More stories

  • in

    'Unmasking' inquiry ordered by Barr finds no wrongdoing by Obama officials – report

    A federal prosecutor handpicked by the attorney general, William Barr, to investigate whether Obama administration officials had mishandled classified intelligence relating to the Russia investigation has wrapped up his work without finding wrongdoing or considering charges, according to the Washington Post.The conclusion of an investigation by US attorney John Bash into the so-called “unmasking” of names in intelligence reports by Obama officials was seen as a defeat for Donald Trump and Barr, who appeared to be fishing for damaging information that could be used against former vice=president Joe Biden.“Unsurprising. What a politically-driven waste of [justice department] resources,” tweeted Sam Vinograd, an adviser to the national security council under Barack Obama.A second federal investigation launched by Barr into Obama-era investigations of Russian election tampering, in this case led by US attorney John Durham of Connecticut, likewise has failed to bear political fruit before the presidential election.Durham continues to investigate the origins of investigations into Russian election meddling and Trump campaign contacts with Russian operatives. Trump asserts the Trump-Russia investigation was a political hit job.But the Russia investigation, led by special counsel Robert Mueller resulted in the indictment of 34 individuals and criminal charges against half a dozen Trump associates, including multiple guilty pleas.Barr told a group of Republican lawmakers earlier this year that Durham would not file a report – much less any charges – before the presidential election, dashing what appeared to be increasingly desperate hopes inside the Trump administration for a Biden-related scandal.Officials in the executive branch routinely move to “unmask” names in classified intelligence documents in order to better understand the documents, the Post reported.The “unmasking” conducted during the Obama administration revealed that former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a key figure in the 2016 Trump campaign, was in the crosshairs of the Russia investigation, which had picked up contacts between Flynn and Russian operatives that Flynn later lied about.That revelation proved to be politically damaging to Trump. The emergence of Flynn’s deep ties to Russian operatives, which he later admitted falsely denying, led to his resignation as national security adviser and was an early blow for the Trump administration.Trump at the time asked the then FBI director, James Comey, to “go easy” on Flynn, in a scene that would become a central piece of evidence against Trump in Mueller’s investigation of possible obstruction of justice by the president.That investigation would in turn fuel demands for Trump’s impeachment, after it was revealed that the US president had pressured the Ukrainian president to generate negative headlines about Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.Trump was impeached in December 2019, and acquitted by the Senate in early 2020, but the key players in the scheme that led to his impeachment remained active in trying to fabricate a scandal attached to Biden’s son in advance of the election. More

  • in

    Donald Trump v the United States review: how democracy came under assault

    Now disgraced, Jerry Falwell Jr once announced that Donald Trump was entitled to an extra two years on the job as “reparations” for a “failed coup”, meaning the Mueller investigation. Joe Biden has gone so far as to predict the president will try to steal the election.Trump and his backers openly speak of four terms in office. “If you really want to drive them crazy, say 12 more years,” the president cackles, despite express constitutional strictures to the contrary.Even as doubts surrounding its legitimacy grow, the election assumes ever greater significance. Michael Schmidt’s first book is aptly subtitled: “Inside the Struggle to Stop a President.”The Pulitzer-winning New York Times reporter chronicles what he has seen from his “front-row seat”. It was Schmidt who broke news of Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email while secretary of state, and of James Comey authoring a memo that detailed the president ordering him to end the FBI investigation of Gen Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser.Hindering Trump is one thing, stopping him something elseSchmidt argues persuasively that the Trump presidency has highlighted the fragility of American democracy, and that Trump views the rule of law as something for others. More precisely, the president believes prison is meant for his political adversaries but not so much for his convicted cronies and for himself, never. Schmidt documents how Trump sought to prosecute Clinton and Comey: literally and seriously.A central premise of Donald Trump v the United States is that those who have sought to thwart the president have failed. Comey is no longer FBI director, Gen John Kelly is no longer White House chief of staff. Donald McGahn, Trump’s first White House counsel, is back in private practice.Trump usually gets what he wants. Jared Kushner, for example, holds a “top secret” security clearance despite persistent objections from senior White House staff and the intelligence community. After all others refused, Trump personally granted his son-in-law his clearance. Hindering Trump is one thing, stopping him something else. Over on Capitol Hill, according to Schmidt, Trump has “routinely outflanked the Democratic lawmakers investigating him”, while Republican leaders have emerged as “Trump’s public defenders”. Career civil servants, including those at the Food and Drug Administration, are “maligned” as part of a ‘Deep State’.” So what if a pandemic rages?Similarly, Trump targets journalists as “fake news” and as “enemies of the people”, a term popularized by Joseph Stalin. As one administration insider has said, it’s all a “bit” reminiscent of the “late” Weimar Republic.Schmidt frames his book as a four-act play, Comey and McGahn the central actors, a quote from King Lear as prelude. Chapters weave context with drama, even as they inform.The reader is continuously reminded of how many days remained before a particular event, such as “Donald Trump is sworn in as president”, “the appointment of special counsel Robert S Mueller III” or the “release of the Mueller Report”. It difficult to forget what came next. Donald Trump v the United States is laden with direct quotes and attribution. It is credible and intriguing. Beyond that, it is also unsettling.Schmidt details McGahn’s cooperation with the special counsel. Here, he recalls a conversation for the ages, with McGahn while he was still White House counsel and Mueller’s investigation was months away from its end.“You did a lot of damage to the president,” Schmidt tells McGahn, minutes before a thunderstorm over the White House. “I understand that. You understand that. But [Trump] doesn’t understand that.”McGahn replies: “I damaged the office of the president. I damaged the office.”Schmidt parries: “That’s not it. You damaged him, and he doesn’t understand that.”Ultimately, McGahn responds: “This is the last time we ever talk.”On cue, the rain begins to fall.Equally vivid are exchanges between Comey and his wife, Patrice, she of a keener sense of peril. As he moved toward announcing the FBI’s determination surrounding Clinton’s emails, in late June 2016, she presciently warned: “This is going to be bad for you.”According to Schmidt, Patrice Comey also pleaded, “You’re going to get shot … you’re going to get slammed.” Months later, her husband would tell the Senate judiciary committee it made him “mildly nauseous to think we might have had some impact on the election”.The book also clears up the mystery of what happened to the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation, which if concluded would likely have examined Trump’s broader ties with Moscow. One day it was there, the next day it had vanished.Specifically, the special counsel’s report addressed conspiracy and obstruction of justice but did not discuss related counterintelligence issues. Schmidt reveals that we can blame that on Rod Rosenstein, then deputy attorney general.According to Schmidt, in the hand-off of the FBI investigation to Mueller, in the aftermath of the firing of Comey, Rosenstein deliberately narrowed the special counsel’s remit. The deputy attorney general directed Mueller to concentrate on criminality. Whether Trump was a Russian agent was not on the special counsel’s plate.According to Schmidt, Rosenstein “had foreclosed any deeper inquiry before investigation even began”. This is the same Rosenstein who in spring 2017 suggested he secretly record the president, and that the cabinet consider removing him from office.“The president had bent Washington to his will,” Schmidt writes.The question now is whether the electorate follows. America goes to the polls in little more than nine weeks. More

  • in

    William Sessions, FBI director fired by Bill Clinton, dies aged 90

    Appointed by Ronald Reagan, Sessions was fired in 1993 Former judge praised for commitment to affirmative action William Sessions testifies on Capitol Hill in 1995. Photograph: Charles Tasnadi/AP William Sessions, a former federal judge who was appointed by Ronald Reagan to head the FBI and fired by Bill Clinton, died on Friday at his San […] More