‘Westinghouse, chemical weapons watchdog OPCW and FIFA were targeted’
WASHINGTON (TIP): The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday, October 4, indicted seven agents of Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency as part of a joint crackdown with allies Britain and the Netherlands on a series of major hacking plots attributed to Moscow.
The U.S. indictments were announced as Dutch security services said they had thwarted a Russian attack on the global chemical weapons watchdog, the OPCW, and after Britain blamed the GRU for plots that notably targeted the U.S. Democratic Party and world sport’s anti-doping authority
John Demers, U.S. Assistant Attorney General for National Security, confirmed that known attack targets included the OPCW, sports bodies including FIFA and the World Anti-doping Agency (WADA), as well as U.S. nuclear energy company Westinghouse.
“Nations like Russia and others that engage in malicious and norm-shattering cyber and influence activities should understand the continuing and steadfast resolve of the United States and its allies to prevent, disrupt and deter such unaccountable conduct,” Mr. Demers told a news conference.
“The defendants in this case should know that justice is very patient, its reach is long, and its memory is even longer,” he said.
The indictments include charges of money laundering, using virtual currencies like bitcoin, wire fraud and identify theft.
Mr. Demers said the operations “involved sophisticated, persistent and unauthorized access into the victims’ computer networks for the purpose of stealing private or otherwise sensitive information.”
While the latest case did not arise from Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian election meddling, it overlaps with it — including the identity of the individuals charged, Mr. Demers said.
In July, Mr. Mueller indicted 12 GRU officers, accusing them of interfering in the U.S. polls in 2016.
Canada confirmed on Thursday it believes itself to have been targeted by Russian cyber attacks, citing breaches at its center for ethics in sports and at the Montreal-based WADA.
Cyber aggressor
“The government of Canada assesses with high confidence that the Russian military’s intelligence arm, the GRU, was responsible” for these cyber attacks, the foreign ministry said in a statement.
Meanwhile, Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) termed Russia’s GRU a pernicious cyber aggressor.
GRU, Britain said, was almost certainly behind the BadRabbit and World Anti-Doping Agency attacks of 2017, the hack of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2016 and the theft of emails from a U.K.-based TV station in 2015.
“The GRUs actions are reckless and indiscriminate: they try to undermine and interfere in elections in other countries,” said British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt.
Though less well known than the Soviet Union’s once mighty KGB, Russia’s military intelligence service played a major role in some of the biggest events of the past century, from the Cuban missile crisis to the annexation of Crimea.
Though commonly known by the acronym GRU, which stands for the Main Intelligence Directorate, its name was formally changed in 2010 to the Main Directorate of the General Staff (or just GU). Its old acronym — GRU —is still more widely used.
WASHINGTON(TIP): The US has said it will impose fresh sanctions on Russia after determining it used nerve agent against a former Russian double agent living in the UK.
Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were left seriously ill after being poisoned with Novichok in Salisbury in March, though they have now recovered.
A UK investigation blamed Russia for the attack, but the Kremlin has strongly denied any involvement.
Russia has criticized the new sanctions as “draconian”.
In a statement released on Wednesday, August 8, the US State Department confirmed it was implementing measures against Russia over the incident.
Spokeswoman Heather Nauert said it had been determined that the country “has used chemical or biological weapons in violation of international law or has used lethal chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals”.
“The strong international response to the use of a chemical weapon on the streets of Salisbury sends an unequivocal message to Russia that its provocative, reckless behavior will not go unchallenged,” a UK Foreign Office statement said.
The Russian embassy in the US hit back on Thursday morning, criticizing what it called “far-fetched accusations” from the US that Russia was behind the attack.
Russia had become “accustomed to not hearing any facts or evidence”, it said, adding: “We continue to strongly stand for an open and transparent investigation of the crime committed in Salisbury.”
The new sanctions will take effect on or around 22 August and relate to the exports of sensitive electronic components and other technologies.
The State Department said “more draconian” sanctions will follow within 90 days if Russia fails to give reliable assurances it will no longer use chemical weapons and allow on-site inspections by the United Nations.
An official said it was only the third time that the US had determined a country had used chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals.
Previous occasions were against Syria and against North Korea for the assassination of Kim Jong-nam, the half-brother of leader Kim Jong-un, who died when highly toxic VX nerve agent was rubbed on his face at Kuala Lumpur airport.
Are these the only US sanctions against Russia?
No. In June the US imposed sanctions on five Russian companies and three Russian individuals in response to alleged Russian cyber-attacks on the US.
All are prohibited from any transactions involving the US financial system.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said the measures were to counter “malicious actors” working to “increase Russia’s offensive cyber-capabilities”.
After pressure from Republican members of Congress, the State Department has determined Moscow broke international law by using a military grade chemical weapon on the Skripals.
While the US expelled some five dozen diplomats shortly after the poisoning, the administration stopped short of making a formal determination that Russia had broken international law.
But Congress has been pushing for such a decision and now the state department has confirmed Russia’s actions contravened 1991 US legislation on the use of chemical weapons. That breach automatically triggers the imposition of sanctions and places requirements on Russia to avert further restrictions in three months’ time.
Those requirements could include opening up sites in Russia for inspection – a move Moscow would probably resist.
So far President Donald Trump has been silent on this latest move – which could well derail his attempts to develop a new, warmer relationship with Vladimir Putin.
Following the incident, the British government said the military-grade nerve agent Novichok, of a type developed by Russia, had been used in the attack.
Relations between Russia and the West hit a new low. More than 20 countries expelled Russian envoys in solidarity with the UK, including the US. Washington ordered 60 diplomats to leave and closed the Russian consulate general in Seattle.
Three months after the Salisbury attack, two other people fell ill at a house in Amesbury, about eight miles from the city. Dawn Sturgess later died while her partner, Charlie Rowley, spent three weeks recovering in hospital.
After tests, scientists at the UK’s military research lab, Porton Down, found the couple had also been exposed to Novichok.
Mr Rowley told ITV News he had earlier found a sealed bottle of perfume and given it to Ms Sturgess, who sprayed the substance on her wrists.
“Will some Republicans in Congress prove that they have spine by coming forward to initiate the process of impeachment of Trump? Any effort on the part of Democrats will get nowhere, because they are in a minority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The initiative should come from Republicans. They owe it to their country to act before it is too late. And they owe it to the Constitution which they are sworn to “support and defend … against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
President Donald Trump has already committed crimes that are impeachable under the U.S. Constitution. Apolitical Americans are demanding that he be impeached right away. Are there Republicans with spine in U.S. Congress who will initiate the process of impeachment without wasting any more time? They don’t have to wait until special counsel Robert S. Mueller III completes his investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election and into the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during that election.
The demand for Trump’s impeachment became louder in the wake of his disgraceful performance at the joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, in Helsinki, Finland, on July 16, 2018. Most Americans were appalled to see the president of their country fawning before the Russian dictator, who is also a murderous thug. They bowed their heads in shame when they heard the president challenge the findings of the intelligence community of his own country, in the presence of the man who has been implicated in those findings. Nothing comparable to that has ever happened in the history of their country, they all say.
The press conference followed a secret one-on-one meeting of the two leaders, with only two translators present. Except for some stooges of Trump, all Americans had expected him to cancel the hastily arranged meeting, because, only a week earlier, the Mueller investigation referred to above had taken a critical turn: It had indicted 12 officers of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence service, for their role in their country’s attack on America’s electoral system. The 29-page indictment detailed how these officers, at the behest of their president, hacked into the computers of over 300 people working for Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton and of the Democratic Party itself; stole thousands of emails and other documents; and used them to prepare anti-Clinton propaganda material. They opened fake social-media accounts to release the material to the public. (At this writing, Facebook, the social-media site that has the widest reach in the U.S., has announced the closing of 32 fake accounts and their respective web pages, on suspicion of being linked to Russians. The fake accounts were opened to disrupt the mid-term election that will take place in three months.) President Trump, who has been ridiculing the Mueller investigation as a “witch hunt” and the allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election as a “hoax,” paid no heed to the indictment and went ahead with the planned summit with his favorite Russian dictator.
Putin could not have asked for a better warm-up to the summit than the Twitter message Trump issued on the morning of the summit. In that message, he blamed the years of tension with Russia on the “foolishness and stupidity” of his own country, as well as the “Rigged Witch Hunt,” meaning the Mueller investigation. Americans are anxious to know what the two leaders discussed at their one-on-one secret meeting. What little they know so far came to them in dribs and drabs from the government-controlled Russian press, not from the free press of their own country. The free press of America, which is the envy of the rest of the world, is being attacked by Trump day in and day out. It puts out only “fake news,” he keeps saying, to the delight of Putin and his ilk. Does Mr. Trump know that an attack on the free press is an attack on the First Amendment rights enshrined in the Constitution, which he has sworn to “preserve, protect and defend.” The time will come when he will be made to pay a heavy price for this deplorable behavior. But the words he uttered at the press conference that followed the Helsinki meet and the way he conducted himself in the presence of the man, who ordered the attack on the democratic foundation of his own country, annexed Crimea, is supporting rebels in Ukraine and defending the murderous Assad regime in Syria, and has poisoned his opponents both at home and abroad, call for action right now.
Standing next to that man, Trump challenged the conclusion of the Justice Department, the intelligence community and both houses of the legislature of his own country. Their conclusion was that Russia had attacked the United States during the 2016 presidential election. The attack, which took the form of hacking into the digital devices used in the election, was called cyberattack. It was an attack on the very democratic foundation on which the country is built. As such, it was an attack on the country itself. Despite the irrefutable evidence of the attack contained in the indictment, Trump repeated his ridicule that the Mueller investigation was a “witch hunt,” this time in the presence of the man who necessitated it.
Putin, as was expected, denied that his country had anything to do with the hacking. But he did admit, in his answer to a reporter’s question, that he wanted Trump, and not his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, to win the election. The reason for his preference, he added, was that Trump had “talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.” To a follow-up question, put to Trump, as to whom he trusted more, Putin or his own intelligence community, Trump gave this reply: “I have confidence in both parties. I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”
That response, and his responses to many other questions, drew strong protests not only from Democrats, but from some Republicans as well. Some even characterized some of his words “treasonous” and called for his impeachment. Let’s examine whether those words rise to the level of treason.
“Treason” Under the U.S. Constitution
Under the U.S. Constitution, “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid or Comfort.”
Russia is the enemy and it has been waging war against the U.S. for some time now. As stated above, it is a new kind of war, something unheard of at the time the U.S. Constitution was written. The term used to refer to it is “cyberwar.” If it can be established that cyberwar falls within the purview of war as defined in the Constitution, President Trump’s performance in Helsinki was treasonous, and the demand for his impeachment is justified. He called Putin’s denial of the cyberwar “powerful;” praised him as a “good competitor,” hastening to add that “the word competitor is a compliment;” and denigrated his own country as “foolish” for allowing its relationship with Russia to deteriorate.
There was also a moment when he uttered something which even his lackeys back home found loathsome. He did it when Putin offered, while responding to a reporter’s question, to allow the Mueller team to interview the 12 Russians indicted by the special counsel, in exchange for allowing Russian investigators to interview Bill Browder and those close to him. Mr. Browder, a billionaire, born in the U.S. but now a British citizen (which fact Putin didn’t seem to know), has been at the top of the list of Putin’s foreign enemies for 10 years. Trump welcomed what Putin said as “an incredible offer.” If words like these don’t give comfort to an enemy, what will? The charge of treason leveled against Trump is a valid one.
How did Bill Browder make the list of Putin’s enemies? Browder himself has answered the question in an article, titled “Viewpoint: The View from the Top of Putin’s Enemies List,” published in the July 30, 2018, issue of TIME magazine: “Putin almost never utters the names of his enemies – except for mine, which lately seems to be very much on his mind. Why? Because I am the person responsible for lobbying the Obama Administration to pass the Magnitsky Act in 2012. The law allows the U.S. to freeze the assets and withhold the visas of people who are violating human rights in Russia. The act was named for my lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who was murdered in a Moscow jail in 2009 after uncovering a massive $230 million Russian government corruption scheme – one we have since traced to Putin’s cronies.”
Since the passage of the Magnitsky Act, Russia has been reeling from the punishing sanctions imposed on it by the Obama administration, and re-imposed by the Trump administration after a great deal of arm-twisting by both Democrats and Republicans. Several European allies of the U.S. have expressed solidarity with it by passing their own versions of the Magnitsky Act and imposing sanctions on Russia. Many other countries around the world are also in the process of taking similar steps. No wonder Putin detests Bill Browder. Browder’s TIMES article also gives a clue to why Trump did not have a word of a word of criticism for Putin and was obsequious toward him throughout the news conference.
Trump’s Links to Russian Oligarchs
Rumors have been rife that Donald Trump’s business activities in Russia were bankrolled by Russian oligarchs. Some of them could as well be “Putin’s cronies” that Browder referred to in his article. The fear of his questionable dealings with those cronies being exposed may be the reason behind Trump’s persistent refusal to release his tax returns. The same fear may be what stands in the way of his confronting Putin for the election meddling. That also explains his tirade against the Mueller investigation which, among other things, has been looking into Trump’s business activities in Russia.
We will know more about those activities and about Trump’s links to Russian oligarchs as the trial of his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, progresses. The trial, in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, has entered its second day as I write this. This is the first trial stemming from Mueller’s Russia probe, though the crimes Manafort is charged with have nothing to do with the Russian meddling in the U.S. election. He is charged with tax evasion and bank fraud. The 32 charges he is facing arose largely from his work as a political consultant in Ukraine.
The star prosecution witness in the case is Rick Gates, Manafort’s longtime partner in the political consultancy work, who had also worked as number two person in Trump’s presidential campaign, when Manafort was its chairman. He stayed on with the campaign even after Manafort was removed from it over his work in Ukraine. While Manafort decided to fight the charges against him, Gates pleaded guilty and offered to cooperate with the investigation. He is now one of the 35 prosecution witnesses.
Manafort’s main client in Ukraine was Viktor F. Yanukovych, the pro-Russian politician whom he helped to become president of Ukraine in 2010. Since his removal from power in February 2014, Yanukovych has been living in exile in Russia. Manafort also worked for some pro-Russian, pro-Yanukovych Ukrainian oligarchs. Payments for his work came through bank accounts in Cypress. Manafort’s defense team says that they were opened by the Ukrainian oligarchs who were his clients. Ukrainian oligarchs’ links to Russian oligarchs are well-documented. The possibility of some of them being linked to Donald Trump cannot be ruled out. Since the Manafort trial began, Trump has been going berserk. He and his attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, have intensified their tirade against the Mueller investigation. Trump has even asked attorney general Jeff Sessions to call off the investigation.
Russia’s Offer of “Dirt” on Hillary Clinton
The media was abuzz throughout last with a new revelation on the controversial meeting Donald Trump Jr. had with a Russian lawyer, at Trump Tower, New York, in June 2016. The lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, reportedly has strong ties to the Kremlin. The meeting was held in pursuance of an email Trump Jr. received from Veselnitskaya, offering some “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. The dirt was supposedly gathered by Russian intelligence. The meeting was attended by high-ranking officials of the Trump campaign, including chairman Manafort.
Donald Trump had said all along that he knew nothing about the meeting, held at his own New York residence, which was also his campaign headquarters at the time. Michael Cohen, his longtime personal lawyer, confidant and fixer, who fell out with him recently, threw a bombshell last week, saying that Trump was lying. He had prior knowledge of the meeting, Cohen said. If Cohen has concrete evidence to prove it, the Mueller investigation will be a step closer to proving that the Trump campaign did collude with Russia.
Among the numerous documents confiscated during the FBI raid, in April, on Cohen’s apartment in Manhattan were dozens of tapes containing recorded conversations between him and Trump. It was through the airing of one such tape that another lie of Trump’s got exposed. It pertained to his affair with Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, and payment to her of $150,000 as hush money to buy her silence about the affair. Until the tape, containing Trump’s conversation with his then-attorney Cohen about how to pay the money, was aired, Trump had kept denying that he had any affair with Ms. McDougal.
The McDougal story broke out in the wake of the controversy stirred by another Trump lie about his affair with another woman. The woman involved in this was is a pornographic film actress known as Stormy Daniels. The hush money paid to her was $130,000. Here again, the middleman was Michael Cohen. How Cohen raised the money to pay the porn star and what made her break the silence about the affair and expose another Trumpian lie were juicy topics of gossip in the media as well as in political circles. Though the controversy did not derail Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his presidency, he is not out of the woods yet. Stormy Daniels has taken the matter to court. Michael Avenatti, the attorney who represents her, also represents three other women who claim to have had affairs with Trump. All three, Avenatti said, were paid “hush money” before the 2016 election. We will hear more juicy stories when those cases go on trial.
Trump was shocked that that his own personal attorney had been secretly taping his conversations with him. He is also afraid that having been a longtime associate, Cohen may spill the beans on many more of his personal, business and political activities during his testimony in the case that will soon come up in the federal court in New York. Investigators are examining Cohen’s role in the payment of hush money to women during the 2016 campaign and whether campaign finance laws were violated. More than anyone else, Cohen knows that he could be implicated in many questionable activities Trump was involved in as a real estate tycoon. So, his offer to cooperate with the investigators is understandable.
A panic-stricken Trump has launched a Twitter tirade against the Mueller investigation. He is very much aware of the disastrous consequences of what Cohen may reveal to the authorities. His tirade against the investigation has now taken the form of a character assassination campaign against special counsel Mueller himself. His personal attorney now is Rudolf Giuliani, a former New York mayor and himself a federal prosecutor once. Giuliani has been making himself a laughingstock by saying stupid and contradictory things in defense of his client. The latest stupid thing he said is that even if there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, collusion is not a crime. I leave it to legal experts to tutor him on that. What he and his client don’t seem to realize is that their attacks on the special counsel could be construed as obstruction of justice.
Conclusion
I can go and on to stress the point that the demand for impeachment of President Trump is a well-founded one. Apart from treason, which we discussed above, “bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors” are also grounds for impeachment under the Constitution. We already discussed some of the activities and utterances of Trump that fit one or more of those categories. By the time the Muller team completes its work, we will surely learn of many more of the Trumpian activities and utterances that reach the level of impeachability. Remember, we are talking about a man who, according to The Washington Post, utters 6.5 lies a day, on average. He doesn’t know when he lies that some of them could be perjurious, which is another ground for impeachment.
If the Congress is serious about impeaching Trump, it doesn’t have to wait until the Russia probe is completed. It already has ample bases to initiate the process. Alas, it won’t happen as long as the composition of the Congress is what it is. It is Republican-controlled, and most Republicans are too timid to stand up to Trump. His modus operandi is such that even a mafia don could learn a lesson or two from him. He has been running the country as if it were part of his sprawling business empire.
Will some Republicans in Congress prove that they have spine by coming forward to initiate the process of impeachment of Trump? Any effort on the part of Democrats will get nowhere, because they are in a minority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The initiative should come from Republicans. They owe it to their country to act before it is too late. And they owe it to the Constitution which they are sworn to “support and defend … against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
(The author is editor and publisher of The East-West Inquirer. He can be reached at prabha@eastwestinquirer.com)
His incendiary tour of the continent seeks to reverse the gains Europe has achieved over the last 70 years.
By Ravi Arvind Palat
“Mr. Trump’s blistering attack on European states for not meeting their military spending obligations is misplaced. Not only does he fail to recognize that their military spending has risen since 2014 when they agreed to raise their military spending to 2% of their GDP by 2024 but also that European states are not positioned to be global powers. Unlike the U.S. which is bordered by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, Europe has no need for navies to patrol distant oceans and match the U.S. in defense spending. Moreover, rather than spending massively on defense as the U.S. has opted to do, European states provide their citizens with health care, education, and other welfare benefits.”
“Far from Russia posing a threat to the Western alliance, the major source of destabilization to the EU comes from the flow of migrants from Africa. In this context, it is not higher military spending by member states that is crucial but the provision of aid. Members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development had pledged to contribute 0.7% of their GDP as aid to the poorest countries. Germany and the U.K. spend 0.66% and 0.7%, respectively, of their GDP in aid while the U.S. spends a mere 0.18%; Mr. Trump is threatening to slash even that by a third. Spending on aid, especially to African countries, will help stem the tide of refugees coming to Europe far more effectively than policing the Mediterranean.”
U.S. President Donald Trump’s incendiary tour of Europe has justly generated extensive coverage for his disregard for diplomatic niceties and attacks on his allies, especially on German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Theresa May, both of whom are facing stiff domestic opposition. Yet, mainstream commentaries on Mr. Trump’s attacks on the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) do not place the trans-Atlantic relationship in the broader historical context.
In the first instance, in the aftermath of the Second World War, the U.S. promoted economic integration among its European allies as an essential condition for the post-war revival of world trade. At war’s end, wealth had become concentrated in the new superpower — it accounted for 48% of world industrial capacity and 70% of gold reserves. With the demobilization of some 10 million soldiers in the U.S., the shift to a peacetime economy needed allies to open their markets to U.S. products and investments. Its European allies were too poor to provide a market and the notorious ‘meat-axe’ 80th Congress unwilling to undertake a program for European reconstruction.
In this context, the U.K. government’s admission in February 1947 that it could no longer intervene in the Greek Civil War provided an opportune moment for U.S. President Harry Truman to follow Senator Arthur Vandenberg’s advice to “scare the hell out of the American people” by manufacturing the Cold War. A Congress that was not willing to aid Clement Attlee’s “socialist welfare state” was eager to rebuild Western Europe and Japan as levees to defend the ‘free world’ against ‘godless communism’.
Along with NATO founded in 1949 was the Marshall Plan instituted in 1948. It was innovative not because of its size — $17 billion over four years was not substantially more than the $9 billion the U.S. had channeled to its European allies in the previous two years — but because it pressured West European states to reduce tariffs between themselves and to standardize regulations to facilitate the creation of a market viable enough to reap the economies of scale and for U.S. corporations to invest in the continent. This trans-Atlantic U.S. corporate expansion was welcomed by European governments and trade unions as these were the only entities with the funds to create employment.
Post-war reconstruction
A trans-Atlantic military alliance and European economic integration were thus the twin projects of a successful post-war reconstruction. Economic integration proceeded rapidly over the last 40 odd years, with the European Union (EU) becoming the largest economy on the planet and thereby threatening the U.S.
At the same time, the rationale for the NATO military alliance — to protect Western Europe from Soviet expansion and to tie Germany to its neighbors — has largely evaporated with the breakup of the USSR and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.
The Russian angle
In the context of the current outcry among NATO member states about the Russian annexation of Crimea from the Ukraine, it is important to recall that U.S. President George H.W. Bush and other leaders had assured Russia in 1991 that the trans-Atlantic alliance would not extend beyond East Germany’s borders. Then when Russia was immensely weakened in the 1990s, U.S. President Bill Clinton led the charge to invite states in Central and Eastern Europe into the alliance. It was this expansion that led to a new confrontation with Russia once it had stabilized itself under President Vladimir Putin.
Nevertheless, there is clearly no Russian threat to Europe. Even in the case of the Ukraine, as Steven Cohen, emeritus professor of Russian studies at New York University, has argued, the crisis was precipitated in 2014 when the EU pressured the Ukrainian government to sign an agreement that would have disadvantaged Russia. When then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych hesitated, he was overthrown by EU- and U.S.-supported demonstrators even though he had signed an agreement brokered by three EU foreign ministers the previous day to form a coalition government. It was this march of NATO to the frontiers of Russia that provoked Mr. Putin to intervene in the Ukraine.
Recasting security
Far from Russia posing a threat to the Western alliance, the major source of destabilization to the EU comes from the flow of migrants from Africa. In this context, it is not higher military spending by member states that is crucial but the provision of aid. Members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development had pledged to contribute 0.7% of their GDP as aid to the poorest countries. Germany and the U.K. spend 0.66% and 0.7%, respectively, of their GDP in aid while the U.S. spends a mere 0.18%; Mr. Trump is threatening to slash even that by a third. Spending on aid, especially to African countries, will help stem the tide of refugees coming to Europe far more effectively than policing the Mediterranean.
In this context, Mr. Trump’s blistering attack on European states for not meeting their military spending obligations is misplaced. Not only does he fail to recognize that their military spending has risen since 2014 when they agreed to raise their military spending to 2% of their GDP by 2024 but also that European states are not positioned to be global powers. Unlike the U.S. which is bordered by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, Europe has no need for navies to patrol distant oceans and match the U.S. in defense spending. Moreover, rather than spending massively on defense as the U.S. has opted to do, European states provide their citizens with health care, education, and other welfare benefits.
Mr. Trump’s support for Brexit and his humiliating undermining of Ms. May, his outrageous comments on Germany being beholden to Russia and on Ms. Merkel in particular, and his alleged offer of a trade deal to French President Emmanuel Macron if France leaves the EU are all designed to break up the organization so that he can deal from a position of strength with small states. As Britain’s difficulties in exiting the union indicates, supply chains are so integrated across the continent that breaking up the EU would have disastrous consequences for production for all its member states and may even risk a global economic downturn.
In short, what Mr. Trump is seeking to do is to reverse the gains Europe has achieved over the last 70 years and make it beholden once again to the U.S.
(The author is a professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton, U.S.)
Donald Trump did enough, and more, to mess up his meeting with Vladimir Putin
A summit between the leaders of the world’s strongest nuclear powers, which fought the Cold War for decades, is an opportunity to discuss areas of shared interest, find ways to dial down mutual tensions and work together to address global issues. But well before Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin sat down for their first formal summit meeting, in Helsinki, there were concerns that it would be overshadowed by allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The uproar in Washington over Mr. Trump’s remarks on the Russian meddling scandal — with even accusations of treason — and his subsequent U-turn suggest that such concerns were valid. Mr. Trump could have certainly managed the summit better by addressing genuine concerns in the U.S. over allegations of Russia’s election meddling. Days earlier, the U.S. Justice Department indicted 12 Russian intelligence officials for hacking and leaking emails of top Democrats. It therefore seemed surreal when the President accepted the Russian version over that of his own intelligence agencies and the Justice Department. Away from the controversy, the closed-door meeting between the leaders can be evaluated only on the progress made on a number of contentious issues before both.
The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is set to expire in 2021 and Russia has shown interest in extending it. For a consensus, high-level talks between the U.S. and Russia are needed. From the crisis in Ukraine to the civil war in Syria, Russia-U.S. cooperation is vital to finding lasting solutions. The Iran nuclear deal, for which Mr. Putin and Barack Obama worked together despite differences, is in a shambles. Most of these issues, including the threat posed by nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, were discussed at the summit. But it’s not clear whether the talks will lead to any significant change in policies. Since the Ukraine crisis, the West has tried different methods, including sanctions and pressure tactics, to isolate Russia and change its behavior. But those methods have proved largely unsuccessful as Russia is now a far more ambitious foreign policy power with an enhanced presence in Eastern Europe and West Asia — even if its sanctions-hit economy is struggling. Instead of continuing a policy that has failed and ratcheted up global tensions, the Western alliance should junk its Cold War mentality and engage with Russia; Russia, in turn, will have to shed its rogue attitude and be more open and stable in its dealings. The stakes are high, and the bitterness of the past should not hinder U.S.-Russia relations. That should have been the message from Helsinki.
Will discuss Syria, Ukraine and “many other subjects”: Trump
WASHINGTON/MOSCOW(TIP): US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will hold a summit in Helsinki on July 16, the White House and the Kremlin announced Thursday, June 28.
The brief statement issued in Moscow said the two presidents will discuss bilateral issues and international relations.
The announcement comes a day after Trump’s National Security Adviser John Bolton held talks with Russian officials in Moscow to lay the groundwork for the summit.
“I’ve said it from day one, getting along with Russia and with China and with everybody is a very good thing,” Trump said Wednesday. “It’s good for the world. It’s good for us. It’s good for everybody.”
He said they would discuss Syria, Ukraine and “many other subjects.”
MOSCOW (TIP): Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday, March 29, that Moscow would expel 60 U.S. diplomats and close its consulate in Saint Petersburg in a tit-for-tat expulsion over the poisoning of ex-double agent Sergei Skripal.
Mr. Lavrov said the U.S. ambassador had been informed of “retaliatory measures”, saying that “they include the expulsion of the equivalent number of diplomats and our decision to withdraw permission for the functioning of the U.S. consulate general in Saint Petersburg”.
Washington earlier ordered the expulsion of 60 diplomats and shut down the Russian consulate general in Seattle.
Mr. Lavrov added that Russia would also issue tit-for-tat responses to the other countries that have expelled diplomats in a mass show of support for Britain which has blamed Moscow for the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia with a nerve agent in the city of Salisbury.
“As for the other countries it’s also all symmetrical measures as to the number of people who will be leaving Russia from diplomatic missions, and that’s all so far,” Mr. Lavrov said.
He added that Russia was reacting to “absolutely unacceptable actions that are taken against us under very harsh pressure from the United States and Britain under the pretext of the so-called Skripal case.”
He accused London of “forcing everyone to follow an anti-Russian course.”
He said Britain had informed Moscow of the state of health of Yulia Skripal on Thursday and that Russia had asked again for access to her as a citizen.
Mr. Lavrov vowed at the briefing in Moscow that “we want to establish the truth” over the poisoning and accused Britain of “making mockery of international law.”
He said that Russia had asked for a meeting with the executive council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on Tuesday to ask questions to “establish the truth.”
“We are counting on our Western partners not evading an honest conversation,” Mr. Lavrov said.
WASHINGTON (TIP): President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, the lead outside attorney providing advice to the president on the Russia investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, said Thursday, March 22, that he has resigned.
In a brief statement to NBC News, attorney John Dowd confirmed his move and said, “I love the president and wish him very well.”
News of Dowd’s resignation was first reported by The New York Times.
WASHINGTON (TIP): Special counsel Robert Mueller has subpoenaed the Trump Organization for business documents, CNN reported, quoting a source, on March 15.
The New York Times, which first reported the development, said the subpoena included documents related to Russia. The reports mark the first publicly known time that Mueller has demanded documents related to President Donald Trump’s businesses.
The subpoena is a sign that the Mueller investigation continues to pick up steam, even as Trump decries remaining questions about potential coordination between his associates and Russia and denies any wrongdoing. Trump has said he would view any investigation of his or his family’s personal finances that didn’t involve Russia as a “violation” by Mueller that crosses a red line.
CNN reported in January that the company had voluntarily provided documents on a range of events, conversations and meetings from Trump’s real estate business to Mueller and congressional investigators, according to three people familiar with the matter.
It will be interesting to watch how Trump reacts to this move of Mueller.
MOSCOW (TIP): President Vladimir Putin unveiled an array of new nuclear weapons on March 1, in one of his most bellicose speeches in years, saying they could hit almost any point in the world and not be intercepted.
Speaking weeks before an election he is expected to win, Putin also said that a nuclear attack on any of Moscow’s allies would be regarded as an attack on Russia itself and draw an immediate response.
Putin, who polls indicate should be easily re-elected on March 18, backed his tough rhetoric with video clips of some of the new missiles he was talking about, which were projected on a giant screen behind him at the conference hall in central Moscow where he was addressing Russia’s political elite.
“They have not succeeded in holding Russia back,” said Putin, referring to the West.
“Now they need to take account of a new reality and understand that everything I have said today is not a bluff.”
Among the new weapons that Putin said were either in development or ready: a new intercontinental ballistic missile, a small nuclear warhead that could be attached to cruise missiles, underwater nuclear drones, a supersonic weapon and a laser weapon.
The audience, made up of Russian lawmakers and other leading figures, frequently stood up and applauded his presentation, which culminated with the Russian national anthem being played.
NATO MEASURES “USELESS”
Putin, who has dominated his country’s political landscape for the last 18 years and often used anti-Western rhetoric to mobilize support, said the technological advances meant that NATO’s build-up on Russia’s borders and the roll-out of a US anti-missile system would be rendered useless.
“I hope that everything that was said today will sober up any potential aggressor,” said Putin.
“Unfriendly steps towards Russia such as the deployment of the (US) anti-missile system and of NATO infrastructure nearer our borders and such like, from a military point of view, will become ineffective.”
Steps to contain Russia would also become unjustifiably expensive and pointless, he forecast. The Russian leader also voiced concerns about a new US nuclear doctrine, saying that Russia’s own doctrine was defensive and only envisaged the use of nuclear weapons in response to an attack.
Russia has repeatedly said it is keen to hold talks with the United States about the balance of strategic nuclear power.
“We will view any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it of small, medium or any force, as a nuclear attack on our country,” said Putin.
“Our response will be immediate. Nobody should have any doubts about that.”
“Do you see a correlation in getting the innocent Hindus to develop anti-Muslims sentiments through the communal riots, leading into to complete takeover of the Uttar Pradesh? The likes of which were done here in the United States. Did Russia pay for those riots through the Sangh Parivar organizations to weaken the Indian Democracy? Both Modi and Trump have a special affection for Putin; and both of them want to emulate Putin”, says the author.
Deepa Seetharam, a reporter from Wall Street Journal called me and asked if I spoke in a rally at White House in September 2016? I said no, and then she reminded me that my name was a listed as a speaker.
Seetharam wrote in WSJ’s October 30, 2017, publication, “Representatives from the Facebook page “United Muslims of America” asked Mike Ghouse, an interfaith activist, to speak at a Sept. 3, 2016, event in Washington, D.C. billed as “a peaceful rally, to make mosques and their neighborhood safe!”
The group sent Mr. Ghouse placards they intended to use that included anti-Trump messages, causing him to back out, he said. “I said they should be more pluralistic, more inclusive because there’s no need to attack Trump,” Mr. Ghouse said. “They wouldn’t, so I didn’t go.” Obviously, I did not speak there either.
“Some events stoked public discord. At the rally in front of the Islamic center in Houston, about a dozen protesters gathered, some waving confederate flags or holding a sign that said “#WhiteLivesMatter,” according to video footage.”
Russians had an elaborate plan of pitting one American against the other, their end goal was to weaken democracies and create discord within each nation – their logic was; for Russia to shine, other countries have to be weakened, and Russia will stand out as the strongest nation in the world with a strong man running the nation. Putin is the Czar under his skin.
CNN reports that “80 times Trump talked about Putin.” Indeed, “Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump consistently broke from political orthodoxy in his effusive praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin. His glowing statements on Putin have become central in stoking the suspicion that he and his campaign were somehow connected to Russian interference in the election.”
Narendra Modi in Russia praises President Vladimir Putin’s family for sacrificing lives for the country. Modi praises Putin’s effort in convening 1st Tiger conservation Summit.
Both Modi and Trump think Putin is awesome, someone to be modeled after, as they want to dictate to the public.
Senator John McCain said in an interview that Putin is determined to prove to the world that Democracies don’t work. Indeed, that is what the fascists think about democracies – they get their devoted slaves to do whatever they want – attacking others as Sikularist and calling the news that goes against them as fake news. It’s amazing how many people buy that stuff in India and the United States.
Both Modi and Trump have resorted to divide and rule policies; they are determined to pit one Indian against the other in case of Modi, and one American against the other by Trump.
Russians staged “Anti-Trump rallies’ in the name of American Muslims. Perhaps, that may be the reason Trump is so anti-Muslim. Some of the rallies were held against Hillary to give the impression that it is the work of public, and some were devised against Trump just to make it look real.
What happens in India? Manohar Joshi writes in the Wire, “The fact that communal violence is rising in India is not hidden. Even the government acknowledges that there has been a steady uptick in communal incidents. In response to a question in parliament on Tuesday (February 6), minister of state Hansraj Ahir disclosed that as many as 111 people were killed and nearly 2,500 injured in 822 communal incidents in 2017, as compared to 751 incidents in 2016 that took the life of 97 people and 703 in 2016 when 86 were killed.”
Did the Russians stage these events? Did they pay these men to stage communal riots and murder people?
The fake encounters set up by the Gujarat police earned further support for BJP from an average innocent Hindu. Of course, Musharraf’s Kargil invasion strengthened the hold of BJP in power.
Putin failed in France and Germany but succeeded in Austria, India,United States and other nations.
Most Indians will resist the idea of an investigation; they simply do not want to believe that the Indian Elections may have been rigged. They are afraid of even exploring the possibilities. If they have lost their loved ones, they would want to know if Russia is paying the goons to create chaos. Is Yogi Adityanath paid agent of Russia? The purpose of the investigation is to find the truths if they are clean, that would be good news. What if they were not? Should they continue in governing India and continue to pit one Indian against the other?
Do you see a correlation in getting the innocent Hindus to develop anti-Muslims sentiments through the communal riots, leading into to complete takeover of the Uttar Pradesh? The likes of which were done here in the United States. Did Russia pay for those riots through the Sangh Parivar organizations to weaken the Indian Democracy? Both Modi and Trump have a special affection for Putin; both of them want to emulate Putin.
Neither Trump nor Modi was expecting to win; all the surveys, reports and polls indicated the win for Congress in India and Democrats in America. Both the men were surprised with the win, let alone land-slide wins.
The Russians publicized or financed at least 60 events – on all sides of most polarizing issues – before and after the 2016 election. What about India’s 2014 election?
Is it worth investigating Russian hand in the mess that is created in India? Should we save the nation from divisive men? These men will come and go in one or two terms, but it is the common men and women in India that will bear the brunt of their karma.
(The author is an Indian-American committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. As we learn to respect the “otherness” of others and accept the God-given uniqueness of each one of us, conflicts will fade and solutions emerge. He is the president of the Center for Pluralism in Washington, DC.)
COMMENTS
Dr. Ghouse’s article invited a quick reaction from a reader. Here is the unedited comment of Desh D Kapoor (desh.kapoor@gmail.com) received at 11.07 A.M., a few minutes after the article was published.
“This is just a piece of trashy writing based on nothing but conjectures and hyperbole! Amazed. In fact, if at all, with Cambridge Analytics (firm that helped Trump) working for Congress, 2019 will be where Foreign meddling (Mani Shankar Aiyar’s home meeting with Pakistani officials – a Trump Tower moment?!) will be tested.
“In fact, Modi has NEVER appealed on religious basis. Even the honest Pakistani commentators say that clearly (check Najam Sethi’s analysis post 2014). But how do you stop the ideologically compromised Indian Muslim commentators who would rather use religion for their own purpose than for the good of the community! Reminded of the Tata Nano move, where Mamata created issues and Modi brought that in to Gujarat. The villages near the plant were predominantly Muslim. And within 4-5 years, their land prices went up 25 times making everyone a millionaire. When indiscriminate development happens – there is no color. But who can explain to the ideologically compromised who still hold Mamata as the paragon of virtues as she keeps everyone poor.
So excuse me, but this Machiavellian piece is not even worth the paper it was probably published on.”
********
We received a rejoinder from Dr. Ghouse at 12.30 P.M. nearly an hour and a half after Mr. Desh D. Kapoor’s comment, which is being published here, without being edited.
Desh,
“I wrote the essay as an Indian, and not as a Muslim. I wish you learn to hold on to your communalism and see the validity of the argument.
“Thank God, none of your relatives or mine were killed by the extremists in Muzaffar Nagar and other riots, but you should be human enough to have empathy for those whose families have suffered. If Russia had paid the goons to lynch and harass fellow Indians, then don’t you think it should be investigated? Are you against finding the truth?
“The success of a nation hinges on its two solid feet; economic prosperity which brings sab ka Vikas, not just mitron ka Vikas, and the other is sab ka saath, every Indian should feel included – that is a cohesive India, where no Indian feels excluded or lives in apprehension. Both the economy and social fabric must remain intact, one will not happen without the other, otherwise what we will witness would a langda India and ultimately everyone will suffer. Injustice to one is injustice to all.
“Mani Shankar Aiyar’s meeting at his home has been clarified, you still give it a religious color to it and Modi was too eager to paint it for electoral gains.
“A true patriot is the one who criticizes the government incessantly to keep them on the toes, on the other hand, if you toe the line of the government and kiss-ass of the leaders, you are not serving the nation.
“We need to rise about the pettiness and start looking to every Indian as an Indian and be patriotic Indians who think of making India and all her people successful and included.”
Mike Ghouse
Mr. Desh D Kapoor commented at1.04 P.M. 02/19/ 2018. (Unedited)
“Mike, excuse me, but I don’t give you the right to create your own Halos and abuse others. From where I see, you are always talking as a Muslim and not as an Indian. Further, I don’t see you as a secular at all. I think this self-congratulatory stuff should end if you even want to hold any dialog. Just like ‘Allah is the ONLY God…” Or “Jesus is the ONLY Savior..” are a non-starter to any useful discussion and inherently Supremacist in ethos – your fetish for constructing your own halo and calling other communal is damning for any dialog and shows your real self. So, time to stop the tricks!
“Like I said, I have never ever seen Modi say anything even remotely communal. If you have any evidence, then talk. On the other hand, AIMIM, Congress, Samajwadi and Trinamool folks are rabidly communal.
“And that leads me to another point – criticizing someone’s Muslim appeasement is not communal. To be an apologist for Jihad and acting as apologist for communal people in India is inherently Hinduphobic.
“It is this realization that has led to the awakening in India. What you see in the US, is also something similar. Where the rabid apologists for Islamism in the US left are being trashed all over. The problem in the US is a little different – because the challenge to Islamic Supremacism (which is what you represent however you may try to camouflage) is actually now coming from the White Supremacists, because left has chosen to back one end of Supremacism (between White/Christian Supremacism and Islamic Supremacism).
“In India, most folks who feign Secularism like John Dayal and Taslim Rehmani – are either Christian fanatics (check his hinduphobic testimonies in US) or Islamic fanatics (check how Rehmani declares “We ruled over Hindus for 1000 years”). And, most common laymen who were not into any religious debate are now waking up to the war of boiling the frog slowly.
“So, nice try, Mike. but you cannot construct your own Halo and wear it.”
Dr. Mike Ghouse at 2.27 P.M. 02/19/2018 replied to Mr.Deepak. (Unedited)
“Desh,
“Here you go again, you are “assuming’ this, ” Just like ‘Allah is the ONLY God…” Or “Jesus is the ONLY Savior.”
“You also made an assumption I support ” AIMIM, Congress, Samajwadi and Trinamool folks are rabidly communal.” I don’t, they are indeed communal, except the Congress which has a few rats in it, but the party as such is secular.
“BJP, on the other hand, is very communal – of the 400 plus candidates they gave tickets to run as their member, there may be one or two Muslims. They found a way to dupe innocent Indians – play the religion card, they fooled once, but could not do it again, but they staged communal riots, ghar wapasi and other tricks to pit one Indian against the other. You are a journalist, track down the history – the communal riots have occurred with the clear presence of RSS in the town, where they are not, there are fewer clashes.
“Let me be clear – the problem is not with Hinduism or Islam, Hindus or Muslims, it is the extremist positions that BJP has taken with their fascist political ideology – they want to force what you eat and what you believe down the throats.
“Modi’s fake reference to Pakistan collusion was communal politics, he generated ill-will among Hindus by the way he presented Mani Shankar Aiyar’s meeting
Modi wore every headgear wherever he went but clearly refused to wear a cap given by a Muslim.
“Would you agree that a cohesive India is what we need to work for – that requires that everyone minds his own business, and every Indian would be free to breathe, eat, drink, wear and believe whatever he or she wants to. Is that the India you want?
“Mike Ghouse”
Mr. Desh D. Kapoor countered at 2.47 P.M. 02/19/2018 . (Unedited)
“Mike, Again – lots of assumptions and lots of “I am Good- You are bad” attitude.
I never said that you support those parties. I said they are communal because they practice appeasement and their politics is purely casteist and communal.
There is no reason to believe that BJP is communal. Looking at candidates purely from religious angle is a sickness and something that plays along with Jinnah’s idea of Equal representation which caused partition. So, not looking at representatives from their religious affiliation is the right and secular way.
Ghar Wapasi is Communal and Conversions / Evangelism is Secular? Really?!! like i said stop the tricks, please.
RSS and riots: I have read about the riots pretty carefully and I don’t know of a single evidence to say that RSS started any riot.
ban on Beef is a law that BJP did NOT create. It was and you are trying to say that someone should not follow the law? Are you for lawlessness? I think you need to clear your stand please.
Reference to Pakistan for Collusion by Congress – was “Communal politics”?!! Wow, Really?!! So you equate Pakistani with Indian Muslims? From how I and most people saw it was – Pakistan means PAKISTAN.. the COUNTRY! Period! You see how your slip shows through? :)
“I want a cohesive India. But like MLK Jr said “I want White man to be my brother, not Brother in law”. From where most Hindus see now – Kalma and the Creed are at the root of Communal violence in India and around the world. Change the supremacism and peace will follow. if you try to hood-wink and play such tricks and play vote bank politics (how many Muslims candidate type), then the vote bank of today will go against that politics.
“I want an India where development is indiscriminate and blind to the religion or caste. Where transformation is at the grass root. And that is where Modi is working on. So, I will back him to back the India that is the future of the world. Not one of Congress or pseudo-Seculars who see Muslim communalism in references to Pakistan. Amazed honestly!!!”
The Indian Panorama invites readers to participate in the debate.
WASHINGTON (TIP): FBI agents looking for financial documents have searched one of the homes of President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, whose past foreign political work has been swept into the investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election. A Manafort spokesman confirmed the search Wednesday, August 9.
Manafort spokesman Jason Maloni said in a statement that FBI agents had obtained a warrant and searched one of Manafort’s homes, but he would not say when the search occurred or what it was for.
“Mr Manafort has consistently cooperated with law enforcement and other serious inquiries and did so on this occasion as well,” Maloni said.
The Associated Press has reported that the warrant for the search on July 26 at Manafort’s home in Alexandria, Virginia, sought information including tax documents and banking records. The Washington Post first reported the raid.
Manafort has been a subject of a longstanding FBI investigation into his dealings in Ukraine and work for the country’s former president, Viktor Yanukovych. That investigation has been incorporated into the probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller, who is also scrutinizing Manafort’s role in the Trump campaign as he looks into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election and any possible collusion with Trump associates.
Manafort, who led the Trump campaign for several months, has denied any wrongdoing. He also spoke behind closed doors to Senate investigators for an interview just one day before the search of his home.
The use of a search warrant indicates that law enforcement officials have convinced a judge there is probable cause to believe a crime may have been committed. A house raid can be seen as an aggressive tactic given that Manafort has been cooperating with congressional investigators and has turned over hundreds of pages of documents. It could indicate law enforcement was looking for records beyond what Manafort provided.
Word of the raid is the latest revelation about Mueller’s investigation, which had been operating in relative secrecy compared with numerous congressional probes looking at the election. In recent days, it’s become clear the former FBI director is using a grand jury in Washington in addition to one in the Eastern District of Virginia, where investigators also have been looking into former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn.
In recent months, Flynn and Manafort have turned over documents to congressional committees investigating the election interference.
One focus of the multiple probes, including Mueller’s, is a June 2016 meeting Manafort attended with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Donald Trump Jr. That meeting, held at Trump Tower in New York, was described to Trump Jr in emails as part of a Russian government effort to help the Trump campaign by passing along information that could be used against Democrat Hillary Clinton.
During his Senate intelligence committee interview, Manafort provided his recollection of the Trump Tower meeting and turned over contemporaneous notes he took during the gathering. The interview was confined to that meeting.
Manafort has also turned over other documents to the Senate intelligence committee as well as about 400 pages of records to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Meanwhile, the Judiciary Committee said Wednesday it has also received about 250 pages of documents from Trump Jr and about 20,000 pages from the Trump campaign.
The content of the documents was not immediately clear. The committee said it received the Manafort and Trump campaign documents on Aug. 2 and the records from Trump Jr on August 4.
Judiciary committee leaders have also been in talks with Trump Jr and Manafort about private interviews. The committee initially called for them to testify publicly, but lawmakers have since said they were negotiating the terms of their appearances.
Russia’s expulsion of U.S. mission staff could lock the two countries into a retaliatory spiral.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to cut the U.S. diplomatic presence in the country by 755 signals a serious escalation in tensions between the two superpowers. His move came three days after the U.S. Senate passed a sanctions Bill targeting Moscow and allies. The scale of the cut is unprecedented and is comparable to the shutdown of the American diplomatic mission in Russia after the 1917 Bolshevik revolution. The decision also signals that Mr. Putin, who had pinned hopes on the Donald Trump administration to improve ties, is losing heart about such a reset. When Barack Obama expelled Russian diplomats in the last leg of his presidency over Moscow’s alleged interference in the presidential election, Mr. Putin did not retaliate, apparently hoping to strike a new beginning with the incoming administration. During his campaign, Mr. Trump himself had expressed interest in building stronger ties with Moscow. But despite Mr. Trump’s overtures, the U.S. establishment has continued to take a hardline position towards Moscow. While the investigation into the allegations of Russia’s election-time interference is still under way, Congress went ahead preparing the sanctions Bill. Passed by both Houses of Congress with a near-total majority, the Bill also seeks to limit Mr. Trump’s ability to suspend or lift sanctions on Russia. After the White House said the President would sign the Bill, Moscow retaliated.
The new sanctions will add to Russia’s economic troubles at a time it is already battling sanctions imposed by Europe and the U.S., and dealing with a commodities meltdown. Mr. Putin could impose counter-sanctions, but the chances of winning a trade war with the world’s largest economy are slim. Hence, Russia’s formal declaration of a diplomatic war to show that it can hurt America’s geopolitical interests elsewhere. Whenever Russia and the U.S. joined hands to address the world’s pressing problems in recent years, there were results. The Iran nuclear deal is one example. The Trump administration’s willingness to work with the Russians in Syria has also helped calm parts of the war-ravaged country. The ceasefire brokered by Moscow and Washington between the Syrian regime and rebels in July is still holding, raising hopes for a sustainable political solution to the crisis. Besides, if the U.S. wants to address the North Korean nuclear crisis diplomatically, which is perhaps the biggest foreign policy challenge before the Trump administration today, it could do with Russia’s help. Russia is also crucial to stabilizing Afghanistan, where it is reportedly arming the Taliban. But instead of expanding their cooperation and addressing these challenges as responsible global leaders, the nuclear-armed powers seem to have fallen into the old Cold War-era spiral of irrational mutual hostility.
MOSCOW (TIP): The Kremlin on july 28 warned that new US sanctions on Russia would hit the interests of both sides as Congress gears up to approved fresh punitive measures.
“We consider such a continuation of the rhetoric of sanctions counter productive and harmful to the interests of both countries,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. In mid-June, the US Senate overwhelmingly passed tough sanctions, but the text stalled in the House of Representatives, until agreement was reached on Saturday.
The House is now set to vote Tuesday on a bill that targets Russia — for its alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election and its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 — as well as Iran and North Korea, for its ballistic missile tests. Initially, US President Donald Trump resisted the legislation, which would prevent him from unilaterally easing penalties against Moscow in the future — effectively placing him under Congress’s watch.
But he seems to be left with little option but to sign off on the move as a political firestorm swirls over potential collusion between his campaign and Russia.
Peskov said the Kremlin is still waiting and watching to see if Trump will approve the measures, after White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci said the US leader was weighing his decision.
Before Trump definitively takes a decision it is too early to talk about any potential counter measure from Moscow, Peskov said. Ties between Moscow and Washington have slumped to their lowest since the Cold War as the US slapped sanctions on Moscow over it meddling in Ukraine.
Russia had hoped that Trump’s election might ease relations between the two sides, but those prospects have dimmed in the face of a major political pushback in Washington. (AFP)
NEW YORK (TIP): Film director Oliver Stone, whose series of conversations with Vladimir Putin air next week on Showtime, said he watched Megyn Kelly interview the Russian president on NBC and concluded that “he knew his stuff and she didn’t.” Kelly’s interview, which aired on the debut of her newsmagazine, “Sunday Night with Megan Kelly,” on Sunday, “became machine-gun like,” Stone said, and was an example of how American journalism frequently leaves little room for nuance.
“I think she was attractive and she asked hardball questions, but she wasn’t in position to debate or counter him, because she didn’t know a lot of things,” he said. NBC News President Noah Oppenheim shot back that “no one here is interested in Oliver Stone’s unsolicited thoughts on Megyn Kelly’s appearance or his ill-informed opinion of her journalism.”
“But so long as we’re offering each other professional feedback, please let him know I don’t think he’s made a decent movie since the early `90s,” he said. Putin was combative when asked in the NBC interview about hacking in the US presidential election and relations between Russia and President Donald Trump’s team. He’s more serene on Showtime, where more than a dozen interviews that Stone conducted with the Russian president between 2015 and early this year unfold one hour per night for four nights starting Monday.
As an example of where he believed Kelly was mistaken, Stone said the claim that 17 US intelligence agencies had concluded the Russians were behind election year hacking and used as a preface for a question had been “walked back.” It was a reference to testimony from James Clapper, former director of national intelligence, about a hacking report by three specific agencies. The independent organization Politifact has produced a report that backs Kelly, however, because Clapper had earlier said that all 17 intelligence agencies he had supervised agreed about Russia’s involvement.
Stone, a controversial figure who has interviewed Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and produced a documentary backing Putin’s version of events in the Ukraine, conducts a Putin interview far less confrontational than Kelly’s, at least on the basis of two episodes provided for screening by Showtime. One critic, Marlow Stern in The Daily Beast, called in a “wildly irresponsible love letter” to Putin.
The filmmaker’s style does include its share of ingratiating remarks. “You have a lot of discipline, sir,” he says at one point. “You are an excellent CEO. Russia is your company,” he says at another.
Besides office sit-downs, Putin is interviewed driving a car, walking through horse stables at his home and after he played in a hockey game. When Putin makes a claim about a letter he received from the CIA and Stone asks him to produce it, the Russian president says, “My words are enough.” Yet Stone also challenges Putin on his authoritarian style and questions his claims of democratic reform. The filmmaker said in an interview that there are more direct questions about relations with the United States in the unseen third and fourth episodes.
He asks Putin about assassination attempts and, while it was inadvertent in one case, captures a couple of eyeopening moments. Asked if he ever have bad days, Putin replies that “I am not a woman so I don’t have bad days,” adding a reference to “natural cycles” affecting behavior.
During a discussion about gay rights, Putin said about a homosexual male: “I prefer not to go in the shower with him. Why provoke him?” Stone is aware that he’ll receive criticism for not pushing Putin hard enough. “I’m not a journalist,” he said. “I’m a filmmaker and I was taking a different approach.”
The project’s value comes in seeing Putin talking about his life and world view in an extended format, seeing the personal and political history that drives policy for the US’s biggest adversary, and simply how his mind works. At one point Stone asks Putin about a 13 percent inflation rate, and is quickly corrected. “Twelve point nine,” he said. “It’s crucial for the United States to understand another point of view,” Stone said. “I’m interested in preventing a further deterioration in relations.”
The film also features Stone screening a copy of the Cold War-era satire “Dr. Strangelove” for the stone-faced Russian leader. “I pushed him where I felt he should be pushed,” Stone said. “At a certain point, you know that that person is not going to change his approach. He’s a leader. He thinks things through and he’s made his point. I can’t think of anything more that I could have said or done.” (AP)
NEW YORK (TIP): Nikki Haley, the tough-talking and blunt U.S. Ambassador to the UN, was heckled during an annual summit on women here as she spoke about President Donald Trump and Russia.
The Indian American envoy was speaking April 5 at the ‘Women In The World’ summit, a premier annual gathering of influential women leaders, politicians and activists organized by media personality Tina Brown in association with the New York Times.
As she was answering questions during the session titled ‘Trump’s Diplomat: Nikki Haley’ moderated by MSNBC anchor Greta Van Susteren, Haley was booed and heckled on several occasions. At one point, someone in the audience shouted,”what about refugees” while another asked, “when is the next panel.”
During the nearly 22-minute session, a woman in the audience shouted, “when is the next panel,” to which the 45-year-old smiled and exclaimed “wow” as the audience tried to shush the heckler.
She was heckled again when asked how America deals with some of the world leaders who are dictators.
“You call them out when they do something wrong and you work with them when you can find ways to work with them,” Haley said.
As some members of the audience shouted at her remarks, Haley said, “we have to express America’s values. We are always the moral conscience of the world,” to which someone from the audience shouted, “what about the refugees,” cutting off Haley. Haley went silent. Van Susteren paused, and then said, “Moving on.”
At the end of the day’s program, Brown commended Haley for attending the event even as she got a “boisterous reception” and for remaining gracious as she was heckled.
“We often complain and sneer and say Republicans never want to come on any kind of forum except Fox News or places where they can be asked questions that are soft,” Brown said, adding that Haley did not put on any pre-conditions and sat very “graciously” while the audience heckled.
“She didn’t get agitated about it, and she’s in the middle of a lot of world crises. So, I feel that we should really applaud the fact that she did come.”
Van Susteren asked Haley why the world has not heard much from Trump about Russia, a question that drew a thunderous applause from the audience.
Haley said, “First keep in mind that I work for the Trump administration,” a response that generated boos and heckles from the audience and prompted Van Susteren to ask the audience to “hold on, hold on. We got to get people fix these problems.” Haley added that she has “hit Russia over the head more times than I can count. It’s because if they do something wrong we are going to call them out on it. If they want to help us defeat terrorism, fine.”
“But the things they have done with Crimea and Ukraine, the things they have done with how they have covered up for (Syrian President Bashar) Assad, we are not going to give them a pass on.”
Haley said she has had conversations with Trump “where he very much sees Russia as a problem and I think if you look at his actions, everybody wants to hear his words but look at his actions. The two things that Russia does not want to see the U.S. do is strengthen the military and expand energy and the president has done both of those.” She gave out a smile as her comments again drew prolonged boos from the audience.
On the chemical weapons attack on a Syrian town, Haley said Russia blamed it on a container of chemical weapons that ISIS had.
“There is no ounce of proof. They just make things up,” she said.
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, announced on April 6 that he will recuse himself from the committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, while he faces allegations that he improperly disclosed classified information.
WASHINGTON (TIP): After resisting for weeks calls from Democrats to step aside, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) temporarily stepped aside Thursday, April 6 from the committee’s probe into Russian interference in the presidential election. Nunes was under pressure after the House Ethics Committee determined to investigate allegations that “Nunes may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information, in violation of House Rules, law, regulations, or other standards of conduct.”
Nunes has come under fire in recent weeks for speaking publicly about classified foreign surveillance reports he viewed on White House grounds. Nunes suggested that those reports identified President Trump and members of his transition team, whose names may have been mentioned by individuals under surveillance – or whose conversations with those individuals may have been incidentally picked up.
On Thursday, Nunes dismissed the suggestion that he violated ethics laws as “entirely false and politically motivated,” blaming “several left-wing activist groups” for filing complaints with the Office of Congressional Ethics. He noted that he asked to speak with the Ethics Committee “at the earliest possible opportunity in order to expedite the dismissal of these false claims,” and said his recusal – which applies only to the committee’s Russia investigation – would be in effect while the committee looks into the matter.
In the meantime, Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.) will take the lead on the Russia investigation, Nunes said, with assistance from Reps. Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). Gowdy also sits on the Ethics Committee. Nunes also pledged in his statement to “continue to fulfill all my other responsibilities as Committee Chairman” in matters unrelated to the Russia probe.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations says there’s no question Russia was involved in the U.S. presidential election and insists President Donald Trump would fully support strong action against the Kremlin once investigations are complete.
Speaking in television interviews broadcast April 2, Nikki Haley contended there is no contradiction between her tough stance and Trump’s repeated public statements seeking to minimize Russia’s role. She said Trump “has not once” told her to stop “beating up on Russia.”
“Certainly, I think Russia was involved in the election. There’s no question about that,” Haley told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz in an interview on ‘This Week’. “And I think when they finish with all of this process, yes, they need to address Russia. They need to act.”
The Indian American envoy joins Defense Secretary James Mattis as Trump administration officials who have forcefully called out Russia for its actions during the 2016 U.S. campaign.
“We don’t want any country involved in our elections, ever,” Haley said. “We need to be very strong on that.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied his country meddled in the 2016 contest between Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton. While Trump himself has said he believes Russian operatives hacked Democratic Party emails during the election, he has repeatedly lambasted as “fake news” any suggestion that he or his staff had connections to Russia.
Trump continued his attacks over the weekend, tweeting: “It is the same Fake News Media that said there is ‘no path to victory for Trump’ that is now pushing the phony Russia story. A total scam!”
He added on April 2: “The real story turns out to be SURVEILLANCE and LEAKING! Find the leakers.”
U.S. intelligence agencies report that Russia tried to help Trump’s campaign effort. The FBI as well as congressional committees are investigating whether the Russian government coordinated with Trump associates during the campaign. The White House is also trying to quell a firestorm over its behind-the-scenes role in helping the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, view secret intelligence reports that he says pointed to inappropriate leaking.
Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the panel, went to the White House March 31 to view materials that he said were “precisely the same.” He declined on April 2 to describe the contents, but criticized the unorthodox disclosure to Nunes, suggesting that the material was more likely an “effort to deflect attention” and “create a cloud through which the public cannot see.”
“Whenever they see the president use the word ‘fake,’ it should set off alarm bells,” Schiff said. “I think that’s really what going on here.”
Trump as president persuaded Haley to leave the governorship of South Carolina to represent the U.S. at the United Nations. She said she was “beating up on Russia” over issues such as its actions in Crimea and its dispute with Ukraine.
When asked if she believes Trump should publicly take a harder Russia stance, she said: “Of course, he’s got a lot of things he’s doing.”
“There’s no love or anything going on with Russia right now,” Haley said. “They get that we’re getting our strength back, that we’re getting our voice back and that we’re starting to lead again, and, honestly, at the United Nations, that’s the No. 1 comment I get is that they’re just so happy to see the United States lead again.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who chairs the Armed Services Committee, said it was indisputable that Russia attempted to influence the U.S. election, reiterating his call for a special select committee.
But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he didn’t think another review was necessary, citing the bipartisan work from the Senate Intelligence Committee.
“I think they clearly laid out that they’re going wherever the facts take them,” McConnell said, referring to Republican chairman Richard Burr of North Carolina and Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the panel. “We don’t need yet another investigation. We know the FBI is looking at it from their perspective.”
Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s press secretary, said Russia was not worried about what any U.S. investigation might reveal. “We insist that any blaming that Russia could have been interfering in domestic affairs of the United States is slander,” he said.
Haley, Peskov and McCain appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” Haley also was on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Schiff spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union,” and McConnell appeared on “Fox News Sunday” and NBC’s “Meet The Press.”
Flynn resigned in February, barely a month after he was appointed NSA, after it was reported that he misled White House staff on his interactions with Russia
Not entirely unexpectedly,President Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has reportedly told the FBI that he is willing to testify about the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia, in exchange for immunity from prosecution, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Flynn resigned in February, after it was reported that he misled White House staff on his interactions with Russia and had discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak ahead of President Trump’s inauguration.
The Journal reported, citing officials familiar with the matter, that the FBI and the House and Senate Intelligence committees that are investigating Russia’s attempts to interfere in the U.S. election have not taken Flynn’s lawyers up on the offer.
Flynn’s lawyer said in a statement that “General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should the circumstances permit.”
“Notwithstanding his life of national service, the media are awash with unfounded allegations, outrageous claims of treason, and vicious innuendo directed against him. He is now the target of unsubstantiated public demands by Members of Congress and other political critics that he be criminally investigated,” Flynn’s lawyer Robert Kelner said in a statement.
“No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution,” he added.
Kelner said there have been discussions with the House and Senate Intelligence panels.
Flynn spoke with Kislyak multiple times during the transition, including on Dec. 29, the day then-President Obama retaliated against Moscow for its hacking of Democratic political groups and individuals, which intelligence agencies say was done to aid Trump’s campaign.
Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, whose ties to Russia have been under scrutiny, and son-in-law Jared Kushner earlier this week volunteered to be interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee. Former aides Roger Stone and Carter Page, who have also been in the spotlight in the Russian investigations, have also offered to talk with the committees -but none with any conditions of immunity.
The first open hearing into the alleged links between the campaign of Donald Trump and unnamed parties associated with the Russian government kicked off this week, even as the President put out a series of social media posts that seemed to mischaracterize statements coming out of that hearing.
Ground-shaking revelations have come from the grilling of FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Michael Rogers by the House of Representatives’ Intelligence Committee. The first was from Mr. Comey, who confirmed that the FBI was investigating Russia’s efforts to interfere in the presidential election, including links between specific individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Last month Mr. Trump’s nominee for National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned from his post after it emerged that he had withheld information about being in contact with Russia’s Ambassador in Washington prior to Mr. Trump’s inauguration. This month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the probe into alleged Russian meddling when it came to light that he had met the Ambassador prior to the election. Yet he continues to head the institution charged with the inquiry. Mr. Comey revealed that the FBI investigation began in July 2016, when evidence emerged that the Democratic National Committee had been hacked by Russia-related entities and emails handed over to WikiLeaks.
Even as the U.S. intelligence community scrambles to put together the pieces of the Trump-Moscow puzzle, it has, ironically, found itself in the crosshairs of exposure. Earlier this month WikiLeaks released a trove of confidential CIA documents, a series labelled “Vault 7”, which showed the Agency’s penetration of the security systems of household electronic devices that could then be used for covert surveillance. While such timed “leaks” are meant to target his political opponents, Mr. Trump’s own tweets are at odds with revelations in the House hearing. In early March, he accused former President Barack Obama of ordering wiretaps on Trump Tower – yet Mr. Comey said neither the FBI nor the Department of Justice had any information to support that allegation. Mr. Rogers dismissed the White House suggestion that Mr. Obama had asked British intelligence to spy on Mr. Trump, a claim the U.K. has denied. The last straw came when the U.S. President’s account tweeted, as the hearing proceeded, “The NSA and FBI tell Congress that Russia did not influence electoral process,” only to have this statement debunked by Mr. Comey at the hearing, live on TV. Mr. Trump’s tendency to resort to unsubstantiated, even misleading, claims to stall a probe into alleged collaboration with a foreign power is not helping his credibility, which is already low in the eyes of so many Americans.
The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, says a CNN report, claiming US officials told CNN.
“This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday, March 20, before Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, according to one source”, says the CNN report.
CNN report further says: “The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S. officials.
The information is raising the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may have taken place, though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.
“In his statement on Monday Comey said the FBI began looking into possible coordination between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives because the bureau had gathered “a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.”
“The White House did not comment and the FBI declined to comment. Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, said Thursday the Russian government would not comment on information from unnamed sources.
“This is another piece of information without any sources which can’t be commented on, neither can it be taken as some serious thing,” Peskov told reporters in response to a question about CNN’s reporting.
“White House press secretary Sean Spicer maintained Monday after Comey’s testimony that there was no evidence to suggest any collusion took place.
“Investigating it and having proof of it are two different things,” Spicer said.
“The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of the investigation, the officials said.
“The FBI has already been investigating four former Trump campaign associates — Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page — for contacts with Russians known to US intelligence. All four have denied improper contacts and CNN has not confirmed any of them are the subjects of the information the FBI is reviewing”. (Source: CNN)
Could this Russian Angle be bigger than just Sessions, or Flynn???
NEW YORK (TIP) : Russian involvement in the US presidential elections and President Donald Trump’s ties with Putin began during his campaign and is now having effect on his month-old Presidency with members of his top circle getting hit every week.
First Manafort then Flynn and now Sessions. It seems everyone from his core team met and spoke to Russian officials during his campaign (which he knows nothing about) and then lied about these interactions.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions now finds himself in the Russian seat for not disclosing at his confirmation hearing that he spoke twice last year with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak which amounts to perjury.
U.S. intelligence agencies concluded last year that Russia hacked and leaked Democratic emails during the election campaign as part of an effort to tilt the vote in Trump’s favor. The Kremlin has denied the allegations.
Under fire, Jeff Sessions removes himself from campaign probes
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Thursday, March 2, that he would stay out of any probe into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election but maintained he did nothing wrong by failing to disclose he met last year with Russia’s ambassador.
“I have recused myself in the matters that deal with the Trump campaign,” Sessions told reporters at a hastily arranged news conference.
Did Jeff Sessions lie under oath?
Yes, He Did!!!Here’s why: Jeff Sessions met twice with the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak in July and September 2016.
At the time of Sessions’ contact with Kislyak, Sessions was not only serving as a surrogate for Donald Trump but had been named chairman of the Trump campaign’s National Security Advisory Committee.
Sessions denied he had contact with Russian officials when he was asked directly during his Senate confirmation hearing to become attorney general whether he had exchanged information with Russian operatives during the election campaign.
Now-Attorney General Sessions omitted both these meetings in his testimony during his confirmation hearings.
Sessions and his Trump backers pushed back against the revelations saying that it was, essentially, a misunderstanding—Sessions conducted those meetings in his role as United States Senator, not a Trump campaign adviser, therefore he didn’t perjure himself.
“He was literally conducting himself as a United States Senator,” Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday. “This is what senators do in the course of conducting themselves in their jobs.”
But for now its on record that while still in the Senate, Jeff Sessions met with the Russian Ambassador at least twice—once at his Senate office in September and once at an event at the Republican National Convention in July.
(Read The transcript of Jeff Sessions’s recusal news conference, annotated)
Trump’s & White House’s Response : President Trump said earlier Thursday, March 2, he “wasn’t aware at all” of Sessions’ meetings and that the attorney general still has his “total” confidence.
Trump, Kellyanne Conway, Sean Spicer, Sessions and others on the Trump team have denied campaign officials’ communications and connections with Russian officials at least 20 times since July.
Trump and Republicans who control Congress are trying to move past early administration missteps and focus on issues important to them, including immigration, tax cuts and repealing the Obamacare healthcare law.
What questions remain?
It is still unclear what Sessions discussed with Kislyak, although either side could have recorded it or taken notes.
“As long as the conversation remains unknown, people will still be suspicious of what was said, whether that’s merited or not,” said Robert Walker, a former chief counsel to Senate and House ethics committees.
Investigators need to find out about anyone involved with Trump who spoke to Russian officials before he was inaugurated. Short of that, Russia potentially could use those conversations to its advantage if it’s being denied by Trump and his administration.
So far, investigators have found information showing contacts between Trump associates and Russians, including Russians linked to the Kremlin, NBC News has reported. Some of the information came from “routine intercepts” that normally might never have been examined, the source close to the investigation says.
It’s unclear whether that is how the information about the Sessions meetings came to light, but it has become clear that the Russian ambassador was under FBI scrutiny and his communications were being monitored.
A declassified report from U.S. intelligence agencies released in January concluded just that, saying, “Putin and the Russian government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.”
Russia is Laughing with eyes wide Open: The Kremlin, increasingly convinced that President Trump will not fundamentally change relations with Russia, is instead seeking to bolster its global influence by exploiting what it considers weakness in Washington, according to political advisers, diplomats, journalists and other analysts.
Russia has continued to test the United States on the military front, with fighter jets flying close to an American warship in the Black Sea this month and a Russian naval vessel steaming conspicuously in the Atlantic off the coast of Delaware.
“They think he is unstable, that he can be manipulated, that he is authoritarian and a person without a team,” Alexei A. Venediktov, the editor in chief of Echo of Moscow, a liberal radio station, said of President Trump.
The undeserving Donald Trump pretty just keeps on proving to America that his presidency was just going to be a pathetic continuation of his presidential campaign, squashing all hopes that he might suddenly come to his senses and start acting like a responsible adult who must now lead a country.
Donald Trump’s weird relationship with Russia has been problematic and suspicious from the beginning of his presidential campaign.
Never before had we seen a President praising a leader of another country like the way Trump gushed about Russian leader Vladimir Putin or admitting that our country the United States of America is not no innocent.
Trump continued effort to defend Russia as reports of the country’s interference in the U.S. election started to be released. There were red flags everywhere, and they continue to pop up again and again while Trump continuously tried to distract Americans from it with his Twitter temper tantrums about “fake news.”
Another concerning report has just been released by CNN, and this makes Trump and his team look even more suspicious than before.
Apparently, the White House has requested that the FBI “publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump’s associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign.”
The report states: “White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14.”
That certainly sounds shady – and the FBI knows it.
According to the report, the FBI shot down the White House’s request and said no.
For Trump’s team to be contacting the FBI directly is highly unusual due to “decade-old restrictions on such contacts”, according to CNN, and we should definitely be paying attention.
Clearly, the Trump administration is extremely worried about what might be uncovered and wanted to take the focus off Trump’s ties with Russia by asking the FBI for this ridiculous favor.
President Donald Trump suffered a big political blow on Monday, barely a month into office, when his National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, resigned over his Russia contacts.
Mr. Flynn, a close aide of Mr. Trump, admitted that he had “inadvertently” briefed Vice-President Mike Pence with “incomplete information” about his phone conversation with the Russian ambassador in Washington, Sergey Kislyak.
The allegation is that Mr. Flynn discussed American sanctions on Russia with Mr. Kislyak in the waning days of the Obama presidency and told him that Russia should wait till Mr. Trump’s inauguration.
He later denied speaking of the sanctions, and based on his brief, Mr. Pence publicly defended him. But after the media reported that they had sources vouching that Mr. Flynn had discussed the sanctions with the envoy, it became impossible for the White House to defend him.
Technically, Mr. Flynn’s calls with the Russian ambassador before he became part of the government are a breach of an 18th century law, the Logan Act, that makes it illegal for private individuals to conduct foreign policy. The context is grave for the Trump administration.
There are already allegations that Moscow interfered in the presidential elections in favor of Mr. Trump and that the Russians have some compromising personal information about Mr. Trump.
The resignation, however, is unlikely to contain the scandal. It raises even more questions about administration officials’ dealings with Russia and the way the government functions. Mr. Flynn, for example, already faces allegations that he acted with the knowledge of others in Mr. Trump’s transition team, and his past Russian links are being probed. If the scandal widens, it could derail Mr. Trump’s Russia reset plans. He could have avoided this early embarrassment had he paid more heed to those who questioned his picks for top jobs in the administration. Mr. Flynn, who was fired by President Barack Obama in 2014 as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was particularly unpopular in Washington. Mr. Trump’s other picks, be it Attorney General Jeff Sessions who faces allegations of racism, or Education Secretary Betsy DeVos who needed the Vice-President to cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate for confirmation, are other cases in point. Such decisions cannot be unmade now. But Mr. Trump could learn some lessons from the Flynn episode. He could use better judgment when he chooses his next NSA. He should set his house in order and formulate a cohesive approach towards domestic and foreign policy issues, including stating clearly what his Russia policy is. If not, his administration could well be trapped in crisis mode.
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and his other associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year prior to the election, officials said.
President-elect Trump and then-President Barack Obama were both briefed on details of the extensive communications between suspected Russian operatives and people associated with the Trump campaign and the Trump business, US officials familiar with the matter told CNN.
The communications were intercepted during routine intelligence collection targeting Russian officials and other Russian nationals known to US intelligence, the report said on Wednesday.
Among several senior Trump advisers regularly communicating with Russian nationals were then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and then-adviser Michael Flynn.
Adding to US investigators’ concerns were intercepted communications between Russian officials before and after the US elections discussing their belief that they had special access to Trump, said two US law enforcement officials. The intercepted communications also included other associates of Trump, whom the officials declined to identify. On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the government outside of the intelligence services, they said.
The call logs and intercepted communications were part of a larger trove of information that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was sifting through as part of an investigation on the links between Trump’s associates and the Russian government, as well as the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computers, according to federal law enforcement officials.
Manafort denied that he was in contact with Russians known to US intelligence. “This is absurd,” he said.
“I have no idea what this is referring to. I have never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers, and I have never been involved with anything to do with the Russian government or the (Vladimir) Putin administration or any other issues under investigation today,” he said.
Manafort, who has held business ties with Russian and Ukrainian individuals, also emphasized that his work for the Yanukovich government in Ukraine should not be interpreted as closeness to the Russians.
The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations in 2016 between Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael T. Flynn and Sergey I. Kislyak, Russia’s Ambassador to the US.
In those calls, which led to Flynn’s resignation on Monday night, the two men discussed sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in December.
On Tuesday, top Republican lawmakers said Flynn should be one focus of the investigation, and that he should be called to testify before Congress. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Flynn’s resignation would not stop the committee “from continuing to investigate General Flynn, or any other campaign official who may have had inappropriate and improper contacts with Russian officials prior to the election”.
Signup to our Newsletter!
Don’t miss out on all the happenings around the world
