WikiLeaks released on Tuesday what the whistleblower group claimed were thousands of secret CIA files showing how U.S. spies hack smartphones, as well as exposing a major secret listening post in Germany.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment, and in a statement the CIA would not say whether the files are authentic.

“We do not comment on the authenticity or content of purported intelligence documents,” said CIA spokesperson Jonathan Liu.

However, several current and former intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told ABC News the documents appear to be authentic and likely have origins at the National Security Agency, where most national security hacking of overseas targets occurs.

“Somebody really screwed up to let this get out,” a former official familiar with the activities outlined in the WikiLeaks-released files told ABC News.

WikiLeaks said a former government contractor leaked the tranche of files.

“Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal, including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized ‘zero day’ exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA. The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive,” WikiLeaks said in a statement accompanying more than 8,000 pages of documents.

The WikiLeaks files also revealed that the U.S. Consulate in Frankfurt is a major hacker outpost for the most important and sensitive operations, and a former official confirmed that it is the major nerve center for covert joint CIA and National Security Agency voice collection around the globe. The official said it was the likely origin of the hacking of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s personal phone — which was revealed in a leak by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013.

In fact, many of the hacker tools and files referred to in the documents appear to be the NSA’s, in the possession of the CIA rather than the CIA’s capabilities, an official said.

“There are only specific people at [the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence] who are allowed to see tailored access operations products by NSA hackers,” the official told ABC News.

The U.K.’s signals intelligence spy agency GCHQ, for example, is known to conduct proxy cyberactivities in places where the U.S. faces legal restrictions the British government does not have to contend with, a former official involved in hacking said. That intelligence is often shared with or gathered at the behest of American spy services.

The current and former officials could not corroborate WikiLeaks’ claim that a former contractor was behind the massive security breach but said it was very possible, if not highly likely.

“I’m not denying there are people leaking information,” Tyler Wood, a former senior Defense Intelligence Agency cyberprograms official, told ABC News today.

The leaked files show a large effort undertaken by CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence to find ways to turn consumer electronic devices — from smart TVs to Google Android and Apple IOS devices, including smartphones and tablets — into remotely activated spy devices. The files detail efforts made to access messages before they are encrypted by security apps and to turn on phones and activate tablet cameras and microphones without owners’ awareness. An entire office at CCI is devoted to exploiting mobile smart devices, the documents suggest.

While Snowden, in hiding in Russia and still wanted by U.S. authorities for his breach, tweeted today that the CIA files reveal a “security hole the CIA left open to break into any iPhone in the world,” an official familiar with such intelligence activities said usually a human spy is necessary — a “cyber middleman” — who can first gain physical access to a device. That is an often dangerous task and is rarely accomplished, the official told ABC News.

The programs revealed today have a series of cover names, such as BrutalKangaroo, RickyBobby, AfterMidnight and WeepingAngel — the last being the name of a set of characters in the BBC sci-fi drama “Dr. Who.”

Countless intelligence programs with similar cover names — approved by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in a lengthy process — had to be renamed after Snowden blew the lid on those activities.

“And everything will have to be renamed after this,” an official familiar with many of the named programs told ABC News.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., said Americans should pay attention to such breaches that reveal vulnerabilities to privacy and national security.

“This is of the utmost seriousness. If they can hack into the CIA, they can hack into anybody,” he said today.

Many cybersecurity experts on social media after the leaks focused attention on the apparent capability of U.S. intelligence to hack smart devices such as Samsung smart TVs, which the leaked files said can be in “fake off mode” when in reality the microphone is turned into a room-listening device without anyone nearby knowing it because the TV appears to be off.

“Pretty much anything can be made into an eavesdropping device,” said a former official.

Samsung, in its user manuals’ privacy statement, warns users that their speech can be transmitted through the internet to third parties.

In the last 10 years, WikiLeaks has published an incredible amount of secret U.S. information — about military operations in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and, more recently, Democratic National Committee emails hacked by Russian intelligence.

Devin Nunes, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he is “extremely concerned” by the WikiLeaks publications on Tuesday, telling reporters his panel has reached out to the intelligence community for more information.

“We’ve had initial inquiries into the [intelligence community]. Look, this is early on in the investigation, but these appear to be very, very serious. But at this time, that’s really all the information that I have on it,” he said. “I’ve long said this — that emails and many of our electronic devices are not safe, and they’re primarily not safe from our adversaries like the Russians and the Chinese and others who are actively trying to get into government institutions and private businesses.”

Asked about supposed security vulnerabilities detailed in the documents that are relevant to its devices, Apple said, “While our initial analysis indicates that many of the issues leaked today were already patched in the latest iOS, we will continue work to rapidly address any identified vulnerabilities. We always urge customers to download the latest iOS to make sure they have the most recent security updates.”

“As we’ve reviewed the documents, we’re confident that security updates and protections in both Chrome and Android already shield users from many of these alleged vulnerabilities,” Heather Adkins, Director of Information Security and Privacy at Google, said in a statement to ABC News after original publication of this story. “Our analysis is ongoing and we will implement any further necessary protections. We’ve always made security a top priority and we continue to invest in our defenses.”

Samsung, when asked for comment, said, “Protecting consumers’ privacy and the security of our devices is a top priority at Samsung. We are aware of the report in question and are urgently looking into the matter.”

Last October, Trump as a presidential candidate said, “WikiLeaks, I love WikiLeaks. And I said, write a couple of them down. Let’s see.”

In the regular White House press briefing on Tuesday, press secretary Sean Spicer declined to comment on the matter.

ABC News’ Matthew Mosk, Alexander Hosenball, Paul Blake, Cho Park, Benjamin Siegel and Elizabeth McLaughlin contributed to this report.

This story was originally published on March 7, 2017 and has been updated as new information has become available.

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wikileaks-docs-allege-cia-hack-smartphones-exposes-frankfurt/story?id=45977302

The post WikiLeaks docs allege CIA can hack smartphones, expose Frankfurt listening post first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Notwithstanding all the hysterical rhetoric surrounding the events of January 6, 2021, two critical things stand out. The first is that what happened was much more hoax than insurrection. In fact, in my judgment, it wasn’t an insurrection at all.

An “insurrection,” as the dictionary will tell you, is a violent uprising against a government or other established authority. Unlike the violent riots that swept the country in the summer of 2020—riots that caused some $2 billion in property damage and claimed more than 20 lives—the January 6 protest at the Capitol lasted a few hours, caused minimal damage, and the only person directly killed was an unarmed female Trump supporter who was shot by a Capitol Hill Police officer. It was, as Tucker Carlson said shortly after the event, a political protest that “got out of hand.”

At the rally preceding the events in question, Donald Trump had suggested that people march to the Capitol “peacefully and patriotically”—these were his exact words—in order to make their voices heard. He did not incite a riot; he stirred up a crowd. Was that, given the circumstances, imprudent? Probably. Was it an effort to overthrow the government? Hardly.

