The Russian Connection

[GreyhoundFan]

1 minute ago, fraurosena said:

Yeah, because they are covering their own colluding asses. Anyone with half a functioning braincell can see that from a mile away. Who do they think they are fooling?

They're like a bunch of three year old children caught with their hands in the cookie jar, yet claim, "not me".

[CTRLZero]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

We start tonight with the founding of the Family Research Council. The Family Research Council was founded as a very hardline, religious right activist group in the early nineteen eighties.

James Dobson has always been the figurehead and the prime mover of the Family Research Council. But it’s initial funding came in large part from a Michigan based businessman. A man named Edgar Prince.

Wow, this is really a fascinating detail.  An offshoot of this whole thing is the generation of Duggar-like homeschoolers who are not taught critical thinking skills and thus play straight into the Trump mess we have today. 

[Cartmann99]

4 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican who is stepping into Nunes’ role as chair for the Russia investigation, has pledged to stay focused on the subject of the investigation — Russian meddling in the election and any Trump campaign collusion with that effort. But his past statements are concerning. At the Committee’s first open hearing on the matter last month, at which FBI Director James Comey confirmed that the FBI is investigating Russian election interference and collusion with the Trump campaign, Conaway expressed doubts about whether the Russian interference was intended to help Trump, despite the fact that the intelligence community has determined that this is the case.

This is one of the reasons I am pessimistic about Conaway being the chair of this investigation. As I said before, if he really does go after the truth in this investigation and not try to cover things up for political gain, I will give him credit for that.

I'm still going to give him hell about his view that it's totally fine to slash programs that help "the least of these", as long as you individually donate to charity. 

[GreyhoundFan]

An update from CNN: "Sources: Russia tried to use Trump advisers to infiltrate campaign"

Quote

The FBI gathered intelligence last summer that suggests Russian operatives tried to use Trump advisers, including Carter Page, to infiltrate the Trump campaign, according to US officials.

The new information adds to the emerging picture of how the Russians tried to influence the 2016 election, not only through email hacks and propaganda but also by trying to infiltrate the Trump orbit. The intelligence led to an investigation into the coordination of Trump's campaign associates and the Russians.

These officials made clear they don't know whether Page was aware the Russians may have been using him. Because of the way Russian spy services operate, Page could have unknowingly talked with Russian agents.

Page disputes the idea he has ever collected intelligence for the Russians, saying he helped the US intelligence community. "My assumption throughout the last 26 years I've been going there has always been that any Russian person might share information with the Russian government ... as I have similarly done with the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies in the past."

But the intelligence suggests Russia tried to infiltrate the inner-workings of the Trump campaign by using backdoor channels to communicate with people in the Trump orbit, US officials say.

Page is one of several Trump advisers US and European intelligence found to be in contact with Russian officials and other Russians known to Western intelligence during the campaign, according to multiple US officials.

The scope and frequency of those contacts raised the interest of US intelligence agencies.

The FBI and CIA declined to comment on Page's statement.

In 2013, Page had meetings with a Russian man who turned out to be a spy, according to federal prosecutors. Page denied knowing that the man, Victor Podobnyy, was secretly a Russian operative living in New York.

As CNN first reported, Carter Page's speech critical of US policy against Russia in July 2016 at a prominent Moscow university drew the attention of the FBI and raised concerns he had been compromised by Russian intelligence, according to US officials. They also feared that Russian operatives maintained contact with him both in the United States and Russia, US officials say.

His conversations with suspected Russian operatives are being examined as part of a large intelligence-gathering operation by the FBI and other US agencies that was set up to probe Russia's interference in the election. The officials would not say what the conversations were about.

How Page's name became associated with the campaign is a reflection of how minimal the Trump operation was last year, as establishment national security figures avoided an association with the insurgent operation.

As Trump prepared to meet with The Washington Post editorial page in March 2016, the campaign was under pressure to name national security advisers. Staffers produced a list of names for Trump to refer to, according to a US official close to the campaign. Trump mentioned Page, in part because he had a Ph.D. listed next to his name, the official said.

Trump had never met Page. Sam Clovis, co-chairman of the campaign, helped gather the names that the candidate used.

Campaign officials say there's no indication Page ever attended any national security meetings at Trump Tower. They insisted he played a junior role and was not an influential figure.

But in a letter Page wrote to the House Intelligence committee offering to testify, Page describes more interactions with the campaign.

"For your information, I have frequently dined in Trump Grill, had lunch in Trump Cafe, had coffee meetings in the Starbucks at Trump Tower, attended events and spent many hours in campaign headquarters on the fifth floor last year."

The FBI had Page on their radar for at least four years, according to court documents and US officials.

The bureau also knew about Page from its 2013 investigation into a Russian spy ring in New York. One of the spies was taped saying he tried to recruit Page, and Page admitted meeting him. But Page says he didn't share anything sensitive and didn't know he was talking to a spy.

He also traveled to Russia frequently and interacted with officials that the FBI was concerned were acting on behalf of the government.

His trip to Russia in July 2016 revived the FBI's interest, when he delivered a lecture at a graduation ceremony for the New Economic School. The university opened after the fall of the Soviet Union and is ranked as one of the best universities for economics in Russia. Former President Barack Obama gave a speech there during his first official trip to Russia in 2009.

But Page's lecture sounded different than what would be expected from most Americans. He parroted Kremlin talking points by chastising the West for prolonging "Cold War tendencies."

"Ironically, Washington and other Western capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change," he said, adding that US foreign policy toward Russia was "condescending" and "hostile."

Page stressed to the audience that he was there as a private citizen and not a Trump surrogate. But a spokesman for the school told CNN that Page's ties to Trump helped secure the invitation.

...

Reuters reported this week that the group was involved in Russia's efforts to interfere in the US election. The organization sent recommendations to top Kremlin leaders with plans of how to use its propaganda machine to help Trump and undermine Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

The FBI and other US agencies have been combing through information obtained through that FISA as part of its ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's links to Russia.

Intelligence analysts and FBI investigators who analyzed various strands of intelligence from human sources to electronic and financial records have found signs of possible collusion between the campaign and Russian officials. But there is not enough evidence to show that crimes were committed, US officials say.

Part of the problem for investigators has been that they lost their opportunity to conduct the investigation in secret after several leaks last year revealed FBI was looking at people close to the Trump campaign. After those reports, people that the US was monitoring changed their behavior, which made it more difficult for US officials to monitor them.

Carter Page looks dirtier and dirtier.

[fraurosena]

US authorities have prepared charges to arrest Julian Assange

Quote

US authorities have prepared charges to seek the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, US officials familiar with the matter tell CNN.

The Justice Department investigation of Assange and WikiLeaks dates to at least 2010, when the site first gained wide attention for posting thousands of files stolen by the former US Army intelligence analyst now known as Chelsea Manning.

Prosecutors have struggled with whether the First Amendment precluded the prosecution of Assange, but now believe they have found a way to move forward.[...]

The US view of WikiLeaks and Assange began to change after investigators found what they believe was proof that WikiLeaks played an active role in helping Edward Snowden, a former NSA analyst, disclose a massive cache of classified documents.[...]

Assange remains holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, seeking to avoid an arrest warrant on rape allegations in Sweden. In recent months, US officials had focused on the possibility that a new government in Ecuador would expel Assange and he could be arrested. But the left-leaning presidential candidate who won the recent election in the South American nation has promised to continue to harbor Assange.[...]

US intelligence agencies have also determined that Russian intelligence used WikiLeaks to publish emails aimed at undermining the campaign of Hillary Clinton, as part of a broader operation to meddle in the US 2016 presidential election. Hackers working for Russian intelligence agencies stole thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee and officials in the Clinton campaign and used intermediaries to pass along the documents to WikiLeaks, according to a public assessment by US intelligence agencies.

Still, the move could be viewed as political, since Assange is untouchable as long as he remains in the Ecuadorian embassy, and Ecuador has not changed its stance on Assange's extradition.[...]

In his speech last week, Pompeo [...]  said Assange should not be afforded constitutional free speech protections. "Julian Assange has no First Amendment freedoms. He's sitting in an Embassy in London. He's not a US citizen," Pompeo said.

Rep. Peter King, R-New York, told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that based on CNN's reporting, "I'm glad that the Justice Department has found a way to go after Assange. He's gotten a free ride for too long."

King said Assange has "caused tremendous damage to our national security, put American lives at risk."

But Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, argued that US prosecution of Assange sets a dangerous precedent.

"Never in the history of this country has a publisher been prosecuted for presenting truthful information to the public," Wizner told CNN. "Any prosecution of WikiLeaks for publishing government secrets would set a dangerous precedent that the Trump administration would surely use to target other news organizations."

 

[candygirl200413]

Senate Trump-Russia Probe Has No Full-Time Staff, No Key Witnesses

I was thinking about this yesterday, how there hasn't been really anything in regards to what is going on via senate.

Quote

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s probe into Russia’s election interference is supposedly the best hope for getting the public credible answers about whether there was any coordination between the Kremlin and Trump Tower.

But there are serious reasons to doubt that it can accomplish this task, as currently configured.

More than three months after the committee announced that it had agreed on the scope of the investigation, the panel has not begun substantially investigating possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, three individuals with ties to the committee told The Daily Beast.

The investigation does not have a single staffer dedicated to it full-time, and those staff members working on it part-time do not have significant investigative experience. The probe currently appears to be moving at a pace slower than prior Senate Intelligence Committee investigations, such as the CIA torture inquiry, which took years to accomplish.

No interviews have been conducted with key individuals suspected of being in the Trump-Russia orbit: not Michael Flynn, not Roger Stone, not Carter Page, not Paul Manafort, and not Jared Kushner, according to two sources familiar with the committee’s procedures.

“It’s either a real investigation or not,” said one individual with knowledge of the committee’s activities. “You have to have an approved investigative guide. You have to make it formal. Can you have a credible investigation with only seven part-time staffers, doing everything in secret?”

This is despite the committee’s leadership giving off a bipartisan, cooperative impression to the public.

Thus far the Senate Intelligence Committee has been focused only on reviewing the Intelligence Community Assessment, “Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,” a declassified version of which was publicly released in January. The public assessment concluded that Russia had actively sought to interfere in the presidential race, and had a preference for Donald Trump, and does not draw conclusions about any possible Russia ties to Team Trump.

Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Burr told the public in an update of the committee’s work on March 29 that this topic was a core mission of the investigation: “to look at any campaign contacts from either [campaign] with the Russian government or Russian government officials that might have influenced, in any way, shape, or form, the election process,” he said.

The committee has sent letters to various individuals and entities to ask them to preserve documents relevant to the investigation. Carter Page, Roger Stone, and federal agencies have reportedly been among the subjects of these requests. But there is no timeline on when the committee will request the documents they’ve asked subjects to preserve.

In one hint about the inadequacies of the investigation, Senate Intelligence Committee member Sen. Ron Wyden last month sent a letter to the Republican and Democrat heads of the panel, imploring them to look into financial relationships between Russia, President Trump, and his associates. The implication behind the letter? That the committee wasn’t already looking into it.

And there appears to be a casual informality about the way the committee is conducting itself. For example, when the committee privately decided upon the scope of their investigation, it held no formal vote, according to a source familiar with the committee’s procedures. While there is a transcript of their decision, there was no roll call vote that can be used to hold individual senators accountable for the decision to move forward.

Meanwhile, the committee has done two major things to date. They have secured access agreements with the intelligence community to review documents, a process which took two months; and they have completed an initial round of interviews with intelligence analysts behind the Intelligence Community Assessment.

Part of the reason why the committee has not acted more swiftly is because of its current structure. The Senate Intelligence Committee is typically an oversight panel, not an investigative one. It is set up more to review than to actively probe.

“The biggest obstacle now for a serious investigation into Trump-Russia ties is dedicated resources for staffing,” said a source with ties to the committee. “Serious consideration is being given to getting outside resources, as is customary in many large Capitol Hill investigations. Serious work requires serious investigative skills and resources, which wouldn’t naturally be resident in a committee like Senate Intel.”

The committee previously announced that seven staffers had been assigned to review classified documents related to the Russia investigation. These are the majority and minority staff directors, joined by three Republican aides and two Democratic aides.

“We have devoted seven professional staff positions to this investigation. These are staffers who already had the clearance,” Burr said on March 29.

Of the seven staffers so far assigned to review classified documents related to the Russia investigation, none of them has prosecutorial or investigative experience, according to three sources with ties to the committee.

Most of them lack a background in Russia expertise. Not one of the seven is a lawyer.

“I don’t see how you can do this without trained investigators and prosecutors. I think you need to have expertise on the intel side and on the prosecution side. You would ideally need someone who knows how to do a counterintelligence operation,” said Scott Horton, an attorney who has focused on anti-corruption investigations, with a specialization in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet states.

The investigation already faces a series of obstacles that have heavy requirements on time: the classification of documents, the location of documents at various agencies, and an incredible volume of material.

But of the seven staffers, none has been assigned full-time to the work of the Russia probe, according to four sources with ties to the committee. Every one of the seven staffers has other oversight responsibilities, and thus a dual-hatted role that prevents them from focusing singularly on the investigation.

Of the seven, two are the staff directors of the committee—an enormously demanding job even in the calmest of circumstances, which limits their involvement. One of the seven even attends law school part-time.

“To do a serious investigation would require not less than a dozen full-time staffers… [with] counterintelligence, prosecutorial skills to do it, and people who have a very good sense of the forensic accounting world of Russia and Europe. Without that sort of expertise, you’re not going to get anywhere,” Horton said. “I don’t think they’re deploying the resources that are necessary to do a real investigation.”

The committee’s announcement that seven staffers were dedicated to this project was meant to instill faith in the inquiry. But left unsaid was that the list of seven staffers is also exclusionary: No one outside the list would have access to all the materials in the investigation. This is opposed to what occurred in the later stages of the CIA torture investigation, when all Senate Intelligence Committee staff with proper clearance had access to the materials.

In coming weeks, the committee will add two new staffers, one with decades of experience as a lawyer and expertise in intelligence law. But these two staffers will also have a dual-hatted role, and other responsibilities on the committee.

A spokesperson for the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee declined to comment.

The committee has been given the green light for $1.2 million in additional funding over two years for the purposes of the investigation. While the Senate Intelligence Committee had considered hiring dedicated investigators to focus on the Russia investigation, this idea has stalled.

The tragic irony may be that for all of the House Intelligence Committee’s public dysfunction, it has actually yielded more results in the public interest and is actually making more progress.

After all, the House Intelligence Committee was where FBI Director James Comey dropped the bombshell that the Bureau was undertaking an ongoing investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The committee appears to be expanding its investigation—Rep. Mike Quigley, a Democratic member of the committee, told The Daily Beast that he traveled to Cyprus to investigate Russian money laundering there as part of the panel’s Russia investigation.

“We believe that we’re going to move forward in a positive way,” Quigley said. “The feeling among Democrats is cautiously optimistic. Reset, reboot, move forward.”

The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation took a wrong turn when Chairman Devin Nunes engaged in an embarrassing weeks-long debacle: receiving secret documents from the White House in private, then publicly returning to the White House to brief the president on them in an elaborate ruse.

In the process, Nunes triggered a House ethics investigation into the possibility that he may have spilled classified information, and was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

The process now seems to be getting back on track. It has now begun scheduling open and closed hearings again.

“We tentatively have scheduled the [FBI Director] Comey and [NSA Director] Rogers closed hearing for May 2nd, we are working to schedule the open hearing with [former CIA Director] Brennan, [former Director of National Intelligence] Clapper and [former acting Attorney General] Yates, and we are working to schedule interviews and get documents,” said a House Intelligence Committee aide.

Ultimately, the House and Senate investigations into Russia and possible Trump ties have both shown reasons to doubt their credibility.

But with the House, it’s been a public fiasco. With the Senate, it’s been a private tragedy.

[fraurosena]

4 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

Senate Trump-Russia Probe Has No Full-Time Staff, No Key Witnesses

I was thinking about this yesterday, how there hasn't been really anything in regards to what is going on via senate.

Meanwhile, the committee has done two major things to date. They have secured access agreements with the intelligence community to review documents, a process which took two months; and they have completed an initial round of interviews with intelligence analysts behind the Intelligence Community Assessment.

Part of the reason why the committee has not acted more swiftly is because of its current structure. The Senate Intelligence Committee is typically an oversight panel, not an investigative one. It is set up more to review than to actively probe.

“The biggest obstacle now for a serious investigation into Trump-Russia ties is dedicated resources for staffing,” said a source with ties to the committee. “Serious consideration is being given to getting outside resources, as is customary in many large Capitol Hill investigations. Serious work requires serious investigative skills and resources, which wouldn’t naturally be resident in a committee like Senate Intel.”

The committee previously announced that seven staffers had been assigned to review classified documents related to the Russia investigation. These are the majority and minority staff directors, joined by three Republican aides and two Democratic aides.

“We have devoted seven professional staff positions to this investigation. These are staffers who already had the clearance,” Burr said on March 29.

Of the seven staffers so far assigned to review classified documents related to the Russia investigation, none of them has prosecutorial or investigative experience, according to three sources with ties to the committee.

Most of them lack a background in Russia expertise. Not one of the seven is a lawyer.

“I don’t see how you can do this without trained investigators and prosecutors. I think you need to have expertise on the intel side and on the prosecution side. You would ideally need someone who knows how to do a counterintelligence operation,” said Scott Horton, an attorney who has focused on anti-corruption investigations, with a specialization in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet states.

The investigation already faces a series of obstacles that have heavy requirements on time: the classification of documents, the location of documents at various agencies, and an incredible volume of material.

But of the seven staffers, none has been assigned full-time to the work of the Russia probe, according to four sources with ties to the committee. Every one of the seven staffers has other oversight responsibilities, and thus a dual-hatted role that prevents them from focusing singularly on the investigation.

Of the seven, two are the staff directors of the committee—an enormously demanding job even in the calmest of circumstances, which limits their involvement. One of the seven even attends law school part-time.

“To do a serious investigation would require not less than a dozen full-time staffers… [with] counterintelligence, prosecutorial skills to do it, and people who have a very good sense of the forensic accounting world of Russia and Europe. Without that sort of expertise, you’re not going to get anywhere,” Horton said. “I don’t think they’re deploying the resources that are necessary to do a real investigation.”

The committee’s announcement that seven staffers were dedicated to this project was meant to instill faith in the inquiry. But left unsaid was that the list of seven staffers is also exclusionary: No one outside the list would have access to all the materials in the investigation. This is opposed to what occurred in the later stages of the CIA torture investigation, when all Senate Intelligence Committee staff with proper clearance had access to the materials.

In coming weeks, the committee will add two new staffers, one with decades of experience as a lawyer and expertise in intelligence law. But these two staffers will also have a dual-hatted role, and other responsibilities on the committee.

A spokesperson for the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee declined to comment.

The committee has been given the green light for $1.2 million in additional funding over two years for the purposes of the investigation. While the Senate Intelligence Committee had considered hiring dedicated investigators to focus on the Russia investigation, this idea has stalled.

The tragic irony may be that for all of the House Intelligence Committee’s public dysfunction, it has actually yielded more results in the public interest and is actually making more progress.

After all, the House Intelligence Committee was where FBI Director James Comey dropped the bombshell that the Bureau was undertaking an ongoing investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The committee appears to be expanding its investigation—Rep. Mike Quigley, a Democratic member of the committee, told The Daily Beast that he traveled to Cyprus to investigate Russian money laundering there as part of the panel’s Russia investigation.

“We believe that we’re going to move forward in a positive way,” Quigley said. “The feeling among Democrats is cautiously optimistic. Reset, reboot, move forward.”

The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation took a wrong turn when Chairman Devin Nunes engaged in an embarrassing weeks-long debacle: receiving secret documents from the White House in private, then publicly returning to the White House to brief the president on them in an elaborate ruse.

In the process, Nunes triggered a House ethics investigation into the possibility that he may have spilled classified information, and was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.

The process now seems to be getting back on track. It has now begun scheduling open and closed hearings again.

“We tentatively have scheduled the [FBI Director] Comey and [NSA Director] Rogers closed hearing for May 2nd, we are working to schedule the open hearing with [former CIA Director] Brennan, [former Director of National Intelligence] Clapper and [former acting Attorney General] Yates, and we are working to schedule interviews and get documents,” said a House Intelligence Committee aide.

Ultimately, the House and Senate investigations into Russia and possible Trump ties have both shown reasons to doubt their credibility.

But with the House, it’s been a public fiasco. With the Senate, it’s been a private tragedy.

Doesn't this amount to obstruction of justice? And if it does, who is going to do something about it? Is there an independant organisation that can hold up its hand and actually do something? Or are you all just fucked?

[CTRLZero]

8 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

The committee has sent letters to various individuals and entities to ask them to preserve documents relevant to the investigation. Carter Page, Roger Stone, and federal agencies have reportedly been among the subjects of these requests. But there is no timeline on when the committee will request the documents they’ve asked subjects to preserve.

I hope this issue doesn't drop by the wayside.  It should be apparent to all that, if there was meddling with the election, we'd damn well better figure it out as a nation before the next election cycle. 

As far as funding, I think in terms of, if Trump would forego one round of golf, this frees up x amount of dollars for something more critical.  Of course, what incentive does he have at this point, so there will just be more foot dragging.

Time to fire off more postcards.

[GreyhoundFan]

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Doesn't this amount to obstruction of justice? And if it does, who is going to do something about it? Is there an independant organisation that can hold up its hand and actually do something? Or are you all just fucked?

Unfortunately, an independent prosecutor, who would lead a truly independent investigation, has to be appointed by congress. Mitch McTurtle and Paul Lyan aren't going to do anything like that. They don't care about the good of the country and world. They are also probably concerned that they'll be found to be co-conspirators.

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Unfortunately, an independent prosecutor, who would lead a truly independent investigation, has to be appointed by congress. Mitch McTurtle and Paul Lyan aren't going to do anything like that. They don't care about the good of the country and world. They are also probably concerned that they'll be found to be co-conspirators.

So, in essence, you're fucked.
 

[GreyhoundFan]

I don't think "probably" covers it: "Flynn probably broke the law by failing to disclose foreign payments, House Oversight leaders say"

Quote

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn probably broke the law by failing to disclose foreign income he earned from Russia and Turkey, the heads of the House Oversight Committee said Tuesday.

Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and the panel’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), said they believe Flynn neither received permission nor fully disclosed income he earned for a speaking engagement in Russia and lobbying activities on behalf of Turkey when he applied to reinstate his security clearance. They reached this conclusion after viewing two classified memos and a disclosure form in a private briefing Tuesday morning.

“Personally I see no evidence or no data to support the notion that General Flynn complied with the law,” Chaffetz told reporters after the briefing.

Said Cummings: “He was supposed to get permission, he was supposed to report it, and he didn’t. This is a major problem.”

Chaffetz and Cummings stressed that as a former military officer, Flynn would have needed special permission for his appearance at a gala sponsored by RT, the Russian-government-funded television station, for which he was paid $45,000. For his work lobbying on behalf of the Turkish government, he was paid more than $500,000.

“It does not appear that was ever sought, nor did he get that permission,” Chaffetz said.

The Republican later added that while Flynn was clearly not in compliance with the law, “it would be a little strong to say that he flat-out lied.”

Flynn’s omission could cost him. Violations of this nature can be punished by up to five years of jail time, though President Trump’s Justice Department ultimately would make the decision about whether to investigate or charge him.

Chaffetz stressed that the government ought to “recover the money” that was paid to Flynn by foreign entities — a figure that would at least be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

While it will not be up to the Oversight Committee to impose punishment, panel leaders pledged to pursue the matter, indicating a preference for making the documents the lawmakers reviewed public.

The future of any action may rely on a new Oversight Committee chairman. Chaffetz announced last week that he would resign from Congress in 2018 and perhaps leave much sooner — setting off a scramble to replace him on the House’s chief investigative panel.

The documents that committee members reviewed Tuesday came from the Defense Intelligence Agency and showed that Flynn had not declared any income from Russian or Turkish sources, despite the fact that the forms were filed about a month after Flynn’s reported trip to Moscow to speak at the RT gala, Cummings said.

“As has previously been reported, General Flynn briefed the Defense Intelligence Agency, a component agency of DoD, extensively regarding the RT speaking event trip both before and after the trip, and he answered any questions that were posed by DIA concerning the trip during those briefings,” said Flynn counsel Rob Kelner of Covington & Burling.

...

The House probe in particular has been beset with controversy after the Intelligence Committee’s chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), publicly signaled that he had seen information suggesting the identity of Trump or members of his transition team may have been revealed in classified surveillance reports.

The Oversight Committee asked the White House in March for documents pertaining to Flynn’s security-clearance applications, the vetting that occurred before he was named national security adviser, and all of his contacts with foreign agents, including any payments received. In particular, the committee heads requested to see a disclosure form known as the SF86, on which Flynn was obligated to declare any foreign income.

On April 19, the White House sent the committee a reply, stating that any documents related to Flynn from before Jan. 20 — the day Trump took office — were not in its possession and that any documents from after that date did not seem relevant to the committee’s investigation.

“The White House has refused to provide this committee with a single piece of paper in response to our bipartisan request,” Cummings said.

He noted that lawmakers would be interested in seeing documents that could shed light on what Flynn told the White House and his foreign contacts before he was named national security adviser, and what led to his exit less than a month later.

During the transition period, Flynn told the incoming White House that he might need to register as a foreign agent. Cummings would not go so far as to accuse the White House of intentionally obstructing the committee’s investigation of Flynn.

The committee is not likely to pull Flynn before the panel for testimony — despite Cummings’s insistence that it “should be holding a hearing with General Flynn.”

Chaffetz said he would “highly doubt” that the committee would call Flynn to testify, deferring any command for such an audience to the House Intelligence Committee.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Top Pentagon watchdog launches investigation into money that Michael Flynn received from foreign groups"

Quote

The Pentagon’s top watchdog has launched an investigation into money that former national security adviser and retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn received from foreign groups, members of the House Oversight Committee said Thursday.

The Pentagon office will try to determine whether Flynn “failed to obtain required approval prior to receiving” the payments, according to an April 11 letter from Defense Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the committee chairman. In the past, the Pentagon has advised retiring officers that because they can be recalled to military service, they may be subject to the Constitution’s rarely enforced emoluments clause, which prohibits top officials from receiving payments or favors from foreign governments.

Flynn received $45,000 to appear in 2015 with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a gala dinner for RT, a Kremlin-controlled media organization. He also worked as a foreign agent representing Turkish interests for a Netherlands-based company, Inovo BV, which paid his company, Flynn Intel Group, $530,000 in the fall.

Defense Department guidelines warn that the department’s top financial officer, the comptroller, “may pursue debt collection” if a retired officer does not seek permission to accept foreign payments before doing so. Any debt collection due to an emoluments clause violation is capped at no more than what an individual makes in retirement pay during a period of unauthorized employment. In Flynn’s case, that is more than $35,000 for the three months of the Inovo project.

...

Flynn’s lawyer, Robert K. Kelner, has argued that the retired general briefed the Defense Intelligence Agency, from which he retired in 2014, before and after his 2015 Russia trip.

But a letter DIA sent the House committee said that the agency has no record of Flynn seeking permission or approval to accept money from a foreign source, potentially countering Kelner’s argument. He could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.

...

On Thursday, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, also released an Oct. 8, 2014, letter in which a Defense Department lawyer warned Flynn upon his retirement from military service that he was forbidden from receiving payments from foreign sources without receiving permission from the U.S. government first.

“These documents raise grave questions about why Gen. Flynn concealed the payments he received from foreign sources after he was warned explicitly by the Pentagon,” Cummings said. “Our next step is to get the documents we are seeking from the White House so we can complete our investigation.  I thank the Department of Defense for providing us with unclassified versions of these documents.”

Bruce Anderson, a spokesman for the Defense Department inspector general, said Thursday that the investigation into Flynn began April 4. The watchdog’s office did not discuss the investigation publicly until after the House Oversight Committee released documents about it, and it typically does not disclose what it is reviewing while an investigation is underway.

Flynn is moving further and further up the creek. Good, couldn't happen to a nicer guy. <end sarcasm font>

[AmazonGrace]

Why is Carter Page doing interviews? 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

56 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Why is Carter Page doing interviews? 

 

What a smug ass. I could see his nose growing longer with every sentence. I hope he ends up in prison. FISA warrants are not easily obtained, no matter what he alleges.

"Why won’t Congress really investigate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia?"

Quote

Politicians, pundits, and scholars alike routinely call Congress the “broken branch.” Most often, they note its abysmally low level of legislative productivity recently, a trend that even the return of unified Republican control of government has failed to reverse.

But Congress’s feeble efforts to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election may be an even more startling and serious institutional failure.

The House inquiry has been plagued by infighting and missteps. The most notable so far was the clandestine meeting to share intelligence between chief investigator, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), and the White House he was charged with investigating.

While the Senate investigative committee has pledged a thorough probe, it’s done little so far. It has held no high-profile hearings. Until very recently, it had no full-time staff, and its few part-time staffers have no investigative experience or expertise with Russia.

That investigative standstill is worrisome. What’s at stake is the integrity of the U.S. electoral process. But it’s not surprising. The same party controls the presidency and both houses of Congress. And in recent decades, members have shifted their time from committee work to efforts to stay in office, with frequent trips home and ongoing fundraising.

Throughout American history, from Teapot Dome to the Truman Committee to Watergate, congressional investigations have been a powerful tool to expose wrongdoing, hold the executive branch to account, and prompt policy change.

Indeed, the Senate Intelligence Committee owes its very existence to a congressional investigation. In the 1970s, after Watergate and revelations of controversial surveillance and covert programs, the Senate created the Church Committee to investigate.  The committee uncovered systematic abuse in intelligence agencies that shocked the country — and spurred new legislation, including S. Res 400 which created a Senate Select Committee to oversee the intelligence community.

Although investigations are a powerful tool, Congress hasn’t used them consistently. When the parties are intensely polarized, congressional majorities investigate only when the White House is held by the other party, as our research recently examined.

...

Yeah, that's the crux of the issue, everything is so polarized, so congress won't actually investigate. The heck with the will of the people.

[fraurosena]

7 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

What a smug ass. I could see his nose growing longer with every sentence. I hope he ends up in prison. FISA warrants are not easily obtained, no matter what he alleges.

"Why won’t Congress really investigate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia?"

Yeah, that's the crux of the issue, everything is so polarized, so congress won't actually investigate. The heck with the will of the people.

Democracy is dead and gone.

[GreyhoundFan]

I found this article interesting: "How the Republican right found allies in Russia"

Quote

Growing up in the 1980s, Brian Brown was taught to think of the communist Soviet Union as a dark and evil place.

But Brown, a leading opponent of same-sex marriage, said that in the past few years he has started meeting Russians at conferences on family issues and finding many kindred spirits.

Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, has visited Moscow four times in four years, including a 2013 trip during which he testified before the Duma as Russia adopted a series of anti-gay laws.

“What I realized was that there was a great change happening in the former Soviet Union,” he said. “There was a real push to re-instill Christian values in the public square.”

A significant shift has been underway in recent years across the Republican right.

On issues including gun rights, terrorism and same-sex marriage, many leading advocates on the right who grew frustrated with their country’s leftward tilt under President Barack Obama have forged ties with well-connected Russians and come to see that country’s authoritarian leader, Vladimir Putin, as a potential ally.

The attitude adjustment among many conservative activists helps explain one of the most curious aspects of the 2016 presidential race: a softening among many conservatives of their historically hard-line views of Russia. To the alarm of some in the GOP’s national security establishment, support in the party base for then-candidate Donald Trump did not wane even after he rejected the tough tone of 2012 nominee Mitt Romney, who called Russia America’s No. 1 foe, and repeatedly praised Putin.

...

About the same time in December 2015, evangelist Franklin Graham met privately with Putin for 45 minutes, securing from the Russian president an offer to help with an upcoming conference on the persecution of Christians. Graham was impressed, telling The Washington Post that Putin “answers questions very directly and doesn’t dodge them like a lot of our politicians do.”

The growing dialogue between Russians and U.S. conservatives came at the same time experts say the Russian government stepped up efforts to cultivate and influence far-right groups in Europe and on the eve of Russia’s unprecedented intrusion into the U.S. campaign, which intelligence officials have concluded was intended to elect Trump.

...

Interactions between Russians and American conservatives appeared to gain momentum as Obama prepared to run for a second term.

At the time, many in the GOP warned that Obama had failed to counter the national security threat posted by Putin’s aggression.

But, deep in the party base, change was brewing.

At least one connection came about thanks to a conservative Nashville lawyer named G. Kline Preston IV, who had done business in Russia for years.

Preston said that in 2011 he introduced David Keene, then the NRA’s president, to a Russian senator, Alexander Torshin, a member of Putin’s party who later became a top official at the Russian central bank. Keene had been a stalwart on the right, a past chairman of the American Conservative Union who was the NRA’s president from 2011 to 2013.

Neither Keene nor Torshin responded to requests for comment. An NRA spokesman also did not respond to questions.

Torshin seemed a natural ally to American conservatives.

A friend of Mikhail Kalashnikov, revered in Russia for inventing the AK-47 assault rifle, Torshin in 2010 had penned a glossy gun rights pamphlet, illustrated by cartoon figures wielding guns to fend off masked robbers. The booklet cited U.S. statistics to argue for gun ownership, at one point echoing in Russian an old NRA slogan: “Guns don’t shoot — people shoot.”

Torshin was also a leader in a Russian movement to align government more closely with the Orthodox church.

“The value system of Southern Christians and the value system of Russians are very much in line,” Preston said. “The so-called conflict between our two nations is a tragedy because we’re very similar people, in a lot of our values, our interests and that sort of thing.”

...

It's a fairly long article, but an interesting read.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Senate panel puts Russia sanctions bill on hold"

Quote

Bipartisan legislation to impose sanctions on Russia over alleged meddling in Ukraine, Syria and the 2016 U.S. elections is indefinitely on hold, according to the Senate’s top voice on foreign policy, likely until the Senate Intelligence Committee completes its investigation into the Kremlin’s activities.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said Monday that the Senate would wait “to get some facts” before moving ahead with the bill, which codifies existing sanctions against Russia imposed by executive order since 2014 and introduces new punitive measures against anyone supporting Russian cyber-hacking against public or private infrastructure.

The measure has support from high-ranking Democrats and Republican hawks, but struggled to get support from Corker, who earlier had insisted on renegotiating the bill before allowing it to proceed to the floor.

“I mean you do have a detailed hearing process and an investigation that’s underway,” Corker said Monday. “Does it not make sense to get those facts, let them be known, and deal with it accordingly? I think it does.”

It is not clear when the Senate Intelligence Committee will complete its probe into allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and potential collusion with political campaigns. The committee has recently come under some fire from Democrats for not moving more quickly.

The committee’s ranking Democrat, Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), had hoped that the Russia sanctions bill would advance to a vote alongside compromise legislation to impose stricter sanctions against Iran over a spate of recent ballistic missile tests and the activities of the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a group that the Trump administration is considering labeling a terrorist organization. That Iran sanctions bill — compromise legislation that Corker and Cardin unveiled in March after more than eight months of wrangling — could be voted on by the full Senate later this month, Corker said.

...

Though Russia sanctions are on hold, Corker noted that he still plans to work with Cardin on advancing portions of his legislative proposals to counter Russian propaganda in the United States and abroad in advance of the Senate Intelligence Committee completing its work.

A spokesman for Cardin said the propaganda piece would be “an initial step to hold Russia accountable for its destabilizing activities,” but that he continues to stand by the full roster of sanctions he laid out in his bill.

Cardin introduced a Russia sanctions bill in January with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and a bipartisan group of about 20 co-sponsors. Another Russia bill from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), which seeks to give Congress review power over any effort to roll back sanctions against Russia, has attracted a similar number of bipartisan co-sponsors since it was filed in February.

Corker argued that both of those bills, however, were filed at a time when the prospect of maintaining sanctions against Russia was far less certain than it is today.

“Let’s face it, the drive for Russia sanctions was that many people on the left and right were concerned that the administration may try to undo the sanctions on Ukraine and Crimea, and — I’ll just use this word — on a cheap deal relative to Syria,” Corker said Monday. “I don’t think anybody has that fear anymore. And so the desire to act quickly has dissipated. There’s no reason to do that because no one feels that’s really going to happen anymore.”

Oh no, Corker, there's no reason for sanctions. Good grief.

[fraurosena]

Whilst everyone is looking at the abomination that is the ACHA, this info came out in the Russian Connection. If true, this is more damning evidence. When will the investigation be airtight enough to be able to prosecute? Cause I can hardly wait!

 

[fraurosena]

Oh my! Could it be? Oh, I so so so so so hope so! Keith Olbermann has possibly fantastic news.

Time to break out the popcorn!

[candygirl200413]

and now I'm getting excited to see what Sally Yates is going to say tomorrow too!

[fraurosena]

Choose who you believe...

 

[GreyhoundFan]

9 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

and now I'm getting excited to see what Sally Yates is going to say tomorrow too!

The WaPo featured an article about the upcoming testimony.  I'm quite interested too.

Quote

...

Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates is testifying before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The highly anticipated hearing — it is Yates’s first appearance on Capitol Hill since her firing in January — is expected to fill in key details in the chain of events that led to the ouster of Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s first national security adviser, in the early weeks of the administration.

The February resignation followed media reports that Flynn had discussed U.S.-imposed sanctions on Russia with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period, which was contrary to the public representations of the White House.

Trump moved to distance himself from his former adviser’s troubles Monday, tweeting that it was the Obama administration that gave Flynn “the highest security clearance” when he worked at the Pentagon. The president made no mention of the fact that Flynn was fired by the Obama administration in 2014.

In a second tweet, Trump said Yates should be asked under oath “if she knows how classified information got into the newspapers” soon after she raised concerns about Flynn with White House counsel Don McGahn on Jan. 26.

Yates is expected to testify that she warned McGahn that Flynn’s contacts — and the discrepancies between what the White House said happened on the calls and what actually occurred — had left him in a compromised position, according to a person familiar with her expected statements. The person was not authorized to discuss the testimony by name and requested anonymity.

White House officials have said publicly that Yates merely wanted to give them a “heads-up” about Flynn’s Russian contacts, but Yates is likely to testify that she expressed alarm to the White House about the incidents, according to the person.

Trump has said he has no nefarious ties to Russia and isn’t aware of any involvement by his aides in Moscow’s interference in the election. He’s dismissed FBI and congressional investigations into his campaign’s possible ties to the election meddling as a “hoax” driven by Democrats bitter over losing the White House. He’s also accused Obama officials of illegally leaking classified information about Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak.

Also scheduled to testify is former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who attracted attention for a March television interview in which he said that he had seen no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia at the time he left government in January. Republicans have seized on that statement as vindication for the Trump campaign, but investigations are ongoing.

The Associated Press meanwhile reported last week that one sign taken as a warning by Obama administration officials about Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak was a request by a member of Trump’s own transition team made to national security officials in the Obama White House for the classified CIA profile of Kislyak. The revelation came after interviews with a host of former U.S. officials, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive national security information.

Marshall Billingslea, a former Pentagon and NATO official, wanted the information for Flynn, his boss. Billingslea knew Flynn would be speaking to Kislyak, according to two former Obama administration officials, and seemed concerned Flynn did not fully understand he was dealing with a man rumored to have ties to Russian intelligence agencies. When reached by the AP last week, Billingslea refused to comment. Last month, Trump announced his intention to nominate Billingslea to serve as assistant secretary for terrorist financing at the Treasury Department.

Obama aides also described Flynn as notably dismissive of the threat Russia posed to the United States when discussing policy in transition meetings with outgoing national security adviser Susan Rice and other top officials.

Yates’s warning about Flynn in January capped weeks of building concern among top Obama officials, the officials told the AP. President Barack Obama himself that month told one of his closest advisers that the FBI, which by then had been investigating Trump associates’ possible ties to Russia for about six months, seemed particularly focused on Flynn.

...

 

[fraurosena]

Well, the tangerine toddler's tantrum tweets have begun.

What a complete and utter moron. Because the leaks are the most important thing, aren't they?  

[GreyhoundFan]

28 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Well, the tangerine toddler's tantrum tweets have begun.

What a complete and utter moron. Because the leaks are the most important thing, aren't they?  

They are the most important thing when you are trying to deflect attention...

[Audrey2]

1 hour ago, fraurosena said:

Well, the tangerine toddler's tantrum tweets have begun.

What a complete and utter moron. Because the leaks are the most important thing, aren't they?  

Plus, to a dictator or big businessman (or the Mafia), loyalty is everything. It is much more important to be completely loyal and cover up a lie or a problem than it is to tell the truth and fix the problem or behave in an honest and trustworthy way. So actually, in Trump's way of thinking (scary to type), the fault lies in disloyalty, not in collaborating with Russia.