Trump and Putin, behind the scenes

[Admin]

How many times have these guys changed their story..?

President Donald Trump hit back at reports he’s worried his son Donald Trump Jr. could be in legal jeopardy over his involvement in the meeting in Trump Tower to get dirt on Hillary Clinton in 2016. The president’s defense: The meeting, which the administration initially wrote off as about Russian adoption, was, in fact, to get information on a political opponent. And that’s “totally legal.” But Trump himself definitely didn’t know about it..

Trump Tower meeting: President changes his story on Russia sit-down - Vox

[Admin]

Why is President Trump escalating his attacks against special counsel counsel Robert Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Department of Justice, the FBI and the free press to a fever pitch in recent days? The reason is that the odds are very high that Mueller will offer a declarative public statement before the midterm elections, and very likely before Labor Day, that the president is guilty of obstruction of justice. The Mueller declaration of obstruction of justice could be issued in the form of a letter to Congress and may or may not ultimately be issued in the form of an indictment if he believes that the Trump situation creates extraordinary circumstances that warrant his seeking approval for a formal indictment.

Obstruction of justice bombshell will explode before midterms | TheHill

[Admin]

Twelve former top U.S. intelligence officials on Thursday condemned President Trump's decision to revoke the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan, calling it a blatant attempt to stifle Brennan's criticism. In a letter to the White House obtained by Politico, a dozen former officials including CIA directors dating back to the 1980s declared that "security clearances should be based on national security concerns and not political views." "Insinuations and allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Brennan while in office are baseless," the officials wrote. "We all agree that the president's action regarding John Brennan and the threats of similar action against other former officials has nothing to do with who should and should not hold security clearances."

12 former top intel officials blast Trump's move to revoke Brennan's security clearance | TheHill

Some basic facts:

• No procedure was followed.
  
• Not even Trump's top security people were involved, or did even know about the decision.
  
• No evidence of any security breach by Brennon was cited, in fact this wasn't given as the reason for revoking his clearance.
  
• Trump himself in an interview with the WSJ argued it was because of the Russian investigation, he sees Brennan as the mastermind.
  
• Trump is keen on revoking the security clearance of others, all having been involved with the Russian investigation.
  

[Admin]

More to come:

The White House has drafted more documents to revoke the security clearances of current and former officials who have been critical of President Trump, The Washington Post reported Friday. Trump is reportedly prepared to sign “most, if not all” of the directives, a senior White House official told The Post. The official also told the newspaper that White House communications staffers, including press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, are discussing when it is best to release the announcements as a way to pull attention from negative media reports.

White House drafts docs for Trump to revoke more security clearances: report | TheHill

And this isn't a surprise..

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and White House deputy chief of staff Bill Shine have reportedly discussed when would be the best time for President Trump to revoke additional security clearances. The Washington Post reported Friday that Sanders and Shine are discussing the matter in an attempt to have Trump's revocations serve as a distraction during unfavorable news cycles. Sources told the Post that Trump wants to sign "most, if not all" of the planned revocations..

Trump aides discussed using security clearance revocations to distract from negative stories: report | TheHill


After all, the memo which was used to justify taking away Brennan's clearance was dated three weeks ago, they had it ready to put out at a convenient time..

[Admin]

And what have these people that Trump wants to revoke the security clearance off in common? ...

You want to know what these people have in common? With the sole exception of Bruce Ohr, they’ve all be questioned by either the House or Senate Intelligence committees, and most of them have testified before the grand jury in Washington D.C. empaneled by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. In other words, they are all witnesses in the investigation of the Trump campaign’s contacts with elements of the Russian government during and after the election of 2016.

What Trump is doing by yanking their security clearances or threatening to do so isn’t punishing them. He’s cutting them loose, and it’s going to backfire on him. Rachel Maddow did a brilliant job on her show on Thursday night showing several of those on Trump’s enemies list testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee in May of 2017. She was making another point, that pulling their security clearances will end the ability of any of Trump’s enemies to consult their personal papers and notes from their time in government service when preparing to give testimony before either congress or Mueller’s grand jury because their notes and papers contain secrets.

But the tape of those hearings also showed something else. It showed that the “secrets” Brennan, and Comey, and Yates and Clapper and the rest of them learned were actually knowledge of crimes that were committed by the Trump campaign. They were secrets only because of their official positions and security clearances. But the knowledge they had was real.

For example, at the hearing on May 23 of last year, James Comey was asked by one of the senators, “Do you believe Donald Trump colluded with Russia?" “I don’t believe I can answer that question in an open setting,” Comey answered. His answer clearly indicated that he had classified information about collusion between Trump and the Russians, because if he didn’t, he would have simply answered, “no.”

Sally Yates was asked, “Do you have any evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government or intelligence services in an improper fashion?” “My answer would require me to reveal classified information, Senator,” Yates replied. Her answer indicated the same thing, that she had such information, but it was classified. If she didn’t have any information, she would have answered, “no.”

Comey was asked, “Was the FBI able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the Steele document?” “That’s not a question I can answer in an open setting,” Comey answered, indicating that the FBI indeed had confirmed such allegations and had done so using classified information, or he would have answered, “no.”

The people on Trump’s list aren’t enemies, they are witnesses | Salon.com

[Admin]

The former MI6 officer Christopher Steele has won a legal battle in the United States against three Russian oligarchs who sued him over allegations made in his dossier about the Trump campaign and its links with Moscow. The oligarchs – Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven and German Khan – claimed that Steele and his intelligence firm, Orbis, defamed them in the dossier, which was leaked and published in early 2017. The Russians own stakes in Moscow-based Alfa Bank. All are billionaires. On Monday, a judge in the District of Columbia, Anthony C Epstein, upheld a motion by Steele to have the oligarchs’ case thrown out. Epstein did not determine whether the dossier – which Donald Trump has repeatedly dismissed as “fake” – was “accurate or not accurate”.

But the judge concluded that it was covered by the US first amendment, which protects free speech. He ruled that the oligarchs had failed to prove a key part of their case: that Steele knew that some information in the dossier was inaccurate, and had acted “with reckless disregard as to its falsity”. The ruling is a piece of good news for Steele, who has maintained silence in the face of a mountain of abuse from Trump and his enraged supporters. This month, the president called Steele a “lowlife” on Twitter and described the dossier as “phony”, “discredited” and paid for by “Crooked Hillary”.

Author of Trump-Russia dossier wins libel case in US court | US news | The Guardian

• The Steele dossier was paid for by Fusion but that was first hired by Republicans, not Democrats
  
• The Democrats never used any of it during the election campaign
  
• Steele himself is a highly-respected former MI6 head of the Russian Desk
  
• Quite a bit of the Steele dossier has actually been verified
  
• The Dossier was never ment to be published, it's raw intelligence info and not all of it will pan out
  

[Admin]

Mueller is using "speaking indictments" which provides more info than required under the law, as a tool to show that he know's what's going on and induce people to cooperate..

One passage specifies that co-conspirators “for the first time” attempted to spear-phish email accounts linked to Hillary Clinton’s personal office and her presidential campaign on July 27, 2016.  It was on that same date that then-candidate Donald Trump called on Russia to “find” the missing emails from Clinton's tenure as secretary of State during a new conference in Florida, though the indictment does not make mention of Trump’s appeal to Moscow. The indictment also alleges that the Russians, posing as hacker persona Guccifer 2.0, communicated with “a person who was in regular contact with senior members” of Trump’s campaign about the release of documents stolen from Democrats. Roger Stone, a longtime informal adviser to Trump, has since acknowledged he is likely the individual in the indictment.

Mueller's 'speaking indictments' offer clues to strategy | TheHill

[Admin]

Even back in 2008 it was known that Manafort was in the pocket of some shady characters..

The late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) rejected a bid from Paul Manafort, President Trump's former campaign chairman, to manage the 2008 Republican National Convention because of concerns over Manafort's association with Russian oligarchs, The Atlantic reported Monday.

McCain refused to let Manafort run 2008 convention due to Russia ties: report | TheHill

Yet Trump chose him as his campaign manager, why?

[Admin]

This is a curious story, but CNN had it confirmed by multiple sources and stands by it, despite Lanny Davis walk back:

Michael Cohen's attorney has come under fire in recent days after backtracking on explosive claims that his client had knowledge that President Donald Trump knew in advance of the controversial June 2016 Trump Tower meeting involving top campaign officials and a Russian lawyer. The reversal from Lanny Davis, the attorney, sparked widespread condemnation — particularly on the right— of a July CNN story citing multiple sources who claimed Cohen was prepared to tell special counsel Robert Mueller about Trump's advance knowledge of the meeting. It also opened up Cohen to new questions about his credibility and, experts told Business Insider, it may complicate his ability to cooperate in other investigations. 

CNN is standing by the story, and two employees told Business Insider the network's level of commitment is "100%." Those people, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, pointed to the multiple sources who provided the outlet with the information and what they said is an ulterior motive Davis could have for suddenly changing his tune.

Lanny Davis reversal on Michael Cohen, CNN story sparks backlash - Business Insider

[Admin]

After two members of Trump's inner circle were found guilty of criminal charges last week — his 2016 presidential campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen — the president has only made his fury over Sessions' recusal from Robert Mueller's ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election more transparent. One crucial go-ahead came from Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who wavers betweencriticizing many of the president's policies to cozying up to a commander-in-chief who occasionally invites him to golf outings at a Trump-branded resort.

Graham formerly affirmed the following: "If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay." But a lot has happened between July 2017 and last week. "The president's entitled to an attorney general he has faith in – somebody that's qualified for the job," Graham told reporters last week, according to CNN. "And I think there will come a time – sooner rather than later – where it will be time to have a new face and a fresh voice at the Department of Justice." "That's an important office in the country," Graham added. "And, after the election, I think there will be some serious discussions about a new attorney general."

Key Republican Senators Lay Groundwork for Trump to Fire Sessions — But Here's the Catch | Alternet

• The ONLY reason for firing Sessions is to throw sand in the wheels of the Mueller investigation.
  
• Why else would Trump want to fire Sessions? He's one of the earliest supporters, has executed some of Trump's most hardline agenda (on immigration, for instance) has taken a lot of BS from the president in public, and there is really no other reason that makes sense.
  
• Just about everybody else (but Trump) thinks Sessions did the correct thing by recusing himself from the Russia investigation.