Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Election

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby BenDhyan » Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:18 pm

What's the next plan..

Schiff downplays impeachment, says that at this point, Trump is only leaving ‘by being voted out’

July 25 at 9:38 AM

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) on Thursday sharply downplayed the prospects of removing President Trump from office through impeachment, saying the only way he’s leaving office, at this point, is “by being voted out.”

Schiff’s comments came a day after former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III appeared at back-to-back hearings, including one at which Schiff presided, and offered no blockbuster revelations about his investigation into Russian election interference and Trump’s possible obstruction of justice.

“We do need to be realistic, and that is, the only way he’s leaving office, at least at this point, is by being voted out, and I think our efforts need to be made in every respect to make sure we turn out our people,” Schiff said during an interview on CNN. “Should we put the country through an impeachment? I haven’t been convinced yet that we should. Going through that kind of momentous and disruptive experience for the country, I think, is not something we go into lightly.”

[/url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/schiff-downplays-impeachment-says-that-at-this-point-trump-is-only-leaving-by-being-voted-out/2019/07/25/4ce96424-aede-11e9-bc5c-e73b603e7f38_story.html?utm_term=.aeafe2ef226d/url]

Ben D
User avatar
BenDhyan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:20 pm

Oh and I was so looking forward to president Pence pardoning trump :roll:

Mitch McConnell is NOT going to hold an impeachment trial in the Senate

I think it would be helpful to revisit the impeachment forced resignation of Richard Nixon to understand what impeachment is/the process and how long it took and to remember that Nixon was pardoned by his Vice President

If and when trump is impeached the right wing take over will be complete with President Pence who will pardon trump..and NO one I know wants trump pardoned for all his crimes NO ONE

I lived through the days when Nixon was re elected when everyone I knew knew he was a criminal


January 1969 - September 8, 1974


Five years from the time Nixon was elected and then RE ELECTED before he resigned



Impeachment must be strategic and well planned and well timed


Impeachment process against Richard Nixon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachme ... hard_Nixon


.....................................

OCT 9, 2018
The Watergate Scandal: A Timeline
We look at the milestones of a scandal that rocked the nation.

HISTORY STAFF
January 1969

Richard Nixon is inaugurated as the 37 President of the United States.

February 1971

Richard Nixon orders the installation of a secret taping system that records all conversations in the Oval Office, his Executive Office Building office, and his Camp David office and on selected telephones in these locations.

June 13, 1971

The New York Times begins publishing the Pentagon Papers, the Defense Department's secret history of the Vietnam War. The Washington Post will begin publishing the papers later in the week.


1971

Nixon and his staff recruit a team of ex-FBI and CIA operatives, later referred to as “the Plumbers” to investigate the leaked publication of the Pentagon Papers. On September 9, the "plumbers" break into the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, in an unsuccessful attempt to steal psychiatric records to smear Daniel Ellsberg, the defense analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the press.

January 1972

One of the “plumbers,” G. Gordon Liddy, is transferred to the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP), where he obtains approval from Attorney General John Mitchell for a wide-ranging plan of espionage against the Democratic Party.

May 28, 1972

Liddy’s team breaks into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. for the first time, bugging the telephones of staffers.

Watergate
The Watergate Complex is an office-apartment-hotel building in the neighborhood of Foggy Bottom, Washington, DC., overlooking the Potomac River.
Hoberman Collection/Corbis
June 17, 1972

Five men are arrested after breaking into the Democratic National Committee Headquarters. Among the items found in their possession were bugging devices, thousands of dollars in cash and rolls of film. Days later, the White House denied involvement in the break-in.

June 17, 1972

A young Washington Post crime reporter, Bob Woodward, is sent to the arraignment of the burglars. Another young Post reporter, Carl Bernstein, volunteers to make some phone calls to learn more about the burglary.

June 20, 1972

Bob Woodward has his first of several meetings with the source and informant known as “Deep Throat,” whose identity, W. Mark Felt, the associate director of the FBI, was only revealed three decades later.

August 1, 1972

An article in The Washington Post reports that a check for $25,000 earmarked for Nixon’s 1972 re-election campaign was deposited into the bank account of one of the men arrested for the Watergate break-in. Over the course of nearly two years, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein continue to file stories about the Watergate scandal, relying on many sources.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein
Bob Woodward (left) and Carl Bernstein in the Washington Post newsroom, 1973.
Ken Feil/The Washington Post/Getty Images
August 30, 1972

Nixon announces that John Dean has completed an internal investigation into the Watergate break-in, and has found no evidence of White House involvement.

September 29, 1972

The Washington Post reports that while serving as Attorney General, John Mitchell had controlled a secret fund to finance intelligence gathering against Democrats. When Carl Bernstein calls Mitchell for comment, Mitchell threatens both Bernstein and Katharine Graham, the publisher of the Post. The Post prints the threat.


October 10, 1972

Woodward and Bernstein report that the FBI had made connections between Nixon aides and the Watergate break-in.

October 1972

Articles by Woodward and Bernstein describe the existence of a major “dirty tricks” campaign conducted against Democratic Presidential candidate Edmund Muskie, orchestrated by Donald Segretti and others paid by CREEP and Nixon’s private attorney.

November 7, 1972

Nixon is elected to a second term in office after defeating Democratic candidate George McGovern.

January 8, 1973

The Watergate break-in trial begins.


January 30, 1973

Former Nixon aide and FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy and James McCord, an ex-CIA agent and former security director of the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP), are convicted for their roles in the break-in at the Watergate complex. They are found guilty of conspiracy, bugging DNC headquarters, and burglary. Four others, including E. Howard Hunt, had already plead guilty. Judge John J. Sirica threatens the convicted burglars with long prison sentences unless they talk.

March 21, 1973

In a White House meeting, White House Counsel John Dean tells Nixon, “We have a cancer—within—close to the Presidency, that’s growing.” He and Nixon discuss how to pay the Watergate bribers as much as $1 million in cash to continue the cover-up.

March 23, 1973

Watergate burglar James McCord’s letter confessing the existence of a wider conspiracy is read in open court by Judge Sirica. The Watergate cover-up starts to unravel.

April 6, 1973

Dean begins cooperating with Watergate prosecutors.

John Dean testifying for the second day before the Senate Watergate Committee, saying he was sure that President Nixon not only knew about the Watergate cover-up as early as last fall, but also helped try to keep the scandal quiet.
John Dean testifying for the second day before the Senate Watergate Committee, saying he was sure that President Nixon not only knew about the Watergate cover-up as early as last fall, but also helped try to keep the scandal quiet.
Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
April 9, 1973

The New York Times reports that McCord told the Senate Watergate Committee that a Republican group, the Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP) had made cash payoffs to the Watergate burglars.

April 27, 1973

Acting FBI director L. Patrick Gray resigns after admitting that he destroyed documents given to him by John Dean days after the Watergate break-in.

April 30, 1973

The Watergate scandal intensifies as Nixon announces that White House aides John Ehrlichman and H.R. Haldeman have resigned. White House counsel John Dean is fired. (In October that year, Dean would plead guilty to obstruction of justice.) Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resigns. Later that night, Nixon delivers his first primetime address to the nation on Watergate, stressing his innocence.

May 17, 1973

Senator Sam Ervin opens the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities into the Watergate incident.

May 18, 1973

The first nationally televised hearings of the Senate Select Committee begin. Attorney General-designate Elliot Richardson appoints law professor and former U.S. Solicitor General Archibald Cox as special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation.


June 3, 1973

The Washington Post reports that Dean told Watergate prosecutors that he discussed the cover-up with Nixon at least 35 times. On June 25, Dean testifies before the Senate Select Committee about Nixon’s involvement.

Pieces of police evidence around the Watergate scandal. To the left are arrest photo enlargements of the 4 Cubans from Miami who committed the crime: Valdez Martinez, Virgilio Gonzalez, Bernard Barker, and Frank Sturgis.
Pieces of police evidence around the Watergate scandal. To the left are arrest photo enlargements of the 4 Cubans from Miami who committed the crime: Valdez Martinez, Virgilio Gonzalez, Bernard Barker, and Frank Sturgis.
Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images
June 13, 1973

Prosecutors discover a memo to John Ehrlichman regarding plans for the Plumbers’ break-in of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist.

July 13, 1973

Alexander Butterfield, former presidential appointments secretary, meets with Senate investigators, where he reveals the existence of an extensive, secret taping system in the White House. On July 16, he testifies before the Senate Committee in a live broadcast, revealing that since 1971 Nixon had recorded all conversations and telephone calls in his offices.

July 18, 1973

Nixon reportedly orders the White House taping system disconnected.

July to October 1973

President Nixon refuses to turn over recordings of his White House conversations to the Senate investigation and to Cox. The tapes are believed to include evidence that Nixon and his aides had attempted to cover up their involvement in the Watergate break-in and other illegal activities. Nixon files appeals in response to various subpoenas ordering him to turn over the tapes.

August 15, 1973

The same day the Senate Select Committee wraps up its hearings, Nixon delivers a second primetime address to the nation on Watergate, saying “It has become clear that both the hearings themselves and some of the commentaries on them have become increasingly absorbed in an effort to implicate the President personally in the illegal activities that took place.” He reminded the American people that he had already taken “full responsibility” for the “abuses that occurred during my administration.”


October 10, 1973

Vice President Spiro Agnew resigns, amidst bribery and income-tax evasion charges, unrelated to the Watergate break-in. Two days later, Nixon nominates Michigan Congressman Gerald Ford as vice president. Ford is sworn in in December.

October 19, 1973

Nixon attempts a legal maneuver to avoid handing over the tapes to Cox by suggesting U.S. Sen. John Stennis to summarize the tapes for investigators. Cox will refuse the offer the next day.

October 20, 1973

Nixon orders the firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox in what becomes known as the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resign rather than carry out these orders. Solicitor General Robert Bork fires Cox. Several days later, Leon Jaworski is appointed as the second special prosecutor.

November 17, 1973

During a televised press conference in Florida, Nixon famously declares, “I’m not a crook,” and continues to profess his innocence.



November 21, 1973

White House Watergate counsel J. Fred Buzhardt reveals the existence of an 18 ½ minute gap on the tape of Nixon-Haldeman conversation on June 20, 1972. The White House is unable to explain the gap, although Nixon’s secretary Rose Mary Woods, will later claim she accidentally erased the material.

March 1, 1974

Indictments are handed down for the “Watergate Seven,” including John Mitchell, H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman. The grand jury names Nixon as an “unindicted co-conspirator.”

April 30, 1974

Transcripts of more than 1,200 pages of edited transcripts of the Nixon tapes are released by The White House.

May 9, 1974

House Judiciary Committee starts impeachment proceedings against Nixon.

July 24, 1974

The Supreme Court rules that Nixon must surrender dozens of original tape recordings of conversations to Jaworski.

Transcripts of edited versions of many of President Nixon's Watergate conversations arriving on Capitol Hill to be turned over to the House Judiciary Committee.
Transcripts of the Watergate tapes arriving on Capitol Hill to be turned over to the House Judiciary Committee.
(Credit: Bettmann Archive/Getty Images)
July 27-30, 1974

Three articles of impeachment are debated and approved by the House Judiciary Committee against Nixon—obstruction of justice, misuse of power and contempt of Congress. The impeachment was sent to the floor of the House for a full vote but the vote was never carried out.

August 5, 1974

Nixon releases transcripts of three conversations with Haldeman on June 23, 1972. Known as the “smoking gun,” the transcripts reveal Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate cover-up.

August 8, 1974

President Nixon resigns. In a nationally televised speech, the president says, "I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as president, I must put the interest of America first...Therefore, I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow."

Nixon Resignation
President Nixon as he boards the White House helicopter after resigning the presidency.
Bettmann Archive/Getty Images
August 9, 1974

Nixon signs his letter of resignation. Vice President Gerald Ford becomes president.

September 8, 1974

Nixon is pardoned by President Gerald Ford for any offenses he might have committed against the United States while president.

January 1975

Former chief of staff H.R. Haldeman, former domestic policy advisor John Ehrlichman, and former attorney general and Nixon campaign manager John Mitchell are tried and convicted of conspiracy charges arising from Watergate. In total, 41 people will receive criminal convictions related to the Watergate scandal.
https://www.history.com/topics/watergat ... line-nixon
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby RocketMan » Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:03 am

Coleen Rowley on the zero impact of Mueller:



The Democrats' performance seems to have been shameful once more. Obfuscation mixed with obsequiousness towards the "befuddled", fragile seeming Mueller. Rowley as a former underling of Mueller lays out a pretty devastating picture of the whole sorry deal.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:59 am

House Dems nearing 100 in support for impeachment



Turns out we’re a lot closer to trump’s impeachment than we thought

House Financial Services Committee Chair Maxine Waters publicly call for impeachment. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler is 100% on board with impeachment.

Jerry Nadler met privately with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and pushed her hard to draft articles of impeachment, according to Politico. This is a big deal, both because of what Nadler did, and because of Pelosi’s response.


impeachment now would be “premature.”



trump says he has granted Attorney General William Barr the ability to share classified intelligence documents pertaining to the Russia investigation with Devin Nunes

Seth Abramson Retweeted Natasha Bertrand
There's no greater evidence that Trump is terrified of the counterintelligence investigation I wrote PROOF OF CONSPIRACY about than the fact that he may be trying to put Nunes atop the nation's intel apparatus

This is the clearest sign yet that he thinks this is his next battle


Trump met with Nunes to talk intel chief replacements
The president's get-together with the top House Intelligence Republican has fueled more chatter that Dan Coats may be on his way out.

By NATASHA BERTRAND and ELIANA JOHNSON07/22/2019 07:10 PM EDT
Devin Nunes
Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, is closely aligned with President Donald Trump on intelligence issues. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo
President Donald Trump recently spoke to top House Intelligence Republican Devin Nunes about replacements for the country’s intelligence chief — the latest sign that Dan Coats’ tenure may be short-lived.

Nunes, who grabbed national attention with his controversial allegations of Obama administration surveillance abuses, met with Trump and other senior White House officials last week to discuss who could take over for Coats at the Office of Director of National Intelligence, according to three people familiar with the get-together.

Coats has run ODNI since early in the Trump administration, but his job security is the subject of constant speculation, especially after he gave public testimony on North Korea, Iran and Syria that diverged from Trump’s prior comments on the issues. The ODNI chief oversees the government’s intelligence agencies, coordinates the country’s global information-gathering operation and frequently briefs the president on threats each morning.

The meeting between Trump and Nunes has only fueled more chatter about Coats’ departure. The pace of Trump’s discussions with allies about potential replacements has ramped up in recent weeks, the people said.

Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst who served as national security adviser John Bolton’s chief of staff, has been discussed as a possible ODNI replacement. Fleitz left his White House post in October 2018 to serve as president and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, a far-right think tank that has been sharply critical of “radical Islam.”

Some within the intelligence community have also promoted the ODNI’s current No. 2, Sue Gordon, as be a logical replacement for Coats. Gordon is a career intelligence official who is generally well-liked within the organization.

The White House and Nunes did not comment for this report. ODNI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump and Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, are closely aligned on intelligence issues. Both have pushed accusations that career officials — particularly under the Obama administration — have been misusing their power to target political enemies and manipulating intelligence findings for political purposes.

Because of these similar views, some on Capitol Hill and in the intelligence community think Nunes himself could be in the mix for an intelligence post, even if it’s not at ODNI.

“The president would certainly consider Devin Nunes for the director’s position and I eventually see him serving in some capacity in this administration,” said one member of Congress who speaks to Trump frequently. He noted, however, that he sees “all of Devin’s efforts being directed towards a reelection effort in Congress.”

Such speculation has provoked some anxiety at the top of ODNI, according to one person with direct knowledge.

Nunes, who served on Trump’s presidential transition team, made national headlines within the intelligence community in early 2017 when serving as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Nunes made a much-discussed “midnight run” to the White House in March 2017 to obtain what he described as classified information. He later said that information bolstered accusations that the Obama administration had improperly “unmasked” the names of Trump associates whose conversations were vacuumed up by intelligence agencies monitoring foreign agents’ communications in 2016. Normally, the names of U.S. citizens who show up in intelligence reports are kept secret unless there is an overwhelming national security need to expose them.

Devin Nunes
Rep. Devin Nunes received a rare rebuttal and warning from the Justice Department after opening a probe into alleged surveillance abuse into President Donald Trump under President Barack Obama. | Andrew Harnik
The New York Times and The Washington Post later reported that three White House officials had helped Nunes gain access to the documents, prompting criticisms that Trump’s aides were feeding Nunes information in the hopes of legitimizing the president’s evidence-free claims that the Obama administration had wiretapped his campaign. Nunes countered that the documents were shown to him by a whistleblower.

Nunes’ public statements about the material later prompted a circumscribed ethics investigation into whether he had improperly disclosed classified information to the press. Nunes was eventually cleared in the probe.

After Nunes’ unmasking inquiry fizzled, he launched a broader probe into alleged surveillance abuses against Trump by the Obama-era FBI and Justice Department.

As head of the House Intelligence Committee, Nunes crafted a classified memo detailing these apparent abuses. The memo prompted a rare rebuttal and warning from DOJ.

First, the agency noted that Nunes had not actually seen the relevant underlying intelligence and therefore could not judge whether the department had acted inappropriately. Second, the agency warned that warned releasing the memo could carry significant national-security risks.

But Trump overrode those concerns, and ordered the memo’s declassification at Nunes’ urging.

Trump has since described Nunes as “a true American Patriot the likes of which we rarely see in our modern day world” and “a man of tremendous courage and grit,” saying he “may someday be recognized as a Great American Hero for what he has exposed and what he has had to endure!”
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/ ... fs-1426698



Dan Coats hires first U.S. "elections threat executive"

In this image, Dan Coats looks forward.
Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats testifies in 2018. Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats has hired Shelby Pierson, a career intelligence official, as the first U.S. "elections threats executive within the intelligence community," NPR reports.

Why it matters: FBI Director Christopher A. Wray warned Washington in April about Russia's "continued meddling in American elections" and called it a "significant counterintelligence threat," the NYT reports. In Friday's announcement, Coats said he is directing other agencies to appoint their own elections threat executives.

The state of play: "Trump views any discussion of future Russian interference as effectively questioning the legitimacy of his 2016 victory, prompting senior officials to head off discussions with him," writes the NYT.

When former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen grew "increasingly concerned about Russia's continued activity" in the U.S. during the 2018 midterms, acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney "told her not to bring it up in front of the president," per the NYT.
The catch: President Trump has told confidants he's eager to remove Coats from his position, according to 5 sources who discussed the matter directly with the president, Axios' Jonathan Swan reports:

Trump would like to "downsize" the ODNI, according to a source with direct knowledge.
Go deeper ... Report: U.S. is underestimating Putin's "grand strategy" for Russian dominance
https://www.axios.com/dan-coats-hires-f ... gn=organic


Emma Loop

NEW: The Senate Intelligence Committee has just released the first volume of its bipartisan Russia investigation report. This volume deals with election security. You can read it here:

Image

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit ... olume1.pdf

Back in May 2018, the committee released a summary of this volume of the report. Today they’re releasing the whole thing (with redactions).

Background:
Image
The Senate Intelligence Committee Just Released A Report On How To Avoid Election Hacking In 2018
The committee chairman says that in the months ahead, the panel will issue a series of interim reports like the one released Tuesday.

Emma Loop

Matthew Cavanaugh / Getty Images
Last updated on May 8, 2018, at 9:03 p.m. ET

The Senate Intelligence Committee has released a summary of a report on how to help states prevent election hacking that found Russia launched an "unprecedented" cyber-campaign against the US in 2016. The report is the first of several about the panel’s investigation into Russian interference during the last election.

The six-page document, released Tuesday, says that during the last election, “cyber actors affiliated with the Russian Government conducted an unprecedented, coordinated cyber campaign against state election infrastructure” and that “Russian actors scanned databases for vulnerabilities, attempted intrusions, and in a small number of cases successfully penetrated a voter registration database.”

The committee says this “activity was part of a larger campaign to prepare to undermine confidence in the voting process” but notes that it “has not seen any evidence that vote tallies were manipulated or that voter registration information was deleted or modified.”

North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, the committee chairman, told reporters earlier Tuesday that in the months ahead, the committee will issue a series of other interim reports dealing with different focuses of the Russia probe.

The committee has also written a full, secret report on election security that it says it hopes to release publicly after a declassification review.

As for the 2018 elections, voting has already begun. The report summary was released on the same day as primary elections in Indiana, West Virginia, Ohio, and North Carolina.

“Today’s primaries are the next step toward the 2018 midterms and another reminder of the urgency of securing our election systems,” Burr said in a statement. “Our investigation has been a bipartisan effort from day one, and I look forward to completing the Committee’s work and releasing as much of it as possible. We are working tirelessly to give Americans a complete accounting of what happened in 2016 and to prevent any future interference with our democratic process.”

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the committee vice chairman, said he remains worried that the US is “still not fully prepared” for the midterms. “That’s one reason why we, as a Committee, have decided that it is important to get out as much information as possible about the threat, so that governments at every level take it seriously and take the necessary steps to defend ourselves.”

Tuesday’s summary report says that “[a]t least 18 states had election systems targeted by Russian-affiliated cyber actors in some fashion,” and that that figure could be as high as 21.

“In at least six states, the Russian-affiliated cyber actors went beyond scanning and conducted malicious access attempts on voting-related websites,” the summary report says. “In a small number of states, Russian-affiliated cyber actors were able to gain access to restricted elements of election infrastructure. In a small number of states, these cyber actors were in a position to, at a minimum, alter or delete voter registration data; however, they did not appear to be in a position to manipulate individual votes or aggregate vote totals.”

The committee noted that states self-reported attempted intrusions and it’s “possible that more states were attacked, but the activity was not detected.”

Moreover, Russia’s influence campaign targeted the voting process itself from 2016 until after Election Day, the committee found. “These activities [...] included traditional information gathering efforts as well as operations likely aimed at preparing to discredit the integrity of the U.S. voting process and election results,” the report states.

The committee found that the Department of Homeland Security’s “initial response was inadequate to counter the threat.” The committee says that though DHS “is engaging state election officials more effectively now,” it had “limited success” in warning states about the threat of Russian interference in 2016. “In addition, members of the Obama administration were concerned that, by raising the alarm, they would create the very impression they were trying to avoid –– calling into question the integrity of election systems,” the summary report says.

The committee said that it remains concerned about the age of voting machines across the country, recommending — among other things — that they be immediately replaced. “Voting systems across the United States are outdated, and many do not have a paper record of votes as a backup counting system that can be reliably audited, should there be allegations of machine manipulation,” the summary report states.

The committee held an open hearing on election security in March, with testimony from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and other election security officials. Before the hearing, committee leadership held a press conference announcing six recommendations to improve election security before the 2018 midterms.

The committee’s investigation into Russian meddling continues, with staff interviewing the remaining “handful of witnesses” through next month, Burr told reporters.

“This gives us the month of August in all likelihood to wrap up our investigation and for staff to work intensively while we’re out of here and not getting in their hair,” Burr said, adding that senators could then review final findings in September upon their return from the summer break.

The next report will evaluate the Intelligence Community’s January 2017 assessment that found the Russians waged an influence campaign in the 2016 elections and “developed a clear preference for” President Donald Trump.

Asked if his panel would, like Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, disagree with the Intelligence Community’s assessment with regards to Russia’s preference for Trump, Burr responded: “I’m not sure that the House was required to substantiate every conclusion with facts. We may have different opinions but whatever we propose, whatever we assess, we’re going to have the facts to show for that. So it may be that we don’t go quite as far as they did, it may be that we do.”


https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/em ... ing-report



Committee chairman @SenatorBurr says that “[i]n 2016, the U.S. was unprepared at all levels of government for a concerted attack from a determined foreign adversary on our election infrastructure,” and “[t]here is still much work that remains to be done."

Image


@MarkWarner: "I hope the bipartisan findings and recommendations outlined in this report will underscore to the White House and all of our colleagues, regardless of political party, that this threat remains urgent, and we have a responsibility to defend our democracy against it.”

Image

The committee has four more volumes to release, including one on the “remaining counterintelligence questions.” A volume on social media is in declassification review (so it’ll likely be released next). The committee "intends to release the remaining installments in fall 2019."

I’m going to read through the report, but here are the findings the committee is highlighting.

First one: "The Russian government directed extensive activity against U.S. election infrastructure.” The activity continued "into at least 2017."

Image
Image

Included at the end of the report are five pages of minority views from Sen. @RonWyden. One of his concerns: "I cannot support a report whose top recommendation is to "reinforce[ ] state's primacy in running elections."

Image
Image
Image
Image


@KamalaHarris, @MichaelBennet, and @MartinHeinrich have one page of “additional views,” too. “[W]e share some of our colleagues' concems about the vulnerability that we face, particularly at the state level, where counties with limited resources must defend themselves against…"

Image

p. 4: "While the Committee does not know with confidence what Moscow's intentions were, Russia may have been probing vulnerabilities in voting systems to exploit later."

Image


p. 5: "In its review of the 2016 elections, the Committee found no evidence that vote tallies were altered or that voter registry files were deleted or modified, though the Committee and IC's insight into this is limited."

Image


p. 5 cont: "the Committee found ample evidence to suggest
that the Russian government was developing and implementing capabilities to interfere in the 2016 elections, including undermining confidence in U.S. democratic institutions and voting
processes."

p. 6: The committee says that in March 2018, the Dept. of Homeland Security told them that an “attack resulted in data exfiltration from the voter registration database.” The part before is redacted, but the paragraph discusses Russians’ targeting of Illinois’ election systems.

Image

mma Loop

Verified account

@LoopEmma
5h5 hours ago
More
An interesting part of the report so far has been the footnotes. Senate Intel is very tight-lipped about its activities, and the footnotes give a glimpse of the types of documents/interviews they’ve reviewed as part of the probe. Here, an interview with Andrew McCabe is listed.

Image


An email titled "Kislyak Protest of FBI Tactics” is also listed there. Not sure we’ve seen that before, but I could be wrong.

p. 10: "Scanning of election-related state infrastructure by Moscow was the most widespread activity the IC and DHS elements observed in the run up to the 2016 election."

Image
https://twitter.com/LoopEmma





The Senate Intel Committee Just Released a Report Detailing Russia’s “Extensive” Meddling in the 2016 Elections
“Much work remains to be done.”


David Goldman/AP
A new Senate Intelligence Committee report released on Thursday details the “extensive” Russian operation, dating back to at least 2014, to interfere with the 2016 US presidential elections. The bipartisan report says progress has been made in coordinating federal and local efforts to bolster election security. But it also points to ongoing vulnerabilities in elections infrastructure, like voter registration databases, and the need for a stronger message from the government that the country views “an attack on its election infrastructure as a hostile act,” and that it will fight back to “send a clear message and create significant costs for the perpetrator.”

The 67-page report, two-and-a-half years in the making, is the first of several volumes outlining the committee’s investigation into election meddling. The report’s release comes a day after former special counsel Robert Mueller testified before Congress and warned that Russian operations against the election system are ongoing “as we sit here,” and that “many more countries are developing the capability to replicate what the Russians have done.”

“Many more countries are developing the capability to replicate what the Russians have done,” Mueller warned.
Senate Intel Committee Chair Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) each issued statements with the report’s release. Burr said that in 2016 the United States was “unprepared at all levels of government” for attacks on elections, and has improved in the time since. Burr noted that the Department of Homeland Security and state election officials have a much better working relationship than before, but that “much work remains to be done.”

It’s unclear whether Burr considers elections security legislation as part of the work that remains to be done. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, has prevented most of this type of legislation from coming to the floor, arguing that Congress has done enough and that pending election legislation is merely the Democrats’ effort to usurp states’ rights and bolster their chances at the polls.

Warner, who a day ago was part of a group of Congressional Democrats who blasted McConnell for holding up legislation, alluded to needing to get past partisan gridlock. “I hope the bipartisan findings and recommendations outlined in this report will underscore to the White House and all of our colleagues, regardless of political party, that this threat remains urgent, and we have a responsibility to defend our democracy against it,” he said in a statement.

The report notes that the Russian operation dates back to “at least 2014.” It reveals that state and local officials, who are in charge of running most elections, “were not sufficiently warned or prepared to handle an attack from a hostile nation-state actor,” and that officials at all levels of government debated whether to publicly acknowledge what was happening, with some concerned that disclosing it “might promote the very impression they were trying to dispel—that the voting systems were insecure.” At the time, McConnell took an active role in preventing public disclosure of the Russian operation, the Washington Post reported in December 2016.

Russian reconnaissance of election-related internet infrastructure “probably included all 50 states.”
The report confirms previously reported news, including that Russian hackers penetrated voter registration databases in two states and potentially targeted systems in at least 21 states. Among the most striking findings: In a heavily redacted part of the report, the committee says the Department of Homeland Security determined that Russian reconnaissance of election-related internet infrastructure “probably included all 50 states.”

The report notes repeatedly that the committee found no evidence that voter registration data or vote tallies were modified, but adds that “the Committee and [intelligence community’s] insight into this is limited.”

The ongoing threats to elections “demand renewed attention to vulnerabilities in US voting infrastructure,” including aging voting equipment, a lack of paper record of votes in places, and insecure voter registration databases, the committee writes. “Despite the focus on this issue since 2016, some of these vulnerabilities remain.”

Read the full report below:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... elections/





Polly Sigh

NEW: House Oversight Committee voted along party lines Thursday to subpoena White House work communications sent via personal email and cellphone, amid questions about whether Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner violated federal record-keeping laws.
https://twitter.com/dcpoll?lang=en



WATCH: Jim Jordan has a meltdown over Ivanka Trump subpoena – and then gets schooled by Rashida Tlaib
By Sarah K. BurrisJuly 25, 2019
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) went down in flames after a tense exchange with Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) on Thursday.

It began when members of the House Reform and Oversight Committee were discussing Ivanka Trump’s use of a personal email server to conduct government business, which is not permitted. Her father made Hillary Clinton’s private email server a key tenet of his 2016 campaign, leading his rally audiences in chants of “lock her up.”

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) called Jordan out for describing subpoenas as “the primary tool for this committee and Congress to be able to get at necessary information to do its work” during the Obama administration.

He recalled Jordan “advocating passionately for the issuance of subpoenas to compel cooperation in the issuance of documents and witnesses.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) sarcastically said that it wouldn’t surprise him that Jordan was such “an effective champion of legislative oversight in use of subpoena power.” He noted that he thinks Congress should be doing it regardless of who the president is.


Jordan said that it was different for Ivanka Trump because she didn’t set up her server to conduct official business on. He said that once she learned what the rules were, she stopped using the email. It’s unclear how Ivanka Trump went through the entirety of the 2016 election but didn’t know that she couldn’t use her private server to conduct government business.

“I would just say if my friend believes what he just said and is accurate, he has nothing to fear by issuance of the subpoenas,” Connelly replied. The committee is calling for the emails to be released. Trump said that she didn’t delete any of the emails, though, without a subpoena, that information couldn’t be corroborated.

Jordan then tried to make it about “personal information” requested, the same as was asked of Clinton.

Report Advertisement
“This is pretty unprecedented that we are trying to protect family members now of the administration,” Tlaib cut in. “These are people that have access. Our ranking member needs to understand. These are people who have access –”

Jordan then tried to cut in. He then said he’d let Tlaib finish, but then talked over her instead.

“We’re talking about the daughter of the president who has access to information,” Tlaib said.

Jordan interrupted again as Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) tried to stop the battle.

“It is important for my colleagues to understand we’re talking about transparency, talking about oversight,” Tlaib continued. “These are messages that impact the American people. That right now all I hear is this fear from the other side of information that might come about Ivanka, and we have to protect — that’s all I hear! You choose to protect family members of the current administration that have access to information. They’re at the table making decisions on behalf of the American people. They don’t have privacy anymore.

“They also have to be accountable to us in this chamber. Mr. Chairman, and ranking member, I understand that you want to talk about the specific processes, want to go back and forth about Hillary Clinton. You are protecting someone that is at the table.”

She explained that using personal emails for government business as a White House official removed the protection of privacy in this case.

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/07/watch- ... ida-tlaib/
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby RocketMan » Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:41 am

Rowley also pointed out that while William Barr has his past covering up for Watergate, Mueller has his covering up the Anthrax letter imbroglio. He went viciously after Stephen Hatfill, who had nothing to do with the affair, after which the FBI hounded Bruce Ivins to death.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:47 am

AyannaPressley's set to introduce a bill to end AG Barr's reinstatement of capital punishment at the federal level. It's about 70 words.
Image
Image




(((evan shapīro)))

Verified account


BREAKING: February, 1990, @nationallampoon’s inimitable Les Firestein accurately predicts Donald J. Trump’s “pervasion” (perverted invasion) of the United States.

Also proves Trump is the spawn of Satan.

National Lampoon: EXACTLY 29 Years Ahead Of Its Time.
Image
Image
Image
https://twitter.com/eshap/status/1154724186440503296
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby RocketMan » Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:51 am

Since it's "anything goes" it seems, I'm going to point out that Ayanna Pressley was with Tulsi Gabbard among Democrats who shamefully voted for a proclamation condemning the BDS movement against Israel and its treatment of Palestinians.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
RocketMan
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:52 am

there is a what's wrong with the Dems thread But thanks for bumping my thread

JUST IN: Ayanna Pressley is introducing a bill to halt capital punishment at the federal level.

maybe you missed it ...respectfully I found six threads a bit more appropriate

The Democratic Party, 2019
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41591

and Tulsi Gabbard has here own thread also
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41668&p=674231&hilit=Tulsi+Gabbard#p674231

Dear Israel Lobby, We Give Up
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34036


Do Palestinians have a right to defend themselves?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38265&p=548374&hilit=BDS+Irish#p548374




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyW3iMyrpG0

This is a really big deal.

Nadler just said that they have "compelling evidence" of more "misconduct" by trump. It was apparently REDACTED.

He expects to get more info about THAT from the grand jury material that they're going to court for TODAY.

Today, Congresswoman @RepAOC and I sat down to discuss working together to meet the needs of our districts and our country, fairness in our economy and diversity in our country.

Image
https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi?ref_s ... r%5Eauthor


Pelosi says she doesn’t have ‘many differences’ with AOC after private meeting
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/ ... ng-1436847


Democrats file brief saying courts can't stop panel from getting Trump's NY tax returns
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/4547 ... -trump-tax



Seth Abramson


(BREAKING NEWS THREAD) A historic legal analysis published by @Slate confirms what this feed asserts—the Mueller Report FOUND a criminal conspiracy between Trump's campaign and the Kremlin but declined to charge it. Please RETWEET this thread explaining this explosive revelation.

Image
Seth Abramson Retweeted Slate's Trumpcast
1/ As law professor @jedshug explains on @Slate, federal law doesn't require an explicit agreement between parties for the criminal statute prohibiting coordination between campaigns and foreign nationals to be violated. Paul Manafort committed this crime.
Seth Abramson added,
Slate's Trumpcast
https://twitter.com/realTrumpcast/statu ... 3885225984
@realTrumpcast
Reflecting on the inspirational @RepAdamSchiff and what Mueller is really saying in his volumes, @page88 and @jedshug do a testimony debrief. https://megaphone.link/SLT9531042070

2/ The Mueller Report erroneously proceeded under an interpretation of federal law that no independent legal experts have agreed with: that a criminal conspiracy to violate election law requires an explicit agreement. But whether this "error" was indeed an *accident* is in doubt.


3/ The evidence of the Mueller Report, criminal investigative SOPs, and major-media reporting establishes that the original intent of the special counsel's office was to charge Paul Manafort with conspiracy with Russia—and that Trump knew this and sought to obstruct this finding.

4/ NBC News reported in January 2018 that Donald Trump privately believed Paul Manafort could incriminate him in a federal crime—but that by January 2018, information had reached him (privately) that had convinced him that Manafort would not in fact do so.


5/ The Mueller Report clearly establishes that Trump received the private intelligence that Paul Manafort would not incriminate him in a conspiracy—by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement, *not* because Manafort *couldn't* incriminate him—from Manafort's legal team.

6/ Criminal investigative SOPs (standard operating procedures) establish why Trump believed federal law enforcement would seek to have Manafort incriminate him: because investigators do not cut deals with a national campaign manager *without* seeking to indict someone higher up.

7/ When the special counsel's office charged Manafort with offenses that could put him in federal prison for 20 years—and then entered into a cooperation deal with him—the only person above him in the campaign hierarchy for him to "flip" on was the presidential candidate himself.

8/ The legal analysis published digitally by @Slate confirms the uncharged offense on Manafort would have been a federal criminal—election—conspiracy with individuals he knew from his work on behalf of the Kremlin were Kremlin agents. This is the "flip" Trump was terrified about.

9/ The Mueller Report establishes that Manafort had been a paid Kremlin agent, via Oleg Deripaska—who says he "does not separate himself" or his interests from those of the Kremlin—since the year Manafort moved into Trump Tower (2006), and that he remained so during the campaign.

10/ Manafort's work for the Kremlin—once thought to have ended in the early 2010s—in fact continued in and past his work as Trump's campaign manager. Mueller's report and testimony establishes that Manafort anticipated both loan forgiveness and cash from the Kremlin for his work.

11/ Mueller's report and testimony establishes Manafort as a Kremlin agent in 2016 and after—federal law establishes he was in a criminal conspiracy with the Kremlin based upon his agreement to coordinate with and provide proprietary data/intelligence to the Kremlin mid-campaign.

12/ That Donald Trump thought Mueller would indict him if Manafort flipped means that Trump had knowledge of the criminal conspiracy Mueller opted not to charge Manafort with—a decision Mueller made so Manafort would flip on Trump. Trump's criminal obstruction prevented any flip.

13/ The Mueller Report outlines how Trump—through a joint defense agreement with Manafort and his lawyers acting as intermediaries—made it absolutely clear to Manafort that he would be "taken care of" if he refused to "flip" on his former boss. The obstruction hid the conspiracy.

14/ For those who haven't read Vol. 1 of the Mueller Report, I'll now briefly summarize the federal criminal election conspiracy Mueller chose not to indict Manafort for because of a) him thinking Manafort would flip on Trump, b) an "error" of law by the special counsel's office.

15/ I put "error" in quotes advisedly. Mueller cut a cooperation deal with Manafort because his office *knew* the federal criminal statutes governing US election law do not require "explicit" coordination; that Manafort had violated these laws; and that he could "flip" on Trump.

16/ There was no reason for Mueller to cut a deal with Manafort—or for his office to represent to federal courts that the lies Manafort told the SCO that mattered were the lies hiding this conspiracy—if the feds did not believe Manafort had committed an election conspiracy crime.

17/ Here's what Trump's campaign manager did: within days of his hire by Trump he contacted a known Kremlin agent—Kilimnik, who Manafort knew to be a Kremlin agent both through direct contact with him and his (Manafort's) other deputy, Gates—to seek compensation from the Kremlin.

18/ That compensation—Mueller's report and testimony confirms—was in the form of both loan forgiveness and direct payment from Kremlin agents. In recompense, as a quid pro quo that was either implicit or explicit (federal law criminalizes either), Manafort would aid the Kremlin.

19/ Manafort thereafter—almost immediately—did at least 3 things:

1. He directed his deputy Gates to *regularly* provide proprietary internal polling data to the Kremlin that would allow the Kremlin to better direct its domestic disinformation campaign (a crime) against America.

20/

2. Paul Manafort offered Kremlin agents internal campaign intelligence assessments about Trump's campaign tactics and strategy, the better to convince the Kremlin that Trump had a chance of winning and that its pro-Trump hacking and disinformation campaigns should continue.

21/

3. Paul Manafort initiated an 18-month negotiation with Kremlin agents (beginning August 2, 2016 and continuing into '18) with the goal of the negotiations being to promise Putin sanctions relief in exchange for pre-election assistance to—and post-election comity with—Trump.

22/ The Mueller Report and major-media reporting establishes that Trump was in regular contact with Manafort about his campaign from the day he was hired and about *sanctions* both before and after his fake "firing" in August 2016. And we know that the "firing" was indeed fake.

23/ The Mueller Report and major-media reporting establishes that Trump remained in regular contact with Manafort on the subject of sanctions after his "firing" in mid-August 2016; indeed, eyewitnesses say Manafort basically continued advising Trump exactly as he had done before.

24/ Immediately upon his "firing," Manafort went on a cruise with one of Trump's two best friends, Thomas Barrack (the other is Howard Lorber) during which cruise Barrack orchestrated payment to Manafort of millions and millions of dollars via sources tied to the Trump campaign.

25/ This cruise remains under federal probe—and Gates remains a federal cooperating witness despite the filing of the Mueller Report because Gates is now the lone witness who can testify to what Manafort and Trump did, who knew of it, and Trump's efforts to sway him via Manafort.

26/ Mueller's testimony indicates the question of collusion (whether a person is compromised by a foreign power due to implicit or express coordination) is now in the hands of the FBI's counterintel division, which—with Manafort's prison sentence—explains the lack of new charges.

27/ Mueller testified he wanted to move quickly to file a report; the implication is he didn't want to interfere with the 2020 election—given that he'd been investigating the many insidious ways the Russians had done just that in '16. He knew counterintelligence work was ongoing.

28/ Mueller knew Trump had successfully obstructed justice to keep Manafort from cooperating; Manafort was in prison and going nowhere; Gates remained a cooperating witness; counterintelligence investigators were looking more explicitly at collusion and are continuing their work.

29/

There is no legal or factual basis to say Manafort was *not* in a criminal election conspiracy with the Kremlin.

There is no legal or factual basis to say Trump did *not* know Manafort could incriminate him or that he did *not* take steps to obstruct/tamper with Manafort.

30/ Given Mueller's testimony, his report, major-media reports, and investigative SOPs, there are *no facts* and is *no law* on the other side of what this thread explains: a conspiracy occurred; Mueller wanted to charge it; he knew Trump knew of it; Trump obstructed that charge.


https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status ... 7960629251
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Jul 26, 2019 9:33 pm

While many people believe that beginning an impeachment investigation can begin only with a vote of the full House of Representatives, this is not true. Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process.


Why We’re Moving Forward With Impeachment
Our Constitution requires it. Our democracy depends on it.

Mary Gay Scanlon Vice Chair of the House Judiciary Committee David Cicilline U.S. representative from Rhode Island Pramila Jayapal U.S. representative from Washington Veronica Escobar U.S. representative from Texas

5:51 PM ET

Three months ago, Special Counsel Robert Mueller completed his investigation into Russian election interference and President Donald Trump’s obstruction of justice. When the redacted report finally became available to Congress and the American people, it painted a damning picture of a corrupt president who welcomed and encouraged an attack on our country, capitalized on it, and then tried to cover up what he had done.

During his press conference announcing the end of his investigation, Mueller pointed out that the Department of Justice believes “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal-justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” He was referring, without using the word, to impeachment—a process by which the U.S. House indicts, and the Senate convicts, a sitting president.

Congress has patiently tried to work within traditional means to get to the bottom of this extraordinary situation. Committees have called witnesses and requested evidence, only to be stonewalled by Trump and his associates. The president’s refusal to comply with the Constitution, statutes, and established congressional oversight defies the rule of law.

Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees was a watershed moment. At this point, it is up to Congress to act on the evidence of multiple counts of obstruction of justice committed by the president, and to continue our investigation into whether he has committed other high crimes and misdemeanors.


Despite assertions to the contrary by the president and his allies, the special counsel’s report and testimony are not the end of our investigations. We have now filed a petition in court to obtain the grand-jury documents referenced in the special counsel’s report. In that filing, we have made clear that we will utilize our Article I powers to obtain the additional underlying evidence, as well as enforce subpoenas for key witness testimony, and broaden our investigations to include conflicts of interest and financial misconduct.

While many people believe that beginning an impeachment investigation can begin only with a vote of the full House of Representatives, this is not true. Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process.

As members of the House Judiciary Committee, we understand the gravity of this moment that we find ourselves in. We wake up every morning with the understanding of the oath that binds us as members of Congress, and the trust that our constituents placed in us to uphold that oath. We will move forward with the impeachment process. Our investigation will seriously examine all the evidence as we consider whether to bring articles of impeachment or other remedies under our Article I powers.

Our Constitution requires it. Our democracy depends on it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... 21mXBMZTIE




Debbie Harry with Blondie sings “From Russia With Love” in front of a certain graphic.
Image


Congress Will Sue To Enforce McGahn Subpoena Next Week, Nadler Says
Josh Kovensky


House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) signaled late Thursday that he had delayed filing a lawsuit seeking to force former White House Counsel Don McGahn to comply with a Congressional subpoena until next week.

Calling McGahn “the main fact witness” of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, Nadler told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that a lawsuit to enforce a subpoena for McGahn’s testimony would be filed early next week.

“You have to lay out the facts to the American people and it is very frustrating that the administration has systematically attacked the right of Congress to hold any administration accountable — opposed all our subpoenas and we have to break that log-jam in order to lay out the facts before the American people,” he said.

Nadler had said on Wednesday that the McGahn lawsuit would be filed by the end of this week.

The Judiciary Committee chair said on his Thursday CNN appearance that the House would likely file a separate lawsuit on Friday, seeking to compel the release of sealed grand jury materials from the Mueller investigation.

Nadler framed the lawsuits as the start of a volley of attempts to conduct proactive and vigorous oversight of the Trump administration, after mounting criticism and angst that the Democrats have moved too slowly on investigating the executive branch.

“Our next step starting tomorrow is to get the evidence before the American people,” Nadler said, referring to questions about information from the Mueller investigation.

Nadler subpoenaed McGahn in April, seeking reams of documents from the former White House counsel as well as his testimony.

McGahn played a leading role in the obstruction volume of the Mueller report, threatening to resign rather than order Mueller’s firing and later refusing to deny news reports about Trump’s demand to do so.

Since Nadler issued the subpoena, the White House has maneuvered to keep McGahn out of Congress’s hands. In May, the Justice Department issued a legal opinion contending that Congress could not compel McGahn’s testimony, while the White House directly ordered McGahn not to comply with the documentary subpoena.

On his Thursday CNN appearance, Nadler put aside questions about whether his committee would open an impeachment inquiry, saying instead that Congress needed to make the case first by obtaining McGahn’s testimony.

“When we’ve laid out the facts in front of the American people, then we’ll proceed,” he said.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker ... adler-says


Seth Abramson


FACT: House Democrats have Trump dead-to-rights on the impeachable offense of obstruction and they know it. All the delay is to gather counterintelligence evidence, additional evidence of conspiracy, and bribery/money laundering evidence. Democrats think delays help them do this.

1/ I did an HBO pre-interview in early April, before the Mueller Report came out but after the Barr Letter had woefully miscast it, and I was asked if I *really* believed Trump would be impeached. It was a moment when many were saying "no." I said yes, and I'll be proven correct.

2/ The reason I knew it would be a "yes" is the obstruction case was/is a slam dunk and with ten instances and the eye of history on Democrats the pressure would finally be too much not to do the right thing. So I have since early 2018 taken impeachment—not conviction—as a given.

3/ So we have to ask, why is there such a delay if no new obstruction evidence is forthcoming or necessary, what we have now is a slam dunk, and Democrats feel a moral obligation to do their jobs? It's because no one believes obstruction is the end of this. In fact, they know it.

4/ I'll admit that many days I'm frustrated that Democrats won't move forward with impeachment when the case for it is airtight. But on other days I think to myself that this artificial delay is an ingenious stalling tactic to gain time to marshal robust evidence of other crimes.

5/ The counterintelligence report will reveal impeachable offenses. Trump's tax returns will reveal impeachable offenses. A full congressional investigation of the facts Mueller uncovered reveals bribery, aiding and abetting and a conspiracy with Russia to commit election crimes.

6/ So I'd ask people to engage in an intellectual exercise: imagine for a moment Democrats have, in bulk, always known they were going to impeach Trump *because* the evidence of obstruction is overwhelming. Wouldn't this artificial delay of the inevitable *strengthen* their hand?

7/ Imagine Democrats properly impeaching Trump for obstruction, an impeachable offense, only to learn Republicans have successfully convinced the country not to care about obstruction, and not to visit any consequences on a party that doesn't impeach a president for obstruction?

8/ You may say Republicans won't impeach this president on ANY grounds. Even if you believe so, wouldn't Democratic voters' rage and the calumny of independents fall more heavily on the GOP in 2020 if they've ignored bribery, money laundering, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy?

9/ So if we think deductively and start from the presumption of impeachment and a desire to energize Democratic voters and reveal to independents how disgusting the Republican establishment has become, wouldn't Democrats try to stall to gather more evidence for a few more months?

10/ I don't like to talk/think about byzantine, sub rosa horse-race-oriented pre-election strategies that selected political leaders could have adopted or might be adopting. That's fruitless. I just think Pelosi knows impeachment is a *when*, not an if, and is acting accordingly.

PS/ Part of this is simply me watching Pelosi's pressers and noticing like everyone that her diction on impeachment has changed. She now treats impeachment as an inevitability, if you follow her grammar and diction and tone closely. Working back from there gets me to this thread.

NOTE/ Sorry, just realized many may not know that what I'm responding to in this thread: the breaking news that Judiciary Democrats have indicated to US media that they're now *effectively* in the midst of an impeachment inquiry. I see this news as part of this thread's argument.

Seth Abramson Retweeted Laurence Tribe
CITE/ This breaking news is now all over the interwebs, of course, but I'll let the nation's top constitutional law scholar, Professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School, do the honors for this feed at least:
Seth Abramson added,



Laurence Tribe

Here’s the petition formally announcing in DC federal court the impeachment inquiry in which the House is now engaged. No ifs ands or buts. No ambiguity. The eagle has taken flight.

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democ ... TITION.pdf

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status ... 8057595904



Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank slammed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Friday after the GOP leader blocked two election security measures this week.

In an op-ed published by The Post, Milbank accused McConnell of "doing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bidding" and labeled the GOP leader "a Russian asset."

"This doesn’t mean he’s a spy, but neither is it a flip accusation," Milbank wrote.

"Russia attacked our country in 2016. It is attacking us today. Its attacks will intensify in 2020. Yet each time we try to raise our defenses to repel the attack, McConnell, the Senate majority leader, blocks us from defending ourselves," Milbank continued.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4549 ... ns-bidding


Moscow Mitch has blocked:

A bill requiring Internet companies to disclose purchasers of political ads, to identify foreign influence.

A bill imposing sanctions on any entity that attacks a U.S. election.

A bill with severe new sanctions on Russia for its cybercrimes.”


Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:07 pm

empty wheel


Some of the warrants unsealed in George Nader case add two details to timeline:

EDVA obtained a warrant to review the iPhone 7 data w/child porn on March 16, 2018.

Nader left the country on March 24, 2018.

As was already public, arrest warrant was dated April 19, 2018.

This is an awful lot of luggage to carry for a guy allegedly just coming to the US for a doctor's consult.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov ... 29.1.0.pdf
Image

Also, those warrants allowed me to ID two more of the entries from the Mueller grand jury docket: Mueller got a warrant for Nader's Hotmail and one of his Gmail accounts on November 30, 2017.


One more detail:

EDVA obtains a warrant to review the iPhone 7 data w/child porn on March 16, 2018.

Case Agent reviews the data on March 22, 2018.

Nader left the country on March 24, 2018.

That's ... remarkable timing. Or he got tipped off.

Oh, hey, George Nader has some more charges coming.

Image

Note, unless I'm missing it, the search warrants for Nader's main Gmail account have not been released.

To reiterate something for the stupid people who want to invent Mueller conspiracies.

It is FALSE that Mueller sat on evidence Nader had child porn. He referred it immediately.

It is, however, TRUE that Nader seems to have had a remarkable sense of when to flee.

If anything, the timing of Nader's return--less than a week after Mueller closed up shop--suggests Nader believed Mueller could charge him, not EDVA.

Wow he made a colossal error in judgment!

Replying to @emptywheel
Well guess he was wrong
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1 ... 2025371653


CONGRESS ALREADY HAS EVIDENCE TRUMP LIED UNDER OATH TO ROBERT MUELLER

July 22, 2019/36 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe /by emptywheel
I laid out what follows in this post, but given that the NYT’s weak questions for Robert Mueller exhibit ignorance on this point, I’m going to make this more explicit.

In a useless question designed to get Mueller to characterize Trump’s answers to the Special Counsel’s questions, the NYT asked whether the responses were “candid.”

Image

In general, virtually all of Trump’s answers not only lacked candor, they were downright obnoxious. But on the topic of the Trump Tower Moscow project, Trump’s answers are not just insolent, they are lies.

One paragraph of his answers about it — submitted after Michael Cohen started cooperating but before Cohen’s plea deal regarding his lies to Congress — reads, [I’ve numbered the claims as reference points for the discussion that follows.]

I had [1] few conversations with Mr. Cohen on this subject. As I recall, they were brief, and [5] they were not memorable. I was not enthused about the proposal, and [2] I do not recall any discussion of travel to Russia in connection with it. I do not remember discussing it with anyone else at the Trump Organization, although it is possible. I do not recall being aware at the time of any communications between Mr. Cohen or Felix Sater and [3] any Russian government official regarding the Letter of Intent. In the course of preparing to respond to your questions, I have become aware that [4] Mr. Cohen sent an email regarding the Letter of Intent to “Mr. Peskov” at a general, public email account, which should show there was no meaningful relationship with people in power in Russia. I understand those documents already have been provided to you.


In that answer, Trump replicates three claims that match Michael Cohen’s statement to Congress but that Cohen swore under oath were lies in his plea agreement:

The Moscow Project ended in January 2016 and was not discussed extensively with others in the Company. … To the best of my knowledge , [Individual l] was never in contact with anyone about this proposal other than me on three occasions.
COHEN never agreed to travel to Russia in connection with the Moscow Project and “never considered” asking Individual 1 to travel for the project.
COHEN did not recall any Russian government response or contact about the Moscow Project.
Cohen’s statement claimed he discussed this just three times with Trump; Trump claimed he only had a “few” such conversations rather than the ten Cohen would later admit to. Cohen’s statement claimed no one ever discussed traveling to Russia; Trump claimed not to recall any discussion of travel to Russia, even though he told Cohen to consult with Corey Lewandowski about when he could take such a trip. Cohen’s statement disclaimed any Russian government response to the Letter of Intent; Trump claimed the only contact with the Russian government was an unanswered letter to Peskov’s public line, rather than the email response from Elena Poliakova that led to a 20 minute conversation that Cohen described to Trump immediately after it finished.

In all three of those statements, then, Trump hewed to the false statement Jay Sekulow helped Cohen write.

That said, Trump made assertions about those three topics in such a way as to claim he didn’t remember the things Cohen remembered in his proffer sessions with Mueller. So as far as those answers go, Trump is covered legally, even if it is more clear these are lies than some of his other non-responsive answers.

Not so Trump’s claim that Cohen’s only contact with Dmitry Peskov was via “a general, public email account” [marked 4, above]. Mueller obtained the January 20, 2016 email response from Peskov’s assistant, Elena Poliakova, asking Cohen to call her. By itself, that email is proof there was a response from the Russian government (though not an obvious one; she wrote it from her personal email account).

Per Cohen’s congressional testimony, the email formed part of the Mueller interviews with Cohen.

O Do you have a copy of this January 20th, 2016, email from Elena Poliyakova (ph)?

A I do not.

Q When was the last time you saw a copy of this email?

A Again, at one of the hearings that I attended.

Q With the special counsel’s office?

A I believe so, yes.


This email is one of the reasons I’m so interested in the fact that Mueller obtained Cohen’s Trump Organization emails from Microsoft, and only subpoenaed Trump Organization the following year for such things: because Mueller obtained this email, Congress (apparently) did not receive it in response to a subpoena, and Trump’s lawyers continued to deny the existence of it in November 2018. That suggests Trump’s lawyers continued to hide the existence of this email, even in preparing the President’s lawyers to write answers to Mueller’s questions.

(Note: given Don Jr’s reluctance to testify to Mueller but his willingness to testify to Congress, it’s possible there are damning emails involving him obtained from Microsoft that Trump Organization withheld from Congress, as well.)

Still, thus far, Trump could blame his faulty memory and his lawyers for the inaccuracies of his sworn answers to Mueller.

Not so after his public statements in the wake of Cohen’s plea, as Mueller laid out in his report, pointing to the same paragraph I’ve analyzed above.

On November 20, 2018, the President submitted written responses that did not answer those questions about Trump Tower Moscow directly and did not provide any information about the timing of the candidate’s discussions with Cohen about the project or whether he participated in any discussions about the project being abandoned or no longer pursued. 1049 Instead, the President’s answers stated in relevant part:

I had few conversations with Mr. Cohen on this subject. As I recall; they were brief, and they were not memorable. I was not enthused about the proposal, and I do not recall any discussion of travel to Russia in connection with it. I do not remember discussing it with anyone else at the Trump Organization, although it is possible. I do not recall being aware at the time of any communications between Mr. Cohen and Felix Sater and any Russian government official regarding the Letter of Intent. 1050


On November 29, 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to making false statements to Congress based on his statements about the Trump Tower Moscow project. 1051 In a plea agreement with this Office, Cohen agreed to “provide truthful information regarding any and all matters as to which this Office deems relevant.”1052 Later on November 29, after Cohen’s guilty plea had become public, the President spoke to reporters about the Trump Tower Moscow project, saying:

I decided not to do the project. . . . I decided ultimately not to do it. There would have been nothing wrong if I did do it. If I did do it, there would have been nothing wrong. That was my business …. It was an option that I decided not to do …. I decided not to do it. The primary reason . . . I was focused on running for President. . . . I was running my business while I was campaigning. There was a good chance that I wouldn’t have won, in which case I would’ve gone back into the business. And why should I lose lots of opportunities? 1053 [my empahsis]


[snip]

In light of the President’s public statements following Cohen’s guilty plea that he “decided not to do the project,” this Office again sought information from the President about whether he participated in any discussions about the project being abandoned or no longer pursued, including when he “decided not to do the project,” who he spoke to about that decision, and what motivated the decision. 1057 The Office also again asked for the timing of the President’s discussions with Cohen about Trump Tower Moscow and asked him to specify “what period of the campaign” he was involved in discussions concerning the project. 1058 In response, the President’s personal counsel declined to provide additional information from the President and stated that “the President has fully answered the questions at issue.” 1059

1053 President Trump Departure Remarks, C-SPAN (Nov. 29, 2018). In contrast to the President’s remarks following Cohen’s guilty plea, Cohen’s August 28, 2017 statement to Congress stated that Cohen, not the President, “decided to abandon the proposal” in late January 2016; that Cohen “did not ask or brief Mr. Trump … before I made the decision to terminate further work on the proposal”; and that the decision · to abandon the proposal was “unrelated” to the Campaign. P-SCO-000009477 (Statement of Michael D. Cohen, Esq. (Aug. 28, 2017)).

1057 1/23/19 Letter, Special Counsel’s Office to President’s Personal Counsel.

1058 1/23/ 19 Letter, Special Counsel’s Office to President’s Personal Counsel.

1059 2/6/ l 9 Letter, President’s Personal Counsel to Special Counsel’s Office.

As Mueller pointed out in footnote 1053, Trump’s comments to the press conflict in significant ways with Cohen’s statement to Congress, in that they show the project continued past January and that the decision to end it related to the campaign.

Unstated here — but almost certainly the reason why Mueller went back to Trump after these comments (and Rudy Giuliani’s comments admitting the deal continued all the way to the election) — is that by stating that “I decided” even while justifying continuing to pursue the deal during the campaign because, “why should I lose lots of opportunities,” Trump is admitting that he recalls the discussions about the deal and was enthusiastic about it [marked with 5 above].

Trump’s sworn answer to Mueller is that these conversations were not memorable and he was not enthused about the project. But even after submitting those sworn statements, Trump went on TV and described remembering precisely what happened and decribed the deal as an opportunity he didn’t want to lose.

Effectively, those statements amounted to Trump going on TV and admitting he lied under oath to Mueller.

As I disclosed last July, I provided information to the FBI on issues related to the Mueller investigation, so I’m going to include disclosure statements on Mueller investigation posts from here on out. I will include the disclosure whether or not the stuff I shared with the FBI pertains to the subject of the post.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/07/22/c ... t-mueller/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 28, 2019 8:56 am


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBT2P_nwWCw



Better to have a few rats than to be one
Baltimore Sun Editorial Board
Baltimore Sun |

Jul 27, 2019 | 6:36 PM

In case anyone missed it, the president of the United States had some choice words to describe Maryland’s 7th congressional district on Saturday morning. Here are the key phrases: “no human being would want to live there,” it is a “very dangerous & filthy place,” “Worst in the USA” and, our personal favorite: It is a “rat and rodent infested mess.” He wasn’t really speaking of the 7th as a whole. He failed to mention Ellicott City, for example, or Baldwin or Monkton or Prettyboy, all of which are contained in the sprawling yet oddly-shaped district that runs from western Howard County to southern Harford County. No, Donald Trump’s wrath was directed at Baltimore and specifically at Rep. Elijah Cummings, the 68-year-old son of a former South Carolina sharecropper who has represented the district in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1996.


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
· Jul 27, 2019
Rep, Elijah Cummings has been a brutal bully, shouting and screaming at the great men & women of Border Patrol about conditions at the Southern Border, when actually his Baltimore district is FAR WORSE and more dangerous. His district is considered the Worst in the USA......

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
....As proven last week during a Congressional tour, the Border is clean, efficient & well run, just very crowded. Cumming District is a disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess. If he spent more time in Baltimore, maybe he could help clean up this very dangerous & filthy place

124K
6:14 AM - Jul 27, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

50.5K people are talking about this

It’s not hard to see what’s going on here. The congressman has been a thorn in this president’s side, and Mr. Trump sees attacking African American members of Congress as good politics, as it both warms the cockles of the white supremacists who love him and causes so many of the thoughtful people who don’t to scream. President Trump bad-mouthed Baltimore in order to make a point that the border camps are “clean, efficient & well run," which, of course, they are not — unless you are fine with all the overcrowding, squalor, cages and deprivation to be found in what the Department of Homeland Security’s own inspector-general recently called “a ticking time bomb."

In pointing to the 7th, the president wasn’t hoping his supporters would recognize landmarks like Johns Hopkins Hospital, perhaps the nation’s leading medical center. He wasn’t conjuring images of the U.S. Social Security Administration, where they write the checks that so many retired and disabled Americans depend upon. It wasn’t about the beauty of the Inner Harbor or the proud history of Fort McHenry. And it surely wasn’t about the economic standing of a district where the median income is actually above the national average. No, he was returning to an old standby of attacking an African American lawmaker from a majority black district on the most emotional and bigoted of arguments. It was only surprising that there wasn’t room for a few classic phrases like “you people” or “welfare queens” or “crime-ridden ghettos” or a suggestion that the congressman “go back” to where he came from.

This is a president who will happily debase himself at the slightest provocation. And given Mr. Cummings’ criticisms of U.S. border policy, the various investigations he has launched as chairman of the House Oversight Committee, his willingness to call Mr. Trump a racist for his recent attacks on the freshmen congresswomen, and the fact that “Fox & Friends” had recently aired a segment critical of the city, slamming Baltimore must have been irresistible in a Pavlovian way. Fox News rang the bell, the president salivated and his thumbs moved across his cell phone into action.

Paid Post What Is This?
As heartening as it has been to witness public figures rise to Charm City’s defense on Saturday, from native daughter House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Mayor Bernard C. “Jack” Young, we would above all remind Mr. Trump that the 7th District, Baltimore included, is part of the United States that he is supposedly governing. The White House has far more power to affect change in this city, for good or ill, than any single member of Congress including Mr. Cummings. If there are problems here, rodents included, they are as much his responsibility as anyone’s, perhaps more because he holds the most powerful office in the land.

Finally, while we would not sink to name-calling in the Trumpian manner — or ruefully point out that he failed to spell the congressman’s name correctly (it’s Cummings, not Cumming) — we would tell the most dishonest man to ever occupy the Oval Office, the mocker of war heroes, the gleeful grabber of women’s private parts, the serial bankrupter of businesses, the useful idiot of Vladimir Putin and the guy who insisted there are “good people” among murderous neo-Nazis that he’s still not fooling most Americans into believing he’s even slightly competent in his current post. Or that he possesses a scintilla of integrity. Better to have some vermin living in your neighborhood than to be one.

The Evening Sun Newsletter - Baltimore Sun
Get the day's top news and sports delivered to your inbox every evening from the Baltimore Sun.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/ed ... story.html




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K459NBUK_GU
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:26 pm

Barrack to step down as Colony Capital chief executive
Trump ally will give up job in 2021 as part of $325m deal for mobile phone tower owner
https://on.ft.com/2YkD4xA



Agenthades

Oh and it was his idea to bring on board Paul Manafort.

He also introduced Kushner to Otaiba which ultimately led to Pedo George Nader setting up treason meeting #2 on Aug 3, 2016 with Don Jr/Prince/Miller/Psy-Group and the gulf representatives.
https://twitter.com/Agenthades1/status/ ... 0717683712



Federal Inquiry of Trump Friend Focused on Foreign Lobbying
ImageThomas J. Barrack Jr. played an influential role in the Trump campaign and acts as an outside adviser to the White House.
Thomas J. Barrack Jr. played an influential role in the Trump campaign and acts as an outside adviser to the White House.CreditCreditHenry Romero/Reuters
By Sharon LaFraniere, Maggie Haberman, William K. Rashbaum, Ben Protess and David D. Kirkpatrick
Jul 28, 2019

WASHINGTON — As Donald J. Trump was preparing to deliver an address on energy policy in May 2016, Paul Manafort, his campaign chairman, had a question about the speech’s contents for Thomas J. Barrack Jr., a top campaign fund-raiser and close friend of Mr. Trump.
“Are you running this by our friends?” Mr. Manafort asked in a previously undisclosed email to Mr. Barrack, whose real estate and investment firm does extensive business in the Middle East.
Mr. Barrack was, in fact, coordinating the language in a draft of the speech with Persian Gulf contacts including Rashid al-Malik, an Emirati businessman who is close to the rulers of the United Arab Emirates.
The exchanges about Mr. Trump’s energy speech are among a series of interactions that have come under scrutiny by federal prosecutors looking at foreign influence over his campaign, his transition and the early stages of his administration, according to documents and interviews with people familiar with the case.
Investigators have looked in particular at whether Mr. Barrack or others violated the law requiring people who try to influence American policy or opinion at the direction of foreign governments or entities to disclose their activities to the Justice Department, people familiar with the case said.
The inquiry had proceeded far enough last month that Mr. Barrack, who played an influential role in the campaign and acts as an outside adviser to the White House, was interviewed, at his request, by prosecutors in the public integrity unit of the United States attorney’s office in Brooklyn.
Mr. Barrack’s spokesman, Owen Blicksilver, said that in expectation of this article, Mr. Barrack’s lawyer had again contacted the prosecutors’ office and “confirmed they have no further questions for Mr. Barrack.”
Mr. Barrack has not been accused of wrongdoing, and his aides said he never worked on behalf of foreign states or entities. Asked about the status of the inquiry, a representative for the United States attorney’s office in Brooklyn declined to comment.
The relationship between Mr. Barrack, Mr. Manafort and representatives of the U.A.E. and Saudi Arabia, including Mr. al-Malik, has been of interest to federal authorities for at least nine months. The effort to influence Mr. Trump’s energy speech in 2016 was largely unsuccessful.
The special counsel’s two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election has ended and federal prosecutors in Manhattan have signaled that it is unlikely they would file additional charges in a separate hush money investigation that ensnared members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle.
But as the scrutiny of Mr. Barrack indicates, prosecutors continue to pursue questions about foreign influence. Among other lines of inquiry, they have sought to determine whether Mr. Barrack and others tried to sway the Trump campaign or the new administration on behalf of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, two closely aligned countries with huge stakes in United States policy.
Between Mr. Trump’s nomination and the end of June, Colony Capital, Mr. Barrack’s real estate investment and private equity firm, received about $1.5 billion from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates through investments or other transactions like asset sales, Mr. Barrack’s aides said. That included $474 million in investment from Saudi and Emirati sovereign wealth funds, out of $7 billion that Colony raised in investment worldwide.
An executive familiar with the transactions had provided The New York Times with somewhat different figures last year.
Investigators have also questioned witnesses about Mr. Barrack’s involvement with a proposal from an American group that could give Saudi Arabia access to nuclear power technology. And they have asked about another economic development plan for the Arab world, written by Mr. Barrack and circulated among Mr. Trump’s advisers.
Aides to Mr. Barrack, who is of Lebanese descent and speaks Arabic, said he had always acted as an independent intermediary between Persian Gulf leaders and the Trump campaign and administration, never on behalf of any foreign official or entity.
“The ideas he was giving voice to were his ideas,” said Tommy Davis, Mr. Barrack’s former chief of staff, who continues to work for him. “These are ideas that he has been advocating for decades.”
ImagePresident Trump with Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, the de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates.
President Trump with Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, the de facto ruler of the United Arab Emirates.CreditAndrew Harnik/Associated Press
He said Mr. Barrack had no incentive to lobby on behalf of any particular country or countries in the Persian Gulf because his business interests and policy concerns span the entire region and countries at odds with one another.
Nor is there any evidence, Mr. Barrack’s aides said, that either Mr. Barrack or his Los Angeles-based company has profited from his efforts.
“There is zero pay to play here,” Mr. Blicksilver said. “That is supported by the facts and the numbers.”
For Mr. Barrack, 72, the inquiry has unfolded amid a series of other setbacks. A friend of Mr. Trump since the 1980s, he had anticipated that his efforts to elect Mr. Trump, help run his transition team and manage his inauguration would land him a prominent role in the administration.
But Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, blocked Mr. Barrack from becoming a special envoy to the Middle East. A proposed role as a kind of superambassador to Central and South America did not materialize either.
At the same time, Colony Capital encountered substantial difficulties after a troubled merger drove down its stock price and forced a series of management changes.
Mr. Trump’s inauguration in January 2017 was a high point for Mr. Barrack: The inaugural committee he led set records for the amount of money raised and spent to celebrate an inauguration.
But critics claimed the inaugural became a hub for peddling access to foreign officials and business leaders, or people acting on their behalf. The United States attorney’s office in Manhattan opened an investigation into possible violations of campaign finance law, focusing partly on whether foreigners, who were barred from contributing to the $107 million inaugural fund, illegally funneled donations through Americans.
Questions about whether Mr. Barrack complied with the Foreign Agents Registration Act, commonly known as FARA, arose during the Russia inquiry led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, and were referred to the United States attorney’s office in Brooklyn.
Three of the six former Trump aides who were charged by the special counsel acknowledged violating the foreign lobbying statute in their guilty pleas: Mr. Manafort, Rick Gates, who served as deputy campaign chairman for Mr. Trump in 2016, and Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser.
But while the Justice Department has been trying for several years to step up criminal enforcement of FARA requirements, such cases are typically difficult to prove. Whether someone is acting at the behest of a foreign official “is a very hard thing to investigate or to decide,” Adam S. Hickey, the deputy assistant attorney general in charge of the national security division, said in a recent interview.
Central to the inquiry into Mr. Barrack are his dealings with Mr. al-Malik, who is well connected in the court of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed, the de facto ruler widely known by his initials, M.B.Z., and is close to the prince’s brother, Sheikh Hamdan bin Zayed, who oversees the United Arab Emirates’ intelligence services. Sheikh Hamdan is considered to be Mr. al-Malik’s patron and a major financier of his business activities.
When Mr. Trump was elected, Mr. al-Malik received a coveted invitation to the inaugural’s most exclusive event — the chairman’s dinner, hosted by Mr. Barrack.
In early 2018, Mr. al-Malik gave an interview and provided documents to federal prosecutors who questioned whether he had been acting as an unregistered foreign agent in the United States, according to two people familiar with the matter. After he was interviewed, Mr. al-Malik left for the United Arab Emirates and has not returned to the United States.
William F. Coffield, a lawyer for Mr. al-Malik, said that he “voluntarily cooperated with the special council’s office,” adding, “They accepted his cooperation and they certainly aren’t going after him.”
Investigators have documented a string of instances in which Mr. Barrack appears to have tried, with feedback from Mr. al-Malik and others, to shape the message of the Trump campaign or new administration in ways that were more friendly to Middle East interests.
Although he was not always successful, Mr. Barrack had substantial sway within the campaign when it was overseen by Mr. Manafort, a longtime friend, and Mr. Manafort’s deputy, Mr. Gates.
Image
Mr. Trump’s inauguration in January 2017 was a high point for Mr. Barrack. The inaugural committee he led set records for the amount of money raised and spent to celebrate an inauguration.CreditChang W. Lee/The New York Times
Mr. Barrack recommended that Mr. Trump hire Mr. Manafort, who rose to campaign chairman before he was fired over a separate foreign lobbying scandal. Mr. Manafort, who was awash in debt and had no income, had hoped that after the campaign Mr. Barrack would use his deep ties to the oil-rich nations to drum up business for them both, according to people familiar with the situation.
In one email to the U.A.E.’s ambassador in Washington, Mr. Barrack promoted Mr. Manafort as someone who was “totally programmed” on the alliance between the Saudis and Emiratis.
Mr. Manafort, in turn, was willing to describe Mr. Barrack to foreign officials as someone who could speak for the campaign on all subjects.
The Times learned of some of Mr. Barrack’s electronic correspondence from people critical of Emirati foreign policy and from people familiar with his work with the Trump campaign.
In early May, 2016, Mr. Barrack asked Mr. al-Malik and other Persian Gulf contacts to propose language for a draft of an energy speech that Mr. Trump was to deliver in Bismarck, N.D., that month.
Mr. Barrack’s draft of the speech cited a new generation of leaders in the Gulf region, naming both the Emirati crown prince and his ally, Mohammed bin Salman, then deputy crown prince of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi prince, often referred to by his initials, M.B.S., has now consolidated his control of the kingdom.
Mr. Barrack’s aides said he tried to influence Mr. Trump’s address because he cares deeply about United States relations with the Persian Gulf region and was worried that Mr. Trump’s inflammatory campaign messaging would damage them. Among other provocative statements, Mr. Trump had vowed that, if elected, he would to bar Muslims from entering the United States.
When Mr. Trump and a campaign speechwriter rejected Mr. Barrack’s draft, Mr. Manafort wrote to Mr. Barrack, “Send me an insert that works for our friends and I will fight for it.”
In the end, to Mr. Barrack’s disappointment, Mr. Trump made only a passing reference to the need to work with “gulf allies” on “a positive energy relationship as part of our antiterrorism strategy.”
A few days later, Mr. Manafort emailed Mr. Barrack that “on the platform issue there is another chance to make our gulf friends happy.” He was referring to language in the Republican Party platform to be approved at the convention where Mr. Trump would formally become the nominee.
In late June, Mr. Manafort alerted Mr. Barrack that Mr. Trump had softened his stance on a Muslim ban. Mr. Barrack quickly forwarded the email to Yousef al-Otaiba, the Emirates’ powerful ambassador in Washington.
Then in July, Mr. Barrack informed Mr. Otaiba that the Trump team had removed language from the proposed Republican platform that would called for the disclosure of redacted pages related to Saudi Arabia in a report on the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
“Really confidential but important,” he wrote, enclosing campaign emails on the subject. “Please do not distribute.”
Two days later, Congress released the passages, which detailed contacts between Saudi officials and some of the hijackers.
Mr. Barrack tried to set up a meeting that summer between Mr. Manafort and Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi deputy crown prince, but it was canceled at the last moment.
The month after Mr. Trump clinched the Republican nomination, Mr. Barrack traveled to the Persian Gulf and met with the Saudi prince and the Emirati crown prince, aides said. At a dinner meeting in Saudi Arabia, he was briefed on the kingdom’s economic plan.
In a subsequent text to Mr. Manafort, Mr. Barrack sounded elated.
“Amazing meetings. Off the map,” he wrote. “A lot to talk about and do.”
http://archive.is/TE85q#selection-261.0-743.72
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:15 pm

Elijah Cummings just exposed Donald Trump’s treasonous ties to the Middle East
Bill Palmer
Donald Trump has spent the past forty-eight hours obsessively waging war against House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings and his hometown of Baltimore. Because everything Trump said about Cummings was racist, it seemed like Trump was merely trying to create yet another racist distraction. But now Cummings has just dropped a bombshell which – when paired with two new major news reports – exposes Trump as having treasonous allegiances in the Middle East.

Elijah Cummings and his committee just released a report which exposes the full extent to which Donald Trump has sold out American foreign policy to the likes of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates for personal gain. Much of it was done through a lobbying firm called IP3, which facilitated Trump’s decision to give U.S. nuclear technology to his puppet masters in Saudi Arabia, and how the lobbying firm was given carte blanche in the Trump White House.

This bombshell came even as ABC News published a corresponding story about how the Donald Trump 2016 campaign allowed UAE to make edits to Donald Trump’s “America First” speech before he delivered it. That’s right, Trump’s “America First” speech was literally crafted for him by a foreign government. This also comes one day after the New York Times reported that the Feds are investigating Trump’s close friend Tom Barrack for his ties to UAE and Saudi Arabia.

No wonder Donald Trump had such an explosive meltdown about Elijah Cummings over the weekend. This also explains why Trump continued his tirade about Cummings today, even after his handlers had seemingly convinced him to oust Dan Coats last night in the hope of creating a new controversy and shifting the news cycle away from Trump’s anti-Cummings meltdown. You can read Cummings’ full report about Trump’s Middle East treason here.https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/t ... ast/19623/


New Documents Show Corporate and Foreign Interests Seek to Influence U.S. Nuclear Policy
Jul 29, 2019 Press Release
WH, Agencies Still Refuse to Produce Documents in Committee’s Investigation
Washington, D.C. (July 29, 2019)—Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, issued a second interim staff report in the Committee’s investigation into efforts to transfer U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia.

Chairman Cummings issued the following statement:

“Today’s report reveals new and extensive evidence that corroborates Committee whistleblowers and exposes how corporate and foreign interests are using their unique access to advocate for the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. The American people deserve to know the facts about whether the White House is willing to place the potential profits of the President’s personal friends above the national security of the American people and the universal objective of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.”

The Committee’s second interim report is based on more than 60,000 pages of new documents produced to the Committee in response to requests that Chairman Cummings made to a host of outside companies about their involvement with plans to transfer U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. The report states:

New documents and communications show that IP3, the private company lobbying the White House to transfer U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, repeatedly sought a $120 million investment from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. It is unclear if the company ultimately received the investment.



Documents show that IP3 is currently pushing the Trump Administration not to require Saudi Arabia to agree to the “Gold Standard,” which is a commitment not to use U.S. nuclear technology to make nuclear weapons. Documents show that IP3 officials repeatedly urged White House and Trump Administration officials to abandon the “Gold Standard” in any future 123 Agreement with Saudi Arabia, complaining that it would lock them out of lucrative nuclear contracts with the Saudis.



New documents show that IP3 officials have had unprecedented access to the highest levels of the Trump Administration, including meeting directly with President Trump, Jared Kushner, Gary Cohn, KT McFarland, and Cabinet Secretaries Rick Perry, Steven Mnuchin, Mike Pompeo, Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, and Wilbur Ross. IP3 described the Trump Administration as “an extended team member.”



New documents show that Thomas J. Barrack, Jr.—a longtime personal friend, campaign donor, and inaugural chairman—negotiated directly with President Trump and other White House officials to seek powerful positions within the Administration—including Special Envoy to the Middle East and Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates—at the same time he was (1) promoting the interests of U.S. corporations seeking to profit from the transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia; (2) advocating on behalf of foreign interests seeking to obtain this U.S. nuclear technology; and (3) taking steps for his own company, Colony NorthStar, to profit from the same proposals he was advancing with the Administration.



Officials from other companies in the nuclear industry have serious concerns about IP3 and its financial motive in pressing for the transfer of U.S. nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, calling it a “boondoggle,” warning that “IP3 has a questionable reputation,” and observing, “This whole IP3 effort is still a bit strange and mysterious.” One industry executive called IP3 the “Theranos of the nuclear industry.”



The White House has completely refused to cooperate with the Committee’s investigation and has not produced a single document in response to the Committee’s requests. For the most part, the federal agencies involved have followed suit. As a result of the White House’s actions, it may be necessary for the Committee to seek compulsory process to obtain information from the White House, federal agencies, and individual Trump Administration officials.
https://oversight.house.gov/news/press- ... us-nuclear


emptywheel


Here's Mike Flynn using Transition email and CC'ing two Gmail accounts (or one involving his spawn?).

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democ ... ix%20A.pdf

Image

When McFarlane said he hoped Flynn had had a break over Christmas, he probably didn't mean, "I hope you didn't have any outreach w/Russian Ambassador over break that will lead to your conviction" and a delay in our nuclear power graft.

And here's KT McFarland using an email that does NOT appear to be an EOP address, while working at the White House, to make sure Tom Barrack is in the loop.

Image

Yousef Al Otaiba making it clear that "thanks to [Tom Barrack], I'm in consistent contact with Jared."

Image

What's interesting is Trump's NSA, Mike Flynn, was part of this deal from the start (before his, uh, conviction kicked in). Yet 3 years later, Trump is unaware of the purported strategic reason for it.

Image

"The Theranos of the nuclear industry"

Image

But they said Ilhan Omar was anti-semitic for suggesting Israel had veto power over US policy through AIPAC.

Image

I guess it's appropriate that Mattis is a fan of "the Theranos of the nuclear industry" since he was also part of the original.

Image

Yet another instance when realizing that John Bolton being the sole guardian of ethics in this Administration makes you want to vomit.

Image

I mean, by comparison Mike Flynn is still an amateur in actually GETTING $$ for all his corruption, but he sure made a run at being more corrupt than Paul Manafort.

Image

One of Trump's complaints abt the RU investigation is it prevented him from making economic deals and when you consider the NSA who was supposed to set up this totally corrupt position for Tom Barrack was getting busted by the FBI, you get what he means.

Image

Tom Barrack, who is of Lebanese (Christian) descent, thought it'd be cool to drown out the Muslim ban with news of a corrupt nuke deal with Saudi Arabia.


Gonna interrupt for a moment and note that Donald Trump has spent the last few days making a sustained racist attack on Elijah Cummings, whose committee exposed all this nuke graft.

But I'm sure that's just a coinkydink.

Image


Context.

Image

https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1 ... 7343325185
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:03 am

#MoscowMitchMcTreason

#MoscowMitch with friend Judge Tim Nolan, who is prison for 20 years for sex trafficking of minors:
Image


Image

‘Leaving billions of dollars on the table‘
Rural hospitals foundering in states that declined Obamacare

By Michael Braga, Jennifer F. A. Borresen, Dak Le and Jonathan Riley | GateHouse Media
July 28, 2019

More than half of all rural hospitals in Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia and Oklahoma lost money from 2011 through 2017.

In Kansas, the bloodletting was even more widespread.

Two out of three rural hospitals in the state operated in the red during the seven year period. Five were forced to shut down.

What these states also have in common is that legislators voted against expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, which would have provided coverage for hundreds of thousands of uninsured residents and bolstered rural hospital bottom lines.

Fiercely conservative and inherently distrustful of the federal government, state politicians balked at picking up 10 percent of the Medicaid expansion cost and repeatedly expressed fears that Washington bureaucrats would renege on generous Obamacare funding, leaving states to cover an ever increasing share of the healthcare burden.

That hasn’t happened yet.

In the meantime, residents of deep red rural America — farmers and farm workers, small business owners and their employees, the old and infirm — are seeing their hospitals founder and close.

“The irony to me,” said John Henderson, who heads The Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals and supports Medicaid expansion, “is that we’re paying federal income taxes to expand coverage in other states. We’re exporting our coverage and leaving billions of dollars on the table.”


John Henderson, president of The Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals [PROVIDED PHOTO]
While experts agree embracing Obamacare is not a cure-all for rural hospitals and would not have saved many of those that closed, few believe it was wise to turn the money down.

The crisis facing rural America has been raging for decades and the carnage is not expected to end any time soon.

High rates of poverty in rural areas, combined with the loss of jobs, aging populations, lack of health insurance and competition from other struggling institutions will make it difficult for some rural hospitals to survive regardless of what government policies are implemented.

For some, there’s no point in trying. They say the widespread closures are the result of the free market economy doing its job and a continued shakeout would be helpful. But no rural community wants that shakeout to happen in its backyard.

“A hospital closure is a frightening thing for a small town,” said Patti Davis, president of the Oklahoma Hospital Association. “It places lives in jeopardy and has a domino effect on the community. Health care professionals leave, pharmacies can’t stay open, nursing homes have to close and residents are forced to rely on ambulances to take them to the next closest facility in their most vulnerable hours.”


Patti Davis, president of the Oklahoma Hospital Association, says hospital closures are frightening for rural communities. [PHOTO BY DOUG HOKE, THE OKLAHOMAN]
Without a hospital, it also becomes difficult to attract new businesses to an area and keep others from leaving, she said.

To better understand the crisis, journalists from the Pittsburg Morning Sun and its parent company, GateHouse Media, spent three months analyzing financial data from nearly 2,200 rural hospitals across the United States to determine which are losing money and which face potential closure. Reporters also pored over academic studies and spoke to two dozen hospital officials, association executives and other health care experts.

The research revealed:

Rural America is in the midst of a deep and prolonged crisis that resulted in 106 hospital closures since 2010. Nearly 700 more are on shaky ground, and nearly 200 are on the verge of collapse right now, according to reports from Massachusetts consulting firm iVantage Health Analytics and the Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill.
Hospitals faring the worst are mainly in states that refused to expand Medicaid. Those states account for 77 of the 106 closures over the past decade. They also are home to a greater percentage of money losing facilities and lower collective profit margins.
At the bottom of the pack is Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback’s conservative politics reigned for eight years. Seventy of its 109 rural hospitals lost money from 2011 through 2017, and seven ranked among the 20 worst performing rural hospitals in the country. Hospitals in nearby Oklahoma did not perform much better, and the same can be said for many states in the Deep South.
But one state, whose residents only recently voted to expand Medicaid, bucked the national trend. Thanks to sacrifices made by urban hospitals and their willingness to work with their small town counterparts, rural hospitals in Utah were among the most profitable in the country from 2011 through 2017. Only 14 percent lost money during the period and not one was forced to shut down.

Dave Gessel, executive vice president of the Utah Hospital Association, says revenue sharing plans implemented 20 years ago have helped rural hospitals in his state survive. [PROVIDED PHOTO]
“Twenty years ago, we instituted a policy where we would take a little money from urban hospitals and give it to rural hospitals,” said Dave Gessel, executive vice president of the Utah Hospital Association. “That’s provided a base for all our hospitals.”

Gessel added that the Mormon church provided a unifying influence.

“Rural Utah is pretty heavily Mormon,” Gessel said. “Because of those connections, those ties, local residents realized if they didn’t come together, things could get really bad.”

‘We take care of everyone‘

The nation’s current system of rural hospitals dates back to the 1940s and the belief that every town deserves a modern facility.

But with the rapid development of health care technology, the supply and demand for health care services shifted to urban areas.

“Most of what we knew how to do in the 1970s and 1980s could be done reasonably well in small towns,” said Dr. Nancy Dickey, president of the Rural and Community Health Institute at Texas A&M. “But scientific developments and advances in neurosurgery, microscopic surgery and the like required a great deal more technology and a bigger population to support the array of technology specialists.”


Dr. Nancy Dickey, president of the Rural and Community Health Institute at Texas A&M, says scientific developments have shifted the fulcrum of healthcare services away from rural America. [Texas A&M Health Science Center]
The number of services rural hospitals could provide consequently shrunk, and they didn’t need as many beds, Dickey said. At the same time, rural populations began to decline as jobs dried up and younger folks moved away.

That left rural communities with older, poorer populations and a greater number of uninsured — financially challenging demographics that forced more than 180 rural hospitals to shut down in the 1990s alone.

Alarmed by the closures, politicians responded by passing legislation that included the creation of the Critical Access Hospital designation, ensuring that a select group of rural hospitals would have all of their costs covered for Medicare patients.

The CAH designation means that if it costs $1 million to run a hospital for a year and the hospital has one Medicare patient, who is treated over a couple of days, Medicare will reimburse the hospital for practically the entire $1 million, explained Robert Whitaker, the chief executive of Kiowa District Hospital in Kiowa, Kansas. If that same hospital had one Medicare patient and one insured by Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Medicare would pay $500,000, but Blue Cross would pick up only the cost of the patient’s stay while in the hospital, which might amount to just a few thousand dollars.

Whitaker, whose hospital mainly treats Medicare patients, attributed its survival to the CAH designation and vigilant attention to both managing costs and maintaining a profitable patient mix.

“We take care of everyone,” Whitaker said. “But we watch the mix.”

The result is that Kiowa District Hospital recorded $5.6 million in profits from 2011 through 2017 in a state where 64 percent of all rural hospitals lost money during the same period.

Experts say the CAH designation helped other rural hospitals as well, contributing to a significant drop in closures during the first decade of the 21st century. But when the Great Recession hit, many rural hospitals found themselves in another deep financial hole. Closures began rising again — a trend that has not relented despite the economic rebound.

“If you don’t take the expansion,” said Dickey, the Texas A&M professor, “it’s a challenge to make sure you have enough paying patients coming through the door.”

‘A market that regularly fails‘

Looking at the data, it’s hard not to conclude that hospitals in non-expansion states are suffering far worse that those that embraced Obamacare. But for most of these states, refusing Medicaid was not their only problem.

Most have higher poverty rates and more hospitals concentrated in adjacent geographical areas. Many also lack coherent statewide policies to address the crisis.

Texas, for instance, experienced 17 closures since 2010 — the most in the country, according the Sheps Center for Health Services Research at UNC Chapel Hill. But practically all of them were located in the eastern and southeastern parts of the state.

These are small agricultural communities, explained Henderson, who heads The Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals. The population is generally poorer than in other parts of the state and hospitals are closer to each other.

By comparison, hospitals in West Texas are further apart. They have less competition, and they are often supported by property taxes connected to the oil and gas industry, Henderson said. When oil prices are up, hospitals in these communities have access to more resources.

The same is true for some hospitals in Oklahoma.

“The biggest part of our profitability stems from the fact that we’re supported by a local county sales tax,” said Cindy Duncan, chief executive of Roger Mills Memorial Hospital in Cheyenne.

From 2011 through 2015, her hospital recorded profits because oil and gas companies were spending lots of money to buy pipes and pumps and fracking fluids. But when oil prices dropped and drilling stalled, the hospital started reporting losses.

“We saw a big shift in 2015,” Duncan said. “The community sales tax declined by 90 percent.”

It’s not just Texas and Oklahoma. In Kansas, survival of rural hospitals also depends on what local resources they can draw on.

“Because many of our hospitals are affiliated with local governments, each locality might take a different approach,” said Kari Bruffett, the Kansas Health Institute’s vice president for policy.

It’s clear those disparate approaches aren’t working.

Not only did Kansas lose five hospitals since 2010, it also is home to some of the worst performing rural hospitals in the country. They include Kiowa County Memorial Hospital in Greensburg and Morton County Hospital in Elkhart, which both lost more than $17 million between 2011 and 2017.

“From where I’m sitting, it really does go back to resources and whether there has been Medicaid expansion,” said April Holman, executive director of the Alliance for a Healthy Kansas. “Expansion on its own won’t save any hospital, but it does play into the funding mix that helps sustain rural hospitals.”

Terry Hill, senior advisor to the National Rural Health Center in Duluth, Minnesota, agreed that Medicaid expansion would help troubled hospitals in Kansas and other states. But he said the situation in the Deep South is more problematic because rural hospitals generally get paid much lower rates for both Medicaid and private insurance than states like New York or Minnesota.

At the same time, unaddressed health care needs in the South are often greater.

Alabama, for example, has a higher poverty rate, a higher incidence of diabetes and other chronic conditions and a larger percentage of patients who can’t pay their medical bills. Those dynamics have contributed to the closure of six rural hospitals and the second lowest margin of profitability in the country behind Kansas.

There are some academic researchers and politicians in conservative states who believe there are good reasons for the failure of rural hospitals and that the free market should be left to decide the winners and losers.

Navigant, a Chicago-based healthcare consulting firm, recently published a report stating that 153 of the 430 unstable rural hospitals in the United States are “not essential.” If they go down, their communities would find other ways of meeting residents’ needs.


George Pink, deputy director of the North Carolina Rural Health Research Program at the Sheps Center, says the free market often fails when it comes to healthcare, endangering the most vulnerable citizens – the old, the poor and the sick. [PROVIDED PHOTO]
That conclusion is supported by a 2015 Harvard University study that looked at 195 hospital closures between 2003 and 2011 and found that, while patients had to travel further after a shutdown, death rates and other key indicators of quality health care did not worsen.

But George Pink, deputy director of the North Carolina Rural Health Research Program at the Sheps Center, isn’t convinced the free market is the best model for rural America.

“Healthcare has shown itself many times over to be a market that regularly fails,” Pink said. “If you think of a small, rural community, miles from anywhere else, you wouldn’t expect the market to jump in and provide solutions. Think about the high percentages of poor, chronically ill, elderly, and disabled in these towns. These are not people with a lot of political power.”.

‘We rallied around to help them‘

While hospitals in most states that declined to expand Medicaid are struggling, Utah provides a notable exception.

Gessel, the executive vice president of the Utah Hospital Association, says that’s because his state has certain advantages.

One is that hospital systems in Utah are more concentrated than in other parts of the country. There are only four, and the largest — Intermountain Healthcare — controls nearly half of the 21 rural hospitals in the state.

Utah also has a diversified and growing economy, a low poverty rate and a tradition of donating generously to charity, Gessel said, and rural hospitals have been successful in attracting experienced executives from bigger markets.

As a result, only three rural hospitals in Utah reported losses from 2011 through 2017, and collectively its 21 hospitals logged the highest profit margin in the country.

“Over a 24 year period there were three or four hospitals that might have closed,” Gessel said. “But everyone rallied around to help them.”

Pink, the professor at UNC’s Sheps Center, said several other states have taken novel approaches to addressing the crisis. Louisiana recently passed the Rural Hospital Preservation Act that supports rural hospitals with wrap around funding, and North Carolina is about to follow its lead.

“These are useful initiatives,” Pink said. “But I don’t know of any hospital that’s opposed to Medicaid expansion. It’s good from a financial standpoint. But more importantly, it provides access to health care for vulnerable people.”
http://gatehousenews.com/ruralhospitals ... ltroubles/


Trump aide submitted drafts of 2016 'America First' energy speech to UAE for edits, emails show

PHOTO: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference, May 26, 2016, in Bismarck, N.D.Charles Rex Arbogast/AP, FILE
When candidate Donald Trump prepared to give a major energy speech during the 2016 campaign, one of his closest advisers provided a pre-speech review to senior United Arab Emirates officials, an unorthodox move that caught the attention of federal investigators, according to emails and text messages uncovered by a House Oversight Committee investigation.

Interested in Trump Administration?
Add Trump Administration as an interest to stay up to date on the latest Trump Administration news, video, and analysis from ABC News.
“The Trump Administration has virtually obliterated the lines normally separating government policy making from corporate and foreign interests,” according to a report overseen by House Oversight Chairman Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat, who commissioned the investigation into back channel business dealings between certain Trump aides and Middle Eastern countries.

Two weeks before Trump was scheduled to deliver the energy policy speech, Thomas Barrack, a California investment tycoon with extensive contacts in the Middle East and who later helped oversee Trump’s inauguration, provided a former business associate inside the United Arab Emirates with an advance copy of the candidate’s planned remarks. The associate then told Barrack he shared them with UAE and Saudi government officials, after which Barrack arranged for language requested by the UAE officials to be added to the speech with the help of Trump’s campaign manager at the time, Paul Manafort.

“This is the most likely final version of the speech. It has the language you want,” Manafort confirmed in an email to Barrack on the day of the speech, according to the report. Manafort has since gone to prison for financial crimes unrelated to his campaign work.

(MORE: Here are 5 of Trump's big-money supporters)
The White House declined to comment.

House investigators note in their report that none of the documents they gathered indicate “whether Trump was aware that drafts of his speech were circulated to foreign officials in the Middle East or that feedback had been provided through Mr. Barrack and Mr. Manafort.”

Attorneys for Manafort declined to comment when reached Monday.

The back-channel exchange caught the attention not only of House investigators but also of federal prosecutors, according to a report late Sunday in The New York Times, which first reported on the dealings.

ABC News has obtained copies of more detailed emails and texts from House investigators, who gathered more than 60,000 documents showing what they say are the intermingling of private interests and public policy decision by Trump aides both before and after he took office. The resulting investigative report, made public Monday, presents events surrounding the 2016 energy speech as a prime example of how Trump’s close aides were granting their foreign business contacts access to campaign policy decisions.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP, FILE PHOTO: Thomas Barrack, chairman of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, greets Vice President Mike Pence on the West Front of the Capitol before Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, January 20, 2017.
Thomas Barrack, chairman of the Presidential Inaugural Committee, greets Vice President Mike Pence on the West Front of the Capitol before Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, January 20, 2017.more +
A source close to Barrack confirmed the basic details to ABC News. A statement from Barrack’s spokesman, first published by The Times, said prosecutors had confirmed to Barrack’s attorney that “they have no further questions for Mr. Barrack.” His aides told The Times he never worked on behalf of foreign states or entities and he was ultimately disappointed that more of the language sought by his contacts in the Middle East did not wind up in Trump’s speech.

Trump traveled to North Dakota in May of 2016, having just clinched the Republican nomination for president. He intended to give a policy speech that would solidify his position on oil, gas and coal – an energy speech that would make clear he would prioritize American energy jobs over grand multi-national environmental pacts like the Paris climate agreement.

Trump called his approach an “America First” energy plan that would “make America wealthy again.”

“Under my presidency, we will accomplish complete American energy independence,” he told the crowd. “Imagine a world in which our foes, and the oil cartels, can no longer use energy as a weapon.”

Play PHOTO: Donald Trump unveiled his energy platform at an address in Bismarck, North Dakota, on May 26, 2016.
Trump unveils energy policy in 2016
In the midst of the muscular, America-first approach that became a hallmark of his campaign, he added a phrase intended to placate an audience far away in the United Arab Emirates, telling the crowd “we will work with our Gulf allies to develop a positive energy relationship as part of our anti-terrorism strategy.”

The language was modest when compared to what was requested by officials in the oil-rich emirates, according to the text messages exchanged between Barrack and Rashid al-Malik, a former business associate in UAE. Al-Malik had secretly worked as an intelligence asset for the UAE government, “tasked to report to his Emirati intelligence handlers on topics of consequence to the UAE,” the House report said, citing an Intercept news report.

William F. Coffield, an attorney for al-Malik, told ABC News his client “was never a conduit to the Trump organization for anyone. He has never been a paid intelligence source for anyone.”

(MORE: US banker with ties to Putin’s inner circle sought access to Trump transition: Sources)
“Mr. al-Malik is from the UAE and has a home in the U.S. He loves the UAE and the USA,” said Coffield. “He was a business associate of Mr Barrack’s, and they shared a personal desire to build bridges between the citizens of both. It’s really that simple.”

Barrack and al-Malik began the text message exchanges two weeks before Trump’s energy speech was set to be delivered, according to the House report. Barrack sent a draft of the candidate’s energy remarks to al-Malik and a message that said, “What do you think of his energy message given to American executives with a pro Middle East point of view -- for you and Saeed to rebiew [sic] for me quickly. I need a few pro Middle East aspects.” The report does not identify “Saeed.”

An hour later, al-Malik responded, “This is what I got from them,” according to the report.

The text does not identify “them,” but House investigators say they believe it is a reference to Saudi and Emirati officials. In that text, al-Malik requests that new language add references to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and UAE Crown Prince Abudhabi Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, as well as a line that states: “We can and should support reform in the Middle East, in the process thereby reducing the appeal of Islamic terrorism, and support our allies who are fighting our enemies.”

The following day, Barrack proposes the additional language to Manafort, suggesting references to the two Arab leaders and language that loosely mirrors the sentiments that had been requested. He adds in his email, “This is probably as close as I can get without crossing a lot of lines,” according to the report.

The language that winds up in Trump’s speech ultimately does not include the direct references to the Gulf leaders but does include a nod to the requested sentiment – expressing his desire to “work with our Gulf allies to develop a positive energy relationship as part of our anti-terrorism strategy.”
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-a ... d=64634140






Wendy Siegelman
Corporate and Foreign Interests Behind White House Push to Transfer U.S. Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia

50 page second interim staff report issued today by @RepCummings @OversightDems
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democ ... 202019.pdf

Image

New Documents Show Corporate and Foreign Interests Seek to Influence U.S. Nuclear Policy


IP3, the private company lobbying the WH to transfer US nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia, repeatedly sought $120 million investment from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. It's unclear if the company received the investment

Appendix A - 76 pg pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democ ... ix%20A.pdf

Image

Image
The timeline table of contents in the 50 pg report is like the Saudi nuclear deal discussion greatest hits:

Flynn, Barrack, Russians, Saudis, MBS, IP3, Westinghouse, Kushner, Trump

Discussions that started in 2015 and continued through 2019
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democ ... 202019.pdf

Image
Aug 1 2018: Brookfield completed acquisition of Westinghouse after Cmte on Foreign Investment in US/CFIUS (Mnuchin, Ross, Mattis, Pompeo, Perry) approved deal

Aug 3 2018: Brookfield announced 99-year lease of Kushner Cos 666 Fifth Ave bldg

cc @jedshug
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democ ... 202019.pdf

Image
Wendy Siegelman Retweeted Wendy Siegelman
Brookfield acquisition of Westinghouse & discussions w/Tom Barrack about Saudi nuclear deal occurred at same time as Brookfield deal to bail out 666 Fifth Ave Kushner bldg

Tom Barrack was a creditor & had assumed $70mil in debt in Kushner's 666 Fifth bldg
Wendy Siegelman added,

Wendy Siegelman

@WendySiegelman
In 2010 Barrack acquired $70 million of the debt owed by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner on his troubled $1.8 billion purchase of a skyscraper at 666 Fifth Avenue
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/worl ... saudi.html
Show this thread

Wendy Siegelman Retweeted Wendy Siegelman
As Tom Barrack negotiated nuclear deal w/Saudis WH etc

- CFIUS (Mnuchin, Ross, Mattis, Pompeo, Perry) approved Brookfield acquisition of Westinghouse

- Barrack invited Brookfield to deal discussion

- Brookfield bailed out Kushner's 666 Fifth Ave bldg
Wendy Siegelman added,
Wendy Siegelman

@WendySiegelman
Brookfield acquisition of Westinghouse & discussions w/Tom Barrack about Saudi nuclear deal occurred at same time as Brookfield deal to bail out 666 Fifth Ave Kushner bldg…
Show this thread

Wendy Siegelman Retweeted Wendy Siegelman
Brookfield info was in first report and I tweeted about this in February - but today's report adds new info - the coincidence(?) that CFIUS approved Brookfield acquisition of Westinghouse Aug 1 and two days later Aug 3 Brookfield announced Kushner bailout
Wendy Siegelman added,

Wendy Siegelman

@WendySiegelman
Jan 2018 Brookfield Business Partners, subsidiary of Brookfield Asset
Management, announced plans to buy Westinghouse Electric (part of IP3’s proposed consortium) for $4.6…
Show this thread

Wendy Siegelman Retweeted emptywheel
Great thread by @emptywheel with some highlights from the report documents

This one is my favorite
Wendy Siegelman added,

emptywheel

@emptywheel
But they said Ilhan Omar was anti-semitic for suggesting Israel had veto power over US policy through AIPAC.
Show this thread

Wendy Siegelman Retweeted Susan Simpson
Some more great highlights from @TheViewFromLL2
Wendy Siegelman added,

Susan Simpson

This email just released by Oversight, from an unknown person at an unknown company, is a great summary of the IP-3 debacle, but also this tidbit about $1M per reactor would explain why people like Flynn got so…

https://twitter.com/WendySiegelman/stat ... 4290369538



Image


Michael Flynn’s “Middle East Marshall Plan,” Explained
The Mueller investigation is pursuing investigative threads related to the UAE and possible corruption that seemingly have little connection to an investigation into collusion with Russia—but these two investigative threads may in fact be directly connected by way of the “Middle East Marshall Plan” backed by Michael Flynn.

There has been intense speculation around a mysterious meeting in the Seychelles between representatives of the Trump administration and Russia. Right before Trump’s inauguration, Erik Prince, a prominent Trump backer and founder of the Blackwater private security company, met with:

UAE Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Zayed (MbZ)
George Nader, a lobbyist for the UAE who is now cooperating with the Mueller investigation, and
Kirill Dmitriev, the head of the Russia Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Russia’s sovereign wealth fund.
The Washington Post reported in March that, according to people familiar with the matter, this meeting “was an effort to establish a back channel between the incoming administration and the Kremlin.” The backchannel explanation certainly fits an established pattern — Jared Kushner just a month earlier had suggested one to Russia’s ambassador using their Washington embassy. But this explanation is difficult to comprehend for a few reasons.

Why involve an outside third-party like the UAE when Trump associates and the Kremlin were already secretly meeting about creating a backchannel? Trump’s associates were already in frequent touch with the Russians, with at least two direct meetings and at least five phone calls between the Trump transition team and the Kremlin just in December alone. If a backchannel is going to be as secret as possible, why include outsiders?
Why would MbZ, one of the most powerful leaders in the Middle East, be involved? MbZ would be the one who communicates through a back channel. Setting them up is beneath his stature. While the UAE would want the Russians to change its Middle East policy, as the Washington Post suggested, if MbZ wanted that communicated he would do so directly to the leadership of the US and Russia, not through lower-level intermediaries.
Setting up a back channel might have been an objective of this meeting, but it seems doubtful it was the objective. In fact, the New York Times just reported that the meeting was “brokered in part to explore the possibility of a back channel.” So what was the other part? One possibility is that they were there to cut a deal.

The real story may lie in the so-called “Trump/Putin Middle East Marshall Plan Concept,” a plan pushed by an American company with ties to Michael Flynn that became an immediate and major priority of the Trump White House. It was the kind of deal that would be central to any quid pro quo relating to Russia’s election interference and sanctions relief, and large enough to pull in the Gulf states too.

The Plan and its Backers

The so-called Middle East Marshall Plan was a convoluted idea that brought the US and Russia together to build nuclear power plants in the Middle East, possibly in conjunction with Ukrainian, Israeli, and French interests. The Russians would manufacture much of the nuclear equipment, while the US would provide certain nuclear technology as well as security for the plants to limit the proliferation risk. Hundreds of billions of dollars in funding for the scheme would come from the Gulf States, particularly the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Thus, the three critical players in this scheme would be the US, Russia, and a wealthy Gulf state (or states) — perfectly mirroring the representatives at the Seychelles meeting.

Similar plans had been floating around for years and had been pitched to the Obama administration State Department, where they were non-starters, particularly after Russia’s seizure of Crimea and subsequent US sanctions. However, with Trump, the idea came back to life.

Little more than a week after the 2016 election, a company pushing the plan, ACU Strategic Partners, “bragged” they had the backing of Michael Flynn, incoming National Security Adviser. One ACU email obtained by Reuters from mid-November 2016 said that Flynn had “always been enthusiastic about the project and its objectives, including its role in stabilizing and strengthening US-Russia relations.”

Flynn’s enthusiasm for the plan was understandable; he worked as an advisor to ACU from April 2015 to June 2016 (he was paid more than $5,000) and went on a trip in June 2015 to Egypt and Israel to lobby on behalf of the project. From August-December 2016, Flynn was an advisor to IP3, another company pushing a similar plan that was backed by former Reagan National Security Adviser Bud McFarlane (ProPublica reported, “McFarlane disputed that account but repeatedly declined to specify any inaccuracies.”) According to the Wall Street Journal, Flynn also connected Tom Barrack to “one of the project’s backers. The suggestion kicked off a series of conversations between Mr. Barrack… and Mr. Flynn’s former colleagues, as well as Mr. Kushner.”

The Rationale

The deal had three main rationales motivating the various parties.

The Middle East Marshall Plan would have provided an excuse to remove sanctions against Russia.
US businesses would need to work with sanctioned Russian entities. Striking a deal that the Administration could sell as bringing power and economic development to the Middle East, as well as bolstering the struggling US civilian nuclear industry, might have softened Congressional support for sanctions, particularly among Republicans.
The deal would involve potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in profit.
Why Erik Prince would care: Corporate documents projected the plan would generate “$250 billion in revenue for US companies.” Billions of dollars from a project requiring a lot of private security would pique the interest of Prince, head of a private security company.
Why Tom Barrack would care: Tom Barrack was reportedly looking to invest in the US nuclear industry, which would have received a huge windfall.
Why Russia would care: This deal could also involve massive investment in Russian state-owned companies, which could explain why the CEO of RDIF, Kirill Dmitriev was at the Seychelles meeting. Dmitriev is close to Putin and is charged with shepherding foreign investment into Russia.
There was an economic policy and geopolitical incentive.
Middle Eastern countries are legitimately seeking nuclear power to support their growing populations. The Gulf states’ participation would have supported regional economic development.
More fundamentally, this would also serve a broader geostrategic objective for the Gulf. As part of this deal, Russia would likely need to shift or soften its approach toward Iran and Syria. In exchange, they would not only receive a huge economic windfall, but would become more closely aligned with the US and the wealthy Gulf states.
For the UAE, a deal like this would cement a relationship with the new Trump administration. MbZ’s attendance – even though the other attendees were far lower ranking – could be explained by the huge investment required and the potential geopolitical stakes.
The Push to Implement

January 20th, at 12:11 PM – eleven minutes after Trump was sworn into office: In what was likely his first act as US National Security Adviser, Flynn, according to a whistleblower who spoke to Congress, allegedly texted Alex Copson, the managing partner of ACU, saying “good to go.”

If Flynn was “good to go” and ready to start implementing the plan on day one, what kind of groundwork had been laid during the transition?

The dizzying timeline of meetings and contacts during the transition tracks with a concerted effort to push the Middle East Marshall Plan.

November 2016: ACU pushes the plan to Flynn.
December 1 or 2: Flynn and Kushner meet with Ambassador Kislyak in Trump Tower where Kushner suggests using a backchannel through the Russian embassy.
December 5: Flynn and IP3’s McFarlane are photographed in the Trump Tower lobby together.
December 13th or 14th: Kushner meets with Sergei Gorkov, the head of Vnesheconombank (RDIF was spun-off from VEB), in Trump Tower.
There are differing explanations for this meeting, with Gorkov saying Kushner was representing his family’s company and Kushner saying the meeting was “unrelated to personal business” – of course the Middle East Marshall Plan involved both.
December 14/15th: Gorkov then flies to Japan where Vladimir Putin is on an official visit.
December 16: Flynn, Kushner, and Steve Bannon have a three hour meeting with MBZ in Trump Tower.
The meeting irked the Obama administration, as MbZ did not notify them of his trip to the US.
December 29: Flynn has five phone calls with Kislyak where they discuss sanctions. This conversation prompts Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to later express concerns about Flynn’s “underlying conduct.”
Early January: Flynn “talked favorably about the deal” with Tom Barrack, head of the inauguration.
January 11th: Seychelles meeting occurs.
The Intercept reports that “Alexander Mashkevich, a Kazakh businessman linkedto a shady Trump investment vehicle known as Bayrock, also arrived to meet with Zayed, who was ‘holding court’ at his mansion on the island, accordin to a source familiar with the meetings. Abdulrahman Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire whose grandfather founded the first Saudi private bank and whose father allegedly helped Al Qaeda, was also present.”
January 17-20th: At the Davos World Economic Forum, Anthony Scaramucci meets with Dmitriev. He also gives an interview to the Russian news outlet TASS, as a Trump advisor, disparaging sanctions and suggesting US and Russia have “common objectives.”
January 20th, 12:11pm: Flynn allegedly texts “good to go.”
Copson also reportedly says that “Mike has been putting everything in place for us” and that “This is going to make a lot of very wealthy people.”
He also allegedly says that Flynn planned to “ripped up” sanctions upon entering office.
In his first week in office, Flynn pushed to get the plan approved, shocking NSC staffers.

Flynn received an email from McFarlane in late January 2017, containing documents outlining the plan and a draft memo for Trump signature. Flynn told NSC staff to formalize the proposals for Trump to sign.
Reuters reported two US officials said the Flynn policy document was about working with Russia.
In response, career officials on the NSC notified the NSC lawyers about Flynn’s potential conflict of interest.
Harvey, according to ProPublica, even discussed the proposal with Tom Barrack and his representative, the now-indicted Rick Gates.
Barrack was rumored to be under consideration for a top Middle East job, but instead of going into the Administration, he and Gates were reportedly “seeking investment ideas based on the administration’s Middle East policy,” such as by investing in US nuclear company Westinghouse.
After Flynn was fired, Derek Harvey, his Senior Director for the Middle East (who joined Devin Nunes’ House Intelligence Committee Staff after he was later fired from the NSC), continued to push the plan.
The scheme ultimately lost momentum as the Russia scandal exploded.
The flurry of activity around the Middle East Marshall Plan in the crucial first weeks of the new administration demonstrate the priority it was given by Flynn and others. And since this was prioritized from day one, it is reasonable to assume it was prioritized during the transition.

The Middle East Marshall Plan involved lifting Russian sanctions, a key desire of the Kremlin. Was this follow through on a quid-pro-quo — lifting sanctions in return for Russian interference in the 2016 election?

The scheme also involved hundreds of billions of dollars and would have generated enormous profits for the individuals and companies involved. If this scheme was pushed with MbZ at the Seychelles meeting, it would have immediately signaled that this White House can be influenced by money.

As Mueller investigates Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, he may also be coming across other compromising entanglements involving Trump figures – prompting an investigative thread into official corruption. The timeline of activity around the Middle East Marshall Plan during the transition shows that that this was a priority for Flynn. We may soon find out this was a priority for the Seychelles meeting too.
https://themoscowproject.org/explainers ... hall-plan/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Trumpublicons: Foreign Influence/Grifting in '16 US Elec

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Jul 30, 2019 11:49 am


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYANRUos8Hg


Why Mueller Hearings Were Not Duds
Robert Mueller, testimony
Robert Mueller testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on July 24, 2019. Photo credit: C-SPAN
Reading Time: 8 minutes
The mainstream media prepared for last week’s appearance of former special counsel Robert Mueller on Capitol Hill as if it were the policy equivalent of the summer Olympics or the Super Bowl.

Virtually all cable and broadcast news outlets prepared to cover Mueller’s testimony before two congressional committees from start to finish. Indeed, they began their coverage a little before the first hearing was set to begin at 8:30 AM.

It soon became clear that Mueller was going to be the reluctant witness he promised to be, and journalists didn’t hide their disappointment. Politico deemed the hearings a “flop.” “On optics, this was a disaster,” tweeted Chuck Todd, moderator of NBC’s Meet the Press.

Nevertheless, the hearings had value. They were, first of all, a day-long tutorial on the Mueller report, which most Americans have not read. And even for the roughly 3 percent who have digested the entire report, the hearings offered up intriguing glimpses into the special counsel’s motives and character.


Chuck Todd

@chucktodd
On substance, Democrats got what they wanted: that Mueller didn't charge Pres. Trump because of the OLC guidance, that he could be indicted after he leaves office, among other things. But on optics, this was a disaster. #MuellerHearings

3,497
11:16 AM - Jul 24, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

16.6K people are talking about this

Activists fighting to strengthen election protections and those endorsing the president’s impeachment also found them useful, one more step in a process of educating and then mobilizing the US public. The timing, they added, will help efforts to encourage citizens to meet with House and Senate members during August, when Congress is in recess. Some groups, including the NAACP and Common Cause, have already endorsed impeachment proceedings; many more progressive groups support laws to better secure elections from foreign interference.

And just two days after the hearings, House Judiciary Committee Democrats asked the court for access to the Mueller report’s redacted grand jury materials, signaling that an impeachment investigation has already begun.

In truth, the hearings really didn’t depend on Mueller. The former FBI director and longtime public servant served less as a witness and more as a foil for members of Congress.

Democrats used their time — five minutes per committee member — to read aloud portions of the report. They would have preferred that the special counsel read the portions they cited, but he refused.

Republicans used the hearings to lob all sorts of charges against the investigators who wrote the report, but did not directly challenge the veracity of the report itself.

The greatest insight the hearings may have provided is how Mueller sees the world, and what standards he values.

Mueller’s fullest vision of his work came in his brief opening statement. He undertook the special counsel role, he said, “because I believed it was of paramount interest to the nation to determine whether a foreign adversary had interfered in the presidential election.”

His “critical objective” was to “work quietly, thoroughly, and with integrity so that the public would have full confidence in the outcome.” He was equally clear about the seriousness of the crimes he was set to investigate.

“Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy,” he stated. “The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious.”



Likewise, he said, the quest to investigate efforts “to obstruct the investigation and to lie to investigators was of critical importance. Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable.”

Investigators lacked sufficient “evidence” to charge anyone in the Trump campaign with a “conspiracy” to work with Russia to influence the election, he said. “Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a decision as to whether the president committed a crime,” he said, referring to DOJ guidelines stating that a sitting president may not be indicted.

He added that he would not go beyond the report’s conclusions, and, in accordance with DOJ restrictions, he would not comment on the origin of the Russia investigation — which preceded his appointment (Attorney General William Barr has opened an inquiry into how the Russia investigation was launched; so has the DOJ Inspector General.)

Mueller reiterated his pride in the final product. “In writing the report,” he said, “we stated the results of our investigation with precision. We scrutinized every word.

“The report is my testimony,” he added. “I will stay within that text.”

But that opening statement was the longest comment Mueller would make.

Nevertheless, the hearings gave the veteran prosecutor a chance to explain some of the decisions he had made along the way.

Why Did Mueller Conclude the Investigation When He Did?

It was in the public interest for the investigation to be complete, but “not to last a day longer than was necessary,” Mueller said. His concern for speed appeared linked to his desire to be absolutely fair to those under investigation.

That concern emerged when he answered an accusation from Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT). Over the course of the investigation, Stewart charged, “innocent people have been accused of very serious crimes, including treason, accusations made even here today.” Stewart spoke of “lives disrupted, and in some cases, destroyed, for false accusations.”



Mueller did not respond to Stewart’s charge, but shared Stewart’s views about the investigation’s human toll. “In a lengthy, thorough investigation some persons will be under a cloud that should not be under a cloud,” he said. He added that “one of the reasons for … the speed of an investigation” is to lessen the burden on “those persons who are disrupted.”

Why Did He Refuse to Subpoena Trump?

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) referred to Appendix C of the report, detailing the president’s written responses to investigators’ questions.

“By my count, there were more than 30 times when the president said he didn’t recall, he didn’t remember, no independent recollection, no current recollection.” The report characterized the responses as “incomplete, imprecise, inadequate, insufficient,” Maloney said.

Mueller agreed that those words were a “fair summary” of the quality of the written responses.

Maloney pressed the special counsel: “Why didn’t you subpoena the president?”

Mueller made clear the decision not to subpoena was his own; he had not been ordered to refrain from issuing one. His real concern appeared to be time.

Negotiations with the Trump legal team had already gone on for more than a year, Mueller responded. He feared that if he was subpoenaed, Trump would fight it in court, and cause even more delays.

In the end, Mueller settled for written responses and agreed to limit those questions to the Russia investigation. “It was certainly not as useful as the interview would be,” Mueller said.

“We had to make a balanced decision in terms of how much evidence we had, compared to the length of time it would take,” he said.

Maloney asked if the president had ever taken the Fifth amendment, which protects witnesses from incriminating themselves.

“I’m not going to talk to that,” Mueller replied.

Did His Team Leak?

Stewart said he was holding “a binder of 25 examples of leaks” he attributed to Mueller’s team. All of them, he said, harmed the president. Not one helped the White House.

Mueller defended his staff, and said he did not believe that they had been the source of leaks. “From the outset, we’ve undertaken to make certain that we minimize the possibility of leaks, and I think we were successful over the two years that we were in operation.”

He would not comment on any alleged leaks to CNN about the Roger Stone indictment. He said he did know about the leak of his March 27 letter to Attorney General William Barr. In that letter he complained that Barr’s summary to Congress “did not fully capture the context, nature and substance of this Office’s work and conclusions,” and caused “public confusion” about the report’s contents. But he said he did not believe that anyone in his office had been responsible.

Questioned earlier about the letter to Barr, Mueller would not even identify the staffer who had written the letter. “I can’t get into who wrote it. The internal deliberations… what I will say is the letter stands for itself.”

Mueller also stressed that he had never asked any of his employees about their political affiliation.

“What I care about is the capability of the individual to do the job and do the job quickly and seriously and with integrity,” he said. He observed that 14 of the 19 lawyers on his team were transferred from other departments of the DOJ. “Only five came from outside” the department, he said.

Concerns About Foreign Interference in Future Elections

The only Republican on either committee who seemed worried about election interference was William Hurd (R-TX), a former CIA officer. He referred to the Russian Internet Research Agency and its use of social media to influence US voters and to even organize rallies. Hurd asked if Mueller was concerned about this.

“Many more countries are developing the capability to replicate what the Russians had done,” Mueller warned.

He added: “It wasn’t a single attempt. They are doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign.”

If Congress is going to pass legislation, a priority should be a bill that “will encourage us working together,” Mueller said. “By us, I mean the FBI, CIA, NSA and the rest. It should be pursued aggressively early.”

“The first line of defense really is the ability of the various agencies who have some piece of this to not only share information, but share expertise, share targets and we use the full resources that we have to address this problem.”



Could a President Be Indicted After Leaving Office?

Mueller did agree that a president may be indicted after leaving office.

But he did not engage with Rep. Mike Quigley’s (D-IL) observation that the statute of limitations for obstruction of justice is five years. Quigley implied, though did not state explicitly, that Trump could get a “get out of jail free” pass if reelected. “What if a president serves beyond the statute of limitations?”

“I don’t know the answer to that one,” Mueller said.

Quigley pressed: “Would it not indicate that a president who serves a second term … is therefore … above the law?”

Mueller refused to consider it. “I’m not certain I would agree with the conclusion. I’m not certain that I can see the possibility that you suggest,” he said.

Is It All Over for the Mueller Report?

Without a lot of media attention, progressive groups have been gradually teaching the public about the Mueller report. Last May, Public Citizen, Common Cause, and People for the American Way were among the organizations that formed the Mueller Book Club. The club has been organizing readings of the 448-page report all over the country. Over May and June, the club offered weekly livestreamed discussions with experts examining different aspects of the report.

The book club livestreamed a discussion after the hearings, taking heart that public exposure to the report had been ramped up by the coverage. Several book club partners are doing more to engage their members.

Common Cause, a good-government group with one million members and supporters in 30 states, has a website to help constituents track whether their members of Congress have read the report. The book club got some help from Hollywood. Rob Reiner has directed a video explaining the report, made glitzier by Hollywood celebrities such as Laurence Fishburne, Christine Lahti, and Robert De Niro. The video, which debuted June 20, focused on Russian interference in the election. Reiner has directed another one, featuring a few of the one thousand prosecutors who said they would have charged Trump with obstruction of justice if he were not president.



“If we don’t start putting on the pressure in the next month, we’ll never get this done,” Reiner told activists at the virtual meeting. Reiner hoped that the hearings might help galvanize progressives to pressure House Democrats to lean on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to move forward with impeachment hearings.

Whether or not the president is actually impeached, Reiner said, beginning proceedings would “expedite” access to witnesses and documents.

Not all book-club partner organizations have endorsed impeachment, but there is strong support for using the report to mobilize citizens to lobby both representatives and senators to pass reforms to ensure that what they consider abuse of power and foreign election interference never happen again.

Susannah Goodman, Common Cause director of election security, said that these reforms should include more resources for “cash-strapped” county clerks across the nation, charged with conducting elections. The House approved $600 million for election administration, Goodman said. The Senate should not only approve more funds, but increase the House appropriation.

In addition to increasing funds for election security, the House-passed Securing America’s Federal Elections (SAFE) Act, also mandates paper ballots and strengthens the security of election-related software and databases, she added. (Last week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blocked the Senate from voting on the SAFE Act.)

Goodman said one takeaway from the Mueller hearings was to “talk to people.” She has cousins who are Trump supporters, she noted. But there is a way to find common ground. “We all believe our votes should matter,” she said. No one wants their votes “disappeared by some foreign entity.”

She concluded: “This can unite us.”
https://whowhatwhy.org/2019/07/29/why-m ... -not-duds/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests