December 4, 2017


News and Views


PRESIDENT’S LAWYER JOHN DOWD SEEMS TO THINK THE PRESIDENT OF THE US IS AS POWERFUL AND INVULNERABLE AS A KING. IT’S THE OLD RICHARD NIXON STRATEGY AND IT DIDN’T WORK FOR HIM. WE’LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-lawyer-president-cannot-obstruct-justice-n826231
POLITICS DEC 4 2017, 12:23 PM ET
Trump lawyer: ‘The president cannot obstruct justice’
by PETER ALEXANDER, KRISTEN WELKER and ADAM EDELMAN

President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, revealed Monday a potential legal defense in the ongoing Russia probe, claiming that a president cannot obstruct justice.

"The president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under (the Constitution's Article II) and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd told NBC News Monday.

Dowd added that the president's weekend tweet — which many have argued strengthened a potential obstruction of justice case for special counsel Robert Mueller — "did not admit obstruction."

"That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion," Dowd said.

His comments were first reported by Axios and came two days after Trump tweeted, "I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI."

Did Trump tweet indicate he may have obstructed justice?
Play Facebook Twitter Embed
Did Trump tweet indicate he may have obstructed justice? 3:06

"He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!" Trump wrote in his Saturday tweet — his first public comments about his former national security adviser after Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about speaking with Russian officials.

The tweet caused an uproar in Washington because it suggested Trump knew Flynn had committed a felony — lying to the FBI. Then-FBI director James Comey said earlier this year that the president told him to go easy on Flynn the day after the firing. Trump has denied telling Comey that.

Interfering in the FBI's investigation could be construed as obstructing justice, potentially creating legal jeopardy for Trump, some experts argued.

But within a few hours of the Saturday post, Dowd stepped in to say that he wrote the tweet, not the president.

Meanwhile, several lawmakers and legal experts immediately weighed in Monday morning to express their disagreement with Dowd's position that the president cannot obstruct justice.

"I hope my Republican colleagues in the U.S. Senate will take the lead on this issue and also on obstruction of justice. There is a credible case of obstruction of justice against Donald Trump," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe."

"If you take the president's own statement, his tweet that he knew Michael Flynn was lying to the FBI when he fired him, which means that he knew Michael Flynn committed a felony when he asked Comey to stop the investigation of him, and when he fired Comey when he refused to do so, and when he fired Sally Yates and when he called Michael Flynn in April to tell him to stay strong, all of these acts are to impede and obstruct justice," he explained.

MSNBC panel: What does Trump's Flynn tweet mean for Mueller probe? Play Facebook Twitter Embed
MSNBC panel: What does Trump's Flynn tweet mean for Mueller probe? 9:49

Former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who was fired by Trump, acknowledged in an interview with NPR that charging a president with obstruction "is a very high bar, it's a very high threshold, it's a difficult thing, it's never been done before."

"But the mere fact that the president is the president doesn’t immunize him from an accusation of obstruction," Bharara said.

The articles of impeachment against both former Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton included charges of obstruction of justice.

But another prominent legal expert defended Dowd's theory.

"You cannot charge a president with obstruction of justice for exercising his constitutional right to fire Comey and his constitutional authority to tell the Justice Department who to investigate, who not to investigate," Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz told Fox News Channel on Monday. "For obstruction of justice by the president, you need clearly illegal acts."

“The president could've pardoned Flynn if he were really thinking about trying to end this investigation. He would've pardoned Flynn and then Flynn wouldn't be cooperating with the other side and the president would've had the complete authority to do so," he added. "So I think the fact that the president hasn't pardoned Flynn even though he has the power to do so is very good evidence that there's no obstruction of justice going on here."

Peter Alexander PETER ALEXANDER EMAIL
Kristen Welker KRISTEN WELKER TWITTER
ADAM EDELMAN


CAN THE PRESIDENT BE CHARGED WITH OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? BOTH BILL CLINTON AND RICHARD NIXON WERE.

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2.html

Article II

Section 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.


“.... HE IS NOT BOUND BY THE SAME LAWS THAT APPLY TO ORDINARY CITIZENS.” “WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES IT, THAT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT ILLEGAL,” HE EXPLAINED.” I WAS IN CHAPEL HILL, NC WHEN HE MADE THIS STATEMENT. I CAN HEAR HIS VOICE IN MY MIND RIGHT NOW. AND NOW WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE OF THE SAME KIND.

THE THINGS WHICH THE FAR RIGHT ARE UP TO ARE ENOUGH TO MAKE ME THINK OF BANNING THEIR POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS. THAT ISN’T THE AMERICAN WAY, THOUGH, AND THE FIRST TIME THAT BECOMES LAW IT COULD BE A PRECEDENT FOR MORE TO COME. WE WOULD BECOME THE SAME KIND OF MONSTER THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ERADICATE.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/donald-trump-legal-defense-russia-investigation
Mueller Investigation
DONALD TRUMP IS TESTING A RADICAL AUTHORITARIAN LEGAL THEORY
If “there is no crime of collusion” and the president “cannot obstruct justice,” than Trump is above the law.

BY ABIGAIL TRACY
DECEMBER 4, 2017 1:32 PM
TRUMP DEPARTS

Photograph -- Donald Trump speaks to members of the media on the South Lawn, December 4, 2017.
By Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty Images.

In May 1977, three years after he resigned the presidency, Richard Nixon made a stunning declaration. The president, he told British journalist David Frost, in a series of historic interviews, is not bound by the same laws that apply to ordinary citizens. “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” he explained. Congress, which filed articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice in the Watergate affair, obviously disagreed. Yet 40 years later, Donald Trump’s legal team has revived Nixon’s reasoning. As special counsel Robert Mueller closes in on what appears to be an obstruction case against the president, Trump’s attorneys are publicly laying the groundwork to argue that he is immune to any charges that could precipitate impeachment.

The extraordinary defense being outlined appears to anticipate two interconnected claims: that he was aware of or abetted a quid pro quo between his campaign and the Russian government, and that he subsequently worked to sabotage federal investigations into alleged collusion. The linkage is critical: as members of Washington’s white-collar defense bar told me after Trump fired James Comey, to prove obstruction Mueller must also prove corrupt intent. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he must uncover an underlying crime. But it does mean that Trump or his associates must have been attempting to conceal something.

From the outside, this pattern of deception seems obvious. Members of Trump’s campaign have lied repeatedly about their contacts with Kremlin officials. As we now know, multiple Trump associates—including Trump’s eldest son—communicated with Russian intermediaries seeking to coordinate efforts to defeat Clinton and, later, to normalize diplomatic relations in exchange. After the election, Michael Flynn called Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak to encourage Vladimir Putin not to respond to the sanctions that President Barack Obama had just imposed on Russia in retaliation for meddling in the race—a move that Trump transition officials feared would undermine their own foreign-policy goals. “If there is a tit-for-tat escalation Trump will have difficulty improving relations with Russia, which has just thrown U.S.A. election to him,” one Trump transition official, K. T. McFarland, wrote in an e-mail obtained by The New York Times. When Putin held his fire, anticipating friendlier treatment by the incoming administration, Trump was ecstatic. “Great move on delay (by V. Putin),” the president-elect tweeted in December. “I always knew he was very smart!”

While the White House has said that there was no collusion (a claim Trump reiterated to reporters this weekend, after Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about his contacts with Kislyak), the president’s lawyers have moved to arguing that it would not be illegal. “For something to be a crime, there has to be a statute that you claim is being violated,” White House lawyer Jay Sekulow told Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker. “There is not a statute that refers to criminal collusion. There is no crime of collusion.”

Watch Now: Mark Cuban and CEOs React to Trump’s ”Art of the Deal”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion
Collusion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal- but always secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage. It is an agreement among firms or individuals to divide a market, set prices, limit production or limit opportunities.[1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts effected by collusion are considered void.[3]

Examples[edit]

Collusion is largely illegal in the United States, Canada and most of the EU due to competition/antitrust law, but implicit collusion in the form of price leadership and tacit understandings still takes place. Several examples of collusion in the United States include: . . . .


IF NOT COLLUSION, WHAT? TAMPERING WITH AN ELECTION? READ THIS ARTICLE FOR SOME OF THE BEST EXPLANATIONS ON THE SUBJECT THAT I’VE SEEN.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366
What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime?
The president’s son met with a Russian lawyer offering damaging information about Hillary Clinton. Does that mean the campaign colluded with the Kremlin? We asked legal experts to size up the evidence.
By POLITICO MAGAZINE July 12, 2017

Photograph -- Jeff Vinnick/Getty Images

resident Donald Trump has repeatedly denied colluding with the Russian government during the 2016 campaign. Yet, the revelation of a meeting last year—between his son, his campaign chairman, his son-in-law and a Russian lawyer who promised damaging information about Hillary Clinton from the Russian government—suggests that the question of collusion is an open one; according to emails arranging the meeting, Trump’s son Donald Jr. was aware of that promise and said in response, “I love it.” And, of course, special counsel Robert Mueller is still investigating this very matter.

But what precisely would constitute collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, and have we actually seen evidence of it so far? We asked legal experts—former federal prosecutors, law professors and more—to help make sense of the situation based on the evidence that has been made public so far. Most were quick to note that collusion itself is not a specific federal crime—what matters is what kind of cooperation might have taken place and in what way. As to whether collusion did occur or a crime was committed, they said the jury is still out.


***

‘Stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality’
Paul Rosenzweig is former deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security and founder of Red Branch Consulting.

Collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law), so we should all just stop using “collusion” as a short-hand for criminality. But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions.

For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign. The opposition dirt is at least plausibly a thing of value. And to the extent that the Trump campaign aided, abetted or advised the Russians (or any other hackers) about what would be most useful to steal from the Democrats or how best to enhance the impact of their release, they may well have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Of course, none of this excuses the apparent cover-up, which is often as bad as the original crime. Lying to the federal government in your registration forms or your security application is a false statement. Using the wires to perpetrate your crime is often wire fraud. In short, let’s stop talking about “collusion” and instead talk about real crimes that may, or may not, be proven—violations of election law, computer hacking, false statements and wire fraud.
ADVERTISING



***

Collusion ‘doesn’t accurately describe either the criminal and counterintelligence aspects of what we know’
Asha Rangappa is an associate dean at Yale Law School and a former special agent in the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI.

The word “collusion” has been a terrible one to use in the Trump-Russia saga, since it doesn’t accurately describe either the criminal or counterintelligence aspects of what we know. On the criminal side, the word that would best describe an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia to commit any number of crimes (say, election fraud) would be “conspiracy”—something that the recent release of Donald Trump Jr.’s email chain might support.

On the counterintelligence side, collusion is best described by the word “recruitment.” The aim of a foreign intelligence service is to find and convince individuals to help them achieve intelligence objectives. In the case of the election, the question is whether Russia was able to recruit American citizens, including people in the Trump campaign, to help them sway the outcome in Donald Trump’s favor. We are less likely to get direct public evidence of this since most of the information obtained by the FBI about Russia’s network and tactics will be classified unless someone is prosecuted for a crime.

But we have some clues that Russia may have been successful, such as Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn officially registering as foreign agents under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, or reports of a FISA order against Carter Page, which could only be obtained by showing a court that he was “knowingly engaged in foreign intelligence activities” on behalf of a foreign power. Even so, the criminal penalties for spying for a foreign intelligence service in non-defense-related areas are fairly weak, and I expect that Robert Mueller and the FBI will likely use any prosecutorial leverage they have over these individuals to get people higher up the chain for potentially more egregious criminal violations. The story is definitely not over, so stay tuned.

***

‘Collusion is the perfect word to cover such crimes’
John W. Dean was Richard Nixon’s White House counsel. He served a four-month sentence for his role in Watergate.

It was the fake legal analysis by Fox News in June—claiming that “collusion” with a foreign government violated no law—that prompted me to look. Surely Fox knows it fooled only fools. Collusion is the descriptive word the news media has settled on to cover many potential illegal actions by the Trump campaign, which could range from aiding and abetting (18 USC 2) to conspiracy per se (18 USC 371) to conspiring to violate several potentially applicable laws like: 18 USC 1030—fraud and related activity in connection with computers; 18 USC 1343—wire fraud; or 52 USC 30121—contributions and donations by foreign nationals. Also, 18 USC 2381—for, contrary to a widespread belief that there must be a declared war, the Justice Department as recently as 2006 indicted for “aid and comfort” to our enemies, the form of collusion better known as treason. Collusion is the perfect word to cover such crimes, pejorative and inclusive.

***


‘Legally it’s not enough for an associate of the president to work together with a Russian’
Renato Mariotti is a former federal prosecutor who handled many obstruction cases. He is now a partner at Thompson Coburn LLP.

Although “collusion” is a word that has been thrown around a lot lately, it doesn’t have any specific legal meaning. What matters legally is whether someone in the Trump campaign joined a conspiracy, aided and abetted a crime, or actively concealed a crime. None of these legal concepts is complicated. A conspiracy is just a legal term for an agreement to commit a crime. You aid and abet a crime if you know about criminal activity and actively try to make it succeed. There is also a crime called “misprision of felony” that means you know that a felony has been committed and you actively work to conceal the crime.

So legally it’s not enough for an associate of the president to work together with a Russian—the American would need to work with a Russian to commit a crime, to aid a Russian in committing a crime or to conceal a crime committed by a Russian. One crime that has been discussed at length in the media is the hacking of servers in the United States and subsequent release of emails via WikiLeaks. Anyone who aided in the hacking of those servers committed a crime.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
But that isn’t the only crime that has been alluded to in press reports. Recently Donald Trump Jr. admitted that he met with a Russian attorney to obtain damaging information about Hillary Clinton. If he or someone else knowingly and willfully solicited a contribution from a foreign national in order to aid the Trump campaign, that would be a crime. Similarly, receiving property that you know is stolen is a federal crime if the value of that property is at least $5,000. It’s unclear whether leaked emails would suffice, but I suspect that the Clinton campaign would have paid far more than $5,000 to prevent their release. It would also be a crime for someone to offer to act in an official capacity, by repealing a law or discontinuing sanctions against Russia, in exchange for something of value.

It’s important to keep in mind that what we know so far is very limited. While Trump Jr. recently confirmed that he met with an attorney who was connected with the Russian government, little is known about what was said at that meeting. In the months to come, I expect Robert Mueller and his team to interview everyone involved and gather documents, emails and other communications in order to obtain the fullest possible picture of what happened. This investigation will take significant time to complete, and it’s best to wait for all the evidence before coming to conclusions.

***

‘The more likely crimes have occurred through false and misleading statements’
Laurie L. Levenson is professor of law and David W. Burcham chair of ethical advocacy at Loyola Law School. She was formerly an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles.

I honestly don’t know whether the so-called collusion in this case was a crime, in part, because this story keeps morphing. Trying to get dirt on an opposing candidate is not necessarily a crime. However, making false statements to government officials can be. I think the more likely crimes have occurred through false and misleading statements to government officials throughout this probe, but Robert Mueller will have to determine whether that occurred. Generally, it is the easiest crime to prove.

Finally, it is good to keep in mind that there is no crime of “collusion” in the federal code. The applicable crime is conspiracy under 18 USC Sec. 371. That would cover a conspiracy by two or more persons to violate a law of the United States or “to defraud the United States.” You need an election law specialist to tell you whether asking the Russians for negative information on Hillary Clinton violated federal law. The question of whether there has been a scheme “to defraud the United States” is a more interesting one. Generally, that portion of the statute is used for financial crimes. However, who knows what a creative prosecutor might seek to use it for?

***

‘It is not clear that it provides a basis for criminal prosecution’

William Jeffress is a white-collar defense attorney at Baker Botts. He represented I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in the Valerie Plame affair.

If the Trump campaign conspired with or assisted the Russians in hacking the emails of John Podesta or the Democratic National Committee, the crime is clear. But beyond that, it is anything but clear. We do not have a federal statute punishing corrupt efforts to influence an election, unless done by particular prohibited acts such as vote buying or illegal political contributions. That is undoubtedly wise, because such a law would spur frequent criminal complaints against opponents by losers and even some winners of elections.

There is a statute punishing conspiracies to defraud the United States, including conspiracies to interfere with a governmental function by fraud. Special counsel Robert Mueller will surely focus on whether a conspiracy to interfere with the right to honest elections is a crime, but the question is greatly complicated by the 100-year-old Gradwell case; that case refused to apply the statute to interference in elections for senators and representatives, because the Constitution and laws assign to the states, not the federal government, the regulation of elections for those offices. It would not be a large step to say the same is true of the election of the Electoral College in presidential elections.

Collusion with the Russians in attempting to affect the outcome of the presidential election is a serious political scandal, but I must say it is not clear that it provides a basis for criminal prosecution. It may be that, like other investigations in the past, people may get in more trouble for false and misleading statements to investigators than for the underlying conduct.

***

‘A nothing burger with some secret sauce’

Saikrishna Prakash is James Monroe distinguished professor of law at the University of Virginia.

There are tidbits worth investigating here. For one, why did the convener of the meeting say that the meeting was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump?” After all, the lawyer from Russia now claims she is not a government lawyer. Moreover, does the statement suggest knowledge on the part of the Trump campaign about support from the government of Russia? I’m certain Congress and Robert Mueller will want to probe.

But I don’t think this really amounts to much, at least as a legal matter. “Collusion” is not a cognizable federal offense. Politicians seek dirt on other candidates—the dirtier the better. That is what “opposition research” is all about.

GettyImages-631991316.jpg
FOURTH ESTATE
If Donald Trump Jr. Sinks, Who Goes Down With Him?
By JACK SHAFER

Campaigns are happy to get this edge from pretty much anywhere. Indeed, there are claims, discussed in a Politico article in January, that the Ukrainian government sought to aid Hillary Clinton’s campaign by supplying damaging information regarding Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to a Democratic operative. Embassy officials “worked very closely” with the operative to expose Manafort’s work for Viktor Yanukovych, the Kremlin-backed former Ukrainian president. And the Democratic National Committee encouraged the operative to meet with the Ukrainian ambassador.

I think that those who despise President Donald Trump continually find ways of nourishing their deep abhorrence. If it is not “collusion,” it is “treason” or “conflict of interest” or “obstruction.” The wheat, if there is any, gets lost amid all the chaff. Those who lionize the president are in the lamentable business of excusing conduct, no matter if it demonstrates extremely bad judgment, poor taste or worse. Both tendencies will continue for the foreseeable future.

***

‘Very strong evidence of a nascent conspiracy’

Samuel Buell is a law professor at Duke University and a former federal prosecutor who led the Justice Department’s prosecution of Enron Corporation.

