Month: January 2019

And yet Ryan and McCarthy covered up for him every step of the way

by digby

Remember this? It was also revealed right after the FBI opened their investigation — May 17, 2017:

A month before Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination, one of his closest allies in Congress — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy — made a politically explosive assertion in a private conversation on Capitol Hill with his fellow GOP leaders: that Trump could be the beneficiary of payments from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy (R-Calif.) said, according to a recording of the June 15, 2016, exchange, which was listened to and verified by The Washington Post. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is a Californian Republican known in Congress as a fervent defender of Putin and Russia.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) immediately interjected, stopping the conversation from further exploring McCarthy’s assertion, and swore the Republicans present to secrecy.

Before the conversation, McCarthy and Ryan had emerged from separate talks at the Capitol with Ukrainian Prime Minister Vladi­mir Groysman, who had described a Kremlin tactic of financing populist politicians to undercut Eastern European democratic institutions.

News had just broken the day before in The Washington Post that Russian government hackers had penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee, prompting McCarthy to shift the conversation from Russian meddling in Europe to events closer to home.

Some of the lawmakers laughed at McCarthy’s comment. Then McCarthy quickly added: “Swear to God.”

Ryan instructed his Republican lieutenants to keep the conversation private, saying: “No leaks. . . . This is how we know we’re a real family here.”

The remarks remained secret for nearly a year.

The conversation provides a glimpse at the internal views of GOP leaders who now find themselves under mounting pressure over the conduct of President Trump. The exchange shows that the Republican leadership in the House privately discussed Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election and Trump’s relationship to Putin, but wanted to keep their concerns secret. It is difficult to tell from the recording the extent to which the remarks were meant to be taken literally.

The House leadership has so far stood by the White House as it has lurched from one crisis to another, much of the turmoil fueled by contacts between Trump or his associates with Russia.

Think about this in light of what we know now:

[Ukrainian Prime Minister ] Groysman, on an official visit to Washington, met separately with Ryan and McCarthy on June 15 at the Capitol.

He told them how the Russians meddled in European politics and called for “unity” in addressing the threat, according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials. Ryan issued a statement after the meeting saying, “the United States stands with Ukraine as it works to rebuild its economy and confront Russian aggression.”

Later, Ryan spoke privately with McCarthy, Rodgers, Scalise and Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.), the deputy whip, among others.

As Paul Ryan opts out of reelection bid, we revisit his career in photos
View Photos A look at the Wisconsin Republican’s life and career in politics.
Ryan mentioned his meeting with Groysman, prompting Rodgers to ask: “How are things going in Ukraine?” according to the recording.

The situation was difficult, Ryan said. Groysman, he said, had told him that Russian-backed forces were firing 30 to 40 artillery shells into Ukrainian territory every day. And the prime minister described Russian tactics that include “financing our populists, financing people in our governments to undo our governments.”

Ryan said Russia’s goal was to “turn Ukraine against itself.” Groysman underlined Russia’s intentions, saying, “They’re just going to roll right through us and go to the Baltics and everyone else,” according to Ryan’s summary of the prime minister’s remarks in the recording.

“Yes,” Rodgers said in agreement, noting that the Russians were funding nongovernmental organizations across Europe as part of a wider “propaganda war.”

“Maniacal,” Ryan said. “And guess, guess who’s the only one taking a strong stand up against it? We are.”

Rodgers disagreed. “We’re not . . . we’re not . . . but, we’re not,” she said.

That’s when McCarthy brought the conversation about Russian meddling around to the DNC hack, Trump and Rohrabacher.

“I’ll guarantee you that’s what it is. . . . The Russians hacked the DNC and got the opp [opposition] research that they had on Trump,” McCarthy said with a laugh.

Ryan asked who the Russians “delivered” the opposition research to.

“There’s . . . there’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump,” McCarthy said, drawing some laughter. “Swear to God,” McCarthy added.

“This is an off the record,” Ryan said.

Some lawmakers laughed at that.

