Trump-Russia investigation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

      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

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Disloyal review: Michael Cohen's mob hit on Trump entertains – but will it shift votes?

      by

      Michael Cohen is no saint. Aside from the obvious, Donald Trump’s former fixer has never entered into a formal cooperation agreement with federal prosecutors, a fact duly noted by the US attorneys’ office for the southern district of New York in its sentencing memorandum. Because of that, the “inability to fully vet his criminal history and reliability impact his utility as a witness”.On top of that, Cohen boasts in his memoir of his exposure to the mob as a teenager, and even compares his reception in federal prison to that accorded to Al Capone and El Chapo.Yes, it’s easy to distrust Cohen. On that score, Disloyal should be taken with more than a grain of salt. Its author is no hero.But that doesn’t make the book any less interesting. For all its black-hearted opportunism and self-aggrandizement, it delivers a readable and bile-filled take on Trump and his minions.What the book lacks in genuine contrition is made up for with score-settling and name-calling. Like Omarosa Manigault Newman before him, Cohen entertains, albeit at the expense of others: Don Jr, Jared Kushner, Roger Stone and Steve Bannon, for starters.Right off the bat, Cohen shares that the president lacks respect for his namesake. According to Cohen, Trump Sr would repeatedly tell him Donnie possessed the “worst fucking judgment” of anyone he had ever met. That’s saying something.Organized crime pervades the book, and Cohen does not sound at all disapprovingLikewise, asked by his oldest son if he is nervous about appearing in a televised wrestling match with the WWE impresario Vince McMahon, Trump Sr banishes him and comments: “What kind of stupid fucking question is that?”Humiliation is central to Trump and Cohen’s MOs – and it doesn’t end there.Shown a photo of his sons’ hunting escapades, Trump is angered, and again tears into his hapless offspring: “You think you’re a fucking big man? Get the fuck out of my office.” He sounds a lot like Tony Soprano. More important, he shared Melania’s displeasure over junior’s penchant for big-game hunting.As it happens, an earlier book by Ivana Trump recorded that it was she who wanted to call their son Donald Jr, to which Donald Sr replied: “You can’t do that!”His explanation: “What if he’s a loser?”Ivanka Trump is immune from the president’s derision. After all, Donald once told Howard Stern that if he weren’t her father, he’d have dated her. Cohen is not her dad, though, so is less hesitant in tattling on the favorite child.After writing about how Ivanka once joined him and his wife for lasagne dinners, Cohen recalls a brush with the law in connection with Trump Soho, an ill-fated condominium hotel in Manhattan, and Ivanka’s elaborate plans for Trump Moscow. Once again, the Trumps are caught in the headlights of the Manhattan district attorney.In Cohen’s telling, after first adopting a “hands-off policy” to the Russia project, Ivanka became enthusiastic when she learned the building would contain a health and wellness center named for her. She was prepared to hire the architect Zaha Hadid, discarding drawings supplied by Cohen.William Barr’s efforts to be Roy Cohn 2.0 – Trump’s consigliere in corridors of power Cohen could never reach – are realIn the end, Cohen laments, “all three kids were starved for their father’s love”.Jared Kushner also emerges worse for wear. Words like “inexperienced” and “unqualified” tumble on to the page. Cohen observes that “Kushner was supremely arrogant, a real snob” with an “exaggerated sense of his importance and intelligence”.Elsewhere, however, Cohen expresses admiration for macho swagger and strut. So confusing.Speaking of which, Disloyal offers a window into the president’s views of Vladimir Putin. Cohen records that on numerous occasions Trump told him the Russian president was “the richest man in the world by a multiple”.Trump is quoted explaining: “If you think about it, Putin controls 25% of the Russian economy … imagine controlling 25% of the wealth of a country. Wouldn’t that be fucking amazing.”Consistent with that take, Trump muses that a Russian oligarch who bought property from him was actually doing Putin’s bidding.“The oligarchs are just fronts for Putin,” Trump purportedly said. “That’s all they are doing – investing Putin’s money.” More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

      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

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump-Russia investigation: former CIA chief interviewed by US attorney

      by

      The former CIA director John Brennan was interviewed on Friday by US attorney John Durham’s team, as part of its inquiry into the investigation of Russian election interference in 2016.The interview took place at CIA headquarters and lasted eight hours, said Nick Shapiro, Brennan’s former deputy chief of staff and senior adviser.“Brennan was informed by Mr Durham that he is not a subject or a target of a criminal investigation and that he is only a witness to events that are under review,” Shapiro said in a statement.Brennan led the CIA as it and other agencies arrived at the conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump.Durham is continuing to examine how US intelligence officials reached that assessment, which Trump has long resisted.Brennan appeared voluntarily and has said he welcomed the chance to be questioned and had nothing to hide.“I look forward to the day when the truth is going to come out and the individuals who have mischaracterized what has happened in the past will be shown to have deceived the American people,” Brennan told MSNBC in May.Brennan offered Durham details on efforts to “understand and disrupt” Russia’s efforts to interfere in the election, and answered questions related to a “wide range of intelligence activities” undertaken by the CIA in the run-up to November 2016, Shapiro said.Brennan also answered questions about the January 2017 intelligence community assessment that blamed Russia for the interference. A spokesman for Durham declined to comment.Attorney general William Barr last year appointed the US attorney for Connecticut to examine decisions made by officials as they investigated ties between Trump and Russia.Exhaustive reports by special counsel Robert Mueller and the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee have detailed extensive ties between Russians and Trump associates during the 2016 campaign.But Barr has challenged the idea that the FBI had sufficient basis to open its counterintelligence investigation and empowered Durham to look at other agencies too.Brennan questioned why the CIA’s findings and tradecraft were being scrutinized, given that Mueller and the bipartisan Senate report validated the conclusions on Russian interference, Shapiro said.“Brennan also told Mr Durham that the repeated efforts of Donald Trump and William Barr to politicize Mr Durham’s work have been appalling and have tarnished the independence and integrity of the Department of Justice, making it very difficult for Department of Justice professionals to carry out their responsibilities.”A spokeswoman for the justice department declined to comment.Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump, testified before Congress in 2017 that he personally warned Russia against interfering in the election and was so concerned about its contacts with Trump’s campaign he convened top officials to focus on the issue.He told the House intelligence committee it “should be clear to everyone that Russia brazenly interfered in our 2016 present election process”, though he said he didn’t have enough information to know if it was colluding with the Trump campaign.“But,” he said, “I know there was a basis to have individuals pull those threads.”Mueller found that the Trump campaign embraced Russia’s help and expected to benefit from it, though he did not allege a criminal conspiracy.Durham brought his first criminal charge last week, against a former FBI lawyer accused of altering an email related to secret surveillance of former Trump adviser Carter Page. The attorney, Kevin Clinesmith, pleaded guilty to a false statement charge. More