I know this is not the narrative that we have all been instructed to parrot. Indeed, to listen to the establishment media and our political masters, the January 6 protest was a dire threat to the very fabric of our nation: the worst assault on “our democracy” since 9/11, since Pearl Harbor, since the Civil War! (Really: Joe Biden said last April that the January 6 protest at the Capitol was “the worst attack attack on our democracy since the Civil War.”)

Note that phrase “our democracy”: Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and various talking heads have repeated it ad nauseam. But you do not need an advanced degree in hermeneutics to understand that what they mean by “our democracy” is their oligarchy. Similarly, when Nancy Pelosi talks about “the people’s house,” she doesn’t mean a house that welcomes riff-raff like you and me.

I just alluded to Ashli Babbitt, the unarmed supporter of Donald Trump who was shot and killed on January 6. Her fate brings me to the second critical thing to understand about the January 6 insurrection hoax. Namely, that it was not a stand-alone event.

On the contrary, what happened that afternoon, and what happened afterwards, is only intelligible when seen as a chapter in the long-running effort to discredit and, ultimately, to dispose of Donald Trump—as well as what Hillary Clinton might call the “deplorable” populist sentiment that brought Trump to power.

In other words, to understand the January 6 insurrection hoax, you also have to understand that other long-running hoax, the Russia collusion hoax. The story of that hoax begins back in 2015, when the resources of the federal government were first mobilized to spy on the Trump campaign, to frame various people close to Trump, and eventually to launch a full-throated criminal investigation of the Trump administration.

From before Trump took office, the Russia collusion hoax was used as a pretext to create a parallel administration shadowing the elected administration. Remember the Steele Dossier, the fantastical document confected by the “well-regarded” British spy Christopher Steele? We know now that it was the only relevant predicate for ordering FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page and other American citizens.

But in truth, the Steele Dossier was just opposition dirt covertly paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. From beginning to end, it was a tissue of lies and fabrications. Everyone involved knew all along it was garbage—rumors and fantasies fed to a gullible Steele by shady Russian sources. But it was nonetheless used to deploy, illegally, the awesome coercive power of the state against a presidential candidate of whom the ruling bureaucracy and their favored candidate disapproved.

The public learned that the Democratic National Committee paid for the manufactured evidence only because of a court order. James Comey, the disgraced former director of the FBI, publicly denied knowing who paid for it, but emails from a year earlier prove that he knew all along. And what was the penalty for lying in Comey’s case? He got a huge book deal and toured the country denouncing Trump to the gleeful satisfaction of his anti-Trump audiences.

What was true of Comey was also true of the entire intelligence apparat, from former CIA Director John Brennan to Adam Schiff and other Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee to senior members of the FBI. All these people said publicly that they had seen clear evidence of collusion with Russia. But they admitted under oath behind closed doors that they hadn’t.

General Mike Flynn had his career ruined and was bankrupted as part of a political vendetta. Meanwhile James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, John Brennan, Peter Strzok, and all the rest of the crew at the FBI, the CIA, and other intel agencies suffered nothing. When it came to light that an FBI lawyer altered an email in order to help get a FISA warrant—in other words, that he doctored evidence to spy on a political opponent, which is a felony—he got probation. Andrew McCabe, meanwhile, a former FBI deputy director, just got his pension restored notwithstanding the fact that an Inspector General’s report concluded that he lied multiple times under oath.

The recent news that Special Counsel John Durham has indicted Michael Sussman, a lawyer who covertly worked for the Clinton campaign and lied to the FBI, is welcome news. Granted, it is too early to say where Durham’s investigation will ultimately go, but Sussman’s indictment seems like small beer given the rampant higher-level corruption that saturated the Russia Collusion hoax.

At least 74 million citizens voted for Donald Trump in 2020, which is at least 11 million more than voted for him in 2016. Many of those voters are profoundly disillusioned and increasingly angry about this entire story—the years-long Robert Mueller “investigation,” the two impeachments of President Trump, the cloud of unknowing that surrounds the 2020 election, and the many questions that have emerged not only from the January 6 protest at the Capitol but, even more, from the government’s response to that protest.

Which brings me back to Ashli Babbitt, the long-serving Air Force vet who was shot and killed by a nervous Capitol Hill Police officer. Babbitt was a useful prop when the media was in overdrive describing the January 6 events as an “armed insurrection” in which wild supporters of Donald Trump, supposedly at his instigation, attacked the Capitol with the intention of overturning the 2020 election.

According to that narrative, five people, including Babbitt, died in the skirmish. Moreover, it was said, Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick was bludgeoned to death by a raging Trump supporter wielding a fire extinguisher. That gem of a story about the fire extinguisher, reported in our former paper of record, The New York Times, was instantly picked up by other media outlets and spread like a Chinese virus.

Of course, it is absolutely critical to the Democratic Party narrative that the January 6 incident be made to seem as violent and crazed as possible. Hence the crazed comparisons to 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and the Civil War. Only thus can pro-Trump Americans be excluded from “our democracy” by being branded as “domestic extremists” if not, indeed, “domestic terrorists.”

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution accords American citizens the right to a speedy trial. But most of the political prisoners of January 6—many of whom have been kept in solitary confinement—are still waiting to be brought to trial. And although the media was full of predictions that they would be found guilty of criminal sedition, none has.

Indeed, the prosecution’s cases seem to be falling apart. Most of the hundreds who have been arrested are being charged with trespassing. Another charge being leveled against them is “disrupting an official proceeding.” This is a felony charge designed not for ceremonial procedures like the January 6 certification of the vote, but rather for disrupting Congressional inquiries—for example, by shredding documents relevant to a Congressional investigation. It originated during the George W. Bush administration to deal with the Enron case.

The indisputable fact about January 6 is that although five people died at or near the Capitol on that day or soon thereafter, none of these deaths was brought about by the protesters. The shot fired Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd that hit Ashli Babbitt in the neck and killed her was the only shot fired at the Capitol that day. No guns were recovered from the Capitol on January 6. Zero.

The liberal commentator Glenn Greenwald further diminished the “armed insurrection” meme in an important column last February titled “The False and Exaggerated Claims Still Being Spread About the Capitol Riot.” The title says it all. Kevin Greeson, Greenwald notes, was killed not by the protesters but died of a heart attack outside the Capitol. Benjamin Philips, the founder of a pro-Trump website called Trumparoo, died of a stroke that day. Rosanne Boyland, another Trump supporter, was reported by The New York Times to have been inadvertently “killed in a crush of fellow rioters during their attempt to fight through a police line.” But later video shows that, far from that, the police pushed protesters on top of Boyland and would not allow fellow protesters to pull her out.

Four of the five who died, then, were pro-Trump protesters. And the fifth? Well, that was Officer Sicknick—also a Trump supporter, as it turned out—who, contrary to the false report from The New York Times that went viral, went home, told his family he felt fine, but died a day later from, as The Washington Post eventually and grudgingly reported, “natural causes.” No fire extinguishers were involved in his demise.

***********

The January 6 insurrection hoax prompts lots of questions.

Why, for example, did the government mobilize 26,000 federal troops from all across the country to surround “the people’s house” following January 6? Why were those troops subjected to loyalty tests, with those discovered to be Trump supporters sent packing?

Why is there some 14,000 hours of video footage of the event on January 6 that the government refuses to release? What are they afraid of letting the public see? More scenes of security guards actually opening doors and politely ushering in protestors? More pictures of FBI informants (read: “fomenters”) covertly salted among the crowd?

My own view is that turning Washington into an armed camp was mostly theater. There was no threat that the Washington police could not have handled. But it was also a show of force and an act of intimidation. The message was: “We’re in charge now, rubes, and don’t you forget it.”

In truth, there is little threat of domestic terrorism in this country. But there is plenty of domestic conservatism. And that conservatism is the real focus of the establishment’s ire.

It is important to note that while the government provides the muscle for this war on dissent, the elite culture at large is a willing accomplice. Consider, for example, the open letter, signed by more than 500 “publishing professionals” (authors, editors, designers, and so on), calling on the industry to reject books written by anyone who had anything to do with the Trump administration.

These paragons pledged to do whatever they could to stop “enriching the monsters among us.” But here’s their problem: approximately 75 million people voted for Trump. That’s a lot of monsters.

Many people have been quoting Benjamin Franklin’s famous response when asked what sort of government they had come up with at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. “A republic,” Franklin said, “if you can keep it.” Right now, it looks like we couldn’t. It looks as if the American constitutional republic has given way, at least temporarily, to an American oligarchy.

As the years go by, historians, if the censors allow them access to the documents and give them leave to publish their findings, may well count the 2016 presidential election as the last fair and open democratic election in U.S. history. I know we are not supposed to say that. I know that the heads of Twitter and Facebook and other woke guardians of the status quo call this view “The Big Lie” and do all they can to suppress it. But every honest person knows that the 2020 election was tainted.

The forces responsible for the taint had tried before. Hitherto, their efforts had met with only limited success. But a perfect storm of forces conspired to make 2020 the first oligarchic installation of a president. It would not have happened, I think, absent the panic over the Chinese virus. But that panic, folded in a lover’s embrace by the Democratic establishment, was not only a splendid pretext to clamp down on civil liberties; it also provided an inarguable excuse to alter the rules for elections in several key states.

“Inarguable” is not quite the right word. There could have been plenty of arguments, and many lawsuits, against the way the executive branch in these states usurped the constitutionally guaranteed prerogative of state legislatures to set the election rules when they intervened to allow massive mail-in voting. But the Trump administration, though foreseeing and complaining about the executive interventions, did too little too late to make a difference.

Among the many sobering realities that the 2020 election brought home is that in our current and particular form of oligarchy, the people do have a voice, but it is a voice that is everywhere pressured, cajoled, shaped, and bullied. The people also have a choice, but only among a roster of candidates approved by the elite consensus.

The central fact to appreciate about Donald Trump is that he was elected president without the permission, and over the incredulous objections, of the bipartisan oligarchy that governs us. That was his unforgivable offense. Trump was the greatest threat in history to the credentialed class and the globalist administrative state upon which they feed. Representatives of that oligarchy tried for four years to destroy Trump. Remember that the first mention of impeachment came 19 minutes after his inauguration, an event that was met not only by a widespread Democratic boycott and hysterical claims by Nancy Pelosi and others that the election had been hijacked, but also by riots in Washington, D.C. that saw at least six policemen injured, numerous cars torched, and other property destroyed.

You will search in vain for media or other ruling class denunciations of that violence, or for bulletins from corporate America advising their customers of their solidarity with the newly installed Trump administration. As the commentator Howie Carr noted, some riots are more equal than others. Some get you the approval of people like Nancy Pelosi and at least the grudging acceptance of oligarchs of the other party. Others get the FBI sweeping the country for “domestic terrorists” and the lords of Big Tech canceling people who defend the protesters’ cause.

Someday—maybe someday soon—this witches’ sabbath, this festival of scapegoating, and what George Orwell called the “hideous ecstasy” of hate will be at an end. Perhaps someday people will be aghast, and some will be ashamed, of what they did to the president of the United States and people who supported him: proposing, for instance, to put Senator Ted Cruz on a “no fly” list, or Simon & Schuster canceling Senator Josh Hawley’s book contract. Donald Trump is the Emmanuel Goldstein (the designated principal enemy of the totalitarian state Oceania in “1984”) of the movement. But minor public enemies are legion. Anyone harboring “Trumpist” inclinations is suspect, hence the widespread calls for “deprogramming” his supporters, who are routinely said to be “marching toward sedition.”

Michael Barone, one of our most perceptive political commentators, got it right when he wrote of the rapid movement “from impeaching incitement to canceling conservatism.” That is the path our oligarchs are inviting us to travel now, criminalizing political dissent and transforming policy differences into a species of heresy. You don’t debate heretics, after all. You seek to destroy them.

Donald Trump’s accomplishments as president were nothing less than stunning. Trump was, and is, a rude force of nature. He accomplished an immense amount. But he lacked one thing. Some say it was self-discipline or finesse. I agree with a friend of mine who suggested that Trump’s critical flaw was a deficit in guile. That sounds odd, no doubt, since Trump is supposed to be the tough guy who mastered “the art of the deal.” But I think my friend is probably right. Trump seems never to have discerned what a viper’s nest our politics has become for anyone who is not a paid-up member of The Club.

Maybe Trump understands this now. I have no insight into that question. I am pretty confident, though, that the 74 million people who voted for him understand it deeply. It’s another reason that The Club should be wary of celebrating its victory too expansively.

Friedrich Hayek took one of the two epigraphs for his book, The Road to Serfdom, from the philosopher David Hume. “It is seldom,” Hume wrote, “that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Much as I admire Hume, I wonder whether he got this quite right. Sometimes, I would argue, liberty is erased almost instantaneously.

I’d be willing to wager that Joseph Hackett, confronted with Hume’s observation, would express similar doubts. I would be happy to ask Mr. Hackett myself, but he is inaccessible. If the ironically titled “Department of Justice” has its way, he will be inaccessible for a long, long time—perhaps as long as 20 years.

Joseph Hackett, you see, is a 51-year-old Trump supporter and member of an organization called the “Oath Keepers,” a group whose members have pledged to “defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.” The FBI does not like the Oath Keepers. They arrested its leader in January and have picked up many other members in the months since. Hackett came from his home in Florida to join the Trump January 6 rally. According to court documents, he entered the Capitol at 2:45 that afternoon and left some nine minutes later, at 2:54. The next day, he went home. On May 28, he was apprehended by the FBI and indicted on a long list of charges, including conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, destruction of government property, and illegally entering a restricted building.

As far as I have been able to determine, no evidence of Hackett destroying property has come to light. According to his wife, it is not even clear that he entered the Capitol. But he certainly was in the environs. He was a member of the Oath Keepers. He was a supporter of Donald Trump. Therefore, he must be neutralized.

Joseph Hackett is only one of hundreds of citizens who have been branded as “domestic terrorists” trying to “overthrow the government” and who are now languishing, in appalling conditions, jailed as political prisoners of an angry state apparat.

Hayek’s overriding concern in The Road to Serfdom was to combat the forces that were pushing people further along that road to servitude. His chief concern was unchecked state power. The Road To Serfdom was first published in 1944. In a new preface in 1956, Hayek noted that one of the book’s “main points” was to document how “extensive government control produces a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.”

“This means,” Hayek said, “that even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit.”

This dismal situation, Hayek continues, can be averted, but only if the spirit of liberty “reasserts itself in time and the people not only throw out the party which has been leading them further and further in the dangerous direction but also recognize the nature of the danger and resolutely change their course.” Note the power of that little word “if.”

It was not so long ago that an American could contemplate totalitarian regimes and say, “Thank God we’ve escaped that.” It’s not at all clear that we can entertain that happy conviction any longer.

That’s one melancholy lesson of the January 6 insurrection hoax: that America is fast mutating from a republic, in which individual liberty is paramount, into an oligarchy, in which conformity will be increasingly demanded and enforced.

Another lesson was perfectly expressed by Donald Trump when he reflected on the unremitting tsunami of hostility that he faced as President. “They’re after you,” he more than once told his supporters. “I’m just in the way.”

Bingo.

Roger Kimball is editor and publisher of The New Criterion and publisher of Encounter Books. He is the author or editor of many books, most recently, “Who Rules: Sovereignty, Nationalism, and the Fate of Freedom in the Twenty-First Century” (Encounter Books, 2020).

Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/10/31/the_january_6_insurrection_hoax_146663.html#!

The post The January 6 Insurrection Hoax first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

President Trump on Tuesday said he has “fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents” related to the Russia investigation and the FBI’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

“I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!” The president tweeted Tuesday night.

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!

Paul Sperry@paulsperry_
When all the documents are finally declassified, and all the redactions removed from reports, the nation will see that the FBI and CIA not only knew the Russia “collusion” allegations against Trump were a political dirty trick, but that they were in on the trick.

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
“All Russia Hoax Scandal information was Declassified by me long ago,” Trump tweeted. “Unfortunately for our Country, people have acted very slowly, especially since it is perhaps the biggest political crime in the history of our Country.”

He added: “Act!!!”

Last year, the president gave Attorney General Bill Barr authority to declassify any documents related to surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016. Trump, at the time, also ordered members of the intelligence community to cooperate with Barr’s probe.

Allies of the president, including Republicans on Capitol Hill leading their own investigations into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, have criticized officials like FBI Director Christopher Wray and CIA Director Gina Haspel, claiming that the directors have been blocking the release of documents.

The president’s tweets come after Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe declassified documents that revealed former CIA Director John Brennan briefed former President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s purported “plan” to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server” ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

DNI DECLASSIFIES BRENNAN NOTES, CIA MEMO ON HILLARY CLINTON ‘STIRRING UP’ SCANDAL BETWEEN TRUMP, RUSSIA

Fox News first reported that Ratcliffe declassified Brennan’s handwritten notes – which were taken after he briefed Obama on the intelligence the CIA received – and a CIA memo, which revealed that officials referred the matter to the FBI for potential investigative action.

“Today, at the direction of President Trump, I declassified additional documents relevant to ongoing Congressional oversight and investigative activities,” Ratcliffe said in a statement to Fox News Tuesday.

A source familiar with the documents explained that Brennan’s handwritten notes were taken after briefing Obama on the matter.

“We’re getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED],” Brennan notes read. “CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service,” Brennan’s notes read.

The notes state “on 28 of July.” In the margin, Brennan writes “POTUS,” but that section of the notes is redacted.

“Any evidence of collaboration between Trump campaign + Russia,” the notes read.

The remainder of the notes are redacted, except in the margins, which reads: “JC,” “Denis,” and “Susan.”

The notes don’t spell out the full names but “JC” could be referring to then-FBI Director James Comey, “Susan” could refer to National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and “Denis” could refer to then-Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough.

The declassification comes after Ratcliffe, last week, shared newly-declassified information with the Senate Judiciary Committee which revealed that in September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral on Hillary Clinton purportedly approving “a plan concerning U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections” in order to distract the public from her email scandal.

That referral was sent to Comey and then-Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok.

“The following information is provided for the exclusive use of your bureau for background investigative action or lead purposes as appropriate,” the CIA memo to Comey and Strzok stated.

“This memorandum contains sensitive information that could be source revealing. It should be handled with particular attention to compartmentation and need-to-know. To avoid the possible compromise of the source, any investigative action taken in response to the information below should be coordinated in advance with Chief Counterintelligence Mission Center, Legal,” the memo, which was sent to Comey and Strzok, read. “It may not be used in any legal proceeding—including FISA applications—without prior approval…”

“Per FBI verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date,” the memo continued. ““An exchange [REDACTED] discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

The memo is heavily redacted.

Ratcliffe informed the committee last week that the Obama administration obtained Russian intelligence in July 2016 with allegations against Clinton, but cautioned that the intelligence community “does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the text to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.”

According to Ratcliffe’s letter, the intelligence included the “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016, of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.”

Nick Merrill, Clinton’s spokesperson, called the allegations “baseless b———t” last week. A spokesman for Clinton did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment on the declassified documents.

But Ratcliffe, in a statement released after the information was made public, pushed back on the idea he was advancing “Russian disinformation.”

DURHAM ASSUMED PARTS OF HUBER’S CLINTON INVESTIGATION

“To be clear, this is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by the Intelligence Community,” Ratcliffe said in a statement to Fox News. “I’ll be briefing Congress on the sensitive sources and methods by which it was obtained in the coming days.”

A source familiar with the documents told Fox News on Tuesday that the allegation was “not disinformation.”  “This is not Russian disinformation. Even Brennan knew, or he wouldn’t be briefing the president of the United States on it,” the source said. “There is a high threshold to orally brief the president of the United States and he clearly felt this met that threshold.”

Another source familiar with the documents told Fox News that “this information has been sought by hundreds of congressional requests for legitimate oversight purposes and was withheld for political spite—and the belief that they’d never get caught.”

The source added that the Brennan notes are significant because it is “their own words, written and memorialized in real time.”

Meanwhile, last week, during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey was asked whether he received an investigative referral on Clinton from 2016, but he said it didn’t “ring any bells.”

“You don’t remember getting an investigatory lead from the intelligence community? Sept. 7, 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to James Comey and Strzok regarding Clinton’s approval of a plan [about] Trump…as a means of distraction?” Graham asked Comey.

“That doesn’t ring any bells with me,” Comey said.

Graham questioned “how far-fetched is that,” citing the fact that Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS and ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to author and compile information for the controversial and unverified anti-Trump dossier.The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS and ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to author and compile information for the controversial and unverified anti-Trump dossier.

The dossier contains claims about alleged ties between Donald Trump and Russia that served as the basis for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants obtained against former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

Attorney General Bill Barr last year appointed U.S. Attorney of Connecticut John Durham to investigate the origins of the FBI’s Russia probe shortly after special counsel Robert Mueller completed his years-long investigation into whether the campaign colluded with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election.

It is unclear whether this information will be considered part of Durham’s investigation, or whether the president’s declassification will affect Durham’s investigation.

Last month, Fox News reported, though, that Durham had assumed aspects of U.S. Attorney John Huber’s investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

A source familiar with Durham’s investigation told Fox News last month that parts of what Huber was investigating in 2017 — involving the Clinton Foundation — have been incorporated in Durham’s investigation.

In November 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions directed Huber, the U.S. attorney for Utah, and other senior prosecutors to evaluate “certain issues” involving the sale of Uranium One, and other dealings related to the Clinton Foundation. Sessions tapped Huber after requests by congressional Republicans, who had been calling for the appointment of a special counsel to review the matters. Huber was also tasked with reviewing the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email probe, including allegations that the Justice Department and FBI “policies or procedures” were not followed.

It has been unclear, for years, the status of Huber’s investigation, but another source told Fox News Thursday that Huber has faced mounting criticism from the Justice Department and White House over his progress.

It is unclear whether any aspects of the Clinton email investigation were included in Huber’s review.

Brooke Singman is a Politics Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @BrookeSingman.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-authorizes-declassification-of-all-russia-collusion-hillary-clinton-email-probe-documents

The post Trump authorizes declassification of all Russia collusion, Hillary Clinton email probe documents first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Trump told anchor Sean Hannity that his lawyers previously had advised him not to take that dramatic step out of fear that it could be considered obstruction of justice.

“I do, I have plans to declassify and release. I have plans to absolutely release,” Trump said. “I have some very talented people working for me, lawyers, and they really didn’t want me to do it early on. … A lot of people wanted me to do it a long time ago. I’m glad I didn’t do it. We got a great result without having to do it, but we will. One of the reasons that my lawyers didn’t want me to do it, is they said, if I do it, they’ll call it a form of obstruction.”

Trump added: “Frankly, thought it would be better if we held it to the end. But at the right time, we will be absolutely releasing.”

Trump also accused FBI officials of committing “treason” — slamming former FBI Director James Comey as a “terrible guy,” former CIA Director John Brennan as potentially mentally ill, and Democrat House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff as a criminal.

Redacted versions of FISA documents already released have revealed that the FBI extensively relied on documents produced by Christopher Steele, an anti-Trump British ex-spy working for a firm funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee, to surveil Trump aide Carter Page. At least one senior DOJ official had apparent concerns Steele was unreliable, according to text messages exclusively obtained last week by Fox News.

The leaked dossier, and related FBI surveillance, kickstarted a media frenzy on alleged Russia-Trump collusion that ended with a whimper on Sunday, when it was revealed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe concluded finding no evidence of such a conspiracy, despite several offers by Russians to help the Trump campaign. Page was never charged with wrongdoing, and he is currently suing the DNC for defamation.

FOX NEWS EXCLUSIVE: NEWLY REVEALED TEXTS SHOW DOJ OFFICIALS CLASHING WITH FBI OVER ‘BIAS’ OF KEY WARRANT SOURCE

Citing a high-level source, Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul late Wednesday tweeted that anti-Trump ex-CIA Director John Brennan had internally pushed the dossier. Fox News has not independently verified Paul’s source.

“I think Brennan’s a sick person, I really do,” Trump said. “I believe there’s something wrong with him, for him to come out of the CIA and act that way was so disrespectful to the country and to the CIA. He was not considered good at what he did. He was never a respected guy.”

FILE – In this May 23, 2017, file photo, former CIA Director John Brennan testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, before the House Intelligence Committee Russia Investigation Task Force. President Donald Trump is revoking the security clearance of former Obama administration CIA director Brennan (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File) (Photo: AP)

---

Brennan was one of the loudest and most virulent voices to trumpet the Russian collusion theory over the past two years, asserting falsely just weeks ago that Mueller was likely planning to indict members of the Trump administration’s family in a scene reminiscent of the “ides of March” and the assassination of Julius Caesar. Trump, who revoked Brennan’s security clearance last year amid concerns Brennan was improperly hinting that he had inside information about ongoing federal probes, called those remarks “horrible” on Wednesday.

Brennan has since acknowledged he was wrong, but has said inaccurately that Mueller merely could not find evidence meeting the high bar needed for a criminal prosecution — when in fact Mueller found no evidence at all that the Trump team responded to Russians’ numerous efforts to involve them in a conspiracy.

“When I said there could be somebody spying on my campaign, it went wild out there,” Trump told Hannity. “They couldn’t believe I could say such a thing. As it turned out, that was small potatoes compared to what went on. … Millions and millions [spent] on the phony dossier, and then they used the dossier to start things. It was a fraud, paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.”

Just hours earlier Wednesday, Trump made clear he was enthusiastic about the idea of appointing a second special counsel to review the origins of the Russia investigation when it came up during a meeting Tuesday with Republican senators, a source familiar with the discussions told Fox News.

Trump, speaking to Hannity, separately raised doubts about the secretive and mysterious June 27, 2016 Phoenix airport tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch — which was spotted while Lynch was overseeing the Hillary Clinton email probe.

“I had a lot of planes for a long time. I’ve never stopped the plane on the tarmac to let somebody on the plane,” Trump said. “Bill Clinton said he was there to play golf, but I know the area very well. Arizona. It’s a little warm at that time of year for golf, OK?”

RAND PAUL BOMBSHELL: HIGH-LEVEL SOURCE SAYS BRENNAN PUSHED DISCREDITED ANTI-TRUMP STEELE DOSSIER

In an apparent shot at former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Trump also told Hannity “this all would not have happened” if Attorney General William Barr had been with his administration from the beginning.

Trump also noted that ratings for several networks that aggressively pushed the Russia narrative have “fallen off” dramatically. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s audience of 2.5 million on Monday was 19 percent below her average this year, and it went down further to 2.3 million on Tuesday, according to the Nielsen company.

“If you wrote this as a novel, nobody would buy it; it would be a failure, because it would be too unbelievable,” Trump said. “We’re getting to the bottom of it. This can never, ever happen to a president again. That was a disgrace and an embarrassment to our country. … Hopefully they won’t get away with it.

“We’ll have to see how it all started, but I’m going to leave that to other people, including the attorney general and others, to make that determination,” Trump continued. “Fifty years, 100 years from now — if someone tries the same thing, they have to know the penalty will be very very great if and when they get caught.”

Trump also lashed out at Schiff, D-Calif., who has pushed strongly for investigations into possible Trump-Russia links. “Schiff is a bad guy, he knew he was lying — he’s not a dummy. For a year and a half he would just leak and call up CNN and others. You know, I watch him, so sanctimonious … He knew it was a lie, and he’d get in the back room with his friends in the Democrat Party, and they would laugh like hell. In one way, you could say it’s a crime what he did — he was making statements he knew were false. He’s a disgrace to our country.”

The president insisted the U.S. should have a “great relationship” with Russia and China, but that the “fake news” and “nonsense” distorted his intentions into something more sinister.

FILE – In this March 22, 2018 photo, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., then ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, exits a secure area to speak to reporters, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

---

Trump also criticized Comey, whom he’d fired in 2017, as a “terrible guy.” He insisted he did not fire him to obstruct justice, telling Hannity he knew that firing Comey would only increase scrutiny on the White House.

“It was treason, it was really treason,” Trump said, referring to texts between former FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page that discussed an “insurance policy” in the event of Trump’s election.

“You had dirty cops, you had people who are bad FBI folks … At the top, they were not clean, to put it mildly.” He said later, “We can never allow these treasonous acts to happen to another president.”

“I do, I have plans to declassify and release.”

— President Trump

Separately, Trump also said he hopes Democrats continue pushing the Green New Deal, which flamed out in a test vote on Tuesday, as most Democrats voted “present” instead of going on record supporting the sweeping transformation of the entire U.S. economy.

“I don’t want to speak badly about the New Green Deal, frankly, because I’m afraid they will stop using it,” Trump said. “I really do want to campaign against it. It’s ridiculous.”

Trump’s interview came as multiple GOP lawmakers have claimed the president may have somewhat undercut perhaps the best week of his presidency by backing the complete overturn of ObamaCare.

On Monday, the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to affirm last year’s ruling by a Texas federal judge stating that the Affordable Care Act was no longer constitutional because the 2017 tax reform legislation eliminated the health care law’s penalty for not having health insurance.

Multiple congressional Republicans told Fox News they were bothered by the timing of the Trump administration’s intervention in the matter, which came on the heels of the Mueller report findings, the House sustaining the president’s veto of a bill to halt the national emergency for the border wall and a Senate vote that shined a spotlight on what conservatives described as problems with the Green New Deal, championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

Trump, despite the pushback, vowed that Republicans would soon be the “party of great health care.”

Fox News’ Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-vows-to-release-fisa-docs-now-that-mueller-probe-is-concluded-slams-treasonous-fbi

The post Trump vows to release FISA docs now that Mueller probe is concluded, slams ‘treasonous’ FBI first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Yahoo News’ Michael Isikoff, an early public conduit for Christopher Steele’s anti-Trump dossier, now says the former British spy’s sensational Russia collusion charges lack apparent evidence and are “likely false.”

As Election Day loomed in September 2016, Mr. Isikoff was the first Washington journalist to write about Mr. Steele’s memos. He focused on Mr. Steele’s contention that Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page met with nefarious operatives of Russian President Vladimir Putin during a publicly announced trip to Moscow in July 2016.

As reported by the Daily Caller, Mr. Isikoff this month told Mediaite columnist John Ziegler: “When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and in fact, there is good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false.”

Mr. Isikoff is best friends with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, who hired Mr. Steele in May and June 2016 with money funneled through a law firm from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Isikoff was one of a handful of mainstream journalists who met with Mr. Steele in Washington as arranged by Mr. Simpson.

Mother Jones magazine’s David Corn wrote the second Washington dossier story based on an interview with Mr. Steele, who acknowledged he was desperate to stop the Trump campaign and prompt the FBI to ratchet up its investigation.

Mr. Isikoff and Mr. Corn would team up on a March 2018 best-selling book, “Russian Roulette.” It told Mr. Steele’s story in a favorable light amid a narrative on Moscow’s direct election interference by hacking Democratic Party computers.

The book helped Mr. Steele attract a large liberal following on social media that loyally attested to the dossier’s accuracy.

Mr. Steele also had a big fan in Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, who read his charges at a March 2017 hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Schiff assumes the committee’s chairmanship in January. Republicans speculate that he will continue to collect and research Fusion GPS’s anti-Trump memos.

It has been 31 months since Mr. Steele submitted his first dossier memo in June 2106 to Fusion GPS; 30 months since the FBI opened an investigation that came to rely heavily on his work; 27 months since Mr. Isikoff wrote the first dossier story; 24 months since BuzzFeed posted the entire dossier; 24 months since the House and Senate intelligence committees opened their separate probes; and 19 months since special counsel Robert Mueller took charge of the Trump-Russia investigation.

The Washington Times looked at Mr. Steele’s core collusion charges to see how they have stood up:

⦁ Accusation: The Trump campaign was a partner in an “extensive conspiracy” with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election.

Today: There is no confirmed public evidence. No Trump person has been charged in such a conspiracy. Mr. Mueller’s office informed President Trump that he isn’t a target.

⦁ Accusation: Then-Trump attorney Michael Cohen secretly traveled to Prague in August 2016 and met with Putin aides to organize cash payments to hush up hackers who infiltrated Democratic Party computers.

Today: There is no confirmed public evidence. Cohen, who has pleaded guilty to tax evasion charges and is cooperating with Mr. Mueller, still vehemently denies he ever went to Prague. No court filings indicate he has any knowledge of Trump collusion, and he has said he doesn’t.

McClatchy news service has published two stories asserting that Mr. Mueller has evidence Cohen went to Prague.

Fusion’s Mr. Simpson told Congress that Cohen could have traveled to Prague by way of a yacht and Russian aircraft.

Daniel Jones, a former Senate Democratic aide, told the FBI in 2017 that he had amassed $50 million from wealthy donors to keep investigating Mr. Trump. He said he hired Fusion GPS and Mr. Steele.

⦁ Accusation: Carter Page met with two Putin operatives and discussed a brokerage fee in return for pushing an end to U.S. sanctions on wealthy Russians and businesses.

Today: Pro-Russia energy investor Mr. Page embarked on perhaps the most suspicious course of action when he traveled to Moscow to deliver a public college speech in July 2106. He once worked in Moscow as a Merrill Lynch banker.

The FBI wiretapped him for one year based largely on the dossier. No evidence has emerged publicly that he ever met with Putin people or discussed bribes. He has told the FBI and Congress that he didn’t. He has not been charged.

⦁ Accusation: Mr. Page and campaign chairman Paul Manafort worked as a team to coordinate election interference with the Kremlin.

Today: No public evidence to support this scenario. The two say they don’t know each other and have never spoken. Manafort stands convicted of tax fraud and other charges. Mr. Mueller has made no court filing that indicates he is involved in a Russian election conspiracy.

Manafort attorney Kevin Downing filed a court paper saying he asked Mr. Mueller for any evidence of his client talking to Russian government officials. There was none, the attorney said.

⦁ Accusation: Mr. Trump actively supported ongoing computer hacking.

Today: No public evidence.

⦁ Accusation: The Trump “team” paid Russian hackers.

Today: No public evidence. Mr. Mueller brought indictments against the Russian intelligence officers who did the hacking and stole emails released by WikiLeaks. There is no indication that the funding came from Trump people.

⦁ Accusation: Mr. Trump maintained an eight-year relationship with Kremlin operatives in quid pro quo intelligence-sharing.

Today: No public evidence.

⦁ Accusation: Russian entrepreneur Aleksej Gubarev, owner of computer server provider XBT Holding, hacked the Democrats under pressure from Moscow intelligence.

Today: No public evidence. Mr. Gubarev’s attorneys say no U.S. authority has asked to interview him. The Mueller indictment against Russian hackers doesn’t mention XBT.

A U.S. District judge dismissed Mr. Gubarev’s libel lawsuit against BuzzFeed but not because the dossier is true. The judge ruled that BuzzFeed, which had published the unverified memos, was protected from libel because the FBI and intelligence agencies were using the dossier in their probes.

Mr. Gubarev is suing Mr. Steele for defamation in a London court. Mr. Steele has signed declarations saying his allegations needed to be investigated further.

‘Absolute dynamite’

In “Russian Roulette,” Mr. Isikoff and Mr. Corn paint a favorable portrait of Mr. Steele and his Orbis Business Intelligence in London.

“Steele was the heart of the operation. … Steele, who possessed a phenomenal memory, was a master of vacuuming up huge amounts of information and analyzing material,” they wrote.

The book says Mr. Steele relied heavily on a Russian “collector” who traveled to Moscow and learned supposed dirt on candidate Trump.

“Two weeks or so later, Steele flew to meet his chief collector in a European city,” the book says. “As Steele listened and took notes, he could scarcely believe what he was hearing. His collector, relaying what he had been told by his contacts, informed Steele that the Russians had been targeting and cultivating Trump for years and had even gathered kompromat on him, specifically tales of weird sexual indiscretions that the collector said ‘were an open secret’ in Moscow.

“Steele was horrified. ‘I thought I had heard and seen everything in my career,’ he told associates. Steele immediately notified Simpson. He had ‘absolute dynamite,’ Steele said, mentioning the sexual kompromat,” the book says.

Mr. Steele would include in the dossier’s June 20 memo a tale of Mr. Trump engaging in sex with Russian prostitutes at Moscow’s Ritz-Carlton hotel. Mr. Trump has denied this and told The Washington Times in April 2017 that the FBI’s reliance on Mr. Steele was a “disgrace.”

“Russian Roulette” was somewhat guarded in endorsing Mr. Steele’s sex charge: “As with Steele’s first report, none of the sources in the memos were identified. Steele later told associates one of the sources for the information was the paramour of a Kremlin insider. In short, it was pillow talk.”

In an interview this month, Mediaite’s Mr. Ziegler asked Mr. Isikoff whether the Steele dossier “has been somewhat vindicated.” Mr. Isikoff said, “No.”

The Times asked Mr. Isikoff which Steele allegation he has come to doubt. He declined to answer, saying he was waiting for Mr. Mueller’s report “like everybody else.”

Mr. Trump tweeted: “Michael Isikoff was the first to report Dossier allegations and now seriously doubts the Dossier claims. The whole Russian Collusion thing was a HOAX, but who is going to restore the good name of so many people whose reputations have been destroyed?”

Five Trump campaign figures have been convicted of crimes not directly related to any Russia election collusion, which was Mr. Mueller’s main task assigned by the Justice Department. Each report of a plea deal has spurred speculation among liberal pundits and politicians that Mr. Trump is doomed.

⦁ George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign volunteer, pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about when he joined the campaign and met with a Maltese professor in London. The professor told him he heard that Moscow owned thousands of Hillary Clinton emails. It may have been a reference to 30,000 emails during her tenure as secretary of state that she ordered destroyed.

Papadopoulos has said he never acted on the gossip and never met any Russians. He said he believes the FBI wiretapped him and assigned at least one spy to try to entrap him.

⦁ Paul Manafort was convicted in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, of tax fraud, bank fraud and failure to disclose foreign bank accounts. He pleaded guilty in a D.C. federal court to witness tampering and conspiracy to defraud the United States.

⦁ Rick Gates, Manafort’s onetime business partner, pleaded guilty to making false statements and conspiracy against the United States.

⦁ Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about intercepted phone calls he conducted with the Russian ambassador during the Trump transition.

⦁ Cohen pleaded guilty to tax evasion on income from a taxicab business, lying to a bank and campaign finance offenses. He later said he lied to Congress about when negotiations ended with the Kremlin on building a Trumphotel.

No court filings indicate that any of the five participated in or witnessed collusion with Russia.

Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/30/michael-steeles-russia-dossier-donald-trump-fails-/

The post Dossier fails the test of time; Trump-Russia collusion claims now called ‘likely false’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

For years, presidential campaigns followed relatively predictable lines of trench warfare, with the outcome decided in a handful of battleground states.

But the era of the hardened electoral map — 40 of 50 states voted for the same party from 2000 to 2012 — may be coming to an end.

Interviews with more than two dozen politicians, consultants and activists throughout the country suggest that between Donald Trump’s sweep through the upper Midwest and the demographic shifts powering Democrats in the South and West, the field of competitive states stands to be dramatically reshaped in 2020.

Minnesota, which hasn’t gone for Republican for president in nearly a half-century, suddenly rates high on the GOP wish list. Arizona and Georgia, until recent years considered red-state locks, are undeniably within Democratic reach.

Democrats are engaged in shoot-the-moon speculation about Texas — the red citadel of the modern GOP — while Brad Parscale, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, views Colorado as a target despite three consecutive Republican defeats there.

Then there is the class of states that Trump improbably pried free in 2016 after three decades of Republican futility: Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The president has made early overtures to all of them — on Thursday, when Trump appears in Wilkes-Barre, he will be making his fifth trip to Pennsylvania in less than two years.

“You could have a dozen states — not five or six — but a dozen states that are of significant importance and highly competitive from both sides,” said Paul Maslin, a top Democratic pollster who splits time between Los Angeles and Madison, Wisconsin.

Though the electoral map has shifted over time, Maslin said, the number of potential swing states in 2020 “may be at its peak … I think they’re all going to be pretty strongly competed for.”

Democrats have seized on early signals about a favorable climate awaiting them in the fall and extending into 2020. In the Midwest, following upset special election victories in Wisconsin this year, recent NBC News/Marist polls put Trump’s approval ratings in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin at a seemingly fatal level — below 40 percent.

In the South, where Democrats swept the 2017 Virginia elections, Doug Jones flipped an Alabama Senate seat to Democrats for the first time since 1994.
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Jones’ victory “means we can win anywhere,” suggesting that even Texas, which Trump won by 9 percentage points, could be contested in 2020.

“If Beto [O’Rourke] can win or come really close” to defeating Sen. Ted Cruz in the U.S. Senate race in Texas this year, Dean said, “Texas will be in play.”

David Pepper, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, described electoral prospects for Democrats as “getting better.” Of the upcoming electoral map, he said, “I do think it’s broader.”

Yet conversations with Democratic leaders depict a party riven by conflict about how to proceed, with rifts between those focused on traditionally Democratic Midwestern states and those seeking to mine new ground in more diverse states that many in the party believe better represent the party’s future.

The uncertainty about where to compete in a general election against Trump has already forced a large field of potential Democratic candidates to widen their apertures.

In a Democratic presidential primary that is widely expected to be colored by candidates’ perceived electability in a match-up with Trump, trips by candidates to such states as Georgia and Arizona have drawn attention rivaling visits to the early nominating states of Iowa and New Hampshire. When one likely candidate, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, announced last week that he will hold a September fundraiser to raise $1 million for state Democratic parties — ingratiating himself to Democrats outside of his home state — he listed 10 different states as beneficiaries.

In the 2020 primary, said former New Mexico Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, who ran for president in 2008, “This could be a race that ends up at the convention. I think it’ll go all the way, because everyone will want to see the candidates go through the entire process, not just who the early flavor of the months are.”

For Richardson and other longtime Democrats, the perils of an altered presidential map became apparent the night of Trump’s victory in 2016.

“I never thought I’d live to see the day a Republican would carry Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania,” said Ed Rendell, a former governor of Pennsylvania and DNC chairman.

In 2020, Rendell said, “We should contest in Georgia and places like that, and maybe even Texas. But I think the first thing we’ve got to do is focus on taking back our traditional voters.” Echoing Richardson, Rendell said, “For us, there is no map that we can carry the Electoral College without Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.”

Even in heavily Democratic, urban coastal states, the desire to select a nominee who can re-anchor the party in the Midwest hangs heavily over the pre-presidential campaign. In California, where at least three Democrats are mulling campaigns — Garcetti, Sen. Kamala Harris and billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer — former Gov. Gray Davis said “ideally, our nominee would come from the Midwest, would espouse Midwestern values.”

“And if we don’t have a nominee from the Midwest, our candidate has to basically take up residence in the Midwest. Because I don’t care how charismatic, how persuasive our candidate is, if we cannot re-establish our trust in the Democratic brand in the Midwest, we will not capture the presidency,” Davis said. “Do they have to be from the Midwest? No. Would it help? Absolutely.”

But as Democrats prepare to confront Trump again in the upper Midwest, the evolution of the map is likely to force some hard decisions about which states to target. Four years after Barack Obama won Ohio and Iowa, for example, Hillary Clinton lost each by margins wide enough to raise serious questions about their competitiveness at the presidential level: Trump carried Ohio by 9 percentage points and Iowa by nearly 10 percentage points.

Comparing Trump’s performance in Iowa to Georgia — which Democrats lost by less than 6 percentage points — Sean Clegg, a senior adviser to Harris, said, “I think you can make a straight-faced argument that Georgia is more in play than Iowa as a long-term question.”

“You really look at the places that are growing demographically kind of in the Democrats’ direction,” he said, “and it’s Arizona and Georgia and North Carolina and Florida that show more potential to be states where you could also change the map for the future.”

As in Texas, where Democrats have been buoyed by O’Rourke’s unlikely run at Cruz and recent suburban gains, the party is putting stock for 2020 in the performance of Stacey Abrams in the gubernatorial race in Georgia. The election of a Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, in North Carolina, has helped Democrats improve their fundraising and organizing operations in a state that Trump won by fewer than 4 percentage points.

“I do think there are some potential states that could come on the horizon in the South,” said Jaime Harrison, associate chair of the Democratic National Committee and a former South Carolina state party chair. “My theory has always been that the Democratic Party needs to stop writing off these states.”

In a presidential election, Harrison said, “the real key to all of this is how do you engage the African American community … The question is what can we do as a party, and then in 2020, what can our nominee do, in order to feel that those folks are engaged.”

Tom Perez, the DNC chairman, said recently that the “mission of the new DNC is to organize everywhere,” and Pepper said the right nominee can appeal to Democrats regardless of geography.

“I think with the right candidates, you can do very well in the Midwest,” Pepper said. “And I think with the changing demographics and changing politics these days, I think you can also … compete in Arizona, Georgia and a few other places.”

But many Democrats in states that Clinton narrowly lost remain infuriated by her attempt to expand into Arizona and Georgia — the feeling is especially acute in Wisconsin, where Clinton did not campaign at all in the general election. And the party’s effort to capitalize on its more urban, Obama coalition of young people, women, non-white voters and the college educated, has left many rural Democrats wondering at what cost in their own states.

In Minnesota, which Trump lost by only 1.5 percentage points — and where the president is already offering evidence he intends to compete aggressively there in 2020 — veteran Democratic Rep. Rick Nolan, who is running for lieutenant governor, lamented that messaging from national Democrats in recent months has focused so heavily on urban issues that “basically reading between the lines, [it] said, ‘Kiss rural America goodbye.’”

In part because of his relatively moderate positions on mining in his historically blue-collar, Iron Range district — which broke hard for Trump — Nolan doubted activists in his own party would have endorsed him had he run again for re-election.

He said, “It makes you wonder where the hell your party’s going.”

Matt Barron, a Massachusetts-based consultant who left the Democratic Party last year over his frustration with what he described as a lack of rural outreach, scoffed, “The coalition of the ascendant argument, this argument that demographic forces are just going to take our little surfboards and we’ll all be floating along the big wave … That’s great for maybe 2024 or 2028. I don’t know if it’s good for 2018 or 2020.”

In a recent trip to Nolan’s district in northeastern Minnesota, Trump made clear that his narrow loss there remained on his mind — and flatly asserted that he will win Minnesota in 2020.

“I hate to bring this up, but we came this close to winning the state of Minnesota,” Trump said to a crowd of thousands at a Duluth rally. “And in two and a half years, it’s going to be really, really easy, I think.”

Matt Schlapp, chairman of the influential American Conservative Union, said he expects Trump to compete not only in Minnesota, but in two Western states he lost in 2016: Colorado and Nevada.

“There’s always this game of who can expand the map, and where do you have to play defense, and obviously Trump just kind of threw all that on its head by winning states that nobody really anticipated — in the broader context — that he was going to be able to succeed in,” said Schlapp, a former political director for President George W. Bush. “I think the map is different now.”

For his part, Dean, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 2004, predicted Democrats will reclaim Pennsylvania and Michigan in 2020, with a more difficult road in Wisconsin and North Carolina.

Dean, who urged Democrats to select a nominee younger than 40 or 50 years old, said the real division within the Democratic Party is generational, not geographical. But he suggested a broader map would only help a younger nominee disinclined to “mousy-mouse around” in an attempt to appeal to narrow segments of the electorate.

“We see it as a zero-sum game,” the 69-year-old Dean said of his own generation. “They see it as an addition game, and I think that’s where we’re headed in this country.”

Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/30/electoral-college-2020-trump-747648

The post ‘The map is different now’: Trump blows the 2020 race wide open first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Washington (CNN)The Justice Department has agreed to allow congressional investigators to interview a key FBI employee believed to have served as the main contact, or “handler” of, former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, who compiled the so-called “dossier” of allegations about President Donald Trump’s connections to Russia, according to a department spokesperson.

CNN’s Jeremy Herb and Manu Raju contributed to this report.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/03/politics/justice-department-house-intel-russia-investigation/index.html

The post Justice Dept. offers up key witness in Russia probe as House Intel Chair threatens contempt first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.