“No leaks, all right?,” Ryan said, adding: “This is how we know we’re a real family here.”

“That’s how you know that we’re tight,” Scalise said.

“What’s said in the family stays in the family,” Ryan added.

May of 2017 was craaazy

by digby

Just one of many pieces I wrote during that period.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Oh my God, he’s going overseas now

by digby

I wrote about Trump’s loose lips for Salon today — and what they’re preparing for at the upcoming NATO summit.

Back in January, there was a little-noticed story among all the hubbub surrounding reports of Russian interference in the election and possible ties with the Trump campaign. YnetNews reported the following:

Donald Trump’s upcoming inauguration as the next president of the United States is causing Israeli intelligence officials to lose sleep as well. Discussions held in closed forums recently raised fears of a leakage of Israeli intelligence top-classified information, clandestine modus operandi and sources, which have been exposed to the American intelligence community over the past 15 years, to Russia – and from there to Iran

The following month the Wall Street Journal reported this:

US intelligence officials have withheld sensitive intelligence from President Donald Trump because they are concerned it could be leaked or compromised, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter . . .

These reports were received in right wing circles as evidence of ongoing treason by the intelligence community. I recall coming across them and thinking that it seemed paranoid. It was hard to imagine that even Trump could be so dumb or craven as to give secret information to anyone, particularly to the Russian government. Sure, he had a thing for Putin and was precipitously tilting toward Russia for shallow and unstrategic reasons, but the presidency would have to sober him up and require him to operate in a more serious manner.

Nobody in their right minds could ever have believed that within four months Trump would unceremoniously fire the FBI Director over what he admitted were concerns about the Russia investigation and then, the next morning, meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in the Oval Office. The meeting had been previously scheduled, but it looked terrible. It looked even worse when the American press was kept out of the meeting while Russian government media were allowed in. they posted pictures of President Trump grinning like a jack-o’-lantern with Lavrov and a surprise guest at the meeting, Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, the man at the very center of the Russia probes.

This was all so unbelievable that you had to wonder whether Trump had cooked up an elaborate trolling exercise designed to let investigators know that he was going to do whatever he wanted and there was nothing anyone could do to stop him. As it turns out, receiving Lavrov was a favor to President Vladimir Putin, the man to whom Trump told CBS’ John Dickerson he just couldn’t say no.

None of that could have prepared us for what the Washington Post reported yesterday: Not only did Trump do all those things listed above, he also gave the Russian ambassador classified “codeword-protected” intelligence, putting some vital resources at risk and scaring the hell out of anyone who ever shared information with the U.S. government. If it were anyone but Donald Trump and his Keystone Kop White House, one would be forced to conclude that the president of the United States is an agent of the Russian government.

But this is Donald Trump, a man in so far over his head that it’s amazing he’s still breathing. The most likely explanation is that he’s just too ignorant to know what he was saying. By all accounts he refuses to sit still for briefings and demands that all reports be reduced to single-page bullet points. He has shown absolutely no willingness to bone up on necessary knowledge, he lies and exaggerates constantly and all you have to do is look at his Twitter feed to see that he is as impulsive and combative as a tween bully.

So it’s entirely predictable that he shot his mouth off to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador as a boast. According to the Post he said, “I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day” and proceeded to blurt some out to prove it. His warm feelings toward Russia may have been the motivation:

Richard Engel

✔@RichardEngel

Us intell official says trump was trying to show russians “how cooperative he wants to be with them” in fight against isis. @washingtonpost

2,084

5:47 PM – May 15, 2017

Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,731 people are talking about this

Those Russian officials were undoubtedly very pleased. They certainly were all smiles in the pictures. American allies and others who have cooperated with the U.S. in sharing intelligence probably weren’t quite so happy about it.

This bombshell couldn’t have come at a worse time. Trump is about to embark on his first international tour and it was already looking to be yet another humiliation for the United States. Foreign Policy reported Monday on the upcoming NATO meeting:

NATO is scrambling to tailor its upcoming meeting to avoid taxing President Donald Trump’s notoriously short attention span. The alliance is telling heads of state to limit talks to two to four minutes at a time during the discussion, several sources inside NATO and former senior U.S. officials tell Foreign Policy. And the alliance scrapped plans to publish the traditional full post-meeting statement meant to crystallize NATO’s latest strategic stance.