Collusion, of course, is not a legal thing. The question of the underlying crime here might be tricky, and would include possible violation of campaign contribution laws. But if there is an underlying campaign violation in play legally, the email and meeting are very strong evidence of a nascent conspiracy and attempt to commit such an offense. Contemporaneous emails don’t lie when it comes to jury trials. What pro-Donald Trump spinners were calling a “nothingburger” yesterday has become a Whopper.

***


‘It will be important to distinguish between the political and the legal discussion’
Carrie Cordero is an attorney in private practice, adjunct professor at Georgetown Law and former counsel to the assistant attorney general for national security.

As this story and the related investigations unfold, it will be important to distinguish between the political and the legal discussion. Collusion is the political term that is being used to described the overall inquiries into whether the Trump campaign assisted, cooperated or collaborated with Russian government efforts to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. There is no real question that the Russian government conducted such an influence campaign—the intelligence community released information of its assessment in the fall of 2016, and the Trump administration’s director of national intelligence has also supported that assessment.

The questions that remain, then, are, what was involved in that influence effort, and what if any role the Trump campaign had in supporting, assisting or collaborating in it. The emails released Tuesday by Donald Trump Jr. reveal that, at least in preparation for one meeting that took place in June 2016, he was informed that the Russian government was engaged in activities to “support” the Trump campaign. The ongoing investigations will explore this and the other revelations in those emails from the legal perspective of whether members of the Trump campaign conspired to affect the election through fraudulent means, violate the campaign finance restrictions against receiving financial or other items or services of “value” from foreign nationals, or otherwise aided and abetted activities conducted by the Russian intelligence services on behalf of the Russian government.

***

‘Evidence suggests an interest within the campaign in receiving assistance from Russian sources’
Alex Whiting is a professor at Harvard Law School focusing on domestic and international criminal prosecution issues, and was formerly a federal prosecutor.

Collusion will likely come in the form of the solicitation or encouragement of any improper assistance to the Trump campaign from a foreign source, in this case from Russia. If Trump campaign officials encouraged Russian nationals to dig up information about Hillary Clinton or her campaign and provide it to the Trump campaign, that could amount to a violation of campaign finance laws, which prohibit foreign sources from providing something of value to a U.S. election campaign. The solicitation or encouragement might not be in the form of a direct, explicit request, but might be communicated implicitly, as long as there is evidence of an intent to obtain such improper assistance. The proof may rely on circumstantial evidence of a series of meetings or communications amounting to encouragement.

The evidence that has emerged so far—in particular the meeting that Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort had with the Russian lawyer in June 2016—suggests an interest within the campaign in receiving assistance from Russian sources. It remains to be seen whether this interest crossed over into intentional solicitation or encouragement of such assistance.

***

‘Donald Trump Jr. has helped the prosecution by establishing motive’
Peter Zeidenberg is a partner at Arent Fox and served as an assistant special counsel in the prosecution of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

I do not think the meeting, in and of itself, establishes a crime. But, by admitting that he sought the meeting in hope of obtaining damaging information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. has helped the prosecution by establishing motive to explain whatever conduct the government uncovers: Trump Jr. was looking for dirt on Clinton, and was looking to Russians to provide it. It will be very difficult for him—and, given their presence at the meeting, Paul Manafort or Jared Kushner—to now claim that they were not interested in getting damaging information from Russians.

The actual email itself is incredibly damaging to not just Trump Jr., but also to Manafort and Kushner, who clearly knew the purpose of the meeting and went ahead with it. This establishes motive and state of mind for all three. A successful prosecution would have to show evidence that there was a quid pro quo: a promise of sanctions relief in exchange for Russian help with dirt on Hillary Clinton. And it would seem that those pieces are just lying around waiting to be put into the puzzle to complete this picture.

There is another problem with Trump Jr.’s story as well. His claim that they “only” spoke about the adoption issue does not help him at all. Russian adoptions were stopped by Vladimir Putin because of sanctions put in place by the U.S. government. So it would be almost impossible to discuss the adoption issue without discussing the sanctions issue. It seems very likely that much of what was motivating Russia to help Donald Trump win was because it wanted sanctions relief. So this story is damaging to the president for that reason as well. It is another important piece of a puzzle that special counsel Robert Mueller will be assembling.


***

‘There is no federal law that criminalizes collusion. That does not mean that there are no possible crimes’
Mark S. Zaid and Bradley P. Moss are national security attorneys based in Washington, D.C.

There is no federal law that criminalizes collusion, in and of itself, between a political campaign and a foreign government. It’s highly unethical and inappropriate, but we do not believe Congress has ever chosen to specifically identify that legal term of art in a criminal statute in this context.

That does not mean that there are no possible crimes to be investigated. For example, campaign finance laws could have been violated, especially depending on whether any “coordination” or “collusion” involved exchanges of funds or “things of value” between the Russians and the Trump campaign. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could have been violated if members of the Trump campaign assisted in or coordinated the dissemination of the emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee or John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair.

What has been leaked to the press so far are all fragments of possible lines of criminal inquiry. They neither complete the picture for possible prosecution, nor rule out the idea that prosecutions could come about.

***

‘Seeking to obtain the work product of a prior hack would be no more criminal than a newspaper publishing the Pentagon Papers’
Alan Dershowitz is emeritus professor of law at Harvard University.

Which criminal statutes, if any, would be violated by collusion between a campaign and a foreign government, if collusion were to be proved? Unless there is a clear violation of an existing criminal statute, there would be no crime. Obviously, if anyone conspired in advance with another to commit a crime, such as hacking the Democratic National Committee, that would be criminal. But merely seeking to obtain the work product of a prior hack would be no more criminal than a newspaper publishing the work products of thefts such as the Pentagon Papers and the material stolen by Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. That is why the entire issue of alleged collusion with, and interference by, the Russians should be investigated openly by an independent nonpartisan commission, rather than by a prosecutor behind the closed doors of a grand jury.

***

‘Trump Jr. may be counting on his father to excuse him from criminal liability’
Kathleen Clark is a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis specializing in legal ethics.

U.S. election law prohibits foreigners from providing assistance to U.S. political campaigns, and prohibits anyone from soliciting such foreign assistance. It is through the lens of that law that I have followed the developments of the past few days about the June 9, 2016, meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.

If the emails leading up to the meeting that Trump Jr. released Tuesday morning are genuine, they are damning. In the first email, a business associate wrote Trump Jr. and indicated that a Russian government official “offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] ... and would be very useful to your father.” This email was offering assistance that would violate U.S. law. But rather than rebuff the offer, Trump Jr. expressed enthusiasm for it, and even suggested when the information should be disclosed to the public: “Seems we have some time and if it is what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” Trump Jr. may be counting on his father—and the presidential pardon power—to excuse him from criminal liability for what he disclosed Tuesday morning.
***


‘Evidence might establish other crimes’

Norman Eisen is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2009 to 2011 and ambassador to the Czech Republic from 2011 to 2014.

Collusion simply means that Donald Trump, his campaign or their representatives were working with Russia or its agents to affect the campaign. There is no crime of collusion, but if it were proved, that evidence might establish other crimes, such as conspiracy to commit cybercrime (with respect to hacking) or campaign finance violations (with respect to soliciting a thing of value from a foreign government, namely damaging information). Evidence of possible collusion is starting to come in, include Roger Stone’s contacts with “Guccifer”; actions by a GOP activist, Peter Smith, who apparently sought help from Russia and named campaign officials in related documents; and, of course, the just revealed emails and conduct of Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner in meeting a Russian lawyer.



I HOPE THIS PROMISING ARTICLE TITLE WILL GIVE WHAT WE NEED. THE SEVERAL OTHER THINGS THAT I LOOKED AT AREN’T RIGHT DEAD CENTER, OR GIVE LITTLE HOPE OF A CONVICTION. SOME EVEN HAVE THE VIEWPOINT THAT A PRESIDENT CAN DO WHATEVER HE PLEASES. THAT IS A PROBLEM.

HAVING JUST FINISHED READING THIS, THOUGH, I CAN SAY THAT IT LOOKS TO ME TO BE RIGHT ON, AND IT GIVES A GOOD LIKELIHOOD THAT TRUMP WON’T BE ABLE TO WIN THE CASE, AT LEAST NOT EASILY. REMEMBER THAT MUELLER IS NOT ONLY THE BULLDOG DIGGING INTO THIS, BUT A PROSECUTOR. I HOPE TRUMP HAS TO FACE HIM IN COURT. I LIKE MUELLER AS MUCH AS I DISLIKE TRUMP.

IT IS ALSO GOOD THAT MUELLER IS STILL UNCOVERING MORE EVIDENCE FOR A CHAIN OF LOGIC TO MAKE THE CASE SOLID. THEN AS A NATION WE MUST TAKE A LOOK AT A POSSIBLE REWRITE OF THE LAWS OF ELECTIONS, AND FOREIGN INFLUENCE IN GENERAL EVEN AFTER THE ELECTION. WE DON’T NEED MR. PUTIN MESSING IN OUR AFFAIRS AT ALL, EVER.

http://www.moresoftmoneyhardlaw.com/2017/06/collusion-foreign-government-becomes-crime/
“When Collusion with a Foreign Government Becomes a Crime”
Posted by Bob Bauer June 2, 2017

I wrote the following piece for Just Security on the campaign finance issues raised by what is known about Russian activities in the 2016 election. It also appears below.
——-
Commentary on Russian intervention in the 2016 elections has included one confidently expressed and perhaps growing view: that there may be a scandal there, but no conceivable crime. It is claimed that the Trump campaign could wink and nod at Russian hacking, and derive the full benefit, but that without considerably more evidence of direct involvement, there is no role for criminal law enforcement. The matter is then left to Congress to consider whether new laws are needed, and the public, of course, will render its judgment in opinion polls and in elections still to come.

This view is flawed. It fails to consider the potential campaign finance violations, as suggested by the facts so far known, under existing law. These violations are criminally enforceable.

It would not be the first time Congress wrestled with these questions of foreign interference with the US electoral process. Following the 1996 elections, the Republican Party concluded that the victorious Bill Clinton had benefited from foreign intervention in his election. Its Senate majority organized hearings, chaired by the late Senator Fred Thompson, who opened then with the declaration that high-level Chinese officials had committed substantial sums of money to influence the presidential election. The ensuing investigation, which included a parallel criminal inquiry, did not live up to Senator Thompson’s most dramatic claims, but Congress later amended the law to tighten the long- standing prohibition against foreign national spending in federal elections. On this point, there was bipartisan unity: that the law should stand clearly and without gaping loopholes against foreign interference in American elections.

Then the issue made a dramatic return in this last presidential election, but with a major difference. This time, there is no doubt that a foreign state, Russia, devoted resources to influence the outcome of the 2016 election. But unlike 1996, the manner of this intervention–the hacking of emails, the dissemination of fake news– has directed much of the legal discussion to computer security and espionage statutes. The controversy has not had the “feel” of a classic case about political spending. It has come across in press reporting and public discussion as a tale of 21st century cyber-crime and foreign intelligence service skullduggery–more sophisticated international intrigue than Watergate’s “third-rate burglary” and associated cover-up. “[U]nlike the Watergate investigation, which began with a break-in,” the New Yorker’s and CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin has written, “it is not immediately clear what crimes may have been committed.” And even if there might be criminal wrongdoing somewhere in this Trump campaign-Russia relationship, commentators have tended to doubt that there is yet sufficient hard evidence of it.

Yet even on the information so far available, there are solid grounds for paying close attention to the potential campaign finance violations. The case is more or less hiding in plain sight.

The law prohibits foreign nationals from providing “anything of value… in connection with” an election. The hacking of the Podesta emails, which were then transmitted to Wikileaks for posting, clearly had value, and its connection to the election is not disputed. None other than the Republican nominee said so publicly, egging on the Russians to locate and publish Clinton emails to aid his campaign. He famously declared: “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” One well known Trump confidante, Roger Stone, is among those backing the President’s candidacy who offered similar contemporaneous statements about the value placed on these disclosures (and who, having intimated that he had inside information about when the materials would be released, now faces inquiries from the Congress (and from the Special Counsel’s investigation).

There is a fair question of what sort of involvement beyond vocalized glee would subject Americans to liability for these foreign intelligence activities. The relevant regulation suggests that something more is required: at least “substantial assistance” to the foreign spender in providing this “thing of value.” Does a presidential campaign render this substantial assistance to a foreign national engaged in influencing an election by endorsing the specific activity and confirming its strategic utility? When the FEC promulgated this ban on “substantial assistance,” it said little about its scope. It did make clear that the term was to be broadly construed. It offered the concrete example of a U.S. citizen acting as a “conduit or intermediary” for foreign spending, but noted that this was provided as only one example. It expressly left open other possibilities.

The President and others associated with the campaign made no bones about the value to them of the purloined email communications. The President told a rally of supporters he “loved” Wikileaks and read from the hacked communication to support his attack on his opponent for “a degree of corruption at the highest levels of our government like nothing we have ever seen as a country before.” He drew on the emails in the debates with Secretary Clinton. Notably, when he was asked during the debates to acknowledge the Russian program of interference and given the opportunity to openly oppose the actions, he wouldn’t do so. He also mentioned Wikileaks 124 times in the last month of the campaign. The Russians could only have been strengthened in the conviction that their efforts were welcome and had value. That covers the evidence in plain sight.

Of course, investigators will examine whether there were Trump campaign communications or private assurances to foreign nationals—including Russians and associates of Wikileaks acting as their “agents”—to encourage them or help coordinate the dissemination of these materials. Coordination at this level could well trigger the application of other provisions of the rules directed at the political campaign’s acceptance or receipt of the Russian assistance, or even its direct solicitation of it. But the “substantial assistance” prong would cover the more indirect of the Trump campaign activities–including public statements–that were conducted at more of a distance, and yet still intended to signal the Russians that help was needed and of “value.”

A Trump defense may include the claim that he and his campaign cannot be constitutionally subjected to legal liability for any public statements on the campaign trail. They may try to frame their statements as rough-and-tumble political commentary on Russian behavior that, while helpful to the Republican nominee, neither Mr. Trump nor his associates clearly requested or for which they can be held responsible. This First Amendment defense is at least at the mercy of whatever facts are still uncovered about the extent of any “collusion.” But even with just a little more in the way of fact, with the addition of detail to an already well-established outline, the Trump campaign’s position is precarious. How strongly does the First Amendment protect a presidential nominee’s mobilization of foreign government support for his candidacy–support achieved through illegal activities?

A test of this constitutional defense is whether it relies somehow on the fact that Mr. Trump and his campaign were open and notorious in courting Russian assistance. Presumably, had they pursued this assistance behind closed doors, few would question the legal significance of the understanding reached with a foreign government supporter. It would be remarkable to maintain that this appeal for help is converted into constitutionally protected speech because the speaker has chosen to have much or all of the conversation in public.

Recent developments in the law speak clearly to the strength of the government’s interest in an expansive enforcement of the ban on foreign national involvement in U.S. elections. In 2012, in Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, a federal appellate court ruled, and the Supreme Court affirmed, that lawful resident aliens had no First Amendment right to contribute to American candidates and political committees. More importantly, the court emphasized that foreign national political intervention implicated a principle “fundamental to the definition of our national political community,” which is that “foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.” At stake was “part of the sovereign’s obligation to preserve the basic conception of a political community.” It will be no minor feat for Trump campaign lawyers, relying on Donald Trump’s free speech rights, to overcome what the court called this “foundational” interest.

The law as written already treats speech as a factor in potential violations of the ban on foreign national political spending. A foreign national may not “participate,” or “control” or “direct” decisions on contributions or expenditures. This is a speech-centered restriction. So a foreign national working for the foreign parent of a US corporation (let alone a foreign national resident in the United States) may not discuss with an American PAC Director plans for making contributions or expenditures, and it is immaterial for this purpose that the revenues on which the PAC will draw for the contribution was generated within the United States. And it is not only a question of the foreign national’s speech (to which, of course, no First Amendment protection attaches). The American PAC Director’s own speech is relevant to a finding of illegal “participation,” if the conversation indicates that the PAC Director is seeking permission, yielding control over the decision, or merely soliciting the foreign national’s opinion on how to spend the money. A statement like Donald Trump’s that he “loves WikiLeaks,” or that he hopes that more will be done to bring to light Clinton emails, would be evidence in such a conversation that his foreign national interlocutor was “participating” in a decision on political spending in connection with the election.

Mr. Trump and his campaign might argue that the hacking and dissemination of the emails were not political spending–not, in a technical sense, “contributions” nor “expenditures”– covered by the federal campaign finance law. Perhaps so, but they were something of value, and the statute and related regulations of the Federal Election Commission separately prohibit any value given by a foreign national. Of course, the Trump campaign might take up the fight on this issue and litigate it. It would then have the thankless task of persuading a court that a presidential candidate can invite, then warmly accept and exploit, the activities of a foreign intelligence service because it is a particular kind of “value,” not a conventional contribution or expenditure. The campaign will have an even harder time if it is established that Russians distributed information through online bots, the creation of DC Leaks in the United States, or the payment for online advertising.

What is also exceptional about the Trump case, distinguishing it from other forms of national electioneering, is the absence of any question about intent, or state of mind. In the most recent round of revisions to its rules, the FEC went to some lengths to allow a candidate or political committee to establish that it did not reasonably know about the foreign source of the contribution or expenditure or other value received. (11 C.F.R. § 110.20 (a)(4),(7)). This is no help to the Trump campaign which certainly had every reason to know that, as widely reported and declared officially by the US government, Russia was behind the hacking. Mr. Trump, on the campaign trail, said as much in inviting Russia to release more. At other times he suggested that perhaps Russia was not behind these activities, that no one could know: but, remarkably, he allowed for the possibility that another foreign power, China, might have been responsible. And once again, there are other parts of the public record bearing on intent that will receive close investigative scrutiny, like Trump’s close confidante Roger Stone’s repeated statements about his communications with Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

Whether prosecutors choose to interpret the law aggressively in these circumstances is bound to be affected, and not to Mr. Trump’s advantage, by the well-established identity of the foreign actor: a state, operating through its own intelligence services. This is not the typical foreign national case. In recent years, after Citizens United, the FEC has been preoccupied with debates over political spending by corporations. It has pondered how expansively the regulations should treat campaign activities of the USA subsidiary of a foreign corporation, or by a corporation with a significant percentage of foreign national shareholders. The Commission could not agree on tightening the rules, and the reason, in part, was the difficulty that three of the Commissioners perceived in defining when a business could be deemed to represent “foreign” interests. These complications are not present in a case involving a foreign government.

And, at the same time, it is because of this clear involvement of a foreign state actor that the Trump case will be pivotal in determining the efficacy of the ban on foreign national electioneering. The campaign finance laws have as their core purpose preventing corruption of government, or its appearance, but the provision prohibiting foreign political spending is uniquely concerned with corruption of a different, even higher order, that strikes at national security. The Bluman court* cited the high importance of preserving of the “basic conception of a political community” in holding that two individuals–one a Canadian and the other holding dual Canadian and Israeli citizenship–could not make simple, every-day contributions to political organizations. In the Trump case, which involves active foreign intervention in a political campaign that is welcomed and encouraged by one of the candidates, this “basic conception” is even more–it is fair to say, acutely– at stake.

As the case unfolds, other instances of Russian support for the campaign might still surface, as I have indicated. The investigators will look into unconfirmed reports that the Russians may have attempted through intermediaries to buy ads placed for the benefit of Trump on social media platforms. Should there be any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded in this advertising activity, a straightforward campaign finance violation–a massive illegal contribution to the campaign– would be added to the one built on hacking and WikiLeaks distribution. The same holds true for any collusion over use of microtargeting techniques, which congressional investigations are reportedly now also probing.

But, as a major issue of foreign national involvement under the campaign finance law, the hacking episode may prove more than sufficient to sustain the current criminal investigation, and it could wind up being a central [sic] to it.


Bluman court*

[https://electionlawblog.org/?p=27557 -- Breaking News: Supreme Court Affirms that First Amendment Not Violated by Barring Foreign Individuals from Spending Money (or Contributing) in U.S. Elections
Posted on January 9, 2012 7:38 am by Rick Hasen]

As I had hoped and expected, the Supreme Court issued a summary affirmance this morning in the Bluman v. FEC case, in which the lower court had upheld against first Amendment challenge the federal law barring foreign individuals (even those living legally in the U.S. but who are not permanent residents) from spending money on U.S. election campaigns or contributing money to them. (There were no noted dissents.)



FOR VERY SPECIFIC RULES AND VIOLATIONS, MAINLY PROCEDURES ON ELECTION DAY, SEE ALSO: https://elections.uslegal.com/violations-of-election-laws/
Violations Of Election Laws

The United States Constitution enacts penal laws to preserve the purity of election process. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 regulates the conduct of election campaigns in order to protect the integrity of the political process and to ensure effective political debate. The provisions of this Act supersede any provision of state law dealing with election to Federal office. 2 USCS § 453 provides that notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a state or local committee of a political party may, subject to state law, use funds that are not subject to the prohibitions, limitations, and reporting requirements of the Act exclusively for the purchase or construction of an office building for such state or local committee.

For the purpose of carrying out uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements, the Attorney General shall bring a civil action against any state or jurisdiction in an appropriate United States District Court. A person should have acted knowingly in order to violate an election law. However, a person not falling within the descriptive terms of a statute describing penal offenses should be excluded.

All provisions of election laws are mandatory. The penal provisions of election laws are sometimes expressly made applicable to primary elections. However, irregularities which are not caused due to fraud and which do not interfere with a full and expression [sic] of the voter’s choice should not effect a disenfranchisement of the voters.

Some statutes provide that electioneering may not be done within a given distance of the polling place. However, it shall be considered unconstitutional if an electioneering statute infringes on First Amendment rights. State statutes which prescribe solicitation of votes on Election Day in support of or in opposition to any proposition being voted on cannot be applied to a newspaper’s editorial comment on the issue submitted to voters, because it would violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press. GO TO WEBSITE TO CONTINUE TO READ THIS.



PRE-EMPTIVE WAR IS FOOLISH AND IN THIS CASE, COULD BE DEADLY FOR THE WHOLE WORLD. KIM IS AS UNTRUSTWORTHY AS TRUMP IS, AND THE TWO WON’T MIX WELL. SHOULD THE UN BE INVOLVED IN THIS, PERHAPS?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-lindsey-graham-says-new-north-korea-tech-advances-make-preemptive-war-more-likely/
By EMILY TILLETT CBS NEWS December 3, 2017, 12:48 PM
Sen. Graham says new N. Korea tech advances make pre-emptive war "more likely"

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said the United States is "running out of time" when it comes to North Korea and that pre-emptive war is "becoming more likely" as the country's weapons technology "matures."

"We're getting close to a military conflict because North Korea's marching toward marrying up the technology of an ICBM with a nuclear weapon on top that cannot only get to America but deliver the weapon. We're running out of time," Graham said on CBS News' "Face the Nation" Sunday.

"The policy of the Trump administration is to deny North Korea the capability to hit America with a nuclear-tipped missile. Not to contain it," he said. "Denial means preemptive war as a last resort. That preemption is becoming more likely as their technology matures. Every missile test, every underground test of a nuclear weapon, means the marriage is more likely."

Transcript: Sen. Lindsey Graham on "Face the Nation"

His comments came just days after North Korea said it had successfully launched a new type of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which it claimed is capable of reaching the U.S. The North's state television said the new ICBM was "significantly more" powerful than the previous long-range weapon the country tested.

Graham was critical of Chinese efforts to contain the regime, calling them ineffective. He also said that "if there's an underground nuclear test, then you need to get ready for a very serious response by the United States."

He added, "I think the president, as inherent authority as commander-in-chief, has the ability to strike North Korea to protect the American homeland. But this discussion needs to happen among ourselves."

Graham said he is now urging the Pentagon not to send any dependents to South Korea.

"South Korea should be an unaccompanied tour. It's crazy to send spouses and children to South Korea, given the provocation of North Korea. So I want them to stop sending dependents. And I think it's now time to start moving American dependents out of South Korea," he said.

Graham also issued a warning to President Trump in light of his recent tweets on the FBI and the ongoing special counsel's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

"There's an ongoing criminal investigation; Comey may be part of it. You tweet and comment regarding ongoing criminal investigations at your own peril. I'd be careful if I were you, Mr. President. I'd watch this," he said.

Asked if he agreed with the president's assessment that the FBI's reputation is the "worst in history" after being run by former Director James Comey, Graham said he disagreed but still has questions he wants answered.

"I think Comey needs to answer questions as his time as director. I think he made some decisions that, they were really very, very wrong."

In light of Flynn's guilty plea to lying to the FBI as part of the special counsel's investigation, Graham said "what Flynn lied about is not a crime."


"I don't think it's wrong for a transition person to talk to a foreign government about change in policy," he said. "I don't think the Logan Act* is worth the paper it's written on. So I'm not really worried about what happened after the election in terms of trying to communicate with the Russians about the Israeli resolution or about sanctions."

He added, "It comes down to the following to me: was there any effort by the Trump campaign to coordinate with Russian intelligence services or any entity controlled by the Russians to receive benefit during the election? And they found the one guy that would know that."

Graham said of Flynn's knowledge, "If there was coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, I can't think of a person who would know more about that than Flynn."

"There is no evidence of collusion. Nobody's been charged with it. But you found the one person who would know if it did exist. So it won't be long before we understand, one way or the other, whether Trump people colluded with Russia," Graham said.

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.



READ ABOUT THE LOGAN ACT IN THIS WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. IT’S REALLY INTERESTING. THERE IS ALSO THE MENTION OF SOMETHING CALLED THE QUASI-WAR. REALLY. TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
Logan Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. The intent behind the Act is to prevent unauthorized negotiations from undermining the government's position.[2] The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was last amended in 1994, and violation of the Logan Act is a felony.



LOOKS LIKE ICE HAS BEEN GETTING OUT OF HAND IN SEVERAL WAYS. I’M GLAD TO SEE THE SENATE LOOKING INTO IT. AN UNSUPERVISED AND UNCONTROLLED POLICE-LIKE UNIT WITH THE POWER TO DO WHATEVER THEY FEEL LIKE DOING IS NOT A GOOD THING. I HOPE THAT THE INFLUENCE OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ISN’T INVOLVED IN THIS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/06/29/the-story-behind-kates-law-and-how-it-could-change-immigration-policies-in-the-u-s/?utm_term=.200e39c17dcf
Post Nation
The story behind ‘Kate’s Law’ — and how it could change immigration policies in the U.S.
By Kristine Phillips June 29, 2017

Kathryn Steinle was walking with her father one July evening at one of San Francisco’s most popular tourist spots when suddenly, they heard a gunshot.

Steinle fell to the ground. She looked at her father and said, “Help me, Dad.”

Those would be her last words, her father later said during testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bullet had pierced the 32-year-old’s aorta. She would die two hours later at San Francisco General Hospital.

Her killer, authorities say, was Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a Mexican national with seven felony convictions and who had been deported five times but had returned to the United States.

Around the time of Steinle’s killing, Lopez-Sanchez had just finished a nearly four-year federal prison sentence for illegally reentering the country. He was turned over to San Francisco law enforcement officials because of an outstanding warrant for a marijuana-related charge that was immediately dismissed. Local authorities later released him, despite a request from federal immigration officials to keep him in custody because of his undocumented status, according to a wrongful-death lawsuit filed by Steinle’s family.

Less than three months later, authorities say, Lopez-Sanchez stole a .40-caliber pistol from the unlocked car of a U.S. Bureau of Land Management ranger, and shot Steinle at Pier 14 along the Embarcadero.

The July 1, 2015, killing of the woman, allegedly at the hands of a man who wasn’t supposed to be in the country, intensified an already volatile debate over immigration and sanctuary cities — localities that refuse to hand over immigrants for deportation to federal officials. Her death was — and continues to be — a major policy weapon for politicians seeking tougher immigration policies.

[Tougher immigration policies face first major legislative test of Trump era]

On Thursday, just two days before the second-year anniversary of Steinle’s shooting, the House of Representatives passed a bill known as “Kate’s Law,” which would enhance penalties for convicted and deported criminals who reenter the United States illegally. It was first introduced in 2015, but it failed to advance in the Senate.

Photograph -- A photo of Kathryn Steinle, allegedly killed at the hands of an undocumented immigrant, is placed on an easel as her father, Jim Steinle, second from left, prepares to testify about her shooting during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on U.S. immigration enforcement policies on July 21, 2015. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

“Kate’s Law” is one of two immigration bills voted on Thursday. The other, the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,” would bar federal grants from sanctuary cities and allow victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants to sue those cities. It also passed, and both bills are headed to the Senate.

BREAKING→ the House just passed #KatesLaw & the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. We’re taking action to protect Americans & enforce the law.

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) June 29, 2017

The House votes come at a critical time for the Trump administration. Passage of the bills could pave the way for a victory for Trump’s immigration agenda, particularly on sanctuary cities. The president met with families of victims Wednesday and urged lawmakers to bring the bills to his desk quickly.

Civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have strongly opposed Kate’s Law, calling it a “shortsighted and ill-conceived response” to the young woman’s slaying. They argue that it is blanket legislation that would penalize even those who come to the United States to escape persecution. Opponents also say that the bill perpetuates the false notion that undocumented immigrants are inherently criminals.

Steinle’s parents publicly advocated for the bill in 2015.

In the July 2015 testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, James Steinle said “disjointed laws” and “basic incompetence on many levels” resulted in his daughter’s killing.

[The director of ICE just declined to support a central argument of Trump’s candidacy]

“Our family realize the complexity of immigration laws. However, we feel strongly that some legislation should be discussed, enacted or changed to take these undocumented felons off our streets for good,” Steinle said. “We’d be proud to see Kate’s name associated to some of this new legislation. We feel if Kate’s Law saves one daughter, one son, a mother, a father, Kate’s death won’t be in vain.”

Steinle described his daughter, a San Francisco resident, as a beautiful young woman with deep faith, a contagious laugh and a smile that lit up a room. She was a world traveler, having visited Spain, Thailand, Amsterdam, Dubai and South Africa. She also went to the slums of Mumbai, where she spent time with a woman’s family and came back to the United States “a changed person,” Steinle said.

“The day Kate died, she changed her Facebook cover photo to a saying that said, ‘Whatever is good for your soul, do it.’ This quote truly describes her spirit,” Steinle said.

After the law failed in the Senate, Steinle’s parents went on Bill O’Reilly’s former show on Fox to express their disappointment.

“People would come up and ask us, ‘Where’s Kate’s Law? Where’s Kate’s Law?’ … I didn’t get the feeling, any warm and fuzzy feeling that Kate’s Law would hit the Senate or be passed,” Jim Steinle said. “It’s depressing and aggravating. We’re a bit angry about it, but that’s the government we have.”

Shortly after his sister’s death, Brad Steinle came out as a vocal critic of President Trump, then a presidential candidate. He slammed the real estate developer for “sensationalizing” the tragedy and using it to push for his immigration policies, specifically building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump had said in a statement that Steinle’s death was “yet another example of why we must secure our border,” NBC affiliate KNTV reported.

Photograph -- Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez (Michael Macor/Reuters)

In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper in July 2015, Brad Steinle said that building a wall is “not rational.”

“Donald Trump talks about Kate Steinle like he knows her,” he said. “I’ve never heard a word from his campaign manager, I’ve never heard a word from him … I don’t want to be affiliated with someone who doesn’t have the common courtesy to reach out and ask about Kate, and our political views and what we want.”

Brad Steinle also criticized local and federal officials for the lack of accountability over his sister’s death.

“The federal agencies, the city of San Francisco and the sheriff have all pointed fingers at one another, blaming the other person or the other agency on Kate’s death,” he told CNN.

Lopez-Sanchez, 54, is facing murder and other charges in connection to the shooting. The criminal case remains pending. His attorney, Matt Gonzalez, had argued that his client found the gun and that the shooting was accidental, NPR reported. A message left for Gonzalez’s secretary Thursday was not immediately returned.

Mike DeBonis and David Nakamura contributed to this report.

Read more:

Thousands of ICE detainees claim they were forced into labor, a violation of anti-slavery laws

They met with immigration officers to apply for legal residency — only to be arrested by ICE

A House bill would ban ICE agents from identifying themselves as police officers



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/us/oregon-ice-arrest-immigration.html?_r=0
U.S.
ICE Arrested a Man in Oregon Without a Warrant. Senators Want to Know Why.
By MATTHEW HAAG and CHRISTINE HAUSER
OCT. 24, 2017

Both of Oregon’s senators have demanded an explanation after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in plain clothes entered a home in Portland without a warrant and arrested a man who was later released.

The arrest of the man, who was working on a renovation at the house on Thursday, was captured on a cellphone video by a co-worker who published it on Facebook, where it was viewed more than a million times.

News of the encounter spread, and United States Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, both Democrats who had previously voiced concerns about how ICE is operating in their state, said the arrest “appears to be an illegal entry of a private home,” according to a joint letter sent on Friday to a regional director at the agency.

The video, which is more than seven minutes long, begins after three ICE agents are already inside the house. One of them asks the man, identified by the senators as Carlos Bolanos, for his identification. The man asks why.

“I have reason to believe you are not in the country legally,” the agent replies.

The co-worker recording the cellphone video, George Cardenas, then asks the agents why his colleague is being arrested and what the charges are, but none are specified. He asks them repeatedly to identify themselves and tells the agents they are trespassing, but the one agent who speaks throughout the encounter says the house is a place of business, apparently because the two men are working inside.

Mr. Cardenas says that the homeowners live in the furnished basement, and points out their car.

“If you guys don’t have a warrant, you’re kind of breaking the law,” Mr. Cardenas said. “Well, you are breaking the law, basically, at this point.”

The video records a back and forth over access, and Mr. Cardenas agrees that he opened the door when he saw the agents outside but says he did not give them permission to enter. At one point, the agent says, “We don’t need to introduce ourselves by our names.”

After several minutes, the agents arrest Mr. Bolanos, removing a paintbrush from one hand and a cellphone from the other and then placing his hands behind his back and handcuffing him. He is walked to a car outside.

An ICE public affairs officer, Yasmeen Pitts O’Keefe, said later that Mr. Bolanos was released from custody pending further investigation. She said in a statement that the matter had been referred to the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General.

“The agency is reviewing this incident,” Ms. Pitts O’Keefe said. She did not reply to a request for further comment on Monday.

In their letter to Elizabeth Godfrey, a deputy field office director for ICE, Mr. Wyden and Mr. Merkley wrote that people “do not lose their constitutional protection from warrantless search and seizure simply because ICE believes they may be immigrants.”

The senators asked Ms. Godfrey for an explanation of the policies that led to Mr. Bolanos’s arrest and questioned whether the behavior of the agents conformed to guidelines. Mr. Cardenas said on Monday that Mr. Bolanos planned to speak with a lawyer before talking publicly about the episode.

It was the latest encounter to bring ICE under criticism for its agents’ practices during arrests in Oregon and across the country. The letter from the senators said that the encounter with Mr. Bolanos came about two weeks after ICE responded to their questions about the targeting of an American citizen in Hillsboro, Ore.

In that episode last month, according to an account by the American Civil Liberties Union, a man, Isidro Andrade-Tafolla, and his wife were stopped by ICE agents as the couple left the Washington County Courthouse.

Mr. Andrade-Tafolla was asked to show his identification by agents who did not identify themselves, but who showed him a photograph. Mr. Andrade-Tafolla said that it was not him in the photograph, and that the only resemblance was skin color.

“That confusion about who is who with unidentified ICE agents could literally become deadly,” Sheriff Pat Garrett of Washington County said at a news conference last month after Mr. Andrade-Tafolla was stopped. He said sheriffs in Oregon had expressed concern to ICE about other circumstances in which agents did not identify themselves or drove in unmarked cars.

“We have heard story after story,” Representative Suzanne Bonamici said at the news conference in September.

On Friday, after Mr. Bolanos was arrested, she wrote in a joint letter with Representative Earl Blumenauer, a fellow Democrat, that the agents’ behavior was inappropriate.

“Without a response, we will assume that an investigation into the Washington County incident is not underway,” the lawmakers said. “Now after this most recent incident, it is even more disturbing to witness ICE agents act inappropriately again, only a month later.”

Mat Dos Santos, the legal director for the A.C.L.U. of Oregon, said in an interview over the weekend that the arrest of Mr. Bolanos, as seen in the video, was “flagrantly unconstitutional.”

“I hope that they review this incident and realize just how bad it is and how plainly illegal this arrest was and reprimand and retrain officers on how to conduct an arrest legally,” he added.

“I don’t have a lot of hope for that,” he said. “It’s an agency that operates largely in secret and with little public oversight.”

Jacey Fortin contributed reporting.

Follow Matthew Haag and Christine Hauser on Twitter: @matthewhaag and @ChristineNYT.


JUST CALL ME PARANOID, BUT THIS IS AN UNUSUALLY LARGE NUMBER OF SUCH PEOPLE IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. DO WE REALLY KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY MIGHT POSSIBLY BE SPIES OR SOME OTHER LESS THAN BENIGN GROUP? ONE OF THEM STOLE ELECTRONICS THE ARTICLE SAYS. THIS HAS ME THINKING ABOUT THE GREAT SPY THRILLER “EYE OF THE NEEDLE,” BY KEN FOLLETT. IN 1981, WIKIPEDIA SAYS, THERE WAS A GOOD MOVIE MADE ON IT WITH DONALD SUTHERLAND.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/japan-ghost-ships-bodies-north-korea/
CBS/AP December 4, 2017, 9:53 AM
Japan finds "ghost ship," more bodies thought to be from North Korea

Photograph -- A Japan Coast Guard vessel sails near a drifting wooden boat carrying men identified as North Koreans off Matsumae on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, in this photo taken by Kyodo Nov. 29, 2017. KYODO VIA REUTERS

TOKYO -- Three bodies of people believed to be North Koreans were recovered in northern Japan on Monday, two days after authorities found a dilapidated empty boat, coast guard officials said.

The coast guard said a Japanese fishing boat picked up a male body floating off the coast of Sakata in Yamagata prefecture and two more bodies washed up on a nearby beach an hour and half later. The bodies were decomposed, but one had a lapel pin thought to be North Korean.

Officials are investigating if the bodies were from the severely damaged boat that washed ashore Saturday.

Winds and water currents push dozens of boats onto Japan's northern coasts annually. Rickety North Korean fishing boats are particularly vulnerable because they lack the sturdiness and equipment to return home.

But the alarming pace over the past few weeks has prompted Japanese authorities to step up patrols.

Twenty-eight of the vessels - dubbed "ghost ships" - were detected in November, up from just four in November last year. Usually, only the boats or fragments wash ashore. It is very rare for survivors to be rescued and brought ashore by the Japanese.

The increase may be related to a campaign pushed by leader Kim Jong Un to boost fish harvests as a means of increasing sources of protein for the nation, which continues to fall short of food self-sufficiency and remains vulnerable to health problems caused by the lack of a varied, balanced diet.

In order to reach their quotas, the North Korean fishermen may be taking more risks and venturing farther from their usual waters.

Japanese authorities are also holding 18 people from two other boats. They claim to be North Korean.

The first batch of 10 landed on a small uninhabited island off southern Hokkaido on a damaged fishing boat and allegedly stole electronic appliances and other items from an unmanned shelter while temporarily taking refuge from rough seas. Japan's coast guard rescued them last week.

Eight other survivors managed to reach shore in Akita on a ragged boat - which is believed to have fallen apart and sunk soon after they were rescued - have been transferred to immigration custody.

Japanese officials said the 10 are being investigated for possible theft, while the other eight are expected to be sent home via China.

Meanwhile, a large U.S.-South Korea air drill was held Monday following North Korea's test of its most powerful intercontinental ballistic missile last week. A North Korean newspaper called the joint exercise an "all-out provocation."

U.S. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told CBS' "Face the Nation" the Pentagon should take U.S. military families out of harm's way.

"It's crazy to send spouses and children to South Korea given the provocation of North Korea," Graham said. "So I want them to stop sending dependents, and I think it's now time to start moving American dependents out of South Korea."


© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


WAR GAMES

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-icbm-threat-us-air-force-training-japan/
CBS NEWS December 4, 2017, 7:45 AM
How the U.S. Air Force in Japan is training amid rising tensions with North Korea

Photograph -- U.S. Air Force stealth fighters are taking off in South Korea on a serious training mission. In the U.S. and South Korea's biggest combined air force exercise, six of the F-22 Raptors are part of the drill that will go on through Friday.

The show of force follows North Korea's test of its most powerful intercontinental ballistic missile.

A North Korean newspaper calls the exercise an "all-out provocation." National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster said over the weekend the chance of war in Korea is increasing every day.

The Air Force exercises now underway involve 230 aircraft and 12,000 U.S. military personnel. CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy and his team went to the U.S. Air Force base in Misawa, Japan, and flew with the 35th Fighter Wing to see how they are preparing for the increasing threat from North Korea.

ctm-1204-ben-tracy-air-force-drills.jpg
CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy CBS NEWS

Tracy flew in the back seat of Maj. Richard Smeeding's F-16 fighter jet. He goes by the call sign "Punch." Seconds into our flight he punches our plane straight up in the air.

They climb 13,000 feet at nearly 500 mph.

Soon they are soaring right up the face of a massive snow-capped mountain, and minutes later just barely above the surface of a lake.

For pilots like Smeeding, this is a serious training mission.

Flying low through the canyons of a Japanese mountain range helps him prepare for actual combat conditions in which he would try to avoid detection.

"What does this replicate in terms of combat flying?" Tracy asked.

"If there is any physical barrier between me and the missile sites or radars, there's no way for them to be able to target me, much less shoot me," Smeeding said.

There are 44 F-16s at the Misawa Air Base, and in a war with North Korea, they would likely be the first planes sent in to take out enemy radar and North Korea's air defenses.

"If needed and if called on, we are ready and we are ready to go right now. Hundred percent," Col. Scott Jobe said.

Jobe is commander of the 35th Fighter Wing. He said repeated missile launches by North Korea have led the Air Force to increase the number but also the complexity of their training exercises.

"To make sure we are ready and prepared to respond to any sort of additional testing that the Kim regime does," Jobe said.

ctm-1204-japan-air-base-military-drills.jpg
Photograph -- U.S. Air Force base in Misawa, Japan
CBS NEWS

That readiness means pilots like Smeeding spend a lot of time on the ground making sure their F-16s are ready for action, and once in the air, that he is prepared for any mission he may be given.

"What's the mission we're flying today?" Tracy asked.

"We are doing a simulated strike mission," Smeeding said.

In that scenario, the plane flies low over the water until he spots the target ahead.

"Got the target area in sight," Smeeding said. "Here we go!"

They then pop up in the air and simulate dropping a bomb on an enemy port where weapons or cargo may be located.

"So did we neutralize the target?" Tracy asked.

"We got it," Smeeding responded.

Nearly everyone we talked to on the base said they hope diplomacy works and that it doesn't come to an actual military conflict with North Korea. But if it does, these pilots said they are ready. As Smeeding confidently told Tracy while we were in the air: "We can handle that problem."

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


MUELLER’S STATED REASON FOR REMOVING THE FBI AGENT LOOKS PRUDENT AND STRAIGHT FORWARD TO ME, SO FAR.

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/02/568018387/mueller-removed-fbi-agent-from-russia-probe-over-anti-trump-messages
Mueller Removed FBI Agent From Russia Probe Over Anti-Trump Messages
December 2, 20174:37 PM ET
MARTINA STEWART
Carrie Johnson 2016 square
CARRIE JOHNSON

Photograph -- Department of Justice special counsel Robert Mueller leaves after a closed meeting with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in June at the Capitol in Washington, D.C.
Alex Wong/Getty Images

Updated at 9:14 p.m. ET

The office of special counsel Robert Mueller removed an FBI agent from the team investigating Russia's interference in last year's election and possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, the Washington Post and the New York Times both reported Saturday.

Agent Peter Strzok exchanged politically-charged text messages with Lisa Page, who was also a member of Mueller's investigative team at the time; the messages expressed anti-Trump views, according to both newspapers.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
I never asked Comey to stop investigating Flynn. Just more Fake News covering another Comey lie!
6:15 AM - Dec 3, 2017
34,075 34,075 Replies 20,865 20,865 Retweets 82,936 82,936 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

"Immediately upon learning of the allegations, the Special Counsel's Office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation," Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mueller, said in a statement. "Lisa Page completed her brief detail and had returned to the FBI weeks before our office was aware of the allegations."

Separately, a Justice Department spokeswoman said, "we are aware of the allegations and are taking any and all appropriate steps."

Strzok was removed from Mueller's team during the summer of this year and has since been assigned to the FBI's human resources department, according to the newspapers. Page is a lawyer for the bureau who once worked for FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe but no longer does much work for McCabe, the Post reported. In addition to both having worked on Mueller's probe, Strzok and Page also both had roles in the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server, according to the Post.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
After years of Comey, with the phony and dishonest Clinton investigation (and more), running the FBI, its reputation is in Tatters - worst in History! But fear not, we will bring it back to greatness.
8:00 AM - Dec 3, 2017
38,341 38,341 Replies 26,740 26,740 Retweets 107,857 107,857 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

The Russia Investigations: After Flynn Plea Deal, Where Does Mueller Aim Next?
NATIONAL SECURITY
The Russia Investigations: After Flynn Plea Deal, Where Does Mueller Aim Next?

The reports of Strzok's removal came just a day after Mueller's team revealed a plea deal with Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security adviser.

Given Flynn's proximity to Trump during last year's presidential race and to Trump's inner circle until his ouster in February of this year, the agreement with Flynn and his cooperation in the Mueller probe signaled to many observers that the Justice Department's investigation has entered a new phase — with a possible focus on those closest to the president or perhaps even Donald Trump himself.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Report: “ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENT LED CLINTON EMAIL PROBE” Now it all starts to make sense!
8:36 AM - Dec 3, 2017
48,569 48,569 Replies 33,609 33,609 Retweets 110,279 110,279 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty To Lying To FBI
NATIONAL SECURITY
Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty To Lying To FBI

Speaking Saturday about Flynn's plea deal, the president reiterated that there had been no coordination between his campaign and Russia. "What has been shown is no collusion, no collusion," Trump said, "There's been absolutely no collusion, so we're very happy."

Despite his assertions throughout this year that there was no wrongdoing by himself or anyone associated with his campaign, Trump has been critical of Mueller's probe and the FBI generally. The president has also continued his longstanding criticism of the FBI's Clinton email server investigation which Trump initially cited as his reason for firing FBI Director James Comey in May of this year.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Tainted (no, very dishonest?) FBI “agent’s role in Clinton probe under review.” Led Clinton Email probe. @foxandfriends Clinton money going to wife of another FBI agent in charge.
7:42 AM - Dec 3, 2017
19,009 19,009 Replies 23,889 23,889 Retweets 77,547 77,547 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

"Among federal law enforcement officials, there is great concern that exposure of the texts [Strzok and Page] exchanged may be used by the president and his defenders to attack the credibility of the Mueller probe, and the FBI more broadly," the Post wrote Saturday. And both the Times and the Post noted in their reports that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has faced criticism from Trump and other Republicans for his role in the Clinton email investigation and his wife's political ties to a key Clinton ally in Virginia.

House Republicans Launch New Investigations Into Clinton Email Probe, Uranium Deal
POLITICS
House Republicans Launch New Investigations Into Clinton Email Probe, Uranium Deal

Indeed, the FBI has already become a target of Republicans as the Russia imbroglio unfolds. In late October, the GOP chairmen of the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees announced a joint inquiry into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email server investigation.

The Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General is already conducting a review of actions of the DOJ and the FBI during last year's election and it said Saturday that the revelations about Strzok and Page would be included in that review. "The OIG has been reviewing allegations involving communications between certain individuals, and will report its findings regarding those allegations promptly upon completion of the review of them," the inspector general's office said in a statement provided to NPR.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement Saturday night, as did the FBI's Office of Public Affairs.

"The allegations that the Inspector General has confirmed are part of his ongoing investigation, if proven to be true, would raise serious questions of public trust," Sessions said. "I look forward to receiving the Inspector General's report. We will ensure that anyone who works on any investigation in the Department of Justice does so objectively and free from bias or favoritism."

Sessions also said he has directed FBI Director Christopher Wray to "review the information available on this and other matters and promptly make any necessary changes to his management and investigative teams consistent with the highest professional standards."

"The matter is an ongoing investigation by the Office of Inspector General, consistent with well-established processes designed to objectively, thoroughly and fairly determine the facts regarding potential wrongdoing," the FBI said. The bureau added that it "holds all of its employees to the highest standards of integrity, independence and professionalism, as the American public rightly expects."

Attempts by the Times and the Post to reach Strzok and Page were unsuccessful. "A lawyer for Mr. Strzok declined to comment," the Times reported. The Post reported it "has repeatedly sought comment from Strzok and Page, but got no response."

RELATED ARTICLES

Logan Act Lingers For Others In Russia Probe, As All Eyes Look Up The Trump Ladder
POLITICS
Logan Act Lingers For Others In Russia Probe, As All Eyes Look Up The Trump Ladder
'Chaos' Is At The Heart Of The Trump Camp's Defense. But It Can Cut Both Ways
NATIONAL SECURITY
'Chaos' Is At The Heart Of The Trump Camp's Defense. But It Can Cut Both Ways
Learn More About The Trump-Russia Imbroglio
NEWS
Learn More About The Trump-Russia Imbroglio



http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/clintons-connection-to-fbi-official/
Clinton’s Connection to FBI Official
By D'Angelo Gore Posted on October 25, 2016

Without any evidence, Donald Trump said that Hillary Clinton knew that “one of the closest people” to her donated over $675,000 to the campaign of the wife of an FBI official who investigated Clinton’s use of a private email system as secretary of state.

Dr. Jill McCabe, who unsuccessfully ran for a seat in the Virginia Senate in 2015, did receive over $675,000 in combined contributions from the Virginia Democratic Party and a political action committee connected to Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime friend and supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

But there’s no evidence that Clinton had anything to do with the contributions, or that she even knew about them, as Trump claimed.

The article from the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the story, doesn’t say that Clinton had any knowledge of the donations, or that the donations were connected to the FBI’s decision not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton over her emails. And the Journal reported that Andrew McCabe didn’t help oversee the investigation of Clinton’s emails until after his wife had already lost the election.

In response to the Journal story, McAuliffe said: “I supported Jill McCabe because she was the best candidate to be a state senator, plain and simple.”

Trump made the claim that Clinton “knew this money was being paid” to Jill McCabe’s campaign during an event in St. Augustine, Florida, on Oct. 24. He said that the Journal article contained “shocking new revelations … about how the Clinton campaign has corrupted our government.”

Trump, Oct. 24: Just today, there are shocking new revelations — which you’ve seen — front page of the Wall Street Journal, about how the Clinton campaign has corrupted our government. It was just learned that one of the closest people to Hillary Clinton, with longstanding ties to her husband and herself, gave more — this just came out — gave more than $675,000 to the campaign of the spouse, the wife of the top FBI official who helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s illegal email server.

So the man that was investigating her from the FBI, his wife runs for office and they give her more than $675,000 to run. And it just came out. They just figured it out.

We’ve never had a thing like this in the history of this country. This represented a large portion of the money the FBI official’s spouse had for the entire campaign. A big, big percentage. It’s absolutely disgraceful, it’s absolutely terrible. And it’s unbelievable how Hillary Clinton got away with the email lie, the email scam, the email corruption, but now at least we have a pretty good idea. …

So the fact that she is even allowed to run means our system is rigged. She never had a chance of being convicted. Hillary knew this money was being paid and she has to be held accountable for this. Yet another crime, one of so many. And she has to be held accountable because she knew that money, $675,000 plus, was being paid. So how is she allowed to continue to run for president? How is she allowed?

But the Journal article doesn’t say that Clinton knew about the money.

And Trump’s phrasing suggests that the donations to McCabe’s campaign were made while her husband was investigating Clinton’s emails. Not so.

The beginning of the Journal article says: “The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.”

According to the Journal, this all goes back to March 7, 2015, when McAuliffe and other state Democratic officials met with the McCabes and urged Jill, a pediatric physician, to run against the Republican incumbent, Richard Black. At the time, McCabe’s husband, Andrew, was the head of the FBI field office in Washington, D.C.

But McAuliffe, according to WTKR in Norfolk, Virginia, said that he recalls McCabe being recruited as early as February 2015, by Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam.

McCabe officially announced her candidacy on March 12, 2015. That was more than a week after the New York Times broke the story that Clinton may have violated federal law by solely using a personal email account and private email server to conduct government business as secretary of state.

The Journal also reported that Andrew McCabe was promoted to associate deputy director of the FBI at the end of July 2015, the same month that the FBI launched its nearly year-long investigation primarily into whether Clinton or anyone on her staff violated federal law by sending and receiving classified information on Clinton’s personal system.

But it wasn’t until February 2016 that McCabe was promoted to deputy director, “where, in that position, he assumed for the first time, an oversight role in the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s emails,” according to a statement an FBI spokesman provided to the Journal.

By then, Jill McCabe — whose campaign received $467,500 from McAuliffe’s political action committee and another $207,788 from the Virginia Democratic Party — had lost the election.

“Once the campaign was over, officials said, Mr. McCabe and FBI officials felt the potential conflict-of-interest issues ended,” the Journal reported.

And McCabe wasn’t the only candidate to receive large amounts from McAuliffe’s PAC in 2015. Common Good VA gave $803,500 to state Senate candidate Jeremy McPike, who won his race, and $781,500 to Daniel Gecker, who lost his.

Since it wasn’t mentioned in the article, we asked the Trump campaign what evidence it had that Clinton was aware of the donations to McCabe’s campaign or that the donations influenced the FBI’s decision. We didn’t receive a response.

Even Devlin Barrett, who wrote the Journal article cited by Trump, has said that his article didn’t say that the donations to McCabe were connected to the FBI’s investigation of Clinton emails.

In tweets on Oct. 23, Barrett wrote:
Oct 23, 2016

Devlin Barrett
✔
@DevlinBarrett
apparently needs underlining: FBI probe of Clinton email was launched in July 2015. Big McAuliffe donations to FBI spouse 2 months later 1/2

Devlin Barrett
✔
@DevlinBarrett
doesn't mean they are connected. but don't misstate the order of events: server found, campaign launched, email probe, donations, promotion
9:51 PM - Oct 23, 2016
52 52 Replies 112 112 Retweets 73 73 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

In a press conference on July 5, FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency would not recommend that the Justice Department pursue criminal charges against Clinton.

The Journal article noted that though McCabe “was part of the executive leadership team overseeing the Clinton email investigation … FBI officials say any final decisions on that probe were made by Mr. Comey, who served as a high-ranking Justice Department official in the administration of George W. Bush.”

Claims Hillary Clinton knew about $675,000 in donations to the campaign of an FBI official's wife and implies they were made to influence an FBI investigation of Clinton’s private email system.

Rally in Florida – Monday, October 24, 2016


WHAT IS REALLY TRUE ABOUT MIKE FLYNN?
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/1/17
Why did Trump ignore repeated warnings Flynn was compromised?
Rachel Maddow looks at the warnings Donald Trump received about Mike Flynn and the inexplicable way Trump held Flynn in favor even after he left office. Duration: 19:36


THAT TAX BILL, YES, WELL IT EVAPORATED. SEE RACHEL MADDOW’S COMMENTS.
THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 11/30/17
Treasury Secretary Mnuchin fails to deliver promised tax report
Rachel Maddow shows Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's repeated claims that he had a hundred experts working on an assessment of the Republican tax bill, only to deliver nothing in time for the vote because reportedly there is nothing to deliver, no report ... more Duration: 14:24