 Law that requires politically active organizations to register as a political entity with the State Comptroller's Office as if it was a party, and hence be subject to various campaign finance disclosure requirements and regulations if its activities are valued at more than NIS 102,000 ($28,000).

As far as Israel Hayom can tell, the Israeli Alliance has not registered as a political entity and has not disclosed its financial records in full despite meeting the threshold set by the V15 Law.

The organization may not be required to register as a political entity because it is technically not backing any particular party or political affiliation, but it appears that it may very well be targeting only specific voters through various tools that distribute ads on social networks to specific audiences, and that could be in violation of the law.

This could mean that while it is not in violation of the law in its official activities, it is, in fact, helping drive up turnout in specific areas in a way that increases the chances of victory for certain parties.

In its petition on Thursday, the Likud said that the "Israeli alliance is fully coordinating its activities with Blue and White and other civil society organizations on the Left." It further said that "following a query that has been filed with the State Comptroller's Office, it appears that the Israeli Alliance has not properly registered as political entity that is involved in electioneering, as is required by Israel's campaign finance laws, and this means that its activities in this election campaign are illegal."

Facebook provided Israel Hayom with the following statement following the Israel Hayom investigation: "The Facebook Ad Library includes the ads of every page that uses our apps and services. For ads that deal with elections or political matters, the library shows who has seen the ad and the expenses and exposure of each ad, and it saves the ads for seven years. It also includes information on the page that promotes the ad, the 'paid for by' statement, phone number, email of the advertiser, the link to its site and other ads of that advertiser. The report is updated daily and is accessible to everyone. We are committed to being transparent but also to maintaining the privacy of people on the platform."

The Israeli Alliance issued the following statement: "We love Israel. We are disheartened to see the state holding one election after another in this never-ending cycle. In order to avoid another fourth early election, we call on all Israelis from all parts of Israel and from all political persuasions to go out and vote. A third time is enough, and it depends only on Israelis. Those who feel hurt by activity undertaken by civil society and fears that Israelis will exercise their democratic right should think hard what their motives are.

"It is unfortunate that Israel Hayom has not carried out its duty as a major media organization to encourage turnout for everyone and has ignored our requests for collaboration on the matter, and has instead chosen to suppress such initiatives."

The post Game changer? Legal action taken against alleged illicit 'voter turnout' campaign appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.