The heads of 28 NATO member states will be there and they’re all anticipating a meeting tailored to a petulant child who needs to be entertained:

“Even a brief NATO summit is way too stiff, too formal, and too policy heavy for Trump. Trump is not going to like that,” said Jorge Benitez, a NATO expert with the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank.

Organizers are scrapping the normal declaration that accompanies such meetings because they think Trump won’t be happy. You see, one of the primary reasons for NATO’s existence is its adversarial relationship to Russia and we all know how Trump feels about that.

After Trump’s shenanigans this past week, let’s just say that it’s unlikely anyone at the meeting will feel all that comfortable sharing anything but small talk with President Loose Lips. According to Foreign Policy:

“People are scared of his unpredictability, intimidated by how he might react knowing the president might speak his mind — or tweet his mind,” the former official said. Or, as another current senior NATO official put it before the meeting: “We’re bracing for impact.”

It’s best to keep your seatbelt fastened at all times. The turbulence gets worse every day.

That was the public atmosphere at the time the FBI decided they had to open a counter-intelligence investigation into Trump and Russia.

In what world would it have been ok for them not to do that?

.

No puppet!

by digby

Not that any sentient being hasn’t been suspicious all this time. But now it’s clear we weren’t the only ones:

In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.

.

A disquieting “constellation of events”
by Tom Sullivan

Image: NASA/ESA/Hubble.

The New York Times reported last night that in the days after President Donald Trump fired F.B.I. Director James Comey, counterintelligence investigators launched a probe into whether Trump “had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests.”

Trump’s July 2016 call for Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton’s emails caught the attention of counterintelligence officials, plus his praise for President Vladimir Putin and the modification to the Republican platform to soften its stance on Ukraine. The F.B.I. was already investigating four Trump associates’ ties to Russia. But if the launch of a CI investigation into a sitting president were to leak, it would carry “explosive implications” and undermine the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. They needed stronger evidence to initiate such an investigation.

Two more Trump actions provided that after the Comey firing:

The first was a letter Mr. Trump wanted to send to Mr. Comey about his firing, but never did, in which he mentioned the Russia investigation. In the letter, Mr. Trump thanked Mr. Comey for previously telling him he was not a subject of the F.B.I.’s Russia investigation.

When Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein redrafted the letter omitting mention of Russia, Trump himself added a note “thanking Mr. Comey for telling him three times that he was not under investigation.”

The second event that troubled investigators was an NBC News interview two days after Mr. Comey’s firing in which Mr. Trump appeared to say he had dismissed Mr. Comey because of the Russia inquiry.

These actions, added to the “constellation of events” involving Russia that had disquieted F.B.I. officials prior to the 2016 election, prompted opening a counterintelligence investigation “before Mr. Trump appointed a director who might slow down or even end their investigation into Russia’s interference.”

Their concerns only heightened when days later

The White House, naturally, considers the Times story “absurd” and Trump himself no doubt will use the reporting to again condemn Justice as corrupt. But Lawfare blog’s Benjamin Wittes believes the focus on Trump misses a deeper point.

The Times notes the F.B.I. conducts two kinds of investigations: criminal, in which crimes might be prosecuted; and counterintelligence, “generally fact-finding missions to understand what a foreign power is doing and to stop any anti-American activity.” The assumption in Trump-Russia collusion coverage is the second is separate from the obstruction of justice criminal case. “But what if the obstruction was the collusion—or at least a part of it?” Wittes asks. The lines are perhaps fuzzier than that.

Former FBI General Counsel James Baker, a colleague of Wittes’ at Lawfare, wrote:

A lot of the criticism seems to be driven by the notion that the FBI’s investigation was, and is, an effort to undermine or discredit President Trump. That assumption is wrong. The FBI’s investigation must be viewed in the context of the bureau’s decades-long effort to detect, disrupt and defeat the intelligence activities of the governments of the Soviet Union and later the Russian Federation that are contrary to the fundamental and long-term interests of the United States. The FBI’s counterintelligence investigation regarding the 2016 campaign fundamentally was not about Donald Trump but was about Russia. Full stop. It was always about Russia. It was about what Russia was, and is, doing and planning. Of course, if that investigation revealed that anyone—Russian or American—committed crimes in connection with Russian intelligence activities or unlawfully interfered with the investigation, the FBI has an obligation under the law to investigate such crimes and to seek to bring those responsible to justice. The FBI’s enduring counterintelligence mission is the reason the Russia investigation will, and should, continue—no matter who is fired, pardoned or impeached (emphasis added).

This passage, Wittes writes, is consistent with Comey’s Mar. 20, 2017, congressional testimony in which he confirmed the F.B.I. was “investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election” as part of its counterintelligence mission. Wittes does not believe the agency simply opened a new criminal investigation in the wake of the Comey firing.

So when the president sought to impair the investigation, having declared both in the draft letter dismissing Comey and to Lester Holt that his action was connected in some way to the Russia investigation, that raised both potential criminal questions and major counterintelligence questions—questions that could only have been reinforced when Trump later announced to senior Russian government officials that he had relieved pressure on himself by acting as he did. It did so both because it threatened the investigation itself and because it fit directly into a pattern of interface between Trump campaign officials and Russian government actors that they were already investigating.

The pattern of Mueller’s indictments, too, suggests this is the central mission. Wittes summarizes:

It was about Russia. Full stop. It was always about Russia. And it still is about Russia.

The best way to understand this probe is as an umbrella Russia-related national security investigation in which the bureau opened subsidiary files, some with a counterintelligence focus and some with a criminal focus, on individuals who proved to have substantial “links” to the broader Russian activity.

That makes the sitting president a bit-player in an investigation that, whatever he thinks, is not about him.

Lisa Page, former assistant general counsel at the F.B.I., answered questions in closed-door meetings of a joint House Judiciary and Oversight Committee last July. Transcripts passed to The Epoch Times and published Friday afternoon may have prompted the New York Times to release its counterintelligence story Friday night.

Page, in her testimony to Representatives focused on Hillary Clinton emails, confirmed that her agency saw Clinton’s emails as “an entirely historical investigation” of lesser priority.

“In the assessment of the Counterintelligence Division,” Page stated, “they still don’t even come close to the threat posed if Russia had co-opted a member of a political campaign.”

“[W]ith respect to Western ideals and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans,” Page continued, “Russia poses the most dangerous threat to that way of life.”

That’s not to say the predations of the current occupant of the Oval Office do not pose a threat. Just that they are not foreign ones. The threats posed by Trump’s continued tenure in office are domestic.

Friday Night Soother

by digby

The government is still shut down so no happy ending on that as yet. So here are two nice animal stories to soothe your soul a little bit:

DOG RESCUE: Firefighters rescued a Labrador from the middle of a frozen lake, using an inflatable rescue pad to slide across Lake Csunya and bring the dog to shore. The dog, named Marci, was in good health and spirits after the incident. https://t.co/G12hpfHNno pic.twitter.com/x3LyZjjMO9

— ABC News (@ABC) January 8, 2019

Remember the same-sex penguin couple raising a baby chick? Well, their little penguin just took its first swim 🐧😍 pic.twitter.com/3MFPsNeic9

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) January 9, 2019

.

No, Donald Trump’s “management style” was never successful

by digby

The New York Times’ James B. Stewart, the man who brought us the ridiculous Whitewater scandal, is back with an analysis of Trump’s White House that is equally off the mark:

Donald J. Trump’s highly personal management style as a businessman — impetuous, impolitic, sometimes immature — worked. At the very least, it wasn’t publicly discredited very often.

Mr. Trump ran his own private company. It was small and largely hidden from the prying eyes of shareholders and government regulators. He was surrounded by longtime loyalists and family members. His main public exposure unfolded in staged settings, on softball talk shows or his own reality-TV show.

Now President Trump is running a much larger enterprise. Two years into the Trump administration, it’s increasingly apparent that while the management traits he developed in the private sector may have propelled him into the White House, they’re not serving him well now that he’s there.

Really? They didn’t serve him well in the private sector either. We know, via the New York Times by the way, that he only survived the consequences of his monumental and repeated failures because his daddy, and then shady bankers, repeatedly bailed him out.

This is ridiculous. He was a terrible businessman even on his own terms, whose “traits” were dancing away as fast as he could from one disaster after another. He was an heir to a fortune, a hype artist celebrity who created an image of business savvy to con investors and the public.

He does point out that his tactics and style haven’t worked for him. But really, the whole article is nonsense, especially this:

That’s not to say Mr. Trump hasn’t displayed some effective management techniques, albeit ones that are rarely discussed in America’s business schools.

As Mr. Pfeffer told me this week, Mr. Trump exhibits several qualities that are prevalent among many leaders, including narcissism and dishonesty.

“We claim we want nice people, but we don’t,” Mr. Pfeffer said. “Studies show that people want to associate with people who win.”

“I’ve always won, and I’m going to continue to win,” Mr. Trump reportedly said in 2016.

And Mr. Pfeffer noted that the “reality distortion field” that Mr. Trump deploys — ignoring the truth and creating an alternate set of facts — was once associated with the Apple founder Steve Jobs and remains prevalent in Silicon Valley and among entrepreneurial start-ups.

Paul Glatzhofer, director of talent solutions at the consulting firm PSI International, agreed that Mr. Trump displayed some positive qualities of effective leadership, such as decisiveness, setting ambitious goals and self-confidence. “You may not like the idea of a wall, but it’s an ambitious goal,” Mr. Glatzhofer said.

It’s not a goal. It’s completely infeasible and inane. It’s a talking point that he’s stuck with because his idiot base thought he really meant it.

Please. He’s a blowhard and a criminal who bluffed his way into the presidency (with a lot of help) and he shows every day just how inept and ignorant he is about everything.

.

Let’s just call it day, shall we?

by digby

The president of the World Bank stepped down yesterday. But not to worry there are many highly qualified people being considered for the job, which is normally chosen by the American administration:

Possible names are already floating around Washington, including David Malpass, a current top Treasury official on international affairs, Nikki Haley, former ambassador to the UN, Mark Green, head of the US Agency for International Development, and even Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter.

Sure, why not? Look who is running the most powerful nation on earth?

.

Trump pocketed tens of millions last year and we’re supposed to believe he knew nothing about it

by digby

This is fine:

Donald Trump sold an estimated $35 million worth of real estate while serving in the White House last year, according to a Forbes analysis of local property records and federal filings. Although the president delegated day-to-day management of his assets to his sons Eric and Don Jr. upon taking office, he maintained ownership of his business, which continued to liquidate properties.

More than half of that $35 million came from a single deal, in which Trump and business partners offloaded a federally subsidized housing complex in Brooklyn for about $900 million. The president held a 4% stake in the property, according to his personal financial disclosure report. After subtracting roughly $370 million in debt, Forbes estimates Trump walked away with $20 million or so before taxes. The deal required approval from officials inside the Department of Housing & Urban Development, which rolls up to Donald Trump.

In Las Vegas, the president sold 36 units for $11 million inside his 64-story tower, which he owns in a 50-50 partnership with casino tycoon Phil Ruffin, according to an analysis of the latest public records. Trump’s cut of those deals amounted to an estimated $5.5 million before taxes. One-third of the Las Vegas condo customers purchased their units through limited liability companies, a move that allows buyers to shield their true identities.

In other words, people were pumping cash into the president’s coffers without disclosing who they were. According to a 2017 investigation by the USA Today, only 4% of purchasers in Trump buildings used LLCs in the two years before Trump secured the presidential nomination.

Oh, I’ll bet they find a way to let the President of the United States know who they are. It’s the public they’re hiding from. Trump almost certainly is on top of every transaction, concerned more than ever that this “president” thing is going to badly affect his fortune.

It is. As soon as he’s out of office, the only people who will want to be associated with his “brand” are the hardcore cultists. And they don’t have a lot of money to spend on fancy hotels and condos. He can still sell his ugly hats and tchotchkes for a while.

The minute he’s out of office, his brand and his name will be pretty much worthless. Nobody will have any reason to curry favor and nobody will want to bring heat on themselves by laundering money through his fraudulent real estate deals. Certainly nobody will want to buy any of his disgusting perfumes, ties, steaks or anything else. His TV days are over and I doubt his former big plans for a Trump News Network are still on the back burner.

He’d better save all those emoluments and bribes because they’re likely to be the last corrupt financial deals he’s going to be able to make. And it’s the only kind he knows how to do.

.

The numbers are getting worse

by digby

NPR-IPSOS has a new poll out on the wall and the shutdown. It’s not popular:

Three-quarters of Americans say the government shutdown, now tied for the longest in U.S. history, is “embarrassing for the country,” including a majority of Republicans, a new NPR/Ipsos poll finds.

If no deal is struck by midnight Friday, this partial shutdown will be the longest ever. From late 1995 to early 1996, the government was shut down for 21 days. Friday is the 21st day of this current shutdown. Neither side appears ready to budge, and this polling and others make Democrats feel they have the upper hand.

And they have reason to feel that way — about 7 in 10 in the NPR/Ipsos poll also say the government shutdown is going to hurt the country, that it will hurt the economy and that Congress should pass a bill to reopen the government now while budget talks continue. Just 3 in 10 believe the government should remain closed until there is funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

He’s losing Republicans on this one. That’s an ominous sign for him. They usually love shutdowns.

The NPR/Ipsos poll also found President Trump’s Oval Office address Tuesday had little effect. Just 10 percent of Americans said the president’s speech brought the country closer to ending the government shutdown. (Nearly 4 in 10 said they did not watch or even follow the president’s address.)

And not many, if anyone, beyond his base say his speech convinced them that there is a “crisis” at the Southern U.S. border. Just 38 percent of Americans overall said his speech convinced them of a crisis at the border, and only about a third said his speech convinced them there is a need for a wall along the border.

Independents are not with the president on either of those critical points. By a 50-to-27 percent margin, independents said they disagreed that the president’s speech convinced them of a need for a wall, and by a 45-to-32 percent margin, independents said the president’s speech did not convince them of a crisis at the border. Fifty-three percent of independents said it’s never OK to shut down the government, as did 50 percent of Democrats. Just 25 percent of Republicans, though, said the same.

About two-thirds of Republicans said the president’s speech helped convince them there’s a crisis at the border and a need for a wall.
[…]
56 percent don’t think federal workers should be working without pay to keep government services running, and 83 percent think they should get back pay for the time they do work. Two-thirds even think federal contractors should get back pay. (Congress is set to pass legislation that would pay federal workers once the shutdown ends, which Trump is expected to sign.)

What’s more, when asked what they think about the shutdown, the most prevalent answers were that it was unfair for workers, that it was wrong and that too many were working without pay.

This isn’t working for them. But since they live in Bizarro World they think it’s tremendously popular and that they are going to be richly rewarded for their “strength” and dominance.

Polls should be meaningful in a situation like this. But Trump doesn’t believe them and the rest of the party is still soiling their drawers at the thought of opposing him.

The latest wrinkle is that Freedom Caucus types (and some duffers like Grassley) are pushing him to hold out and not do the bogus “emergency” ploy to get himself out of this corner because they have “principles.” Instead, they want him to just keep the government closed until the Democrats cry uncle.

These people are impervious to reality at this point.

Hopefully, Trump has enough of a survival instinct to realize that this is not in his interest, but who knows? I don’t know where we are.

.

My Salon column this morning: