Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by JackRiddler » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:48 pm
by seemslikeadream » Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:56 pm
‘He will die in jail’: Intelligence community ready to ‘go nuclear’ on Trump, senior source says
David Edwards DAVID EDWARDS
15 FEB 2017 AT 11:08 ET
U.S. national security officials are reportedly ready to “go nuclear” after President Donald Trump’s latest attack on the intelligence community.
In a series of tweets on Tuesday and Wednesday, Trump insisted that the “real scandal” was not that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn lied about his contact with Russia. Instead, the president blasted what he said were “un-American” leaks that led to Flynn’s ousting.Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?
8:28 AM - 14 Feb 2017
26,374 26,374 Retweets 108,307 108,307 likesDonald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
Information is being illegally given to the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost by the intelligence community (NSA and FBI?).Just like Russia
6:19 AM - 15 Feb 2017
20,447 20,447 Retweets 74,800 74,800 likesDonald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by "intelligence" like candy. Very un-American!
7:13 AM - 15 Feb 2017
27,365 27,365 Retweets 116,798 116,798 likes
On Wednesday, former NSA intelligence analyst John Schindler provided some insight into the reaction of national security officials.
“Now we go nuclear,” he wrote on Twitter. “[Intelligence community] war going to new levels. Just got an [email from] senior [intelligence community] friend, it began: ‘He will die in jail.'”
“US intelligence is not the problem here,” Schindler added in another tweet. “The President’s collusion with Russian intelligence is. Many details, but the essence is simple.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/he-will ... urce-says/
Former NSA Analyst Claims Intel Community Will Go ‘Nuclear’ Against Trump
Photo of Alex Pfeiffer
ALEX PFEIFFER
Reporter
6:00 PM 02/15/2017
John Schindler, a former National Security Agency analyst and current columnist for the New York Observer, said Wednesday that the intelligence community will go “nuclear” against President Donald Trump.
The national security columnist also quoted a senior intelligence official telling him that Trump “will die in jail.” “Now we go nuclear. [Intelligence community] war going to new levels. Just got an [email from] from senior [intelligence community] friend, it began: ‘He will die in jail,'” Schindler tweeted.
The Observer columnist has for months taken a strong stance against Trump. He recently wrote an article called “The Spy Revolt Against Trump Begins.” (RELATED: Rep King: Leakers In Intel Community Have To Be ‘Purged’)
This came after President Trump angrily tweeted about continued leaks to major media outlets. “Information is being illegally given to the failing [New York Times] & [Washington Post] by the intelligence community (NSA and FBI?). Just like Russia,” Trump wrote. (RELATED: Journalists Go Nuts Over Rehashed New York Times Story)
Schindler received heat for his tweet suggesting a coup by the intelligence community.
ABC News chief foreign correspondent Terry Moran tweeted, “If this source is for real, talk of a ‘Deep State’ coup aren’t insane. [The president] will ‘die in jail’? Who do you think you are?”
The former NSA analyst stood by his comment and said, “Surprisingly, some US spies consider [the president] colluding with [Russian intelligence services] + Kremlin, [including] election theft, to be kinda treason-y.”
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/15/forme ... z4Yu66pjZx
by seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:11 am
by seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:27 am
Trump’s Public Humiliation
By rejecting the national security adviser job, Robert Harward gave cover to every professional who wants to turn the president down.
By Fred Kaplan
Now retired Vice Adm. Robert S. Harward (right) in Amman, Jordan, in 2012.
Photo by Khalil Mazraawi/AFP/Getty Images
Donald Trump isn’t accustomed to hearing prospective underlings say “No.” So it came as a shock when retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward—his first choice to replace Michael Flynn as national security adviser—told the president he’d have to think about the offer. It must have been a double shock when, a few days later, Harward turned him down flat.
The rejection is stunning in several ways that go well beyond the scope of Trump’s personal sensitivities. First, it is very unusual—almost unheard of—for a senior military officer, retired or otherwise, to turn down a request from the commander-in-chief.
Second, and largely for that reason, by rejecting the offer Harward has provided cover to other officers, and to civilian national-security analysts with a similar sense of patriotic duty, to turn down this president, too. Service, in this case, is not its own reward and by no stretch worth the sacrifice.
Third, the Financial Times, Washington Post, CNN, and other news outlets are reporting that Harward turned down the offer in part because Trump wouldn’t let him fire several officials that Flynn had hired for his staff and install his own team instead. This suggests that Trump is adamant on keeping certain people loyal to him—including Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland, a former Fox News commentator who Trump admired. The news reports don’t mention whether Harward made demands about Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief political strategist, who wrote the executive order that placed himself on the NSC Principals Committee and has created a parallel NSC structure called the Strategic Initiatives Group, comprised of a few extreme right-wing associates. But any serious person would insist on the dismantling of this weird group as another condition for taking the job.
The national security adviser plays several roles. He or she chairs the Principals Committee, the interagency group of Cabinet secretaries and top military and intelligence officers who help make decisions on high matters of policy; coordinates the NSC staff, which includes a few dozen political appointees and a couple hundred professional analysts; and advises the president, to the extent the president wants to be advised. In other words, to make the job worthwhile, the adviser must have close access to the president and clear lines of authority over the national-security bureaucracy.
Trump would not guarantee Harward this sort of authority, so Harward turned the job down. The Post reported that Harward was also reluctant to accept the offer for financial reasons, worried that leaving his job as a senior executive at Lockheed Martin would hurt his family. Yet few military officers—especially retired generals and admirals—let such factors get in the way of serving the president. CNN quoted one of Harward’s friends saying that, in mulling over the decision, he was persuaded most of all by the sheer dysfunction of Trump’s presidency, describing the job he was offered as “a shit sandwich.”
Harward would have come to the job with the experience of a warrior, a commander, an analyst, and a staff officer. In his 38 years as a Navy officer, he had been a SEAL, the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, the representative of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the National Counterterrorism Center, and the director of strategy and policy on the National Security Council staff.
In other words, Trump was given a choice: cater to the loyalty and ambitions of his political operatives, who have no competence whatsoever in national security affairs—or install a professional who can build and maintain a functioning national-security apparatus. He chose the former.
Harward would also have had a link to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who was commander of U.S. Central Command when Harward was its deputy. It’s possible that some in Trump’s inner circle, especially Bannon, wouldn’t want there to be these sorts of ties, as they could be used to bypass the White House and circumvent his own power.
Trump may now have a hard time filling the position with anyone whose qualifications or prominence would help calm the jitters of allies worldwide—and foreign-policy specialists here—who are wondering what the hell is going on with this president. At the moment, retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, a competent administrator who had been the NSC’s chief of staff, is the acting national security adviser, and it may be that Trump will have to settle on him as the successor.
"Sir, you've given 38 years of your life to this nation, been shot at and nearly killed numerous times, been drowned as part of your training to become a SEAL and have sent friends and colleagues into danger and to... More...
Three weeks into his term, Trump heads a White House with three or four vacant power centers. He has no national security adviser, a half-full NSC staff, hollow Defense and State Departments (where Trump has yet to nominate any deputy or undersecretaries), and the secretaries heading those departments—Mattis and Rex Tillerson—who, however smart and talented they may be, have never run a federal agency.
At his wild and woolly press conference Thursday afternoon, Trump twice insisted that his administration was “a fine-tuned machine.” It was a risible claim then. A few hours later, after news broke that a retired vice admiral and former Navy SEAL didn’t want to work for him, not even in one of the most vaunted jobs in the White House, the claim careened into total absurdity.\http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2017/02/robert_harward_turned_down_trump_now_others_can_too.html
Head of U.S. Special Ops Says That America's Government Is in 'Unbelievable Turmoil'
Army Gen. Raymond "Tony" Thomas didn't offer specifics but said he wants the government as "stable as possible."
By Matthew Rozsa / Salon February 16, 2017
Army Gen. Raymond “Tony” Thomas, the head of U.S. Special Operations Command, bemoaned the “unbelievable turmoil” racking the United States government during a symposium in Maryland on Tuesday.
“Our government continues to be in unbelievable turmoil. I hope they sort it out soon because we’re a nation at war,” Thomas said in his speech, according to CNN. Although he didn’t specify what “turmoil” he was referring to, he clarified when later asked about his comments, saying, “As a commander, I’m concerned our government be as stable as possible.”
The Special Operations troops include Navy SEALs and the Army Green Berets, both of which have become increasingly prominent in military operations since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and which are equally prominent in our national folklore.
While it is unclear what Thomas was referring to, it is quite possible that he was discussing the war that has been ongoing between the so-called “deep state” and the Trump administration. Critics have accused America’s intelligence agencies of trying to promote an anti-Russian agenda and punishing both President Trump and various administration advisers with targeted leaks intended to discredit them. There are also reports that members of intelligence communities, convinced that the Trump administration has been compromised by the Russian government, has withheld information from the president in order to avoid having it leaked out.
Naturally, the most recent manifestation of the poor relationship between Trump and the intelligence community were the events leading up the resignation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Although Flynn initially claimed that he had not spoken with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak about President Barack Obama’s sanctions, intelligence leaks later revealed that he had in fact done so, prompting his resignation.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politi ... le-turmoil
by seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:01 am
A Party to the Russian Connection
By EVAN McMULLIN
FEB. 17, 2017
Credit James Heimer
President Trump’s disturbing Russian connections present an acute danger to American national security. According to reports this week, Mr. Trump’s team maintained frequent contact with Russian officials, including senior intelligence officers, during the campaign. This led to concerns about possible collusion with one of America’s principal strategic adversaries as it tried to influence the election in Mr. Trump’s favor. On Monday, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, was forced to resign after details of his communications with the Russian ambassador emerged.
Republican leaders in Congress now bear the most responsibility for holding the president accountable and protecting the nation. They can’t say they didn’t see the Russian interference coming. They knew all along.
Early in 2015, senior Republican congressional leaders visited Ukraine and returned full of praise for its fight for independence in spite of Russia’s efforts to destabilize the country and annex some of its regions. And in June, coincidentally just before Mr. Trump announced his campaign for the Republican nomination, they met with Ukraine’s prime minister in Washington — one of many meetings I attended as a senior aide to the House Republican Conference.
As the presidential race wore on, some of those leaders began to see parallels between Russia’s disinformation operations in Ukraine and Europe and its activities in the United States. They were alarmed by the Kremlin-backed cable network RT America, which was running stories intended, they judged, to undermine Americans’ trust in democratic institutions and promote Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Deeply unsettled, the leaders discussed these concerns privately on several occasions I witnessed.
Some also questioned Mr. Trump’s attacks on Hispanics, Muslims, women and people with disabilities, or his positions on entitlement reform, discretionary spending and national security. Others were unnerved by his volatile temperament, egoism and authoritarian tendencies. In public, they occasionally offered light criticism of Mr. Trump’s most objectionable comments, but mostly remained silent for fear of antagonizing his supporters.
As Mr. Trump campaigned, his consistent affection for Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, and apparent defense of Russian intervention in Ukraine raised further concerns. In December 2015, on “Morning Joe,” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Putin, “He’s running his country and at least he’s a leader, unlike what we have in this country.” He also equated Mr. Putin’s murderous regime with the American government: “Our country does plenty of killing, also” — a remark he has repeated as president.
Suspect public comments like these led one senior Republican leader to dolefully inform his peers that he thought Mr. Trump was on the Kremlin’s payroll, suggesting that Mr. Trump had been compromised by Russian intelligence. Other leaders were surprised by their colleague’s frank assessment, but did not dispute it.
As Mr. Trump prevailed in state after state, the leaders came to terms with the possibility, then the likelihood, that he would win the nomination. During the process, most leaders had not endorsed a candidate and hoped that Mr. Trump would be stopped. By early May 2016, however, his victory appeared a fait accompli, placing them in an unenviable position. As senior leaders, opposing the outcome of the party contest was unthinkable.
Eventually, one by one, they all committed to supporting Mr. Trump, often simply saying they would support the nominee, conspicuously avoiding uttering Mr. Trump’s name. In a fascinating political metamorphosis, some even found reason to be excited about Mr. Trump.
They were understandably anxious to win back the White House to advance policy priorities and appoint conservative Supreme Court justices. Some believed that, despite his faults, Mr. Trump could bring the dramatic disruption they thought Washington needed. Others saw career opportunities in supporting Mr. Trump, who had yet to select a running mate and, if elected, would also make cabinet appointments.
Shockingly, some of the leaders most concerned about Russian subversion and Mr. Trump’s possible compromise were his first and most vocal supporters among congressional leaders — some publicly, some privately. It was an inauspicious trade of national security for political self-preservation and partisan ambition.
Now the leaders’ worst fears seem validated. Mr. Flynn has become the third Trump team member to step down over Russia-related issues, following the campaign chairman Paul Manafort and the foreign policy adviser Carter Page.
This plotline is unlikely to improve of its own accord, and America’s security is now at stake. For Republican leaders in Congress, there is no more room for cognitive dissonance. Instead, it is urgent that they recommit to patriotic prudence. They should demand that Attorney General Jeff Sessions appoint an independent special counsel to investigate Russia’s assault on American democracy and Mr. Trump’s possible collusion with the Kremlin.
At a minimum, they must establish a bipartisan special select committee with subpoena power in the House or the Senate for the same purpose. This job is too big and significant to be entrusted to the standing intelligence committees, which have critical tasks and limited staff. The nation must have accountability — including public hearings where possible — on these matters.
After their grand bargain to back Mr. Trump’s Moscow-assisted victory, congressional Republicans are now responsible for protecting the nation from its dangers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/opin ... .html?_r=0
HUMAN RIGHTS
The Trump Administration Is Giving Cops Unprecedented Power
Forget the white working class; his base is the Fraternal Order of Police.
By Nathalie Baptiste / AlterNet February 16, 2017
The Donald Trump administration is off to a rocky start, with multiple damaging reports emerging from the White House alleging disorganization, incompetence and infighting—but that hasn’t stopped the new president from making good on his pledges to the country’s police officers. By branding himself the law-and-order candidate who would use his bully pulpit to take down criminals and fight crime, Trump earned himself the support of several police groups, most notably the Fraternal Order of Police, the country’s largest police union, which boasts more than 330,000 members.
Trump has already met with several law enforcement groups to make it clear where his priorities lie. Recently, while speaking to the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association (and after whining about a federal judge ruling that blocked his Muslim ban), Trump launched into a speech about what he believes cops in this country care about: crime in cities populated with black people, Mexican drug cartels, undocumented immigrants, and his desire to build a wall along the Mexican border. During the speech he claimed that undocumented immigrants in gangs cause the problems in Chicago and that building a wall along our southern border would stop drugs from “pouring” into our country.
Two weeks after signing two orders on immigration, President Trump signed three orders on crime and law enforcement, including one that targeted transnational drug cartels. Although immigration and drug enforcement have their own federal agencies, many cops seemed eager to jump into the fray, setting the stage to begin rolling back modest gains made in holding police accountable.
One of President Trump’s first executive orders on immigration revived a program dubbed Secure Communities and promised to defund jurisdictions known as sanctuary cities that choose not to enforce federal immigration laws. (Notably, law enforcement officials would be exempt from losing funds.) Under Secure Communities, local authorities—like jail officials—would share fingerprints of the individuals arrested in their cities and towns with the FBI, who would then send the information along to the Department of Homeland Security to check if that person is eligible for deportation using Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s database. If ICE determines that the individual is eligible, the local authorities are instructed to hold that person in jail until ICE can transfer him or her to a detention center.
The federal government stated that the intent of the program was to target the most serious offenders, but the program was disbanded in 2014 after it led to widespread racial profiling of Latinos, arrests of people who committed low-level offenses, and people without criminal records. During the course of Secure Communities, multiple cities chose to opt out.
But despite widespread criticism of the program, some police officers are applauding its revival and the crackdown on sanctuary cities. The Fraternal Order of Police praised the administration’s actions, including the revocation of federal funds, alleging that communities are safer when local authorities comply with federal immigration officials.
While police unions appear eager to partner up with federal immigration officials, their relationship with the federal agency that handles investigations into police departments is much rockier. Ramping up Department of Justice investigations into police departments that violate the civil rights of the citizens they have sworn to protect is perhaps Obama’s greatest police reform achievement. Investigations usually end with court-ordered agreements dedicated to reform, sometimes called consent decrees. While these investigations are not a cure-all, it was a welcome change for many activists. But just days after the election, police departments started making noise about DOJ-mandated reforms.
The Cleveland Police Department entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice in 2015 after the DOJ issued a damning report on the police department the previous year; the head of the city’s police union, Steve Loomis, was not part of the agreement, but that hasn’t stopped him from inferring that Trump will help make changes to the consent decree. Loomis said that the Trump administration is “cognizant of the false narrative that’s out there and [will] be hesitant to make major decisions based on false narratives.” Days before the report was released, a white officer shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was playing with a toy gun in a park. No one was charged for his death.
But now the DOJ will be led by Jeff Sessions, the former Alabama attorney general and U.S. senator, who was deemed too racist to be a federal judge in 1986. The new attorney general voiced concerns about consent decrees at his Senate hearing for the position. Sessions seemed to play into the “few bad apples” rhetoric despite reports from Ferguson, Chicago and Baltimore pointing to the opposite. “These lawsuits undermine the respect for police officers,” he said, “and create an impression that the entire department is not doing their work consistent with fidelity to law and fairness.”
Since the inauguration, Americans across the country have taken to the streets to protest Donald Trump’s actions. While some law enforcement leaders want to see the Trump administration tackle mass incarceration and enhance community policing, many more cops are embracing the Trump era. The National Sheriffs’ Association and Major County Sheriffs’ Association released a joint statement after President Trump signed the three executive orders related to law enforcement. “We thank the President and welcome the nation's re-awakening of support for law enforcement, the rule of law, and the need to protect our borders and enhance the nation's criminal justice system.”
Cheering moves that enable cops to crack down on undocumented immigrants and alleged gang members but balking at the federal agency designed to rein in unaccountability signals deeper trouble up ahead.
http://www.alternet.org/human-rights/tr ... nted-power
by seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:30 pm
White House denies National Guard plan for deportations
The White House on Friday strongly denied an Associated Press report that the Trump administration is considering a plan to mobilize National Guard troops to arrest people living illegally in the U.S.
“There is no effort at all to round up, to utilize the National Guard to round up illegal immigrants,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said of the report, according to pool reports.
“That is 100% not true. It is false. It is irresponsible to be saying this.”
Spicer said he could not categorically say the idea was never discussed by the administration.
“I don’t know what could potentially be out there, but I know that there is no effort to do what is potentially suggested,” he said.
The AP, citing a draft memo, earlier Friday reported the White House is considering mobilizing as many as 100,000 National Guard troops across 11 states in an anti-illegal immigration effort. The memo was written by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, the report said.
A Homeland Security official acknowledged the memo’s existence, saying was a “very early, pre-decisional draft” that was never seriously considered, according to a Cox Media Group reporter.
Spicer said the draft memo AP referenced was “not a White House document.”
The AP says in its report that it sought comment from the White House and Department of Homeland Security on the story.
Trump promised during his campaign to form a “deportation force” to deport the more than 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally.
But it would be highly unusual for the National Guard, which is typically called up to respond to natural disasters or violent unrest, to carry out deportations.
Immigrant-rights groups said the plan would represent an inhumane militarization of immigration enforcement.
"We live in a democracy, not a dictatorship, and we believe in the rule of law, not the might of a strongman," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the liberal group America's Voice.
Some of the first steps Trump has taken in the early days of his presidency have been designed to ramp up deportations.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents rounded up nearly 700 undocumented immigrants in a five-day nationwide operation.
The Department of Homeland Security said 75 percent of those arrested were convicted criminals and that the apprehensions were in line with past practices.
But a directive issued by Trump during his first week in office expands the definition of criminals who are targeted for deportation to include those who entered the country illegally, which is a misdemeanor offense.
That's different from 2011 guidance issued by the Obama administration, which told immigration agents to prioritize recent arrivals, national security threats and serious criminals for deportation.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... o-round-up
by seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:45 pm
Voice
Trump Could Take Obama’s Drone War Further Into the Shadows
The new president has inherited his predecessor’s drone program but might ditch the rules that kept it in check.
* BY MICAH ZENKO FEBRUARY 2, 2017 *
Lost amid coverage of President Donald Trump’s harmful executive orders and the “alternative facts” proclaimed by his spokespeople is the targeted killing program he inherited from Barack Obama. Those wondering whether Trump would have qualms about using armed drones already have their answer. On the first, second, and third day of his presidency, Trump authorized drone strikes in central Yemen. These operations cumulatively killed five suspected members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), according to the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).
Trump has already demonstrated his clear willingness to utilize this awesome lethal program. We’ll soon know whether he also plans to adhere to the principles and processes for the use of drones detailed by Obama — and what that decision will mean for the effectiveness of the drone program.
Drone strikes in non-battlefield settings (Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan) were a fundamental component of Obama’s foreign-policy legacy, both because of his unprecedented expansion of their use and because of his unexpected (but minimal) reforms in terms of accountability and transparency. Indeed, the Obama administration deserves credit for trying to create a lasting policy and legal framework to govern the use of lethal drones. This effort began during the 2012 presidential campaign, with the development of formal standards and procedures (dubbed the “playbook”) designed to constrain a more hawkish prospective Mitt Romney administration. The discussion, which involved exhaustive interagency debates, continued long after the 2012 election. In December 2016, the Obama administration finally published a 61-page compendium of decision-making processes and standards for targeted killings.
Fully capturing these reforms, and assessing whether they would endure into the Trump presidency, requires talking to people with firsthand insight into their drafting and implementation. Late last year, I convened 20 outside experts and government officials (both former and, at the time, current) who worked on or studied drone strikes for an off-the-record discussion. (A summary of the discussion is available here.) Four fundamental themes emerged.
First, participants unanimously agreed that the domestic legal underpinning for targeted strikes — the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force — had been stretched beyond the point of being credible. That law was written in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 but is now used to justify strikes against terror groups that either did not exist at the time of that attack, or are wholly unaffiliated with al Qaeda. One participant dubbed it a “failure of democracy and a legal time bomb.” Therefore, it was agreed that the Trump administration should propose, and Congress should pass, an updated authorization that includes the Islamic State. But there’s no initial indication Trump is interested in pursuing such an updated law.
Second, though generally supportive, participants noted that there are downsides to greater transparency about who can be targeted and how many noncombatants are killed in such operations. In particular, targeted terrorist groups are aware of when the United States will and will not launch attacks, and have therefore increasingly intermingled with civilian populations or used as human shields when traveling. In addition, the more the public knows about the standards applicable for drones, the more they may demand that similar standards are met for attacks using other weapons systems, such as artillery shelling and cruise missile strikes. That’s part of the reason why the Obama administration’s compendium of drone processes don’t include suggestions for greater transparency.
Third, meeting participants described the Obama administration’s approach as highly centralized and tailored for the president and his senior aides, particularly onetime counterterrorism czar and later CIA Director John Brennan. Obama was described as having a “legalistic mindset” that compelled him to scrutinize the evidentiary basis for individual strikes. Though nobody can know how carefully Trump — who has promised to both “eradicate radical Islamic terrorism” and avoid overseas commitments — intends to weigh evidence for proposed strikes, you might be able to guess. And this would mean there would be less apparent accountability at lower levels in the chain of command because it’s not clear who is weighing the evidence, if the buck doesn’t stop with the president. Indeed, commanders for Yemen are reportedly preparing to ask the White House for more direct authority over lethal counterterrorism operations, in a sign that they believe they should be empowered to conduct drone strikes and raids without sign-off from Washington.
Fourth, the participants broadly agreed that many of the Obama-era reforms would survive into the Trump administration, because explicitly removing them would be burdensome and could spur backlash from the national security bureaucracy. This would particularly be true for strikes conducted by the Joint Special Operations Command, because the standards and processes are now embedded within military doctrine passed on to new commanders and action officers. Regional military commanders are also aware that one Civilian Casualty “event” (an airstrike that causes civilian casualties) can greatly reduce a host-nation government’s cooperation for months at a time. However, several believed (or hoped) that the requirement that an individual pose a “continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons” in order to be targeted would be rescinded. Relaxing targeting standards, they said, would provide the flexibility needed to counter increasingly networked adversaries.
The Trump administration is clearly undecided about some aspects of its lethal counterterrorism operation policies. White House spokesman Sean Spicer, when asked about the Jan. 29 Navy SEAL raid in Yemen, flatly declared, “No American citizen will ever be targeted.” Hours later, an anonymous official reversed this position: “U.S. policy regarding the possible targeting of American citizens has not changed.” I have been told by an involved U.S. government official that all aspects of American counterterrorism strategy, including non-battlefield drone strikes, will be formally reviewed and revised in due time. In light of the tragic raid, which killed AQAP operatives as well as a Navy SEAL and an unknown number of civilians — amazingly acknowledged by CENTCOM only after a three-day delay — it’s easy to imagine Trump deciding to follow Obama in relying more heavily on drone strikes than manned raids.
Some policy incoherence can be forgiven in the first weeks of a new administration. But the past two weeks — during which Trump signed a slew of executive orders and presidential memos apparently without consulting or notifying the affected agencies, let alone Congress — do not bode well for those hoping for a careful consideration of drone program rules inherited from the Obama administration, much less a concerted pursuit of new reforms.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/02/the ... terrorism/
by seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 17, 2017 2:01 pm
Ex-CIA chief says there is a White House battle for Trump's mind
US President Donald Trump is seen as a wild card who can shift between sides because he does not have deeply held policy ...
US President Donald Trump is seen as a wild card who can shift between sides because he does not have deeply held policy views. Bloomberg
by Emma Connors
Just when you think dealing with a Trump White House couldn't get any more difficult, word from one who knows the Oval office well is that Australia, and indeed all of America's allies, might have to try a bit harder. Why? Well, peace in our time might depend upon it.
Michael Morell was a CIA man for 33 years. He rose to the rank of deputy director and was acting director twice. He served six presidents, was with George Bush during 9/11 and by Barack Obama's side when Osama Bin Laden was killed. And in more recent months, he has enjoyed speaking out.
Before the election, Morell declared Donald Trump unqualified to be president and endorsed Hillary Clinton. He later described then President-elect Trump's war of words with the CIA as a danger for the nation.
Clearly, Morell is not likely to be offered a position any time soon in the Trump administration. But, as a professional spook with career-advancing skills in decoding motives, he knows how decisions are made in Washington's inner sanctum. On Monday night, in a lively conversation event at the Lowy Institute in Sydney, he suggested those who hold the liberal international order dear should give thanks Michael Flynn had resigned as President Trump's national security adviser.
Morell told his audience he believed US foreign policy was now vacillating between two "poles" and a wild card. On one pole are the economic and cultural nationalists: chief strategist Steve Bannon and speechwriter and senior policy adviser Steve Miller who believe, Morell said, that America's "Judeo Christian heritage and Judeo Christian values are under threat from Islam – not Islamic extremism but Islam itself – and from China".
On the other pole are secretary of state Rex Tillerson, secretary of defence James Mattis, director of the CIA Mike Pompeo and director of national intelligence Dan Coats. This pole "is traditional US national security, lightly right-of-centre people, which sees Islamic extremism as the threat".
The wild card is the President, who can shift between the two sides because, in Morell's reckoning, Trump does not have deeply held policy views.
Nationalist pole weaker
The departure of Mike Flynn weakens the nationalist pole and "potentially helps pull policy toward a more traditional view".
The two poles differ over Russia. The nationalists see Russia as a Christian ally while the traditional security view is that Russia is an adversary, trying to undermine American influence in the world.
Morell was fascinating on the Putin/Trump nexus, seeing in Putin's stroking of Trump a skilled intelligence hand at work ("We saw Putin identifying Trump's narcissism and ego and playing to it"). Certainly Flynn's conversation with the Russian ambassador (and the subsequent cover-up) has deepened the sense there is a lot more iceberg to uncover when it comes to Russia's reach into Trump's circles. This is a geopolitical saga studded with personal foibles, a story stitched into the fabric of the Trump administration and it's hard to tear your eyes away.
But possibly of more pressing interest to Australia is Morell's view on the tug of war under way over China.
In one corner are the economic nationalists who are focused on the voters who believed Trump when he told them China had taken their jobs, and who see China as an enemy. The more traditional pole, according to Morell, is "focused on China as a strategic power and on managing the US relationship with China in a way that leads to more stability rather than less stability. That relationship is the critical issue facing US foreign policy for the next 25 years. The Tillersons, the Mattises and the Pompeos understand that."
How the struggle between these two camps will play out – and where the wild card will land – is anybody's guess. But Morell had some advice on how we could help. Step one is to put regional threats high on the agenda.
"Our allies can be an influence, they can pull the US in the right direction and I strongly encourage them to do that. In Australia's case, that would mean not only talking about the immense value of the relationship but also the threats that both of us face here in east Asia."
We are still only in week four of the Trump White House and clearly everyone is still struggling to work out the best approach to working with this administration. No doubt Australian ministers and officials are hoping the views of traditionalists such as Tillerson and Mattis will hold sway with the President. But as Prime Minister Turnbull discovered on the phone recently, you never know when the wild card will be dealt.
http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/e ... z4Yy03frlS
by seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 17, 2017 3:39 pm
82_28 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:32 pm wrote:Word is is that "Mad Dog Mattis" is resigning because Trump is too crazy. Stay tuned!
NEWS & POLITICS
Armed Services Committee Democrat: Gen. Mattis Might Resign Because Trump 'Is So Crazy'
Moulton also talked about the problem with Trump’s immigration ban as it impacts some of the Arab translators that helped soldiers like him overseas.
By Sarah K. Burris / Raw Story February 17, 2017
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA), who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, told MSNBC’s Greta Van Susteren that he’s worried President Donald Trump’s Sec. of Defense James Mattis will eventually resign because “his boss is so crazy.”
“It seems like Democrats and Republicans like Mattis,” Van Susteren noted.
Mattis has worked under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
“We’re lucky to have Mattis there,” Moulton said. “He’s one of the only sane people in the administration. My only concern with Gen. Mattis is that he’s going to resign because his boss is so crazy.”
Moulton also talked about the problem with Trump’s immigration ban as it impacts some of the Arab translators that helped soldiers like him overseas.
He “is putting lives of our troops in danger about his action,” Moulton said. “His Muslim travel ban is hurting our — I have to work with these translators overseas.”
Earlier this week, Moulton attacked Gen. Michael Flynn and Trump’s administration for lying about Russian contacts. “That’s the definition of treason,” Moulton told CNN about the Trump administration.
Sources said late Thursday that retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward has turned down Trump’s offer to serve as National Security Council chair. According to CNN’s Jake Tapper, Harward sees the White House as “too chaotic” and called the offer “a sh*t sandwich.”
Moulton is a former Marine who fought in the Iraq War.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politi ... p-so-crazy
by crikkett » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:07 pm
Trump turns Mar-a-Lago Club terrace into open-air situation room
How a Trump national security meeting ended up on social media Play Video2:29
The Post’s David A. Fahrenthold looks at how President Trump’s approach to national security compares with his campaign rhetoric. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)
By David A. Fahrenthold and Karen DeYoung February 13
It was Saturday night, and Palm Beach’s tony Mar-a-Lago Club was packed. There was a wedding reception in the ballroom. There was a full house for dinner on the terrace.
And at one table on the terrace, there was the president and the leader of a major U.S. ally, hashing out a national security problem in the open air.
“Someone opened up a laptop, and at the table . . . a group of Japanese people stood around the prime minister and Donald, and they were all looking at the laptop,” said Jay Weitzman, a member of President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and founder of the Pennsylvania-based parking management company Park America. He was sitting three tables away from Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Saturday evening.
“Whoa,” Weitzman remembered thinking. “What’s going on?”
“Turns out, it was a missile launch,” he said Monday.
Richard DeAgazio's post on Facebook.
As Weitzman and other patrons watched Saturday evening, Trump and Abe remained at the table and discussed their response to a ballistic missile test by North Korea. While waiters came and went — and while one club member snapped photos — the two leaders reviewed documents by the light of an aide’s cellphone.
That strange scene — in which Trump turned his table into an al fresco situation room — astounded White House veterans, who were used to presidents retiring to private, secured settings to hash out such an event.
Trump became president, in part, because of Democrat Hillary Clinton’s neglect of information security. During the 2016 campaign, Trump repeatedly called for Clinton to be jailed — and his crowds at rallies often chanted “Lock her up!” — for her use of a private email server to handle government business while she was secretary of state.
Now, Trump is drawing fire from Democrats for his own seemingly loose attitude toward information security. He has continued to use an insecure cellphone, according to the New York Times. He may have left a key to classified information on his desk while visitors were in the Oval Office, according to a tweet from a Democratic senator.
And now, Trump has used his bustling club in Palm Beach, Fla., as a “winter White House,” except that, unlike the actual White House, the club is full of other people.
Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, told reporters Monday that “no classified material” was shared at the table at Mar-a-Lago and that Trump had been briefed in a secure location both before and after dinner.
The scene was first described by CNN. On Monday, Democrats blasted Trump for his handling of the moment.
See what President Trump has been doing since taking office
View Photos The new president is expected to make his mark on an aggressive legislative agenda.
“There’s no excuse for letting an international crisis play out in front of a bunch of country club members like dinner theater,” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), the leader of House Democrats, wrote in a tweet.
Separately, two Senate Democrats from the Homeland Security Committee, Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Thomas R. Carper (Del.), wrote to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who oversees the agency that protects the president’s communications. McCaskill and Carper said they were concerned about media reports that Trump is still using his old Android phone to send Twitter messages.
McCaskill and Carper said that if a foreign power was able to hack that phone, it could be turned into an always-on listening post in the president’s pocket.
“The national security risks of compromising a smartphone used by [the president] are considerable,” the senators wrote.
Last week, Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) tweeted an Associated Press photo showing Trump with the chief executive of Intel standing by a stack of papers on Trump’s desk along with a black bag and a key in sight. “Never leave a key in a classified lockbag in the presence of non-cleared people,” Heinrich wrote.
It is hard to recall any other instance in recent U.S. history when the president seemed to handle an urgent national security matter in a public place.
On Sept. 11, 2001, of course, President George W. Bush learned of that day’s terrorist attacks while he was reading a book to children at a Florida elementary school. Bush continued reading for at least five minutes before being whisked away on Air Force One to a secure location.
In Barack Obama’s White House, two former aides said, a situation like the North Korean missile test might have been handled similarly: the president would be given a note with the news, then taken to a secure room to discuss a response.
Pete Souza, who was Obama’s White House photographer, posted a photo Monday that showed Obama huddling with national security advisers in a private space during a 2011 trip to El Salvador.
“When we were on the road, national security discussions and head of state phone calls were conducted in a private, secure location set up on-site. Everyone had to leave their Blackberry outside the area,” Souza wrote.
The Mar-a-Lago Club, which Trump has run since 1995, includes tennis and beach facilities for its members and rents its ballroom out for weddings and galas open to nonmembers.
Trump has an apartment at the club. Club members said that the president seems at ease there, among people who have known him for years — and away from the protests and stresses of his new job. “He’s in a safe space,” said Mar-a-Lago member Robin Bernstein, an insurance executive.
Saturday night, as guests streamed into Mar-a-Lago for dinner and the wedding reception, a parking lot near the club had been converted into a security-check area for vehicles entering the estate. A string of BMWs, Mercedes and other high-end vehicles were backed up waiting to get through the checkpoint, which was staffed by Secret Service agents and officers from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office.
Inside the club, Trump and Abe entered the dining terrace to a standing ovation, club members told The Washington Post. The two leaders and their wives sat down on the noisy terrace, among other diners.
Richard DeAgazio, a retired investor and club member from the Boston area, was about six tables away. Already that day, his status as a Mar-a-Lago member had given him unprecedented access to the president: He had snapped pictures of Trump and Abe golfing and taken a photo with White House strategist Stephen K. Bannon.
During dinner, DeAgazio got a text: a friend asking him if he was aware of the North Korean missile test.
He looked over at the president’s table.
“That’s when I saw things changing, you know,” DeAgazio recalled in a telephone interview. DeAgazio said a group of staffers surrounded the two world leaders: “The prime minister’s staff sort of surrounded him, and they had a little powwow.”
As Trump and Abe turned their dinner table into an impromptu situation room, DeAgazio continued taking pictures, and he posted them on Facebook that night.
[Should President Trump be spending weekends at Mar-a-Lago?]
“The President receiving the news about the Missile incident from North Korea on Japan with the Prime Minister sitting next to him,” DeAgazio wrote as the caption for a photo he posted on Facebook at 9:07 p.m. Eastern time Saturday.
“HOLY MOLY !!!” De Agazio wrote later, posting more photos of the scene. “Wow . . . the center of the action!!!”
DeAgazio told The Post that after Trump and Abe had spoken for a few minutes, they left the open terrace and spent about 10 minutes in private before conducting a joint news conference at about 10:30 p.m. Later, he said, Trump and first lady Melania Trump returned to listen to music on the terrace, which faces the Intracoastal Waterway, and shake hands and schmooze with members and guests at the club — all of whom had paid Trump’s business to be there (or been paid-for by their hosts).
DeAgazio said he was impressed with how the president handled the situation.
“There wasn’t any panicked look. Most of the people [on the terrace] didn’t even realize what was happening,” DeAgazio said. “I thought he handled it very calmly, and very presidentially.”
[Trump ran a campaign based on intelligence security. That’s not how he’s governing.]
Weitzman, the parking garage entrepreneur, said he didn’t notice any weariness or concern in the president’s face, even after the news from North Korea. He said Trump was jovial: The president, for instance, complimented Weitzman’s son-in-law on his recent weight loss.
“It’s amazing,” Weitzman said. “You know, the president of the United States comes over and says, ‘You lost a little weight. How ya doing?’ ”
DeAgazio, the Boston retiree, said he was impressed that Trump had not gotten up from the table immediately when the North Korean news broke.
“He chooses to be out on the terrace, with the members. It just shows that he’s a man of the people,” DeAgazio said.
Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
Sign up
Membership at the Mar-a-Lago Club now requires a $200,000 initiation fee — a fee that increased by $100,000 after Trump was elected.
DeAgazio said he wasn’t worried about the national security implications of Trump’s al fresco discussion with Abe. He said he was sure they had not been overheard.
“You don’t hear anything. You can’t hear” because of the background music and other diners’ chatter, DeAgazio said. “I mean, I can barely hear what’s going on at my table.”
This story has been updated to correct the amount of time former president George W. Bush continued reading to school children after being informed of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
John Wagner, Philip Bump and Abby Phillip contributed to this report.
by 82_28 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:37 pm
by Heaven Swan » Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:54 pm
by seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:07 pm
Alt Dept of State
@AltStateDpt
Follow
More
RT- Today's news conference & coverage is not chaos. It's careful strategy. Please read & share w/ anyone in the #Resistance. Be prepared.
https://twitter.com/AltStateDpt
Trump Team Denies Report On National Guard, Then Admits It Was Based On A Real Document
The leak was real, but the reporting on it was “false,” according to the administration.
President Donald Trump’s administration labeled The Associated Press’s reporting on a leak “100 percent false” on Friday morning, only to acknowledge less than an hour later that the story was based on a real document.
The administration’s response mimicked Trump’s remark a day earlier that even if leaks coming out of the government are “real,” the news is “fake.” And it also fit into what appears to be a pattern of ignoring reporters’ requests for comment, only to push back quickly after stories are published.
At 10:12 a.m., The AP tweeted that the administration was considering using as many as 100,000 National Guard troops “to round up” undocumented immigrants. The news organization soon published a full story, attributing the details of the possible plan to a 11-page draft memo it had obtained.
The White House and Department of Homeland Security failed to respond to the AP’s requests for comment prior to publication, the news organization noted. But immediately after the AP published its explosive story, the White House and DHS denied it.
“Not true,” Michael Short, a senior assistant to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, tweeted at 10:26 a.m. A DHS spokeswoman said it was “not true” 10 minutes later.Bradd Jaffy ✔@BraddJaffy
Homeland Security spokeswoman tells NBC News: "That AP story about the National Guard is incorrect. It's not true."
9:36 AM - 17 Feb 2017
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters aboard Air Force One that the AP report was “100 percent not true,” according to a pool report distributed to reporters at 10:40 a.m.
“I wish you guys had asked before you tweeted,” Spicer told reporters.
An AP reporter responded that the news organization had sought comment “multiple times before publication,” according to the pool report.
At 10:43 a.m., Spicer himself tweeted that the AP story was “not true” and that “DHS confirms it is 100% false.” He responded similarly to another reporter asking about it two minutes later.Sean Spicer ✔@PressSec
Not true. 100% false https://twitter.com/tamarakeithnpr/stat ... 4215012353 …
9:45 AM - 17 Feb 2017
1,814 1,814 Retweets 3,784 3,784 likes
A Cox Media Group producer tweeted at 11:03 a.m. that a DHS official said the memo cited by the AP was “a very early” draft and “was never seriously considered.”
The White House and DHS could’ve clarified that the draft wasn’t being seriously considered by the administration prior to publication, as journalists noted on Twitter.
The administration’s failure to respond left people to speculate about its motives.Nate Silver ✔@NateSilver538
Because then they can decry the press for reporting "fake news". White House has used this tactic several times already. https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/ ... 2167007233 …
9:48 AM - 17 Feb 2017
2,106 2,106 Retweets 2,276 2,276 likes
Arizona State journalism professor Dan Gilmor also questioned the administration’s complete denial of the contents of the document, since the document does exist.Dan Gillmor ✔@dangillmor
If the memo exists the story isn't "100 percent false." But was govt refusal to comment ahead of story aimed at discrediting press?
10:12 AM - 17 Feb 2017
29 29 Retweets 42 42 likes
Journalists have complained recently that the Trump administration, which frequently decries “fake news,” often fails to respond to requests for comment that would allow reporters to include the administration’s perspective or denials in the original story.
When Trump claimed at Thursday’s press conference that journalists don’t call before publishing stories, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman responded that she doesn’t get her “emails returned from Spicer or [deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee] Sanders, but I reach out.”
Her Times colleague, Glenn Thrush, echoed that sentiment in response to Trump’s claims.
“We call and email the White House all the time,” he tweeted. “They often don’t answer.”
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story misstated that Spicer spoke to reporters aboard Marine One. He was aboard Air Force One.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tru ... cd34c15611
by seemslikeadream » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:18 pm
Was Trump Warned That Flynn Misled the FBI?
Flynn’s interview prompted a warning to the White House. Was Trump not told, or does he not care?
By William Saletan
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference announcing Alexander Acosta as the new Labor Secretary nominee in the East Room at the White House on February 16, 2017 in Washington, DC.
President Trump said at his news conference Thursday at the White House that nothing he’d heard had made him think Flynn was guilty of more than misleading Pence.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
Did Sally Yates, then the acting attorney general, warn White House Counsel Don McGahn on Jan. 26 that National Security Adviser Mike Flynn had misled the FBI? Did McGahn relay that warning to President Trump? And did Trump decide it wasn’t legally problematic or serious enough to oust Flynn? That sequence needs to be investigated now that the Washington Post has disclosed what Flynn apparently told the FBI.
Here’s the basic story. On Dec. 29, Flynn had a phone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. According to U.S. intercepts of the call, Flynn told Kislyak that the incoming Trump administration would review sanctions that had just been imposed on Russia by the Obama administration for interfering in the election that installed Trump. Two weeks after the call, around Jan. 13 or 14, Flynn told the White House that he and Kislyak hadn’t talked about the sanctions. Based on this misinformation, Vice President Mike Pence and White House press secretary Sean Spicer publicly denied that the sanctions had been discussed.
Intelligence and FBI officials had seen a secret report on the intercepts of the call. They knew Flynn had misled Pence and Spicer. They wanted to warn the White House. They had three concerns. One was that Flynn’s offer to review the sanctions might have violated the Logan Act, an old law that prohibits private citizens (which Flynn was at the time) from meddling in diplomacy. A second concern was that Russia could blackmail Flynn, since it knew the story he had told Pence was false. A third concern was that Pence needed to know he was being deceived.
But that wasn’t enough for FBI Director James Comey. According to a Washington Post report from Tuesday, Comey told Yates, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that before they alerted the White House, they needed something more:
On Obama’s last full day in office, Jan. 19, Clapper and Brennan made the case to Comey for informing the Trump team about Flynn. The FBI director pushed back primarily on the grounds that notifying the new administration could complicate the agency’s investigation. The bureau, Comey also insisted, shouldn’t be “the truth police,” according to an official familiar with his thinking at the time. “In other words, if there’s not a violation of law here, it’s not our job to go and tell the vice president that he’s been lied to.”
In the days following Trump’s inauguration, FBI agents interviewed Flynn about his calls with Kislyak. That removed the basis for Comey’s earlier objection to notifying the White House, current and former officials said. It is unclear whether Flynn gave the agents an accurate account of his calls with Kislyak. If not, officials said he could find himself in serious legal jeopardy.
The implication of these two paragraphs seems clear: The FBI interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24 to meet Comey’s standard. The interview produced the requisite violation of the law. The Post’s Thursday update indicates that the violation was Flynn’s false denial. The Post notes that Flynn “followed his denial to the FBI by saying he couldn’t recall all of the conversation,” and a CNN report posted Friday morning says that after the agents “challenged” Flynn, he said he didn’t remember. The FBI decided the interview wasn’t enough of a basis to prosecute Flynn. But according to both CNN and the Post, it was enough to satisfy Comey that Yates could warn the White House.
Somewhere in this chain of events, something went horribly wrong.
So she did. According to a Tuesday briefing by Spicer, on Jan. 26 Yates “informed the White House Counsel that they wanted to give a ‘heads up’ to us” about Flynn’s deception. The Post reported that Yates’ warning to McGahn included something Spicer didn’t mention in his Tuesday briefing: the danger that Flynn was “vulnerable to Russian blackmail.”
It’s not clear what Yates told McGahn, if anything, about the FBI interview. Maybe, to protect the Flynn investigation, she didn’t mention it. But it would be odd to delay warning the White House for lack of a crime, then send agents to interview Flynn to produce that crime, and then not mention or at least allude to that crime in the warning. Spicer says that at the time, Yates “could not confirm there was an investigation.” That remark by Spicer suggests that Yates withheld explicit confirmation but that something in her words made McGahn suspect Flynn was in legal trouble with the FBI and that the bureau had begun taking its usual steps, which would include an interview.
If McGahn knew or suspected that the FBI had interviewed Flynn, the next question is what McGahn told Trump. According to Spicer’s account, McGahn briefed Trump and his senior advisers “immediately” (not including Pence, apparently) and, at Trump’s direction, “undertook an extensive review” that included studying “materials” and interrogating Flynn “on several occasions based on information that was provided.” Spicer acknowledged that as part of this process, there was “communication between the Department of Justice and the White House Counsel’s Office.” But he refused to say what that entailed. The bottom line, said Spicer, was that Trump concluded “Gen. Flynn did not do anything wrong, and the White House Counsel’s review corroborated that.”
At his press conference Thursday, Trump said nothing he had heard from McGahn made him think Flynn was guilty of more than misleading Pence. Trump recalled that the “information” had come from Yates, the acting attorney general, and that “I was a little surprised, because I said, ‘Doesn’t sound like he did anything wrong.’ ” Trump was asked whether the White House had looked at transcripts of the intercepts or other evidence, but he didn’t answer. When a reporter asked why Trump had kept Pence in the dark about McGahn’s information for nearly two weeks, Trump replied: “Because when I looked at the information, I said, ‘I don’t think he [Flynn] did anything wrong.’ ”
Somewhere in this chain of events, something went horribly wrong. One possibility is that Yates, having secured Comey’s approval to brief McGahn based on Flynn’s false statements to the FBI agents, didn’t mention those statements to McGahn. Another possibility is that McGahn, having received at least a strong signal from Yates that Flynn had misled the FBI, didn’t tell Trump. A third possibility is that McGahn told Trump, and Trump didn’t care. One of these scenarios must be true. To find out, we need to put these people, and perhaps those around them, under oath.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... e_fbi.html
by SonicG » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:26 pm
Defense Secretary James Mattis on Thursday said that there was "very little doubt" Russia has attempted to interfere in democratic elections in the past.
"There is very little doubt that they have either interfered or attempted to interfere in a number of elections in democracies," Mattis said while answering questions at NATO headquarters in Brussels.
He added that he does not feel compelled to respond to Russian officials who were not pleased with his call to deal with Moscow from a position of strength.
"I have no need to respond to the Russian statement at all. NATO has always stood for military strength and protection of democracies and the freedoms we intend to pass on to our children," he said.
Mattis maintained that Russia needs to "live by international law" and "prove itself" when it comes to its international commitments.
http://thehill.com/policy/international ... -elections
US Defense Secretary James Mattis said Thursday that the US is"not in a position right now" to collaborate with Russia on military matters.
Speaking at a NATO conference in Brussels, Mattis accused Russia of violating international law, labeling its actions as "aggressive" and "destabilizing."
Mattis, who spoke of the need to negotiate with Russia "from a position of strength" on Wednesday, was cool on any prospect of working with Moscow.
"We are not in a position right now to collaborate on the military level, but our political leaders will engage and try to find common ground," he said Thursday.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/16/polit ... operation/
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests
