NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label US intelligence agencies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US intelligence agencies. Show all posts

07 July 2017

Trump Casts Doubt on US Intelligence on Russian Hack & Majority Of Americans Believe Trump Acted Either Illegally Or Unethically With Russia 6JUL17



NOT MY president drumpf/trump exposes what an idiot he is, again, while sucker punching the U.S. intelligence community on a world stage. I will admit I am not a big fan of the cia, fbi, dia, homeland security and the 13 other known agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community, after all they allowed 9/11 to happen, allowed the nation to be lead into an illegal and immoral war in Iraq, have violated the Geneva Convention by kidnapping, illegal imprisonment and torturing prisoners and have no problem being in bed with saudia arabia, one of the most brutal and repressive regimes as well as one of the most prolific exporters of terrorism and extreme radical Islam. As an American I have the right to express my views about our intelligence community. I believe the drumpf/trump-pence campaign and administration was involved to some degree with putin and the ruling oligarchs of the Russian government interference in the 2016 Presidential election.  The president has the responsibility to make sure our intelligence community is well managed, following the law and meeting their responsibilities. The drumpf/trump-pence administration is way out of line to express doubts about and challenge opinions of our intelligence community on the world stage, and their actions demoralize our intelligence community and puts our nation at risk. From Mother Jones and +NPR.....

Trump Casts Doubt on US Intelligence on Russian Hack

“It could very well have been Russia, but I think it could well have been other countries.”

With one more day to go before his first face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Donald Trump on Thursday once again cast doubt on US intelligence agencies’ assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 US presidential election.
“Well, I think it was Russia, and I think it could have been other people in other countries,” Trump said at a press conference in Warsaw with Polish President Andrzej Duda. “It could have been a lot of people interfered.” (Trump has previously suggested China or “some 400 pound guy” could also be responsible for hacking into email accounts of Democratic officials.)
Trump then seemed to backtrack, suggesting that the intelligence was uncertain: “I think it could very well have been Russia, but I think it could well have been other countries, and I won’t be specific, but I think a lot of people interfere.” Trump added that President Barack Obama “found out about this—in terms of, if it were Russia—found out about it in August.” Trump proceeded to blame Obama for not responding effectively to the interference.
After a reporter pointed out that US intelligence agencies have been “far more definitive” than Trump in declaring that Russia interfered in the election, Trump sought to cast doubt on that intelligence. He emphasized that the intelligence assessment was produced by just “three or four” of the country’s 17 intelligence agencies.
“I agree,” Trump added. “I think it was Russia, but I think it was probably other people and/or countries, and I see nothing wrong with that statement. Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure.”
Trump then invoked past US intelligence failures, saying that “everybody was 100 percent sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Guess what: That led to one big mess. They were wrong.”
“So it was Russia, and I think it was probably others also, and that’s been going on for a long period of time,” added Trump.
Despite the evidence pointing to Russian hacking, as well as bipartisan acknowledgement that the Kremlin actively worked to undermine Hillary Clinton, White House officials have indicated Trump is unlikely to broach the subject during his meeting with Putin Friday.

Inae Oh is the associate news editor at Mother Jones. Follow her on Twitter.

Majority Of Americans Believe Trump Acted Either Illegally Or Unethically With Russia


A majority of Americans believe President Trump has done something either illegal or unethical when it comes to Russia, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.
The 54 percent of people who believe something untoward has gone on include a quarter who believe the president has done something illegal in regards to his dealings with Russia, and 29 percent of Americans who think he has done something unethical, but not illegal. Thirty-six percent of Americans believe Trump has done nothing wrong. Those numbers reflect an increase in the number of Americans believing something either illegal or unethical went on compared to a February 2017 Marist survey when 49 percent of Americans thought the president had done something either illegal or unethical in regards to Russia.
There's a deep partisan divide in the country when it comes to investigations into Trump's relationship with Russia and whether he or his campaign associates did anything wrong. Republicans have overwhelmingly put their trust in Trump in his approach to Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, whom Trump is scheduled to meet with on Friday. But Democrats and, to a lesser degree, independents are increasingly convinced there was some type of wrongdoing or ethical breach.
Seventy-three percent of Republicans say Trump himself has done nothing wrong, with 15 percent saying he has done something unethical but not illegal, and just 4 percent say he has done something illegal.
Democrats and independents, however, hold very different opinions. Forty-one percent of Democrats believe Trump himself has done something illegal, and 39 percent say he has done something unethical but not illegal. Just 13 percent think he has done nothing wrong.
Independents' views are more split. Thirty-two percent of independents say Trump has done nothing wrong, while 31 percent say he has done something unethical but not illegal and 27 percent believe he has done something illegal.
"When it comes to Russia, the lenses of Democrats and Republicans have a very different tint," said Lee Miringoff, director of The Marist Institute for Public Opinion.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans think that Trump's campaign associates were somehow complicit in something improper regarding Russia. That includes a 33 percent plurality that believe Trump campaign associates did something illegal, while 1 in 4 think the campaign's associates did something unethical but not illegal. Twenty-nine percent think the campaign's associates did nothing wrong.
Among Republicans, 62 percent think the Trump campaign's associates did nothing wrong, while 17 percent think they did something unethical but not illegal and 7 percent think something illegal happened.
Fifty-nine percent of Democrats believe associates of the Trump campaign did something illegal, while 26 percent say they did something unethical but not illegal and just 8 percent say nothing wrong happened. Among independents, though, a 36 percent plurality think the Trump campaign's associates did something illegal in relation to Russia, while 30 percent believe something unethical but not illegal occurred. Twenty-four percent say the Trump campaign's associates did nothing wrong.
Across the board, Americans of all political stripes have been paying attention to the ongoing Russia investigations, which include a Department of Justice special counsel and inquiries from both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Twenty-six percent say they've been following the news a great deal, and 33 percent say they've been following the news about it a good amount. Twenty-eight percent say they haven't followed the news about the Russia investigations very much, while just 12 percent say they aren't following it at all.
There's also a high level of skepticism and flat-out disbelief when it comes to whether or not Russia even sought to meddle in U.S. elections last year. (The U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Russia meddled in the 2016 election.) A quarter of Republicans say Russia wasn't involved in the hacking at all, while another 27 percent say the country poses no threat to future U.S. elections.
That view is at odds with Americans overall. A 47 percent plurality say they think Russia is a major threat to future U.S. elections, while 20 percent say Russia poses a minor threat to future U.S. elections. Just 13 percent say the country poses no threat at all, while 12 percent think Russia wasn't involved at all.
Democrats and independents are overwhelmingly concerned about the security of future U.S. elections, however. Seventy-three percent of Democrats say Russia poses a major threat to future U.S. elections, while 16 percent say the country is a minor threat. Just over half of independents say Russia is a major threat to future U.S. elections, while 19 percent say the country is a minor threat.
"If you're looking at 2018, there's no big push on the part of GOP voters to get involved in this notion of addressing what went on with the last elections," said Miringoff. "Republicans are comfortable with what Donald Trump says, and they are comfortable with him as president."
As Trump plans to meet with Putin on Friday, a 46 percent plurality of Americans overall think Trump's goal of improving relations with Russia is mostly a good thing for the U.S. while, 41 percent say it's mostly a bad thing. Those numbers also have a distinctly partisan split — 70 percent of Democrats say improving relations with Russia is mostly a bad thing for the country, while three-quarters of Republicans say it's mostly a good thing. Independents are nearly evenly split on the question.
When simply asked if it's better for the U.S. to build relationships with Russia or to treat the country as a threat — without Trump in the equation — a 59 percent majority of Americans believe it's better to build relationships with Russia while 31 percent say Russia should be treated as a threat. Sixty-seven percent of Republicans think it's better to build relationships with Russia, and 60 percent of independents likewise hold that view. Democrats are split on that question, with 46 percent of them saying the U.S. should build better relationships with Russia, while 44 percent believe Russia should be treated as a threat.
Forty-two percent of Americans think Trump is a more effective leader than Putin, whom Trump has often praised. Thirty-six percent say Putin is the more effective leader. Those numbers also have a deep partisan bent, with three quarters of Republicans saying Trump is the more effective leader, while half of Democrats say Putin is the more effective leader. Independents are nearly evenly split on the question.
If the U.S. reduces its role on the world stage, a 45 percent plurality of Americans think China would most likely benefit. Nearly a quarter think Russia would be the beneficiary of a less engaged United States, while 5 percent say Saudi Arabia would benefit most, 4 percent think it would be Germany and 5 percent say another country. Sixteen percent are unsure which country would be most likely to benefit.

The NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll surveyed 1,205 adults from June 21-25 contacted by live interviewers using a mix of landline and mobile numbers. There is a 2.8-percentage-point margin of error. A subsample of 995 registered voters was also surveyed, with a 3.1-percentage-point margin of error.


10 March 2017

One Simple Question That Could Break the Trump-Russia Scandal Wide Open 7MAR17



ON Russian hacking of the Clinton / Kaine campaign's and other's e mails and releasing them through wikileaks the drumpf/trump-pence campaign now administration is dirty. Whether directly involved or not is yet to be determined though drumpf/trump did encourage the Russians to hack the Clinton / Kaine campaign. michael flynn, jeff sessions and others with the drumpf/trump-pence campaign had contact, meetings, conversations and business dealings with putin and the ruling oligarchs of Moscow. An independent council needs to be established to work in conjunction with the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Dept of Justice to find out what was discussed (U.S. sanctions, Russian hegemony, dividing up Eastern Europe and the Baltics a la the hitler-stalin non-aggression pact?). This is not something that can be let go now that the election is over and drumpf/trump is (NOT MY) president. There are issues involving America's national security, NATO, the Ukraine and Baltic States and the integrity of our electoral process that need to be addressed. fotze michael flynn should be barred from any future government position forever, and fotze a.g. jeff sessions should resign because he lied during his Senate confirmation hearings proving he can not be trusted to tell the truth about his contacts with the Russians. This from +Mother Jones .....

One Simple Question That Could Break the Trump-Russia Scandal Wide Open

The answer might not be too hard to find.

MAR. 7, 2017 7:31 AM
The Trump-Russia scandal keeps widening. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn resigned after revelations that he had privately talked to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the sanctions imposed on Russia as punishment for its hacking of political targets during the 2016 election to aid Donald Trump. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself from Justice Department or FBI investigations involving Russia and the Trump campaign after he was caught falsely claiming he had not interacted with Russian officials during the campaign, when he was a top Trump adviser. (He, too, had met with Kislyak.) News reports keep yielding more information indicating Trump associates were in contact with Russian officials and possibly Russian intelligence. Reportedly there is at least one FBI investigation on this front; the House and Senate intelligence committees have each launched their own probes. And this past weekend, Trump had a Twitter meltdown and hurled the unsubstantiated Breitbart-born accusation that Obama had illegally spied on him in Trump Tower. It is becoming tough to track all the developments, as the story becomes more complicated and the prospects for a long and complex investigation increase. But there is a simple question that might be easy to answer and that could cut to the chase.
What happened during Flynn's conversations with Kislyak before the election?
One fundamental issue in this scandal is what interactions occurred between Trump and his associates and Vladimir Putin's regime and its agents. Trump and his political aides have repeatedly insisted there were no communications between the Trump camp and Russians during the campaign. Days after the election—in response to news reports quoting Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov saying that "there were contacts" between the Trump team and the Kremlin—Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks claimed the campaign had "no contact with Russian officials" before the election. After the conclusion of a January 11 press conference, Trump insisted his campaign had no contact with Russia. At a February 14 White House briefing, press secretary Sean Spicer asserted there had been no communications between the Trump campaign and Russians. And Trump has frequently declared—as he did at a press conference last month—"I have nothing to do with Russia." (That is false. Trump has repeatedly tried to do business in Russia, and he held the Miss Universe contest, which he owned until 2015, in Moscow, in partnership with oligarch Aras Agalarov, with whom Trump was pursuing other deals in Russia.)
The public record contradicts the denials of the Trump crew. Flynn, Sessions, onetime Trump foreign policy advisers Carter Page and J.D. Gordon, and former campaign manager Paul Manafort each had some degree of contact with Russian officials during the campaign. Perhaps the most intriguing interaction involved Flynn.
When the Washington Post broke the news that Flynn had spoken with Kislyak during the transition, the newspaper's reporters spoke to the Russian ambassador, who revealed a fact that has not received sufficient public attention: Flynn and Kislyak were in communication prior to Election Day. This statement belied all the Trump camp claims that there had been no hobnobbing with the Russians during the campaign. But the implications run deeper.
Beginning in early June, there were news reports that the Russians were behind the hacking of Democratic targets that led to the public release, through WikiLeaks and other outlets, of emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee. (In October, emails swiped from Clinton campaign CEO John Podesta would be released.) In late July, Obama said that "experts have attributed this [hack] to the Russians." In mid-August, Trump, as the GOP nominee, received an intelligence briefing that noted that Moscow was behind the hacks and leaks. Flynn attended that briefing. On September 7, James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, pointed to Obama's July statement and added, "The Russians hack our systems all the time, not just government but also corporate and personal systems." A month later, Clapper's office and the Department of Homeland Security released a statement stating that Moscow was definitely the culprit.
So from the start of June until Election Day, it was widely noted that the Russians were either the likely perps or the guilty party—that is, Putin's government had conducted a secret operation to influence an American election. Though it would take the intelligence community until after the election to reach the conclusion that this scheme was mounted to benefit Trump, it did seem obvious throughout the campaign season that Clinton was being harmed by the operation and Trump was being helped.
All this means that when Flynn was talking to Kislyak—or any other Russian government officials—during the campaign, he was in contact with a foreign power waging political warfare against the United States and had reason to suspect or know this. And throughout the summer and fall campaign, Flynn, who was already cozy with Moscow (having accepted a speaking fee to hang out with Putin at a Moscow gala for RT in December 2015), was Trump's most senior foreign policy aide. (He was given a prime speaking spot at the Republican National Convention.)
What was Flynn, this prominent and important Trump adviser, saying to Kislyak during this stretch? The ambassador refused to tell the Washington Post what he and Flynn discussed. Was Flynn firmly telling the Russians to cease meddling in US politics? Did they discuss the hacking at all? Or perhaps Flynn was signaling to Moscow that Putin would get a better deal if Trump were elected. If Flynn uttered to Kislyak anything of that nature—or even if he ducked the issue of the hacking—Moscow could have read this as encouragement for its covert operation to undermine the US election.
There has been speculation that the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow on the hacking/leaking plot. (Clapper this weekend said he had seen no evidence of such collusion but noted it was possible evidence might have emerged since he left the government in January.) But communications between the Trump camp and the Russian government need not have been so explicit to qualify as outrageous and improper. On the campaign trail, Trump had praised Putin, refused to acknowledge the Russian hack, and raised the possibility of easing the sanctions imposed on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. If Flynn was reinforcing Trump's pro-Putin message in his private chats with Kislyak, that would have been reassuring for Moscow and might possibly have emboldened a regime as it was assaulting the US electoral system.
Flynn's pre-election communications with Kislyak could be far more significant than his conversations during the transition about the Obama sanctions that prompted his firing. Investigators working the Trump-Russia beat should zero in on this. Flynn should be asked when exactly he was gabbing with the Russian ambassador during the campaign. Phone and text records ought to be reviewed. There might be transcripts of these discussions, for Kislyak was routinely spied on by the US intelligence community. (That's why Flynn got caught lying about his talks with the Russian ambassador during the transition.)
There is plenty of muck for investigators and reporters to be raking regarding the Trump team's interactions with Russia. It is evident that there were contacts during the campaign—and that Trump and his lieutenants have repeatedly dissembled about this. And Flynn may well be one key to figuring out what was going on. In recent days, Sessions' two acknowledged interactions with Kislyak have drawn much notice. As much scrutiny should be applied to Flynn's pre-election communications with the Russian. It might just offer a path to solving the riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

03 March 2017

Jeff Sessions Met Twice With Russian Ambassador During Trump Campaign & British, Dutch Passed Along Intel About Meetings Between Trump Team and Russia & Can Jeff Sessions Be Prosecuted for Perjury? 1&2MAR17

Image result for teapot dome scandal
IF the Attorney General of the United States is allowed to get away with perjury and possible treason then the drumpf/trump-pence administration and the republican controlled congress will have a green light to become (if they aren't already) the most corrupt government we have suffered under since pres warren g harding in the 1920's and pres richard nixon's administration in the 1970's (note both were republicans). jeff sessions should resign as A.G. and be charged with perjury, at the least he must be investigated and face charges for his crimes against the American people and our Republic. This from the ACLU and +Mother Jones .......
Attorney General Sessions raising his right hand and swearing to tell the truth
Our attorney general may have committed perjury and a foreign government may have interfered in our democracy.

The American people need answers about Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential campaign – and what role Attorney General Jeff Sessions may have played.

Join the ACLU and call on Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, the official in charge of this investigation, to appoint a special prosecutor.

Following revelations that Sessions didn’t tell the whole truth at his confirmation hearing about his contact with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign, Sessions recused himself from leading the investigation into Russian involvement – passing that responsibility to Boente.

But recusal isn’t enough – only an independent special prosecutor can ensure a full investigation free of partisan politics and conflicts of interest, the kind of investigation the American people deserve.

Add your name now to demand that Boente appoint a special prosecutor. No one is above the law in America, no matter their political connections.

Thanks for taking action,
Anthony for the ACLU Action team

Jeff Sessions Met Twice With Russian Ambassador During Trump Campaign

MAR. 1, 2017 9:44 PM

And now here comes the Washington Post on contacts between the Trump team and Russia:
Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.
One of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place in September in the senator’s office, at the height of what U.S. intelligence officials say was a Russian cyber campaign to upend the U.S. presidential race.
....Officials said Sessions did not consider the conversations relevant to the lawmakers’ questions and did not remember in detail what he discussed with Kislyak.
That was Mike Flynn's initial answer too, wasn't it? That he "didn't remember" the details of a conversation from less than half a year ago. I wonder how long Sessions' version will hold up?
Can we all now agree that maybe Sessions really does need to recuse himself from the FBI's investigation of Trump's ties to Russia?
Kevin is a political blogger for Mother Jones. Email Kevin calpundit@cox.net. For more of his stories, click here or follow him on Facebook.

British, Dutch Passed Along Intel About Meetings Between Trump Team and Russia

MAR. 1, 2017 9:30 PM

The New York Times reports today on new revelations about contacts between the Trump team and Russia during the last month of the Obama administration:
American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence. Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Mr. Trump’s associates.
Some of this is coming to light as a result of deliberate efforts by outgoing Obama officials:
Mr. Trump has accused the Obama administration of hyping the Russia story line as a way to discredit his new administration. At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump’s statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed — or its sources exposed — once power changed hands. What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.
....Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings,knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators....At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low level of classification to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government....There was also an effort to pass reports and other sensitive materials to Congress.
....Throughout the summer...European allies were starting to pass along information about people close to Mr. Trump meeting with Russians in the Netherlands, Britain and other countries....But it wasn’t until after the election, and after more intelligence had come in, that the administration began to grasp the scope of the suspected tampering and concluded that one goal of the campaign was to help tip the election in Mr. Trump’s favor. In early December, Mr. Obama ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full assessment of the Russian campaign.
As the story acknowledges, it's still unclear what all these meetings were about, but "the Russians, it appeared, were arguing about how far to go in interfering in the presidential election."
This has the feel of a scandal that will pass into urban legend without anyone ever knowing for sure what actually happened. It's pretty obvious at this point that something happened, but with every new disclosure it seems as if the truth drifts a little farther out of reach. Unless someone has a smoking gun tape somewhere, it's not clear if this story will ever get resolved.

Can Jeff Sessions Be Prosecuted for Perjury?

We asked three constitutional law professors. Here's what they said.

MAR. 2, 2017 1:54 PM

Late Wednesday night, the Washington Post broke the news that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had twice met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential campaign, contacts he failed to disclose during his Senate confirmation hearings. "I did not have communications with the Russians," said Sessions during his sworn testimony. As a growing list of lawmakers call for Sessions to recusehimself from the investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election—and some Democrats demand his resignation—an open question remains: Can Jeff Sessions be prosecuted for perjury?
The answer is not exactly cut and dry. At the time of his confirmation hearings, Sessions was still serving as a senator from Alabama. The Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause shields lawmakers from prosecution for lying during proceedings in the House or Senate. The clause was written with the intent to foster debate in Congress without the threat of lawsuits stifling discussion. So, since Sessions was a sitting Senator when he allegedly misled Congress, does that mean he's off the hook? Mother Jones put the question to three constitutional law experts.
"There might be other things he can be prosecuted for," says Josh Chafetz, a law professor at Cornell University, referencing laws that allow Congress to hold individuals in contempt for providing false testimony. But, says Chafetz, Sessions can't be prosecuted for perjury.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe sees it differently. "That would be a laughable misuse of the Speech and Debate Clause," he says. "He was testifying under oath as an [attorney general] nominee, not in the discharge of any Senatorial business of his own."
Yale Law professor Bruce Ackerman says he's inclined to believe that Sessions is not protected by the clause. Still, Ackerman says there's no decisive case law on the issue, which muddies the waters. "Only one thing is clear," he says, "Sessions must recuse 
himself, and it is incumbent on the Administration to appoint a special prosecutor."