Month: July 2017

• Lately Sean Spicer’s Deputy Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Mike Huckabee’s daughter, has been lying for Trump and she is not doing much better than Spicer did.  Huckabee Sanders said one thing then Trump contradicted that and said the opposite thing, they need to get their lies straight first of all.  Then Huckabee Sanders actually came out and said “We want this to come to its conclusion, we want it to come to its conclusion with integrity,” she said, referring to the FBI’s probe into Moscow’s interference in last year’s election.  “And we think that we’ve actually, by removing Director Comey, taken steps to make that happen.”  The problem is not who is standing at the podium lying, Spicer or Huckabee Sanders, it does not matter, the problem is that they are lying at all.

 

• July 21st 2017 as reported in the New York Times:  Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, resigned Friday (July 21st 2017) after telling President Trump he vehemently disagreed with his appointment of Anthony Scaramucci, a New York financier, as his new communications director.  After offering Mr. Scaramucci the job on Friday (July 21st 2017) morning, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Spicer to stay on as press secretary, reporting to Mr. Scaramucci.  But Mr. Spicer rejected the offer, expressing his belief that Mr. Scaramucci’s hiring would add to the confusion and uncertainty already engulfing the White House, according to two people with direct knowledge of the exchange.  Mr. Spicer’s top deputy, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, will serve as press secretary instead.

“The Daily Show” promoted a video on July 24th 2017 showing the striking similarities between Trump’s and Anthony Scaramucci’s speaking styles.  Scaramucci was named White House director of communications on July 21st.  In the video compilation, Scaramucci is seen mirroring Trump’s body language and hand gestures almost perfectly.  In a tweet promoting the video “The Daily Show” noted: “The Mooch did his homework.”  See the full video here.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams As he takes over as White House Communications Director, will Anthony Scaramucci encourage Trump to behave more like candidate Trump?  Our panel discusses.

 

• So now Scaramucci is fighting with Reince Priebus and Stephen K. Bannon.  As reported in The New York Times:  The internal rivalries of the White House spilled out into stark public view on Thursday (July 27th 2017) as Trump’s new communications director publicly attacked the chief of staff, calling him a “paranoid schizophrenic” leaker and vowing to get him fired.  Anthony Scaramucci, who was installed as White House communications director last week over the objections of the chief of staff, Reince Priebus, in the morning called into CNN to say that the two men were at odds and to dare Mr. Priebus to deny being a leaker.  By the evening, The New Yorker had posted an interview quoting Mr. Scaramucci using vulgar language to describe Mr. Priebus.

White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci said Wednesday (July 26th 2017) he will contact federal agencies over the “leak” of his financial disclosures, which he called a “felony,” despite the forms being publicly accessible.  “In light of the leak of my financial disclosure info which is a felony.  I will be contacting @FBI and the @TheJusticeDept #swamp @Reince45” Scaramucci tweeted late Wednesday.  The tweet followed POLITICO’s publication of Scaramucci’s financial disclosures filed in the course of his employment with the Export-Import Bank.  The documents are publicly available on request.  Scaramucci subsequently deleted the tweet and replaced it with another disavowing widespread speculation that his message implied that White House chief of staff Reince Priebus should be investigated.  “Wrong! Tweet was public notice to leakers that all Sr Adm officials are helping to end illegal leaks.  @Reince 45.”

Speaking to CNN’s New Day co-host Chris Cuomo Thursday (July 27th 2017) morning, Scaramucci acknowledged that the documents are available publicly but still denounced leaks.  “I understand the law.  I know that there was a public disclosure mechanism in my financial forms,” he said.  “What I’m upset about is the process and the junk pool, the dirty pool, Chris, in terms of the way this stuff is being done, and the leaking won’t stop.”  The newly appointed White House communications director has made cracking down on White House leaks a staple of his early tenure.  On Tuesday (July 24th 2017), Scaramucci threatened “to fire everybody” to stop the flow of leaks to the press, which have fueled numerous damaging reports about the administration.

On All In with Chris Hayes White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci uses ‘colorful’ language in a tirade against Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams After financial details of new White House Communications boss Anthony Scaramucci leaked to the press, Scaramucci reportedly wants the FBI to investigate if that leak came from Reince Priebus.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams The war in the White House got public and it got ugly with Anthony Scaramucci’s profanity filled interview with one reporter.  Is the White House becoming too dysfunctional to get anything done?  Our panel reacts.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Before even officially becoming Communications Director, Anthony Scaramucci went on a threatening, vulgar tirade, attacking fellow White House aides and “leakers.”  Lawrence O’Donnell argues this is a test—if Trump keeps Scaramucci, his presidency may never recover.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Obama Press Secretary Josh Earnest and Bush speechwriter David Frum join Lawrence O’Donnell to explain the deficiencies of the Trump communications team and how Anthony Scaramucci is not only ill-suited to his new role, but also doing far more harm than good.

 

• Reince Priebus says he resigned as White House chief of staff Thursday (July 27th 2017).  Donald Trump drove out his chief of staff on Friday (July 28th 2017), replacing Reince Priebus with Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly in an explosive move that ends a turbulent six-month tenure.  Trump made the announcement on Twitter just after landing on Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington.

“I am pleased to inform you that I have just named General/Secretary John F Kelly as White House Chief of Staff,” Trump tweeted.  “He is a Great American… and a Great Leader.  John has also done a spectacular job at Homeland Security.  He has been a true star of my Administration.”  Priebus, who had traveled with Trump to Long Island for an event on gang violence, was seated inside a Secret Service van on the tarmac when the message came down.  Sources close to Priebus insisted to CNN throughout the day Friday he was not resigning, leaving the impression the aide was defiantly hanging onto his job amid public shaming by his colleagues.

The move followed months of on-again, off-again speculation that Priebus would soon be ousted from an administration where he has consistently drawn heavy criticism for failing to stem the flow of leaks and struggled to impose a sense of order in a chaotic White House beset by controversies.

Priebus, who was brought on by the outsider President in large part because of his Washington relationships, also wound up carrying a hefty share of the blame for the White House’s legislative stumbles.  Rumors of infighting among Trump’s staff eventually devolved into all-out warfare, bursting dramatically into the open late Thursday (July 27th 2017) with a vulgar screed from incoming communications director Anthony Scaramucci.

This was a major shake-up designed to bring order and military precision to a West Wing beset for six straight months by chaos, infighting and few tangible accomplishments.  With his legislative agenda largely stalled, Trump became convinced that Priebus was a “weak” leader after being lobbied intensely by rival advisers to remove the establishment Republican fixture who has long had friction with some of Trump’s inner-circle loyalists, according to White House officials.

Kelly’s hiring is expected to usher in potentially sweeping structural changes to the turbulent operation and perhaps the departures of some remaining Priebus allies.  Kelly intends to bring some semblance of traditional discipline to the West Wing, where warring advisers have been able to circumvent the chief of staff and report directly to the president and sidestep the policy process, according to people with knowledge of his plans.

Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general, earned Trump’s approval for his work combating illegal immigration and his leadership qualities, both in the battlefield and at the Department of Homeland Security.

Trump has been talking privately about replacing Priebus with Kelly for several weeks now, though he is an unconventional pick to run the White House considering he has no political or legislative experience.

Trump first tried to offer the chief of staff job to Kelly in mid-May, according to two people familiar with their discussions.  Kelly told the president that he was flattered, but declined, saying he still had more to accomplish beefing up national security and improving immigration enforcement.  Trump did not give up, however.  “The president has tried to convince the general multiple times, and the general has politely declined several times,” said one administration official who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.  “But given what’s going on in Washington, I think the president really needs the general to help him restore order in this White House and advance his vision.”

Trump thanked Priebus on Twitter “for his service and dedication to his country.  We accomplished a lot together and I am proud of him!”

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell New Chief of Staff John Kelly will have to wrangle a man Eugene Robinson calls ‘Mad King Donald’ and his a mediocre staff if he’s to be at all effective.  Will even Kelly end up a casualty of Trump?  Robinson, Peter Wehner, and Chris Whipple join Lawrence O’Donnell.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Just six months in to what has become a chaotic presidency, Reince Priebus is out as Trump’s Chief of Staff.  Our reporter panel shares the latest on his departure.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Can a former four-star Marine general bring some calm to the choppy waters of the Trump White House?  Three men who know the general well join us to discuss.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Before it was announced on Twitter by Trump that Reince Priebus was out as Chief of Staff, he endured vulgar attacks from Trump’s new communications man Anthony Scaramucci.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Will incoming Trump Chief of Staff General John Kelly have better luck than Reince Priebus?  Boston Globe Washington columnist Indira Lakshmanan doesn’t like Kelly’s chances.

If the idea of bringing in General/Secretary John F Kelly as White House Chief of Staff is to bring order, control and discipline to the White House, basically to stabilize the White House, well good luck with that.  No one can bring order, control and discipline to this chaos.  This White House is a house teetering on a toothpick, there is no stabilizing this mess and there is only a matter of time before this mess collapses.

But we will see just how far General/Secretary John F Kelly can get before General/Secretary John F Kelly says screw this, I don’t need this headache in my life and leaves himself.

The Anthony Scaramucci stuff is nonsense and just another distraction from the White House to take the focus from the main issues.

On All In with Chris Hayes The day after Reince Priebus resigned, a Twitter prankster pretending to be Priebus emailed Anthony Scaramucci.  Imagine his surprise when Scaramucci actually responded.

 

• July 31st 2017 Anthony Scaramucci is out as White House communications director.  It’s the latest high-profile departure from the Trump White House.  Chief of Staff Reince Priebus resigned at the end of last week, replaced by John Kelly, whose first day is Monday (July 31st 2017).  “Anthony Scaramucci will be leaving his role as White House Communications Director,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement Monday afternoon.  “Mr. Scaramucci felt it was best to give chief of staff John Kelly a clean slate and the ability to build his own team.  We wish him all the best.”

A White House official said Kelly wanted Scaramucci removed from his new role as the communications director because he did not think he was disciplined and had burned his credibility.  Scaramucci, a colorful and controversial figure, was brought on during the latest in a long list of White House shake ups that have rocked the presidency with a sense of chaos.  Scaramucci is the third White House communications director to leave the post that had been vacant since late May, when Mike Dubke left after about three months on the job.  Sean Spicer, the former White House press secretary, also assumed some of the communications director role before he resigned when Scaramucci was hired July 21.  Scaramucci’s departure comes days after he unleashed a vulgar tirade against two top White House officials in a conversation with a reporter.

Well General/Secretary John F Kelly passed Lawrence O’Donnell’s first test by getting Anthony Scaramucci out the first day on the job.  Some have said if anybody can do the job General/Secretary John F Kelly can do the job.  Perhaps General/Secretary John F Kelly can stabilize this mess but we will see what happens next.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Jonathan Swan, national political reporter for Axios, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about how Donald Trump managed to dismiss Anthony Scaramucci from the White House communications director position after a record-setting ten days.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell As Lawrence predicted, General John Kelly would have to make an immediate decision on Anthony Scaramucci’s role in the White House but there are still many more tests ahead like who to allow to see the President and who else should be removed from the West Wing.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell John Kelly is already making changes in the White House but as Max Boot says, the President could be the insolvable problem inside the West Wing.  Max Boot, Jeremy Bash and White House Chief of Staff expert Chris Whipple join Lawrence.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Republicans inside and outside the White House worry that Trump will fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions with grave consequences.  Can new Chief of Staff John Kelly prevent that?  Bloomberg’s Al Hunt and The Daily Beast’s Betsy Woodruff join Lawrence.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Donald Trump’s new boss John Kelly assures the Attorney General his job is safe, despite Trump’s displeasure with Jeff Sessions’ recusal.  And the Republican Congress just isn’t listening to the president.  Sam Stein and Ron Klain join Lawrence O’Donnell.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Jonathan Lemire, Eli Stokols and Shannon Pettypiece discuss General Kelly’s first week and Trump’s approval rating hitting a new low.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell The new Chief of Staff, Retired General John Kelly, is trying to restore order to a White House under siege.  But is President Trump relying too much on military officials for civilian jobs?  Tom Nichols of the U.S. Naval War College and Jonathan Capehart join Ari Melber.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton, Mack McLarty, discusses the job facing Trump’s new Chief of Staff John Kelly.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams After over 200 days of reports that Trump’s White House is chaotic and divided, can his new chief of staff John Kelly finally bring some calm?  Zeke Miller & Anita Kumar react.

On All In with Chris Hayes Why are they always fighting in the Trump White House?  Olivia Nuzzi and Bethany Mandel weigh in.

 

 

• The very next day, on May 10th, after Trump fired Comey Trump then met with Russian diplomats in the White House.  Trump met with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak because, as Trump claimed, Putin asked Trump to meet with them.  But only photographers for a Russian state-owned news agency were allowed into the Oval Office, no American photographers.  But some former US intelligence officials raised questions that cited the danger that a listening device or other surveillance equipment could have been brought into the Oval Office while hidden in cameras or other electronics.  And anything incriminating discussed between Trump and the Russians could be used to blackmail Trump.  Some may be wondering why Trump would allow that.  The answer is that first Trump is too ignorant to think that Putin, the dictator, would blackmail him and second, since Putin controls his media people then Trump thinks that they can be trusted to not report what Trump and the Russians are talking about.  But Trump has yet to be able to control the American media, not from a lack of trying though, so they would have reported whatever they heard Trump and the Russians talking about.  While the Russians were in the Oval Office Trump told them “I just fired the head of the FBI.  He was crazy, a real nut job,” according to the document read to The New York Times by an American official.  Trump added “I faced great pressure because of Russia.  That’s taken off.”  Trump also said “I’m not under investigation.”  The White House document that contained Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside Oval Office and circulated as the official account of the meeting.

Then the Washington Post reported that Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian Foreign Minister and Ambassador during this White House meeting.  The information that Trump relayed had been provided by a US partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the US.  The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia.  Is this really surprising anybody?  We have tried, in the past, to share information with the Russians, they are not trustworthy and they used the information against us.  Trump can not be trusted with anything, period.  And now that our allies know that Trump can not be trusted we may not get anymore information shared with us again from any ally because the sources and methods of that information can be traced back to that ally and that can endanger our allies and that can endanger the US and US lives.

Of course one of Trump’s people, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, came out with a carefully worded denial about Trump revealing the classified information saying “At no time were intelligence sources or methods discussed.  And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.” and “I was in the room, it didn’t happen.”  Well, 1st of all, the Washington Post did not report that Trump revealed “intelligence sources or methods”, so McMaster is just talking around the issue.  And 2nd, as I already explained, the “intelligence sources or methods” can be traced back from the information that Trump did discuss.  Then it came out that Israel was the source of the secret intelligence that Trump gave to the Russians.  Russia could pass the information on to Iran, Iran is Russia’s close ally and Israel’s main threat in the Middle East.  Trump said that he had the “absolute right” to share information in the interest of fighting terrorism.  I do not know what terrorism Trump thinks he is fighting by telling Russia, whose allies are Iran and Syria, Israel’s secrets but Trump screwed over Israel in favor of Russia.  And Trump, the Hypocrite-In-Chief, had the gall to blame Hillary for mishandling classified emails during the campaign, well at least Hillary was not so stupid or nefarious as to purposely tell the Russians classified information that was not even our information to tell.  And here Politico offers General McMaster some advise, “Step down and let Trump Be Trump.  Save your reputation while you still can.  The country will be fine.”

And in addition to Trump’s meeting with the Russians Trump also met with Crown Prince Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan of Abu Dhabi, who had arranged a secret meeting which took place around January 11th, 9 days before Trump’s inauguration, in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean, between one of Trump’s people, Blackwater founder Erik Prince, and a Russian close to Putin in an effort to create a back channel line of communication between Putin and Trump.  Though Prince had no formal role with the Trump campaign or Trump’s transition team, he presented himself as an unofficial envoy for Trump to high-ranking Emiratis involved in setting up his meeting with the Putin confidant, according to the officials, who did not identify the Russian.

Now the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential race, has asked President Trump’s political organization to gather and produce all Russia-related documents, emails and phone records going back to his campaign’s launch in June 2015, according to two people briefed on the request.  They are asking for everything.  The request, which was bipartisan and was in letter form, was signed by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the Senate committee’s chairman, and Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the committee’s ranking Democrat.  The request to Trump’s political operatives represents the first time that Trump’s official campaign structure has been drawn into the Senate committee’s ongoing bipartisan investigation.  That investigation is separate from the federal probe being led by the Justice Department’s special counsel, former FBI director Robert S. Mueller III.

Once Trump returned from his overseas trip, the White House planed to launch its most aggressive effort yet to push back against allegations involving Russia and his presidential campaign, tackling head-on a scandal that has threatened to consume his young presidency.  Trump’s advisers planed to establish a “war room” to combat mounting questions about communication between Russia and his presidential campaign before and after November’s presidential election, while bringing new aides into the White House, administration officials and persons close to Trump told Reuters.

 

 

• Russia’s pay back for helping Trump get elected were actions to benefit Russia such as “Side line Russian intervention into Ukraine as a campaign issue” in other words remove giving Ukraine weapons from the Republican platform (that was the only item in the whole Republican platform that Trump cared about at all).  Little by little Trump is giving the Russians everything they wanted.

 

• Gutting the State Department which is an action to benefit Russia and is what Tillerson is already doing.  Putin was afraid of and hated Hillary when she was Secretary of State because in 2011 she called the Russian elections basically fake which they were then and still are and his people started protesting and that was the closest that Putin has ever come to loosing power so Putin doesn’t want the US especially the State Department to have that much power.  The White House is trying to get GOP (Grand Old Party) Republicans to water down a Russia sanctions bill.  The White House is quietly lobbying House Republicans to weaken a bill overwhelmingly passed by the Senate that would slap tough new sanctions on Russia for its meddling in the 2016 election and allow Congress to block any future move by Trump to lift any penalties against Moscow.  And, if possible, removal of sanctions against Russia altogether will be coming A.S.A.P. (As Soon As Possible) and there may be much more coming because Putin is basically running the US government.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Wendy Sherman, former under secretary of State for political affairs, talks with Rachel Maddow about how the Trump administration’s dismantling of the US State Department serves Vladimir Putin’s goals as the US abandons its role as leader of the community of nations.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Nahal Toosi, foreign affairs correspondent for Politico, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about why Rex Tillerson is resisting utilizing tens of millions of dollars allocated for countering Russian and ISIS propaganda.

On The Rachel Maddow Show State Department evades on bizarre Cuba story’s ‘incidents,’ ‘symptoms’.  Rachel Maddow reports on the array of questions following a report that Cuban diplomats were expelled from the US in relation to Americans in Cuba suffering “symptoms” related to “incidents.”

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow updates the story of Americans working in Cuba suffering “symptoms” after “incidents” with the additional detail that apparently Canadians also experienced “symptoms,” but the State Department has not offered any greater clarity.

 

• As reported by Yahoo News in the early weeks of the Trump administration, former Obama administration officials and State Department staffers fought an intense, behind-the-scenes battle to head off efforts by incoming officials to normalize relations with Russia, according to multiple sources familiar with the events.  Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.  These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia’s intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said.  “There was serious consideration by the White House to unilaterally rescind the sanctions,” said Dan Fried, a veteran State Department official who served as chief US coordinator for sanctions policy until he retired in late February.  He said in the first few weeks of the administration, he received several “panicky” calls from US government officials who told him they had been directed to develop a sanctions-lifting package and imploring him, “Please, my God, can’t you stop this?”  Here 6/1/2017 on the 11th Hour with Brian Williams veteran DC reporter Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News details the Trump administration’s alleged plan to ease Russian sanctions as soon as Trump took office.  MSNBC’s Brian Williams gets reaction from his panel.

 

• But on July 25th 2017 The House of Representatives passed a sanctions bill on Tuesday (July 25th 2017) which, if passed by the Senate, represents the first major attempt by the Republican Party to tie Trump’s hands on Russia.  And in the past few days, it’s apparent that the White House doesn’t seem to know what to do about it.  The issue is about to come to a head.

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill that would impose new economic sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea and establish a policy that would prevent the president from unilaterally lifting them.  The measure passed by an eye-opening 419-3 margin, and the Senate might end up voting on it as early as this week.  Given the ease with which the bill passed in the House and the fact that a similar, earlier version of this bill passed the Senate 98-2, supporters of the new legislation are likely to have more than enough votes to override a Trump veto.

If a veto-proof majority does in fact form in Congress, Trump will effectively be forced to sign the bill — if he refuses to sign it, he’ll look weak as his own party overrides him.  The bill would take Obama-era sanctions against Russia that are in place under executive orders — that is, directives that only the president has authority to enact and rescind — and officially enshrine them in the law.  It would also establish a new congressional review process that would allow Congress to block the White House from taking steps to ease sanctions if it wanted to.

July 27th 2017 The Senate on Thursday (July 27th 2017) passed sweeping legislation slapping new sanctions on Russia and rebuking President Donald Trump in a bill that now will head to the President’s desk.  The bill, which gives Congress new powers to block Trump from easing sanctions against Moscow, passed the Senate 98-2.  It passed the House on Tuesday 419-3.  The measure is one of the first major bipartisan pieces of legislation passed during Trump’s presidency, and it effectively ties the hands of the President when it comes to easing Russia sanctions.  The bill also includes new sanctions on Iran and North Korea, and was a product of lengthy negotiations between the House and Senate that devolved into finger-pointing between the two parties and chambers several times before an agreement was finalized.

• July 28th 2017 Donald Trump has reviewed the final version of Russia sanctions legislation and plans to sign it, the White House announced Friday night.  Trump read early drafts of the bill, negotiated elements of it and “based on its responsiveness to his negotiations, approves the bill and intends to sign it,” the White House statement said.  The legislation, which was sent to the White House on Friday (July 28th 2017), would sanction Russia while sharply limiting Trump’s ability to ease penalties against Moscow independently.

Rejecting the bill would have further galvanized resistance against the President and deepened concerns about possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  And Congress would have quickly overturned a veto — a public repudiation that would underscore the President’s impotence in this situation.

Signing the bill into law will send an inexperienced and undisciplined White House into an escalating confrontation with Russia at a time when safeguards to reduce tensions have eroded and domestic pressure in both countries will make it hard to reverse course.  Russia will likely retaliate in ways that go beyond the expulsion of US diplomats and the seizure of American diplomatic recreation areas that took place Friday, said George Beebe, a former director of Russia analysis at the CIA, and others.  Russia is likely to more actively work against US interests on the international stage.  “He is in a lose-lose situation here,” Beebe said.  “There really are no good options for him on this.”

Russia announced that it was expelling American diplomats and seizing property after Congress passed the bill.  Trump has repeatedly said he wants better relations with Moscow and, according to his communications director Anthony Scaramucci, still doubts Moscow’s involvement in the election campaign.  But there was “very little political space or rational for Trump to veto,” said Aaron David Miller, a vice president at the Wilson Center, said prior to the White House announcement Friday night.  He pointed to the FBI investigations into Russia’s ties to the campaign, Putin’s actions in Ukraine and Syria, and Friday’s actions against US diplomats.  “There’s no rationale, no excuse for a veto,” Miller said.  “None.  It would be a form of political suicide.”

Russia’s move against US diplomats is delayed payback for an Obama administration decision in December to expel Russian envoys and seize their holiday compounds, a response to Moscow’s interference in the presidential election campaign.  Moscow said Friday that the US must reduce the staff at its embassy and consulates to 450, the same number Russia is allowed to have in the US.  Moscow is also barring Americans from using two diplomatic facilities.

Russia had greeted Trump’s election victory with “euphoria,” confident it would usher in a new era of close cooperation and an easing of sanctions, said Angela Stent, director of Georgetown University’s Center for Eurasian, Russian and Eastern European Studies.  With that in mind, President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia wouldn’t retaliate after the December sanctions, preferring to wait until the Trump administration moved into the White House.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams POLITICO’s Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent Michael Crowley explains how actions in the House & Senate have made it much more difficult for him to take action on sanctions against Moscow.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about the Donald Trump administration’s odd silence in response to Russia expelling an unprecedented number of people from the US embassy.

 

• August 2nd 2017 as reported in The Washington Post Trump on Wednesday (August 2nd 2017) signed a bill that imposes new sanctions on Russia, ending immediate hopes that he might be able to reset US relations with the Kremlin as Congress overruled his opposition to the provisions’ curb on his executive power.

Trump’s reluctant signing of the legislation came nearly a week after it was approved by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority in the Senate and after a similarly large majority in the House.  The president issued two statements outlining his concerns with the bill, which he called “seriously flawed,” primarily because it limits his ability to negotiate sanctions without congressional approval.  “By limiting the Executive’s flexibility, this bill makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people, and will drive China, Russia, and North Korea much closer together,” Trump said in a statement on Wednesday morning.  “The Framers of our Constitution put foreign affairs in the hands of the President.  “This bill will prove the wisdom of that choice,” he added.

The signing statement, long a controversial tool of past presidents, expresses their concern with legislation but it does nothing to halt or amend it.  Trump had the ability to veto this bill, but it would likely have been overridden by majorities in Congress.  Lawmakers’ solidarity in tying Trump’s hands on this issue reflects a deepening concern about the administration’s posture toward Russia, which critics have characterized as naive.  The new Russia sanctions expand on measures taken by the Obama administration to punish the Kremlin for its alleged efforts to interfere in the 2016 election.  But Trump has continued to doubt that Russia was responsible and he has called the investigations in Congress and by the special counsel into Russian meddling a “witch hunt.”

The administration’s lobbying of lawmakers in public and private to pull back the bill’s requirement that Congress review any attempt by the president to amend sanctions against Moscow ultimately fell on deaf ears.  The measure imposes a 30-day review period to give Congress a chance to vote down any of the president’s proposed changes to Russia sanctions before they can be implemented.

Despite Trump’s considerable objections, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) praised the bill becoming law.  “Today, the United States sent a powerful message to our adversaries that they will be held accountable for their actions,” Ryan said.  “These sanctions directly target the destructive and destabilizing activities of Iran, Russia, and North Korea.  “We will continue to use every instrument of American power to defend this nation and the people we serve,” he added.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Donald Trump campaigned as a tough guy candidate, but he’s proven to be a weak president — especially with Russia.  Lawrence O’Donnell examines Trump’s behavior with Vladimir Putin culminating in the reluctant signing of the sanctions bill.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Ambassador Michael McFaul and Jill Wine-Banks discuss the latest in the Russia investigation and the sanctions bill.

On All In with Chris Hayes Several Republican members of Congress swiftly responded to Trump’s tweet accusing them of being responsible for the United States’ relationship with Russia being ‘at an all-time and very dangerous low.’

 

• The Washington Post reported that Trump even announced July 9th 2017 on Twitter that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin were talking about forming an “impenetrable Cyber Security unit” to prevent election hacking in the future.  “Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded..”  Instead of setting up dialogue, Trump wants to engage in true cooperation.  He wants to set up a joint “unit” that would handle election security issues so as to prevent hacking.  This unit would, furthermore, be “impenetrable.”

(Seriously?  Putin would absolutely love being in a Cyber Security unit with the US then Russia would not even have to go through the trouble of hacking us they would be able to get in whenever they want, like giving a burglar keys to the door.)

Other US politicians, including Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), have reacted with consternation.  Rubio suggests that partnering with Putin on cybersecurity would be like partnering with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on a “Chemical Weapons Unit” (Assad is widely believed to have carried out chemical weapons attacks on his own people).  Critics in the United States have unsurprisingly interpreted this proposal as a transparent ploy by Trump to sideline accusations that Russian hackers helped him win the presidential election.  However, even if Trump’s proposal is taken at face value, it doesn’t make much sense.

If the proposed cybersecurity unit were to work effectively, the United States would need to share extensive information with Russia on how U.S. officials defend elections against foreign tampering.  The problem is, however, that information that is valuable for defending US systems is, almost by definition, information that is valuable for attacking them, too.  This is one reason US officials have not previously proposed any far-reaching arrangement with Russia on cybersecurity.  Providing such information would almost certainly give the Russians a map of vulnerabilities and insecurities in the system that they could then exploit for their own purposes.  It would not only provide the fox with a map of the henhouse, but give him the security code, the backdoor key, and a wheelbarrow to make off with the carcasses.

US officials have determined that Russian hackers have probed US election systems, presumably to discover vulnerabilities that they could exploit.  Although there is no evidence that Russia actually manipulated machines to alter the vote in the 2016 election, there is excellent reason to believe that Russia has carefully considered the pros and cons of direct intervention, as well as the hacking and leaking that it did engage in.  Furthermore, when Trump says that this unit would be “impenetrable,” he implies that Russia and the United States would cooperate on making it secure against outside hacking by third parties.  Again, such cooperation is wildly unlikely to work well.  To make it work, the United States would have to share sensitive methods with Russia, as well as vice versa.  Neither side is going to want to do this, because again it would provide potential adversaries with a deep understanding of protective measures, which might allow those adversaries to penetrate them.

In short, the kind of cooperation that Trump is proposing would be very hard to accomplish between close allies with deeply shared security interests (the United States shares a lot of secrets with select allies — but it does not share everything, for the same reasons that they do not share their deepest defensive secrets with the United States).  It is more or less impossible to carry off with a state that not only is often an adversary but has recently demonstrated its desire to hack US elections, if only it could get away with it.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Brendan Boyle introduces legislation to block funding for Trump’s suggested cybersecurity unit with Russia.  Trump is already backpedaling as another Russia story breaks.  Representative Boyle and Evelyn Farkas join Lawrence O’Donnell to react.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow notes that Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak is stepping down with a tremendous record of success as Russia’s wish list from America is seeing favorable progress under Donald Trump.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, talks with Rachel Maddow about how Donald Trump, Jr.’s admission of collusion with Russia hurts his father’s image and the United States by proxy.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow updates the show’s running list of what Russia would likely want to get out of a pliant US leader, including weaker election security and cyber policy.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Congressman Adam Schiff, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow about Donald Trump’s apparent accidental admission that he talked about sanctions at his second meeting with Vladimir Putin, and concerns about what he may have said.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Richard Engel talks with Eugene Kaspersky, whose Kaspersky Lab anti-virus software is widely used around the world, including the United States, and who has come under increasing scrutiny and suspicion for his ties to Russian intelligence.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Richard Engel reports on the long history of espionage and agent recruitment between the United States and Russia.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Richard Engel reports on how, regardless of whether collusion with the Trump campaign is ever proven, Russia’s goal of sowing chaos and doubt in the American system is already working.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Richard Engel reports on how Russia was quick to arrest people who may have had knowledge of, or involvement in, interfering in the 2016 US presidential election.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Richard Engel talks with Russian Senator Andrey Klimov about why Russians feels US sanctions are unfair, unjust, and illegal.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Marc Johnson, former CIA officer, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about how Russia’s new interest in crypto-currencies like BitCoin may be a sign that they see it as a way for oligarchs to get around international sanctions.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell It took Donald Trump nearly two weeks to speak about Putin’s order to expel 755 Americans from the U.S. embassy in Moscow.  Instead of condemning the act, Trump thanked Putin for helping “cut our payroll” and again criticized the special counsel’s investigation.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Responding to Trump thanking Vladimir Putin for ousting U.S. diplomats from Moscow, MSNBC National Security Analyst said Trump favored the Russian leader over his own diplomats.

 

 

• Obama didn’t want to influence the election by starting an investigation but before Mr. Obama left he was afraid that evidence would be destroyed so he preserved it by leaving several duplicate clear trails of evidence about the Trump-Russian connections in case there was an investigation.

On June 23rd 2017 The Washington Post released an opus or a detailed lengthy report on Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault:  Early last August, an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House.  Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried “eyes only” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides.  Inside was an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladi­mir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.  But it went further.  The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.  At that point, the outlines of the Russian assault on the U.S. election were increasingly apparent.  Hackers with ties to Russian intelligence services had been rummaging through Democratic Party computer networks, as well as some Republican systems, for more than a year.  In July, the FBI had opened an investigation of contacts between Russian officials and Trump associates.  And on July 22, nearly 20,000 emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee were dumped online by WikiLeaks.

But at the highest levels of government, among those responsible for managing the crisis, the first moment of true foreboding about Russia’s intentions arrived with that CIA intelligence.  The material was so sensitive that CIA Director John Brennan kept it out of the President’s Daily Brief, concerned that even that restricted report’s distribution was too broad.  The CIA package came with instructions that it be returned immediately after it was read.  To guard against leaks, subsequent meetings in the Situation Room followed the same protocols as planning sessions for the Osama bin Laden raid.  It took time for other parts of the intelligence community to endorse the CIA’s view.  Only in the administration’s final weeks in office did it tell the public, in a declassified report, what officials had learned from Brennan in August — that Putin was working to elect Trump.

Over that five-month interval, the Obama administration secretly debated dozens of options for deterring or punishing Russia, including cyberattacks on Russian infrastructure, the release of CIA-gathered material that might embarrass Putin and sanctions that officials said could “crater” the Russian economy.  But in the end, in late December, Obama approved a modest package combining measures that had been drawn up to punish Russia for other issues — expulsions of 35 diplomats and the closure of two Russian compounds — with economic sanctions so narrowly targeted that even those who helped design them describe their impact as largely symbolic.

Obama also approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow.  The project, which Obama approved in a covert-action finding, was still in its planning stages when Obama left office.  It would be up to President Trump to decide whether to use the capability.

In political terms, Russia’s interference was the crime of the century, an unprecedented and largely successful destabilizing attack on American democracy.  It was a case that took almost no time to solve, traced to the Kremlin through cyber-forensics and intelligence on Putin’s involvement.  And yet, because of the divergent ways Obama and Trump have handled the matter, Moscow appears unlikely to face proportionate consequences.

“The punishment did not fit the crime,” said Michael McFaul, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia for the Obama administration from 2012 to 2014.  “Russia violated our sovereignty, meddling in one of our most sacred acts as a democracy — electing our president.  The Kremlin should have paid a much higher price for that attack.  And U.S. policymakers now — both in the White House and Congress — should consider new actions to deter future Russian interventions.”  The Senate this month passed a bill that would impose additional election- and Ukraine-related sanctions on Moscow and limit Trump’s ability to lift them.  The measure requires House approval, however, and Trump’s signature.

The CIA breakthrough came at a stage of the presidential campaign when Trump had secured the GOP nomination but was still regarded as a distant long shot.  Clinton held comfortable leads in major polls, and Obama expected that he would be transferring power to someone who had served in his Cabinet.  The intelligence on Putin was extraordinary on multiple levels, including as a feat of espionage.  For spy agencies, gaining insights into the intentions of foreign leaders is among the highest priorities.  But Putin is a remarkably elusive target.  A former KGB officer, he takes extreme precautions to guard against surveillance, rarely communicating by phone or computer, always running sensitive state business from deep within the confines of the Kremlin.

Russia experts had begun to see a troubling pattern of propaganda in which fictitious news stories, assumed to be generated by Moscow, proliferated across social-media platforms.  Officials at the State Department and FBI became alarmed by an unusual spike in requests from Russia for temporary visas for officials with technical skills seeking permission to enter the United States for short-term assignments at Russian facilities.  At the FBI’s behest, the State Department delayed approving the visas until after the election.

Meanwhile, the FBI was tracking a flurry of hacking activity against U.S. political parties, think tanks and other targets.  Russia had gained entry to DNC systems in the summer of 2015 and spring of 2016, but the breaches did not become public until they were disclosed in a June 2016 report by The Post.

Obama’s approach often seemed reducible to a single imperative: Don’t make things worse.  As brazen as the Russian attacks on the election seemed, Obama and his top advisers feared that things could get far worse.  They were concerned that any pre-election response could provoke an escalation from Putin.  Moscow’s meddling to that point was seen as deeply concerning but unlikely to materially affect the outcome of the election.  Far more worrisome to the Obama team was the prospect of a cyber-assault on voting systems before and on Election Day.  They also worried that any action they took would be perceived as political interference in an already volatile campaign.  By August, Trump was predicting that the election would be rigged.  Obama officials feared providing fuel to such claims, playing into Russia’s efforts to discredit the outcome and potentially contaminating the expected Clinton triumph.  Before departing for an August vacation to Martha’s Vineyard, Obama instructed aides to pursue ways to deter Moscow and proceed along three main paths: Get a high-confidence assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies on Russia’s role and intent; shore up any vulnerabilities in state-run election systems; and seek bipartisan support from congressional leaders for a statement condemning Moscow and urging states to accept federal help.  The administration encountered obstacles at every turn.

The Situation Room is actually a complex of secure spaces in the basement level of the West Wing.  A video feed from the main room courses through some National Security Council offices, allowing senior aides sitting at their desks to see — but not hear — when meetings are underway.  As the Russia-related sessions with Cabinet members began in August, the video feed was shut off.  The last time that had happened on a sustained basis, officials said, was in the spring of 2011 during the run-up to the U.S. Special Operations raid on bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan.  The blacked-out screens were seen as an ominous sign among lower-level White House officials who were largely kept in the dark about the Russia deliberations even as they were tasked with generating options for retaliation against Moscow.  Much of that work was led by the Cyber Response Group, an NSC unit with representatives from the CIA, NSA, State Department and Pentagon.

The early options they discussed were ambitious.  They looked at sectorwide economic sanctions and cyberattacks that would take Russian networks temporarily offline.  One official informally suggested — though never formally proposed — moving a U.S. naval carrier group into the Baltic Sea as a symbol of resolve.  What those lower-level officials did not know was that the principals and their deputies had by late September all but ruled out any pre-election retaliation against Moscow.  They feared that any action would be seen as political and that Putin, motivated by a seething resentment of Clinton, was prepared to go beyond fake news and email dumps.

The FBI had detected suspected Russian attempts to penetrate election systems in 21 states, and at least one senior White House official assumed that Moscow would try all 50, officials said.  Some officials believed the attempts were meant to be detected to unnerve the Americans.  The patchwork nature of the United States’ 3,000 or so voting jurisdictions would make it hard for Russia to swing the outcome, but Moscow could still sow chaos.  “We turned to other scenarios” the Russians might attempt, said Michael Daniel, who was cybersecurity coordinator at the White House, “such as disrupting the voter rolls, deleting every 10th voter [from registries] or flipping two digits in everybody’s address.”  Read the full report here.

So Mr. Obama basically felt like he was in between a rock and a hard place.  With Trump already claiming that the election was rigged, Mr. Obama felt as though if he went too far with letting the public know that the Russians were actually trying to rig the election but in Trump’s favor then it would appear that Mr. Obama was trying to rig the election in Hillary’s favor.  And he, and everyone else, thought Hillary would win and she could punish the Russians more after the election.  Or, on the other hand, if Mr. Obama just went full blown with punishing the Russians at that time for trying to rig the election in Trump’s favor then the Russians might do a lot more, cranking it up 5 notches, with some real serious damage behind it, possibly making it so that we could not vote at all or worse and Mr. Obama didn’t want to make it worse.  Mr. Obama did what he could without making things worse.  I see the problem, some do not agree with Mr. Obama’s decision and think that he should have done much more.  I am not sure whether I agree or disagree because it is such a difficult dilemma but I do see the dilemma.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow reviews some of the highlights of a lengthy, eye-opening report from The Washington Post about the reaction of the Obama administration to the news that Vladimir Putin was directing a cyberattack on the U.S. election.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Ellen Nakashima, national security reporter for The Washington Post, talks with Rachel Maddow about her reporting on Russia’s cyberattack on the U.S. election and the Obama administration’s deliberations on retaliation.

On All In with Chris Hayes Chris Hayes, Greg Miller and Malcolm Nance discuss the Washington Post report that details the Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Wired Magazine reports on How An Entire Nation Became Russia’s Test Lab for Cyberwar and how Russia’s Cyberwar on Ukraine is a blueprint for what’s to come.

 

 

• Trump did force almost 50 US attorneys to resign from the Justice Department because, the claim was, he thinks maybe they are the leakers.  But also one of those US attorneys, who had originally been asked to stay, the US attorney from New York, Preet Bharara, was involved in multiple investigations such as Trump, Russian money laundering through certain banks, Fox News and Tom Price, who Trump appointed as Health and Human Services Secretary, over his unethical stock trades.  Preet Bharara refused to resign and made Trump fire him and that allowed him to stay an additional 24 hours so some people are speculating about what Preet Bharara did during that 24 hours such as perhaps he may have preserved some evidence.  Trump is appointing one of his friends, the former head of Fox News Roger Ailes’ personal attorney, Marc Mukasey, as the New York US attorney.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow notes that Donald Trump is looking at candidates from his own lawyer’s firm and Rudy Giuliani’s firm to fill prominent US attorney positions that would likely have jurisdiction over investigations into Trump and his associates.

Preet Bharara, the prominent former US attorney ousted by Trump, said that he reported to the Justice Department efforts by the president to “cultivate some kind of relationship” with him, describing phone calls from Trump that made him increasingly uncomfortable.  In a television interview, Bharara said he reported one of the phone calls to the chief of staff for Attorney General Jeff Sessions because it made him uneasy.  He said he was dismissed from the important prosecutor’s job in Manhattan only 22 hours after he finally refused to take a call from the president.  The recollections add a new dimension to the intensifying debate over Trump’s firing of former FBI director James B. Comey, who was removed from his job after private conversations with Trump that he viewed as inappropriate.  Comey testified before Congress that Trump told him he hoped the FBI would drop an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.  Trump has said Comey’s version of events is untrue.  Bharara sat behind Comey throughout the explosive testimony, which led Democrats to suggest that Trump may have obstructed justice.  Bharara told host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” that Comey’s account “felt a little bit like deja vu.”  “And I’m not the FBI director,” he said, “but I was the chief federal law enforcement officer in Manhattan with jurisdiction over a lot of things including, you know, business interests and other things in New York.”  Here on The Rachel Maddow Show Senator Chuck Schumer, top Democrat in the Senate, talks with Rachel Maddow about possible explanations for why Donald Trump fired Preet Bharara after first telling him he could stay as US attorney.  And Rachel Maddow relays a new report claiming that Donald Trump’s lawyer, Marc Kasowitz boasted of getting former US Attorney Preet Bharara fired by telling Donald Trump, “This guy is going to get you.”

Even though Trump managed to stop US Attorney Preet Bharara’s Russian money laundering (which is a crime) investigations by firing him, the Senate is following the money too and Trump can not stop the Senate by firing them.  The Senate Intelligence Committee has requested information about Trump and his top aides from a financial intelligence unit in the Treasury Department, the agency, known as FinCEN, imposed a $10 million civil penalty on Trump Taj Mahal in 2015 for multiple violations of money laundering laws.  The Senate Intelligence Committee wants to see any information relevant to its Russia investigation the Treasury agency has gathered, including evidence that might include possible money laundering.  Also at issue: to what extent, if at all, people close to Vladimir Putin have invested in Trump’s real estate empire.

 

 

• Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson testified in House Intelligence Committee hearing on Russia June 21, 2017.  Johnson, who served from 2013 to 2017 under former President Barack Obama, met with the Senate Intelligence Committee last week behind closed doors.  In June 21st hearing before the House, Johnson will likely face questions about his agency’s reports about Russia’s hacking leading up to the 2016 election and before Inauguration Day, and about whether those assessments have changed.  Johnson’s written statement came as part of the testimony Johnson prepared for his June 21st appearance before the House Intelligence Committee, which details when intelligence officials first detected interference into the country’s election infrastructure.  Johnson’s written statement reads in part: “In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated cyberattacks on our Nation for the purpose of influencing our election – plain and simple. Now, the key question for the President and Congress is: what are we going to do to protect the American people and their democracy from this kind of thing in the future?”  Read Johnson’s full statement here.

The Russians interfered with our election to help Trump get elected by hacking into the DNC and other places.  Leaked top-secret NSA report details Russian hacking effort days before 2016 election.  On June 13th 2017 Bloomberg reported that Russia’s cyberattack on the U.S. electoral system before Donald Trump’s election was far more widespread than has been publicly revealed, including incursions into voter databases and software systems in almost twice as many states as previously reported.  In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data.  The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database.  Details of the wave of attacks, in the summer and fall of 2016, were provided by three people with direct knowledge of the US investigation into the matter.  In all, the Russian hackers hit systems in a total of 39 states, one of them said.

The hacking of state and local election databases in 2016 was more extensive than previously reported, including at least one successful attempt to alter voter information, and the theft of thousands of voter records that contain private information like partial Social Security numbers, current and former officials tell TIME.  In one case, investigators found there had been a manipulation of voter data in a county database but the alterations were discovered and rectified, two sources familiar with the matter tell TIME.  Investigators have not identified whether the hackers in that case were Russian agents.  The fact that private data was stolen from states is separately providing investigators a previously unreported line of inquiry in the probes into Russian attempts to influence the election.  In Illinois, more than 90% of the nearly 90,000 records stolen by Russian state actors contained drivers license numbers, and a quarter contained the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers, according to Ken Menzel, the General Counsel of the State Board of Elections.  Congressional investigators are probing whether any of this stolen private information made its way to the Trump campaign, two sources familiar with the investigations tell TIME.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow looks at how the US voting system consists of thousands of individual precincts, making it harder to hack as a whole, but also more difficult to monitor and defend, making assessment of Russia’s 2016 hack tricky.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Congressman Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow about the effort to understand the extent and intent of the 2016 Russian election attack and preparing for what might come next.  The Russians are not our friends, they are undermining our government.  But this whole thing is much more involved and complicated than just that and it is not over yet there is a whole net of things still going on and we don’t know exactly where this ends yet.

And on top of Russians hacking us, now a Republican marketing firm has leaked personal data of 200 million voters.  A data firm once contracted by the Republican National Committee exposed birth dates, emails, physical addresses, religion, race, and political leanings for more than half the US population.  According to a Gizmodo report, the RNC and other GOP organizations contracted the conservative firm Deep Root Analytics to gather audience data from multiple sources, such as Republican super PACs and Reddit, that were intended to be used for targeted political ads.  That aggregated data was found on an insecure server that wasn’t password protected and could be accessed by anyone with the URL.  Cybersecurity analyst Chris Vickery with UpGuard found more than a terabyte of data Deep Root had gathered from multiple Republican-linked sources on an Amazon cloud server, along with other data,  some proprietary, from several millions of dollars worth of GOP contracts, including the GOP Data Trust, Gizmodo reported.  Deep Root claims the company wasn’t hacked and the data exposure was the result of a vulnerability in a recent security update.  Vickery also discovered a trove of voter data belonging to 191 million people in 2015.  Deep Root’s founding data scientist Alex Lundry used to work on Jeb Bush’s and Mitt Romney’s campaigns, and the company was one of three to work on Trump’s presidential campaign.  Among the personal contact information found on the insecure server were how individual voters felt about certain hot button issues such as stem cell research, gun ownership, and abortion.  The exposed data poses a privacy threat for voters, especially if it gets in the wrong hands before a security patch is released.  And it provides easy access for Russians, just copy and paste and they’re all set for the next election.

 

 

• And then 117 days into Trump’s Presidency we finally got it, Deputy US Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Bob Mueller on May 17th 2017 to be a special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.  “In my capacity as acting Attorney General, I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a Special Counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,” Rosenstein said in a statement.  “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted.  I have made no such determination.  What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”  The White House was not even informed of Rosenstein’s actions until a half hour after Rosenstein was done.  Mueller led the FBI for 12 years under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.  He is second only to J. Edgar Hoover for longest tenure for an FBI chief.  Lawrence O’Donnell talks to a former assistant Watergate special prosecutor and a former FBI agent who served under former FBI Director Robert Mueller.  Both Democrats and Republicans alike have approved of the choice of Bob Mueller to be the special counsel to oversee the Trump Russia investigation.  Rachel Maddow does have some questions though.  A coverup did not work for Nixon and it probably will not work for Trump either but only time will tell.  Or they could just go ahead and impeach Trump now but I digress.  Rachel Maddow explains the history of Special Counsels.

On June 2nd The Associated Press reported that the special counsel investigating possible ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia’s government has taken over a separate criminal probe involving former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and may expand his inquiry to investigate the roles of the attorney general and deputy attorney general in the firing of FBI Director James Comey, The Associated Press has learned.  The Justice Department’s criminal investigation into Manafort, who was forced to resign as Trump campaign chairman in August 2016 amid questions over his business dealings years ago in Ukraine, predated the 2016 election and the counterintelligence probe that in July 2016 began investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Trump.  The move to consolidate the matters, involving allegations of misuse of Ukrainian government funds, indicates that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is assuming a broad mandate in his new role running the investigation.  No one familiar with the matter has been willing to discuss the scope of his investigation on the record because it is just getting underway and because revealing details could complicate its progress.

Also On June 2nd Reuters reported that Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating possible ties between the Trump election campaign and Russia, is expanding his probe to assume control of a grand jury investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, three sources told Reuters.  The move means Mueller’s politically charged inquiry will now look into Flynn’s paid work as a lobbyist for a Turkish businessman in 2016, in addition to contacts between Russian officials and Flynn and other Trump associates during and after the November 8th 2016 presidential election.  Federal prosecutors in Virginia are investigating a deal between Flynn and Turkish businessman Ekim Alptekin as part of a grand jury criminal probe, according to a subpoena seen by Reuters.  And here Rachel Maddow reports on some of the prosecutorial accomplishments of Andrew Weissmann, who has left the fraud section of the criminal division of the Justice Department to join Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Trump-Russia affair.

One of Trump’s friends said he believes the President is considering dismissing special counsel Robert Mueller, who was appointed to lead the FBI investigation into Russia’s potential ties to the 2016 election.  Since being appointed special counsel in May, Mueller has built a team of formidable legal minds who’ve worked on everything from Watergate to Enron.  He has long been widely respected by many in Washington from both sides of the aisle, with many lawmakers praising Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein’s pick.  Trump technically has the authority to remove Mueller, either by ordering Rosenstein to fire him or ordering the regulations that govern his appointment repealed and then firing Mueller himself.  Rosenstein noted that the chain of command would have to run through him and said he was confident Mueller would have “sufficient independence.”  Later, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Rosenstein point blank: “If President Trump ordered you to fire the special counsel, what would you do?”  “I’m not going to follow any orders unless I believe those are lawful and appropriate orders,” Rosenstein said.  He noted he would need “good cause” to fire the special counsel, and added, “I am required to put that cause in writing.  If there were good cause I would consider it.  If there were not good cause, it wouldn’t matter to me what anybody says.”  Earlier, Rosenstein had said he did not see cause to fire Mueller.  But Rosenstein may have to recuse himself if he is declared a witness in the investigation, in that case Rachel Brand, the number 3 in the Justice Department, may replace Rosenstein.  Here on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, Donald Trump tweeted an apparent attack on his Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, another sign the president is more frustrated than ever with the Russia probe, as a new report says he’s yelling at White House TVs over coverage of the investigation.

Mueller is obviously doing his job too well for Trump, just like Comey was.  So then the situation would get back to Nixon’s firing of Cox which was called the Saturday Night Massacre, this one is just a slow several-weeks massacre rather than a one night massacre.  But Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, tweeted “If President fired Bob Mueller, Congress would immediately re-establish independent counsel and appoint Bob Mueller,” the California lawmaker tweeted.  “Don’t waste our time.”  If Trump does try to order Rosenstein or hires another Deputy Attorney General to fire Mueller that would turn a really bad situation into a catastrophe.  And Trump’s staff also thought that firing Mueller would turn a really bad situation into a catastrophe and they managed to talk Trump out of it, for now.  But if Trump does fire Mueller, of course, the Congress and Senate should immediately re-establish the independent counsel and appoint Bob Mueller.  But they should also immediately start the impeachment process too.

Here on The Rachel Maddow Show, Rachel Maddow shows what a rarity it is for an FBI director to be fired and runs through the series of failed explanations for Donald Trump’s firing of James Comey up to today’s refusal by Jeff Sessions to answer questions in the Senate.

Rachel Maddow looks at the emerging pattern of Trump White House officials who are using specious, non-legal excuses to refuse to answer certain questions in Trump=Russia Congressional hearings.

Senator Chuck Schumer, top Senate Democrat, talks with Rachel Maddow about Trump officials making non-legal excuses for not answering questions from members of Congress in the Trump-Russian investigation.

On June 14th 2017 the Washington Post reported that the special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.  The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.  Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.  Trump had received private assurances from then-FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation.  Officials say that changed shortly after Comey’s firing.

On June 14th 2017 the New York Times reported that Mueller has requested interviews with three high-ranking current or former intelligence officials, the latest indication that he will investigate whether Trump obstructed justice, a person briefed on the investigation said on June 14th 2017.  Mr. Mueller wants to question Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence; Admiral Michael S. Rogers, the head of the National Security Agency; and Richard Ledgett, the former N.S.A. deputy director.  None of the men were involved with Trump’s campaign.  But recent news reports have raised questions about whether Trump requested their help in trying to get James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, to end an investigation into the president’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn.  Last week, Mr. Coats and Admiral Rogers declined to answer questions before Congress about the matter.  Mr. Mueller’s office has also asked the N.S.A. for any documents or notes related to the agency’s interactions with the White House as part of the Russia investigation, according to an intelligence official.

A former senior official said Mr. Mueller’s investigation was looking at money laundering by Trump associates.  The suspicion is that any cooperation with Russian officials would most likely have been in exchange for some kind of financial payoff, and that there would have been an effort to hide the payments, probably by routing them through offshore banking centers.

Trump had almost certainly never heard the name Aaron Zebley before the announcement that the former FBI agent was joining the special counsel investigation into ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia.  But to those who have followed the arc of the bureau during the past twenty years, Zebley’s is a name that underscores just how far-reaching and dogged, and potentially long, the probe will likely be.  As Mueller begins investigating Russia’s interference in last year’s election and its possible links to Trump’s campaign, he is quietly recruiting lawyers and staff to the team.  It’s a team that contains some of the nation’s top investigators and leading experts on seemingly every aspect of the potential investigation, from specific crimes like money laundering and campaign finance violations to understanding how to navigate both sprawling globe-spanning cases and the complex local dynamics of Washington power politics.

From the list of hires, it’s clear, in fact, that Mueller is recruiting perhaps the most high-powered and experienced team of investigators ever assembled by the Justice Department.  His team began with three lawyers who also quickly left WilmerHale, the law firm where Mueller has also worked since he left the FBI in 2013, Zebley, James Quarles III, and Jeannie Rhee.  The rapid recruitment of Quarles attracted immediate attention: A famed litigator who was an assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate investigation, Quarles specialized in campaign finance research for the Watergate task force, which surely will be an area of focus for Mueller’s investigation.  (The FBI has been serving subpoenas regarding the finances of campaign adviser Michael Flynn and campaign chairman Paul Manafort, both of whom have retroactively registered as foreign agents, admitting that they were paid by foreign governments during the period when they were also advising Trump.)

More recently, Mueller has recruited Andrew Weissmann, his one-time general counsel at the FBI and a long-time adviser who once led the Justice Department’s fraud unit.  In the early 2000s, Weissmann also oversaw the Enron Task Force, the storied Justice Department unit that investigated the complex machinations of the failed energy giant.  Then Mueller added Michael Dreeben, who has worked for years in the Justice Department’s solicitor general’s office, which argues the government’s cases before the Supreme Court.  “Dreeben is 1 of the top legal & appellate minds at DOJ in modern times,” tweeted Preet Bharara, the former top Manhattan federal prosecutor.  That Mueller has sought his assistance attests both to the seriousness of his effort and the depth of the intellectual bench he is building.  Also, while the Special Counsel’s office has yet to make any formal announcements about Mueller’s team, it appears he has recruited an experienced Justice Department trial attorney, Lisa Page, a little-known figure outside the halls of Main Justice but one whose résumé boasts intriguing hints about where Mueller’s Russia investigation might lead.  Page has deep experience with money laundering and organized crime cases, including investigations where she’s partnered with an FBI task force in Budapest, Hungary, that focuses on eastern European organized crime.  That Budapest task force helped put together the still-unfolding money laundering case against Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash, a one-time business partner of Manafort.  On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow reviews the people known so far to have been hired by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to work with him on the Trump Russia investigation, and notes what their various qualifications say about the focus of the investigation.  Time Magazine has decleared Robert Mueller “The Lie Detector” and asks “Will Robert Mueller Separate Fact From Fiction?”

Here on All In with Chris Hayes Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has already expanded beyond Russia’s interference in the election to include possible obstruction of justice by the president and potential money laundering by his associates.

 

• August 1st 2017 as reported in Reuters:  A former US Justice Department official has become the latest lawyer to join special counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, a spokesman for the team confirmed.  Greg Andres started on Tuesday (August 1st 2017), becoming the 16th lawyer on the team, said Josh Stueve, a spokesman for the special counsel.

Most recently a white-collar criminal defense lawyer with New York law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, Andres, 50, served at the Justice Department from 2010 to 2012.  He was deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division, where he oversaw the fraud unit and managed the program that targeted illegal foreign bribery.

Mueller, who was appointed special counsel in May, is looking into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election, among other matters.  Congressional committees are also investigating the matter.  That Mueller continues to expand his team means the probe is not going to end anytime soon, said Robert Ray, who succeeded Kenneth Starr as independent counsel for the Whitewater investigation during the Clinton administration.  “It’s an indication that the investigation is going to extend well into 2018,” said Ray.  “Whether it extends beyond 2018 is an open question.”

The special counsel last month asked the White House to preserve all of its communications about a June 2016 meeting that included the president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.  Russian officials have denied meddling in the US election, and Trump denies any collusion by his campaign.

Among the cases Andres oversaw at the Justice Department was the prosecution of Texas financier Robert Allen Stanford, who was convicted in 2012 for operating an $8 billion Ponzi scheme.

Before that, Andres was a federal prosecutor in Brooklyn for over a decade, eventually serving as chief of the criminal division in the US attorney’s office there.  He prosecuted several members of the Bonanno organized crime family, one of whom was accused of plotting to have Andres killed.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Philip Rucker, Anita Kumar and Mike Allen talk about the new report from Reuters that Robert Mueller hired a former DOJ official who managed the program that targeted illegal foreign bribery.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow reports on the surprising departure of Peter Strzok, a prominent counter-espionage investigator who had been working on Robert Mueller’s Trump Russia investigation.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow pursues reporting on the departure of former FBI counter-espionage chief Peter Strzok from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump Russia investigation team, questioning the reason and what it might mean for Mueller’s effort.

 

• August 3rd 2017 Robert Mueller, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, has impaneled a grand jury in Washington, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday (August 3rd 2017).  The move means the probe is intensifying and could stretch “for months,” according to the newspaper.  Impaneling a grand jury suggests Mueller “believes he will need to subpoena records and take testimony from witnesses,” the Journal said.  It does not necessarily mean he will bring charges against Trump allies.

Trump lawyer John Dowd told NBC News the president’s legal team has been “cooperating with Bob Mueller and his staff since the first of June because we’re trying to get this thing over and done with.”

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III began using a grand jury in federal court in Washington several weeks ago as part of his investigation of possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, according to two people familiar with the inquiry.  The development is a sign that investigators continue to aggressively gather evidence in the case, and that Mueller is taking full control of a probe that predated him.

Mueller’s investigation now includes a look at whether Trump obstructed justice by firing FBI Director James B. Comey, as well as deep dives into financial and other dealings of former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

Federal prosecutors had previously been using a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia, and even before Mueller was appointed, had increased their activity, issuing subpoenas and taking other investigative steps.

Mueller has largely removed the original prosecutors from the case, replacing them with a formidable collection of legal talent and expertise in prosecuting national security, fraud and public corruption cases, arguing matters before the Supreme Court and assessing complicated legal questions.

In federal cases, a grand jury is not necessarily an indication that an indictment is imminent or even likely.  Instead, it is a powerful investigative tool that prosecutors use to compel witnesses to testify or force people or companies to turn over documents.

It’s unclear why Mueller chose to use a panel in the District, although there are practical reasons to do so.  The special counsel’s office is located in Southwest D.C. — much closer to the federal courthouse in the city than the one in Alexandria, Virginia.  Mueller also had previously worked in the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C., giving him some familiarity with the courthouse and the judges.  Experts said that Washington would be the appropriate place to convene a grand jury to examine actions taken by Trump since he became president and took up residence at the White House.  Many of the potential crimes Mueller’s team is investigating would have occurred in the District, such as allegations that Trump aides or advisers made false statements in disclosure records or lied to federal agents.  The Post has previously reported that Mueller is investigating whether the president tried to obstruct justice leading up to his firing of Comey.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Del Quentin Wilber, Justice Department reporter for the Wall Street Journal, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about the Journal’s reporting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has switched to using a Washington, D.C. grand jury and what that means for the investigation.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Paul Butler, former federal prosecutor, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about what Special Counsel Robert Mueller may be looking ahead to in the Trump Russia investigation with his switch to a grand jury in Washington, D.C.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Paul Butler, former federal prosecutor, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about the difference between Robert Mueller using an existing grand jury or impaneling a new one for his own purposes.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Special Counsel Robert Mueller is reportedly issuing subpoenas through a DC grand jury in the Russia probe.  If subpoenaed to testify under oath, will Trump tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?  Is he even capable?  Lawrence O’Donnell examines.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Reporting suggests that the Special Counsel is probing Trump’s financial ties to Russia, a grand jury is issuing subpoenas, and 10 senior FBI officials could testify in Mueller’s obstruction case.  Mieke Eoyang, Ron Klain, and Alex Whiting join Lawrence O’Donnell.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Deputy Special Counsel in the Scooter Libby case, Peter Zeidenberg, and NBC National Security Analyst Jeremy Bash discuss how cases like this work and how a grand jury operates.

August 4th 2017 Special Counsel Robert Mueller has tapped multiple grand juries, including juries in Washington and Virginia, in an effort to gather evidence in the ongoing federal investigation into Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election, three sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.  The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday (August 3rd 2017) that Mueller had impanelled a separate grand jury in Washington, but sources familiar with the matter say that Mueller is using existing grand juries in both Washington and Virginia.

On All In with Chris Hayes The California Democrat says that ‘drip by drip, people are finding out that there is more’ to the Russia investigation than some people think.

 

• August 3rd 2017 as reported in The Washington Post:  Two bipartisan pairs of senators unveiled legislation Thursday (August 3rd 2017) to prevent President Trump from firing special counsel Robert S. Mueller III without cause — or at least a reason good enough to convince a panel of federal judges.

Senators have raised concerns that the president might try to rearrange his administration to get rid of Mueller, who is spearheading a probe of Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election and any possible collusion between the Kremlin and members of the Trump campaign and transition teams.

Mueller’s probe has been advancing, despite the president’s attempts to discredit the probe as an illegitimate “witch hunt.”  He impaneled a grand jury in D.C. a few weeks ago, according to a report out Thursday (August 3rd 2017).  The case has already produced subpoenas, from a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia that issued them in relation to former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s business and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

While Trump cannot fire Mueller directly, many have raised concerns in recent weeks that he might seek to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who recused himself from all campaign-related matters, including the Russia probe.  Sessions’s deputy, Rod J. Rosenstein, said he would not fire Mueller without cause — but a new attorney general could supersede his authority.

The blowback from Congress to Trump’s public criticism of Sessions was sharp and substantial, and his allies in the GOP told the president to back off.  Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) even indicated that he would not make time in the Senate schedule to consider a new attorney general nominee.  This week, there have been reports that new White House chief of staff John F. Kelly told Sessions he would not have to worry about losing his job.

But that has not quieted the concerns of the Democrats and Republicans behind the latest efforts to safeguard Mueller — and, by extension, his Russia probe — from presidential interference.  “The Mueller situation really gave rise to our thinking about how we can address this, address the current situation,” said Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), the co-author of one of the proposals.  He called the effort “a great opportunity, in perpetuity, for us to be able to communicate to the American people that actions were appropriate — or if not, then not,” if an administration ever attempts to terminate a special counsel’s term.

The two proposals — one from Tillis and Senator Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) and the other from Senators Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) — each seek to check the executive branch’s ability to fire a special counsel, by putting the question to a three-judge panel from the federal courts.  They differ in when that panel gets to weigh in on the decision.

Graham and Booker’s proposal, which also has backing from Judiciary Committee Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), would require the judges panel to review any attorney general’s decision to fire a special counsel before that firing could take effect.  Tillis and Coons’ proposal would let the firing proceed according to current regulations, which they codify in the bill — but the fired special counsel would have the right to contest the administration’s decision in court.  In that scenario, the judges panel would have two weeks from the day the special counsel’s case is filed to complete their review and determine whether the termination was acceptable.  Tillis and Coons, who pulled their bill together over the past two days, explained the difference as one to ensure that the legislation does not run afoul of constitutional separation of powers.  Both senators, as well as Graham, said they expect they may merge their efforts after lawmakers return to Washington in September.  “I think we maybe can have a meeting of the minds.  I really appreciate them doing it,” Graham said Thursday (August 3rd 2017) of Tillis and Coons’s bill.  “I just have a different way of doing it.”

In either guise, the bill effectively would limit the president’s authority to hire and fire special counsels — a privilege that fell more squarely under the executive’s purview after Congress let an independent-counsel law, established in the wake of the Watergate scandal, expire in 1999, following Kenneth Starr’s investigation of President Bill Clinton.  The lawmakers are not expecting that the president will like or support either proposal to protect the special counsel from being fired without cause.  But they say they are convinced that there is enough support to pass such a law, even over Trump’s objections, because of the number of Republicans and Democrats speaking out in defense of Mueller and his probe.

On All In with Chris Hayes There are now two bipartisan bills in the Senate aiming to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller from any action by President Trump or his subordinates to fire him.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Senator Chris Coons, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about new legislation he has drafted with Senator Thom Tillis to make sure that Donald Trump is not able to get rid of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his legal dream team.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Trump has repeatedly called the Russia investigation a ‘witch hunt.’  But the second in command at the Justice Department is defending that investigation’s Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Report: Trump’s communicating with Mueller through his lawyers.  A new USA Today report says Trump is communicating with Russia probe Special Counsel Robert Mueller through his legal team.  Just how unprecedented would that be?  Our panel reacts.

 

• August 12th 2017 as reported in The New York Times:  In a sign that the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election will remain a continuing distraction for the White House, the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is in talks with the West Wing about interviewing current and former senior administration officials, including the recently ousted White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, according to three people briefed on the discussions.

Mr. Mueller has asked the White House about specific meetings, who attended them and whether there are any notes, transcripts or documents about them, two of the people said.  Among the matters Mr. Mueller wants to ask the officials about is President Trump’s decision in May to fire the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, the two people said.  That line of questioning will be important as Mr. Mueller continues to investigate whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice in the dismissal of Mr. Comey.

No interviews have been scheduled, but in recent weeks Mr. Mueller’s investigation has appeared to intensify.  Late last month, he took the aggressive step of executing a search warrant at the Alexandria, Virginia, home of Paul J. Manafort, Mr. Trump’s former campaign chairman.  Legal experts say Mr. Mueller may be trying to put pressure on Mr. Manafort to cooperate with the investigation.

Although it has been clear for months that Mr. Mueller would interview Mr. Trump’s closest advisers, the recent inquiries come as the president is heading into the fall pushing his priorities in Congress, including a tax overhaul, with the constant distraction of a federal investigation.

On All In with Chris Hayes Special Counsel Robert Mueller is ‘in talks with the West Wing about interviewing current and former senior administration officials,’ including Reince Priebus, reports the New York Times.

Trump was so stupid as to claim he was completely vindicated after Comey testified that Trump was not under investigation at the time when Comey was in the FBI, as though the fact that Trump was not under investigation at that time could not change.  Well, now it has changed and Trump is now under criminal investigation, one can not get any more under investigation than Trump is right now.  So what does Trump have to say now, all they can talk about are illegal leaks, which are not actually illegal because they are not classified information, so they are just leaks and not the main issue.  Trump brought this on himself, so obviously the more Trump tries to get rid of the situation, the more he threatens to fire people, the more he tweets, the worse he makes it for himself and the faster he will be impeached, so have at it Trump.  The president of the United States is not above the law.  Are you tired of winning yet, Trump?

 

 

• May 9th Trump fired FBI Director James B. Comey who was investigating ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.  Basically doing that caused people in the US, especially people in elected office, to freak out and go to DEFCON 3.  OMG (Oh My GOD), Holy Crap, even Nixon never fired an FBI Director but he did fire Archibald Cox, a special prosecutor appointed by the Attorney General to investigate the Watergate scandal.  Then the comparison was made between Trump’s firing of Comey and Nixon’s firing of Cox which was called the Saturday Night Massacre because on the night of Saturday, October 20, 1973 Nixon ordered Cox’s firing.  However, Nixon’s Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, refused and resigned and his deputy, William Ruckelshaus, who then became acting Attorney General, refused and resigned.  That left Robert Bork, the Solicitor General, as the highest-ranking official in the Justice Department.  Bork apparently wanted to keep his job and finally carried out Nixon’s order and fired Cox.  Trump claimed that Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was supposed to be recused from all of this, and Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein recommended that Comey be fired.  So Trump asked them to write a letter explaining.  Then Rosenstein threatened to resign after the narrative emerged from the White House on Tuesday evening casting Rosenstein as a prime mover of the decision to fire Comey and that Trump acted only on his recommendation.  That’s where Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre comparison comes in and some are even calling Trump’s version the Tuesday Night Massacre but Rosenstein has not resigned, yet.  Then Trump contradicted that lie and claimed that he decided alone to fire Comey regardless of any recommendations.  Pick a lie and stick to it.  Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre was the beginning of the end for Nixon and firing Comey may be the beginning of the end for Trump.

Comey had requested more resources for the Russia investigation shortly before he was fired.  And Comey’s firing came just as he was stepping up his investigation, Comey had recently began getting daily reports instead of weekly reports.  Then it came out on May 16th in the New York Times that Trump asked Comey, on February 14th, to end the investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, the day after Flynn resigned.  “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Trump told Comey.  Comey did not say anything to Trump about curtailing the investigation.  But Comey wrote a memo about nearly every interaction with Trump.  Comey’s notes, written immediately after the meeting with Trump, were part of a detailed paper trail the FBI director had built documenting Trump’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation which Comey then shared with senior FBI officials.  Comey had created similar memos in the past and was known by his closest advisors to have the habit to document conversations that he believed would later be called into question.  But they decided to keep the details of the memo secret so the Russia investigation would not be affected.

And, as if that was not bad enough, the nation’s top intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, told associates in March that Trump asked him if he could intervene with then-FBI Director James B. Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials.  And Trump asked Daniel Coats as well as another nation’s top intelligence official in March to help him push back against the FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government.  Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Admiral Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.  Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate.

Trump sought the assistance of Coats and Rogers after FBI Director James B. Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 20th that the FBI was investigating “the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”  Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials.  It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats.  Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI’s work.  A spokesman for CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who was present and was a witness during Trump’s meeting with Daniel Coats, declined to comment on the closed-door discussions.  Basically Trump asked any and everybody high enough in government that he thought might be able to get it done to stop the Russia investigations.  Was there anybody that he didn’t ask?

Trump’s original excuse for firing Comey was Comey’s behavior with Clinton’s emails during the campaign, it was all about Hillary Clinton’s emails, that Comey had mishandled the probe into Clinton’s private email server.  Really?  Who does Trump think is going to believe that, especially since Trump has long maintained Comey was right to release the letter about Clinton’s emails.  That is an insult to one’s intelligence.  At the time I thought Mr. Obama should fire Comey over the Clinton email issue because Comey was in front of microphones talking about it when he should not have been and then there was the letter about reopening the case when there should not have been because he found nothing and that was just days before the election.  Yes, I felt then that Comey should have been fired.  But for Trump to fire Comey now in the middle of investigating Trump’s campaign connections with Russia, no, that is nothing more than an attempt at a coverup.  Firing Comey was all about the Russian connections investigations, Comey was getting too close and working too hard on the investigation for Trump’s liking.  Then in an interview with NBC’s Lester Holt, on May 11th 2017, Trump just came out and admitted that he fired Comey because of the Russia investigation.

Trump claimed that Comey told him 3 times, including once during a dinner meeting that Comey requested, that he was not under investigation.  But if Comey did tell Trump that he’s not under investigation, that would have been a startling breach of protocol.  I, for one, did not believe that Comey told Trump that, not for one minute.  As a matter of fact it was reported by the New York Times on May 18th that Trump called Comey and asked him when federal authorities were going to put out word that Trump was not personally under investigation.  Comey told Trump that if he wanted to know details about the bureau’s investigations, he should not contact him directly but instead follow the proper procedures and have the White House counsel send any inquiries to the Justice Department.  Then FBI officials leaked that Trump lied (again), 1st, Trump requested the January 27th dinner meeting with Comey not the other way around.  The dinner meeting came a day after the White House learned that Flynn had been interviewed by FBI agents about his phone calls with the Russians and Sally Yates (see above) warned the White House that Flynn could be subject to blackmail by the Russians on January 26th.  And that, 2nd, Comey did not tell Trump that he was not under investigation.  And that Trump demanded a loyalty pledge from Comey but did not get it.  After Trump fired Comey Trump threatened Comey in a tweet that said “James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”.  Trump knows that recordings would prove that Trump is lying.  And I, for one, hope that there are recordings.  Then June 22nd 2017 the Washington Post reported that Trump said that he does not have “tapes” of his private conversations with then-FBI Director James B. Comey, finally ending a mystery of his own creation that began when he suggested that he had privately recorded their talks.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Michael Beschloss, NBC News presidential historian, talks with Rachel Maddow about Donald Trump’s habit of making empty threats about tape recordings, and famous actual presidential tapes.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Donald Trump has finally admitted that he does not have recordings of his conversations but hints at conspiracy theories.  Lawrence O’Donnell says he only tweeted the initial claim that put him in this messy position because Trump can’t keep himself from lying.

Comey was invited to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee at a closed-door hearing on May 16th but Comey declined the invitation to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee in a closed meeting for scheduling reasons, said a spokesman for Democratic Senator Mark Warner.  However, Comey will soon speak privately with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, an official familiar with the matter told Reuters that Comey had agreed, in principle, to testify behind closed doors.  And if for some reason Comey changes his mind and decides not to testify behind closed doors, perhaps because he might want to testify in open session, then the Senate Intelligence Committee may issue a subpoena to compel Comey’s attendance to testify.  But either way we may learn the whole truth in time.  Then it was announced that the Former FBI director James Comey will testify in an open hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee at some point after Memorial Day, the committee announced May 19th.  May 31st 2017 it was announced that Fired FBI Director James Comey is expected to testify in public before the Senate Intelligence Committee June 8th 2017 after having been “cleared for takeoff” by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a source close to Comey told NBC News.  I, for one, can not wait.  However, Trump is considering whether to invoke executive privilege, which Trump could try to do to block Comey from testifying.  And if Trump does try to do that then the Congress and/or the Senate needs to just go ahead and impeach Trump now, why wait.  But Comey has indicated that he wants to testify and Comey is now a private citizen, so he doesn’t have to fear retaliation for defying Trump.  And Comey has an incentive to push back against the White House portrayal of him as unfit for office.  June 5th 2017, Trump will not invoke executive privilege to block former FBI Director James Comey’s much-anticipated testimony before Congress.

On June 7th 2017 former FBI Director James Comey submitted his prepared remarks to the Senate one day in advance of his appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee.  The Senate published the prepared statement on its website.  Comey will read his statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee but Buzzfeed points out 18 revelations from Comey’s Senate testimony about Trump and Russia.  And you can read Comey’s prepared statement here.

Here are several segments of the Rachel Maddow Show from 6/7/2017:  Here Rachel Maddow shows how top Trump intelligence officials refused to answer questions about Donald Trump trying to stop the Mike Flynn investigation, even though they had no legal justification for refusing to answer.

Here Rachel Maddow reviews some of the key points in former FBI Director James Comey’s opening statement to the Senate Intelligence Committee before his testimony Thursday.

Here Senator Ron Wyden, member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, calls James Comey’s description Donald Trump’s effort to quash the investigation into Mike Flynn “Watergate-level material.”

Here Matt Miller, former chief spokesman for the Justice Department, talks with Rachel Maddow about how James Comey’s opening statement to the Senate does not vindicate Donald Trump despite Trump’s lawyer’s claim to the contrary.

Here Nancy Gertner, former U.S. federal judge, talks with Rachel Maddow about whether the pressure Donald Trump exerted to end the FBI investigation into Mike Flynn was merely awkward or actually illegal.

Okay, here it is, FBI Director James Comey testifies in the House Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 US election.  This is the full transcript published in the Washington Post, if you just want to read it.  This is the full transcript and video published in the New York Times, if you want to flip between reading and watching it (the hearing is not called to order until 30:31 into the video).  This is James Comey’s full testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on NBC, if you just want to watch it.

Here are several reactions to and segments of shows about Comey’s June 8th 2017 testimony in the House Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

From All In with Chris Hayes: After watching James Comey testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) says there’s a clear case that the president committed obstruction of justice.

Dan Rather and Joy Reid join Chris Hayes to discuss James Comey’s Senate testimony, in which he repeatedly accused the president of lying.

Former assistant special Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman has no doubts about whether the president obstructed justice.  Find out who know what and when, and ‘you’d have corrupt intent up the wazoo here,’ he said.

From The Rachel Maddow Show: Rachel Maddow looks at how former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony in the Senate raised questions about A.G. Jeff Sessions, and created a serious obstruction of justice evidence problem for Donald Trump.

Rachel Maddow shows how a New York Times story criticized as false by James Comey is largely corroborated by other news outlets’ reporting as well as Senate testimony by former DNI James Clapper. So what is he saying they got wrong?

Michael Schmidt, New York Times reporter whose work was central to today’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, talks with Rachel Maddow about how Donald Trump’s lawyer got the Comey memo timeline wrong in his accusation against the New York Times.

Congressman Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow about how James Comey’s testimony in the Senate informs interviews the House intends to pursue in its investigation.

From The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell: Donald Trump just lived through the darkest day he’s experienced in the White House as former FBI Director James Comey called him and his spokespeople liars. Lawrence O’Donnell explains how Comey’s rationale for keeping memos is because of Trump’s history of lying.

Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe joins Lawrence O’Donnell exclusively to explain why being accused of abuse of power could be just as bad for President Trump as being accused of obstruction of justice… both are impeachable offenses.

It’s James Comey’s words against the president’s words.  Who wins the credibility contest?  David Frum and John Heilemann join Lawrence O’Donnell to weigh in.

Trump also claimed that FBI employees had lost faith in Comey as an additional reason for firing Comey.  But testifying before a Senate Intelligence Committee May 11th Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe said no, “I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard.  I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity.”  He said Comey enjoyed “broad support within the FBI and still does to this day.”  He added, “The majority, the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep, positive connection to Director Comey.”  Trump was going to visit FBI headquarters but after learning that he would not be greeted warmly there Trump changed his mind.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow looks at evidence of Donald Trump’s long history of trying to intimidate people he doesn’t like with hollow threats of lawsuits, and notes the failure of his recent threat to file a complaint against James Comey as a setback in his attack on the FBI’s Trump Russia investigation.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow reports on how a letter from two Senate Judiciary Republicans to the FBI appears to be trying to set up a case to discredit the Trump Russia investigation, a familiar political tactic by those feeling the head of an investigation.

Grassley, Graham letter requesting FISA applications (pdf).

 

• July 24th 2017 as reported in The Washington Post:  Donald Trump’s pick to run the FBI represented New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for nearly a year before a mandatory retainer agreement was signed, according to records obtained by a New York City radio station.  Christopher Wray began representing Christie in September 2014 during the George Washington Bridge lane-closing investigation, but a formal agreement wasn’t approved until August 2015, WNYC reported Monday.

A spokesman for the state attorney general’s office said it had no comment.  Wray didn’t immediately respond to a request seeking comment.  Wray’s firm, Atlanta-based King & Spalding, has been paid $2.1 million since Christie hired him in 2014.  Three former Christie aides were convicted or pleaded guilty in the case, in which lanes on the world’s busiest bridge were closed to retaliate against a Democratic mayor who wouldn’t endorse Christie.  The governor himself was not charged.

Several lawyers who work with state government told the radio station the extended delay — which came while Christie was preparing for and then launching his failed presidential campaign — was unusual.  “Eleven months is a little on the long side — and in the very least, it’s kind of sloppy,” Jim Eisenhower, a Philadelphia attorney and former federal prosecutor told WNYC.  He said some lag time is expected because of government bureaucracy, but he had never heard of such a long period of time in his 30 years of practicing law.  American Bar Association and New Jersey court rules say terms of attorney retention should be communicated in writing “before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation.”  Wray is awaiting confirmation from the full US Senate after his nomination was approved Thursday by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Matt Katz, reporter for WNYC, talks with Rachel Maddow about the sketchy employment by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie of Donald Trump’s pick to replace James Comey as director of the FBI, Chris Wray.

 

 

• Some of the ties to Russia include crimes like Russian money laundering through banks and the stock market; and money laundering is a crime.  Trump was also $300 million in debt to one of those banks, Deutsche Bank.  Trump’s attorney general will inherit an investigation of Deutsche Bank related to stock trades for rich clients in Russia, where Trump says he plans to improve relations, and may have to deal with a possible multibillion-dollar penalty to the bank related to mortgage-bond investigations.

Trump’s dealings with Wall Street stretch back decades to his attempt to build an Atlantic City casino empire.  That badly timed push forced him to renegotiate with creditors when he couldn’t pay back billions of dollars in loans.  His major backers in that era included Citbank, Chase Manhattan Bank and Bankers Trust, a bank that was acquired by Deutsche Bank in 1999, and the debacle left a trail of angry lenders.  Deutsche Bank’s relationship with Trump actually predates its Bankers Trust purchase.  In 1998, a small group of its real-estate bankers led by Mike Offit underwrote a $125-million loan for renovations on Trump’s building at 40 Wall Street.  Trump showed up at Offit’s office, his reputation badly bruised.  Deutsche Bank’s fledgling property business, in operation for only a year at the time, was the only group willing to take on Trump, Offit said in an interview.  “I had one way to succeed, that was to make this thing big and profitable,” said Offit, who is now retired and has written a novel about Wall Street.  “If I was super conservative and wasn’t willing to do some unusual stuff, how was I going to compete?”

In 2005, the bank approved a $640 million construction loan so Trump could build his name-sake tower in Chicago. The tower, with dozens of multimillion-dollar condos, broke ground at the height of the real-estate boom.  As the project neared completion, the financial crisis hit, sending the global real-estate market crashing.  And when part of the loan came due, rather than pay it, Trump sued a lending consortium led by Deutsche Bank for $3 billion.  His suit argued that the financial crisis was equivalent to an earthquake, triggering a “force majeure” clause, which allows for a payback extension in extraordinary circumstances.  Deutsche Bank countersued, claiming Trump owed a $40 million payment, which was a personal guarantee on the debt.  The two later settled and, surprisingly, continued doing business together.  Today, Trump owes about $300 million to the bank, nearly half of his outstanding debt, according to a July analysis by Bloomberg.  That figure includes a $170-million loan Trump took out to finish his hotel in Washington.  He also has two mortgages against his Trump National Doral Miami resort and a loan against his tower in Chicago.  All four debts come due in 2023 and 2024.  Garten said the Chicago loan no longer has Trump’s personal guarantee because the project has been completed.

Deutsche Bank is at the centre of an escalating row on Capitol Hill after the German bank refused to respond to a congressional request for information about the bank’s examination of Donald Trump’s bank account and whether he had financial ties to Russia.  Maxine Waters, a top Democrat on the House financial services committee, has challenged Deutsche Bank’s legal rationale for refusing to volunteer information about the US president’s account and an internal review the bank conducted last year.  The Guardian reported in February that Deutsche Bank – whose clients include Trump’s daughter Ivanka; her husband, Jared Kushner; and Kushner’s mother –conducted a close internal examination last year of the Trump’s personal account and the accounts of his family to gauge whether there were any suspicious connections to Russia.

Deutsche Bank claimed in a response to the first congressional request that US laws prohibit it from sharing information about its customers to government agencies.  But Waters and four other Democrats said in a letter that was sent to Deutsche’s Washington attorneys this week that the German bank had misinterpreted the law and said privacy rules do not apply to requests made by Congress.  The Democrats’ letter cited a 2012 legal article written by one of Deutsche’s own lawyers that said privacy statutes do not clearly address how banks should handle congressional inquiries.  The Democrats are pushing for Deutsche Bank to confirm press reports – including the report in the Guardian – that the bank conducted a review of Trump’s account and the accounts of his family members into possible Russia ties.

The Guardian reported that the bank was looking for evidence of whether loans to Trump, which were agreed in highly unusual circumstances, may have been underpinned by financial guarantees from Moscow.  Sources inside Deutsche told the Guardian that no link was found.  The Democrats are also looking for information about a separate internal review of a trading scheme at Deutsche’s former Moscow branch – known as a mirror trading scheme – that allegedly allowed $10 billion to flow out of Russia.  It is still unclear who benefited from the scheme but Deutsche reportedly reviewed the matter internally.

Deutsche Bank appointed Richard Weber as Managing Director and Head of Anti-Financial Crime (AFC) for the Americas and Irwin Nack as Managing Director and Deputy Head of Anti-Financial Crime for the Americas.  Weber started on June 26 and will report to Philippe Vollot, Global Head of Anti-Financial Crime & Group Anti-Money Laundering Officer, and to Stuart Clarke, COO for the Americas.  Weber will also join the Global AFC Executive Committee.  Nack started at the bank in May and will report to Weber.  “I am honored and delighted that Richard and Irwin have accepted such critical and important positions at the bank,” said Vollot.  “Their additions represent a material enhancement to our AFC program and demonstrate the bank’s commitment to fighting financial crime.  Their arrival will reinforce the overall talent pool within the Chief Regulatory Office division and enhance the control environment.”

Deutsche Bank added 170 employees in the Anti-Financial Crime division in 2016 and expects to hire more than 600 additional staff in 2017.  Weber joins Deutsche Bank from the Internal Revenue Service, a bureau of the US Department of the Treasury, where he served as Chief of the Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CI) for the past five years.  Before IRS-CI, Weber was the Deputy Chief of the Investigation Division and Chief of the Major Economic Crimes Bureau in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.  He previously served as Chief of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section at the US Department of Justice and as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York.  Weber has more than 25 years of experience and is regarded as an expert on financial crime matters.  He is the recipient of the 2015 Presidential Rank Award, the highest civil service recognition that is awarded in the federal government.  He is also a two-time recipient of the Attorney General’s John Marshall Award, the highest honor for Justice Department lawyers.

Nack joins Deutsche Bank from the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ where he most recently was Head of Global Financial Crimes Advisory.  He was previously the bank’s Chief Compliance Officer for the Americas, a role he assumed after serving as Head of Bank Secrecy Act / Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) for the Americas.  Nack has more than 20 years of anti-financial crime experience and is an expert in AML.  Earlier in his career, he served as Investigative Counsel for the New York State Banking Department, the predecessor agency to the New York State Department of Financial Services and was as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office.  He spent five years in the Manhattan DA’s Office as a trial attorney prosecuting all levels of misdemeanor and felony criminal offences and subsequently transferred to the Investigations Division where he investigated and prosecuted complex financial crime cases.

Now why do you think Deutsche Bank is adding so much fire power to their Anti-Financial Crime & Group Anti-Money Laundering divisions and beefing up it’s staff by going from 170 employees to more than 600 additional staff after an internal review examination of Donald Trump’s bank accounts as to whether he had financial ties to Russia?  And why do you think Deutsche Bank is fighting the congressional request for information about the bank’s internal review examination of Trump’s bank accounts so hard?  Could it be that even though sources inside Deutsche Bank told the Guardian that no link was found that there actually was a link found?

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow reports that Deutsche Bank, at the center of a lot of questions about its business practices and loans made to both Donald Trump and Jared Kushner, has hired a new lawyer with a background in tax crimes and money laundering.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Senator Mark Warner, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow about progress in the Trump Russia investigation and the path forward, including processing 2000 pages of financial evidence with more on the way.

And there are other problems with Trump’s financial dealings.  Trump built his business empire in no small part with a lot of dirty money from a lot of dirty Russians as reported in the New Republic:  Trump’s Russian Laundromat:  How to use Trump Tower and other luxury high-rises to clean dirty money, run an international crime syndicate, and propel a failed real estate developer into the White House.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams A stunning report in The New Republic alleges that, whether Donald Trump knew it or not, for decades he made a large portion of his personal fortune from Russian mobsters & oligarchs.

July 19th 2017 as reported in the New York Times:  During the presidential campaign, Donald J. Trump pointed to his relationship with Deutsche Bank to counter reports that big banks were skeptical of doing business with him.  After a string of bankruptcies in his casino and hotel businesses in the 1990s, Trump became somewhat of an outsider on Wall Street, leaving the giant German bank among the few major financial institutions willing to lend him money.  Now that two-decades-long relationship is coming under scrutiny.  Banking regulators are reviewing hundreds of millions of dollars in loans made to Trump’s businesses through Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management unit, which caters to an ultrarich clientele, according to three people briefed on the review who were not authorized to speak publicly.  The regulators want to know if the loans might expose the bank to heightened risks.

Separately, Deutsche Bank has been in contact with federal investigators about the Trump accounts, according to two people briefed on the matter.  And the bank is expecting to eventually have to provide information to Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the federal investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.  It was not clear what information the bank might ultimately provide.  Generally, the bank is seen as central to understanding Trump’s finances since it is the only major financial institution that continues to conduct sizable business with him.  Deutsche Bank has also lent money to Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, and to his family real estate business.

Although Deutsche Bank recently landed in legal trouble for laundering money for Russian entities — paying more than $600 million in penalties to New York and British regulators — there is no indication of a Russian connection to Trump’s loans or accounts at Deutsche Bank, people briefed on the matter said.  The bank, which declined to comment, scrutinizes its accounts for problematic ties as part of so-called “know your customer” banking rules and other requirements.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams In his stunning interview with The New York Times, Trump said if Special Counsel investigates too deep into his finances that would be a ‘red line.’ Charlie Sykes & Eugene Robinson react.

 

 

• Even, Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal attorney is under investigation as part of the congressional probes into ties between Trump’s campaign and Russia.  Michael Cohen, who has been a close adviser to Trump for years and was a campaign surrogate, confirmed that the House and Senate intelligence committees requested “information and testimony” from him, but he chose not to comply.  Here on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, Donald Trump’s lawyer now has a lawyer for the Russia investigation, as Trump himself hires another attorney: this one, a high-profile criminal attorney, as the special counsel appears to expands his probe.  Max Boot and David Cay Johnston join Lawrence O’Donnell.  When your lawyers lawyer up you know you’re in trouble.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow looks at the oddly aggressive streak in Donald Trump’s legal team and reports on an angry meltdown by the head of Trump’s legal team, Marc Kasowitz, in which Kasowitz replied to a stranger’s e-mailed criticism with curses and threats.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell ProPublica reports Trump’s lawyer Marc Kasowitz doesn’t have a security clearance to handle classified info in the Russia case, and Lawrence O’Donnell says he’ll never get one after sending profanity-laced email threats.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams The president has added yet another lawyer to his outside counsel team as news breaks that his son didn’t share everything there was to know about his June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow shows how Donald Trump’s lawyer Jay Sekulow, who is touted as a superior communicator, is producing a streak of unforced errors and gaffes with his appearances on TV representing Trump.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow shares reporting on how Trump re-election campaign money is being used to pay for lawyers, including for Donald Trump Jr., and attempts to sort through some of the contradictory announcements made about changes in the Trump team’s legal representation.

• Donald Trump is shaking up his legal team in addition to his communications staff as he seeks to combat an expanding and intensifying Russia investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller.  Attorney John Dowd said he will be the president’s lead lawyer on the issue, while Marc Kasowitz will have a scaled-back role.  The tumult around Trump followed an interview with the New York Times on Wednesday (July 19th 2017) in which the president warned Mueller not to broaden his investigation to his or his family’s businesses.  Yet Mueller has already begun examining the businesses, people familiar with the investigation have told Bloomberg News.

While Dowd denied reports that Trump seeks to target potential conflicts of interest on Mueller’s team, such as donations to Democrats by some of his attorneys, senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway accused Mueller’s team of mounting a “witch hunt” against Trump in a Fox News interview on Friday (July 21st 2017).  “I know Bob Mueller.  I trust him and he is an honest man and I think he will call it straight,” Dowd said in an interview.  But on Fox, Conway said that the investigation is “all a hoax” and pointed to campaign contributions to Democrats by some of the lawyers working on Mueller’s staff.  “These were significant donations by members of that team.  They clearly wanted the other person to win,” she said.  It “remains to be seen” whether they are prejudiced against Trump, she said.

The White House announced July 16 that it was hiring veteran Washington lawyer Ty Cobb to oversee its legal and media response to the expanding Russia probe.  Subsequently the former spokesman for Trump’s legal team, Mark Corallo, confirmed that he had resigned.  A person familiar with Corallo’s departure said that he had grown exasperated with the White House’s defense strategy and saw Dowd’s elevation as an opportunity to get out.  Corallo declined to discuss his decision.

 

 

• Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon Mobil oil company president and chief executive that Trump appointed as the Secretary of State, was even given the highest award that the Russians give to foreign people by Putin himself.  Trump and Tillerson are gutting the State Department; employees that have worked there for decades have been fired.

June 29th 2017 Max Bergmann of Politico wrote:  I heard that the State Department was in “chaos,” “a disaster,” “terrible,” the leadership “totally incompetent.”  This reflected what I had been hearing the past few months from friends still inside the department, but hearing it in rapid fire made my stomach churn.  As I walked through the halls once stalked by diplomatic giants like Dean Acheson and James Baker, the deconstruction was literally visible.  Furniture from now-closed offices crowded the hallways.  Dropping in on one of my old offices, I expected to see a former colleague—a career senior foreign service officer—but was stunned to find out she had been abruptly forced into retirement and had departed the previous week.  This office, once bustling, had just one person present, keeping on the lights.  This is how diplomacy dies.  Not with a bang, but with a whimper.  With empty offices on a midweek afternoon.

When Rex Tillerson was announced as secretary of state, there was a general feeling of excitement and relief in the department.  After eight years of high-profile, jet-setting secretaries, the building was genuinely looking forward to having someone experienced in corporate management.  Like all large, sprawling organizations, the State Department’s structure is in perpetual need of an organizational rethink.  That was what was hoped for, but that is not what is happening.  Tillerson is not reorganizing, he’s downsizing.  While the lack of senior political appointees has gotten a lot of attention, less attention has been paid to the hollowing out of the career workforce, who actually run the department day to day.  Tillerson has canceled the incoming class of foreign service officers.  This as if the Navy told all of its incoming Naval Academy officers they weren’t needed.  Senior officers have been unceremoniously pushed out.  Many saw the writing on the wall and just retired, and many others are now awaiting buyout offers.  He has dismissed State’s equivalent of an officer reserve—retired FSOs, who are often called upon to fill State’s many short-term staffing gaps, have been sent home despite no one to replace them.  Office managers are now told three people must depart before they can make one hire.

On All In with Chris Hayes Sebastian Gorka insists he wasn’t trying to bash the Secretary of State.  We check the tape.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Richard Painter, a former ethics attorney for President George W. Bush reacts to comments made by Trump aide Sebastian Gorka at Secretary of State Rex Tillerson saying he should be ‘fire on the spot.’

 

• August 25th 2017 as reported in The New York Times:  Sebastian Gorka, an outspoken adviser to Trump and lightning rod for controversy, has been forced out of his position at the White House, two administration officials said on Friday (August 25th 2017).

One of the officials said that the president’s chief of staff, John F. Kelly, had telegraphed his lack of interest in keeping Mr. Gorka during internal discussions over the last week.

Mr. Gorka, a deputy assistant to the president, had been on vacation for at least the last two weeks, that official said.  The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about personnel issues.

The Federalist, a conservative website, published portions of what it called a resignation letter written by Mr. Gorka.  It quoted him as saying that given which “forces” were on the rise in the White House, the best way for him to support the president was from outside it.

The White House, seeking to blunt Mr. Gorka’s claim that he had resigned, put out an unattributed statement saying that he no longer works in the administration, but that he did not resign.

His departure is the latest in a string of them since Mr. Kelly, a retired Marine general, took over as the White House chief of staff last month.  Mr. Gorka criticized Rex W. Tillerson, the secretary of state, in a public show of disrespect that chafed Mr. Kelly’s sense of order, according to one senior administration official.

Mr. Gorka also said that in fighting terrorism, white supremacists should not be a concern.  He made the remarks shortly before the racially charged violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, in which a man who was said to admire Adolf Hitler rammed his car into counterprotesters and left a woman dead.

Efforts to reach Mr. Gorka on Friday night were not immediately successful.

Mr. Gorka, who described himself as a national security adviser to the president but who existed outside the National Security Council and had no clear duties, was a divisive figure while in the White House.  He memorably declared that “the alpha males are back” as an assertion of the distance between the Obama administration and the current one.

He has also been a vocal defender of the Trump administration’s efforts to temporarily ban travel from some predominantly Muslim countries; he has said violence is a fundamental part of Islam and emanates from the language of the Quran.  His hard-line views on Islam have prompted his critics to accuse him of Islamophobia.

Mr. Gorka, 46, has also been accused of having links to far-right groups in Europe.  He is a former editor at Breitbart News, a right-wing website, and a friend of Stephen K. Bannon.  Mr. Bannon, who was until last week Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, has since returned to Breitbart News as executive chairman.

 

 

• The racist that Trump appointed as Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, lied at his confirmation hearing when he was asked and said that he had no contact with Russia but he did a couple of times during Trump’s campaign, that’s perjury. He was being asked to resign by some, more than 130, in the Congress and the Senate, he just ended up recusing himself from any investigations into Trump’s campaign.  Sessions offered to resign at one point in recent months after his relationship with Trump grew increasingly tense, according to two people close to the White House.  The strain between the two began after Sessions recused himself in March from the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.  Sessions announced his recusal shortly after he became attorney general and a day after The Washington Post revealed that he had twice met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the campaign and did not disclose that fact to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his January confirmation hearing.  Trump learned of the attorney general’s decision shortly before Sessions announced it at a news conference.  Trump’s anger has lingered for months, according to the people close to the White House.  They said that Trump cites Sessions’s recusal as a factor that prompted the decision last month by Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein to appoint a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, to oversee the expanding Russian investigation.  Before his recusal from the Russia investigation, Sessions and Trump had a strong bond.  Sessions was the first senator to endorse Trump early in the presidential campaign last year when few Republican lawmakers supported the candidate.

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III lawyers up.  Sessions has hired Chuck Cooper.  Cooper and Sessions should be sympatico, as Cooper is a Republican who was part of the Department of Justice Civil Rights division during the Reagan administration.  Cooper is probably best known for defending California’s “proposition 8” ban on same-sex marriage in a series of court cases all the way up to the Supreme Court, and losing.

July 21st 2017 as reported in The Washington Post:  Russia’s ambassador to Washington told his superiors in Moscow that he discussed campaign-related matters, including policy issues important to Moscow, with Jeff Sessions during the 2016 presidential race, contrary to public assertions by the embattled attorney general, according to current and former US officials.  Ambassador Sergey Kislyak’s accounts of two conversations with Sessions — then a top foreign policy adviser to Republican candidate Donald Trump — were intercepted by US spy agencies, which monitor the communications of senior Russian officials both in the United States and in Russia.  Sessions initially failed to disclose his contacts with Kislyak and then said that the meetings were not about the Trump campaign.

One US official said that Sessions — who testified that he has no recollection of an April encounter — has provided “misleading” statements that are “contradicted by other evidence.”  A former official said that the intelligence indicates that Sessions and Kislyak had “substantive” discussions on matters including Trump’s positions on Russia-related issues and prospects for US-Russia relations in a Trump administration.  Sessions has said repeatedly that he never discussed campaign-related issues with Russian officials and that it was only in his capacity as a US senator that he met with Kislyak.  “I never had meetings with Russian operatives or Russian intermediaries about the Trump campaign,” Sessions said in March when he announced that he would recuse himself from matters relating to the FBI probe of Russian interference in the election and any connections to the Trump campaign.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow reports on another batch of breaking news stories, including a Washington Post report that intelligence indicates that when Jeff Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Kislyak they talked about the Trump campaign and Russia-related matters.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell The Washington Post reports that intercepted conversations suggest Sessions discussed the Trump campaign with Russian officials during the election.  Former Acting CIA Director Jon McLaughlin tells Ari Melber how he’d get to the bottom of who’s leaking – and why.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell The Washington Post reports intercepts show Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak told Moscow he and Jeff Sessions discussed the campaign and Trump’s positions on issues important to Russia during the 2016 campaign.  Jon McLaughlin, Max Boot & David Corn join Ari Melber.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Eli Stokols, Shannon Pettypiece and Peter Baker discuss that US intelligence intercepts show Attorney General Jeff Sessions discussed Trump campaign-related matters with the Russian Ambassador.

On All In with Chris Hayes Maxine Waters:  ‘I can’t imagine anyone who has any self-respect being talked about that by the president…and wanting to remain in the job.’

July 24th 2017 as reported in The Washington Post:  Trump has labeled his own attorney general as “beleaguered.”  “So why aren’t the Committees and investigators, and of course our beleaguered A.G., looking into Crooked Hillarys crimes & Russia relations?” the president tweeted from his personal Twitter account on Monday morning.  Over the past week, Trump has been attacking Attorney General Jeff Sessions for his decision months ago to recuse himself from the investigations into possible connections between Trump’s campaign and Russia.

Sessions, a former senator from Alabama, supported Trump from the early days of his candidacy and became a trusted adviser.  Ten days after the election, Trump nominated Sessions for attorney general and said in a statement that “Jeff is greatly admired by legal scholars and virtually everyone who knows him.”

In March, Sessions announced that he would recuse himself from investigations related to the 2016 presidential campaign, including those into Russian interference in the electoral process.  That announcement came the day after The Washington Post reported that Sessions twice met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the campaign and did not disclose those meetings to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing in January.

The Russia investigations have swept up Trump’s eldest son and his son-in-law, greatly angering the president, who says the charges are unfounded and part of a “witch hunt.”  Trump has been privately criticizing Sessions for weeks, and he said in an interview with the New York Times last week that he would not have appointed Sessions if he had known the attorney general would recuse himself, as he considers the decision “very unfair to the president.”

The president vented to the world in a series of tweets on Monday morning, lashing out not only at Sessions but also at Democrats and the media, whom he has blamed for hyping and continuing the investigations.  The first tweet came at 6:40 a.m. in Washington:  “Drain the Swamp should be changed to Drain the Sewer – it’s actually much worse than anyone ever thought, and it begins with the Fake News!”  Twelve minutes later, the president went after Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.):  “After 1 year of investigation with Zero evidence being found, Chuck Schumer just stated that “Democrats should blame ourselves,not Russia.””  Trump seemed to be referring to a comment Schumer made to The Post last week, in which he said:  “When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things — Comey, Russia — you blame yourself.”

There was then a lull, and the president returned at 8:49 a.m. with the swipe at Sessions and demanded to know why his general election rival, Democrat Hillary Clinton, is not also being investigated:  “So why aren’t the Committees and investigators, and of course our beleaguered A.G., looking into Crooked Hillarys crimes & Russia relations?”  Twenty-three minutes after that, the president went after Representative Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the lead Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee:  “Sleazy Adam Schiff, the totally biased Congressman looking into “Russia,” spends all of his time on television pushing the Dem loss excuse!”  Six minutes later, at 9:18 a.m., the president shifted to talking about health-care legislation:  “Republicans have a last chance to do the right thing on Repeal & Replace after years of talking & campaigning on it.”

On All In with Chris Hayes There are multiple reports that Trump and his inner circle are considering firing Jeff Sessions, amidst an increasingly strange barrage of public utterances by Trump against his attorney general.

On All In with Chris Hayes Attorney General Jeff Sessions should go, Congressman Eric Swalwell of California tells Chris Hayes, but not for the reasons Donald Trump has been giving.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell The Washington Post reports Trump wants the Russia probe to end so badly he may be considering firing Jeff Sessions and appointing a new AG with a recess appointment.  WaPo’s Robert Costa gives the latest.  Josh Barro and Richard Painter also join Lawrence O’Donnell.

But Attorney General Jeff Sessions has no plans to leave office, as friends say he’s grown angry with Donald Trump following a series of attacks meant to marginalize his power and, potentially, encourage his resignation.  “Sessions is totally pissed off about it,” said a Sessions ally familiar with his thinking.  “It’s beyond insane.  It’s cruel and it’s insane and it’s stupid.”

Sessions’ allies say the president’s criticism of the attorney general is counterproductive.  Perhaps more than any other member of Trump’s Cabinet, Sessions has been an uncompromising advocate for Trump’s agenda.  The attorney general has worked methodically to dismantle Obama’s legacy at the Justice Department: reconsidering the department’s efforts to make troubled police departments change their practices, changing the DOJ’s stance on voter-ID lawsuits, and rolling back former Attorney General Eric Holder’s sentencing guidelines that were aimed at reduced incarceration and balancing out drug-crime-related punishments.

Every pick for a U.S. Attorney’s office that Sessions has made has underscored the administration’s focus on border security.  He’s visited the border twice to emphasize a desire to prosecute undocumented immigrants.  He’s passionately defended Trump’s so-called travel ban and threatened to withhold funding from “sanctuary” cities.  In the process, he’s become Public Enemy No. 1 for progressives, which makes his targeting by Trump so baffling to those close to him.  “He’s not going anywhere,” said another Sessions ally.  “He is not going to resign.  What he is accomplishing is way too important to the country.”

Rather than quit, Sessions insiders predict the attorney general will call Trump’s bluff.  And unlike other members of Trump’s Cabinet, he has political wiggle room to do so.  Trump’s base of support—immigration restrictionists, rank-and-file law-enforcement officials, and states’ rights conservatives—were Sessions’ fans before they flocked to the president.  They may very well scoff at the idea that the administration would be better off without its AG.  Sessions also enjoys continued support in the Senate, where he served for a decade.  On Tuesday (July 25th 2017) morning, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) pushed back on Trump’s attacks and called the president’s encouragement that Sessions prosecute Hillary Clinton over her email use “highly inappropriate.”

July 26th 2017 Trump has discussed with confidants and advisers in recent days the possibility of installing a new attorney general through a recess appointment if Jeff Sessions leaves the job, but Trump has been warned not to move to push him out because of the political and legal ramifications, according to people briefed on the conversations.  Still raging over Sessions’s recusal from the Justice Department’s escalating Russia investigation, Trump has been talking privately about how he might replace Sessions and possibly sidestep Senate oversight, four people familiar with the issue said.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams As he continues to blast Attorney General Jeff Sessions, some legal experts are beginning to wonder if Trump understands why Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation.

On All In with Chris Hayes The president isn’t firing his attorney general.  He’s just passive-aggressively attacking him again and again and again.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Senator Al Franken (D-MN) joins Lawrence O’Donnell exclusively to react to the Senate’s vote to proceed on a health care bill and the escalating turmoil around Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in which Franken played a key role with his critical under-oath questioning.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Trump is still publicly berating his Attorney General, calling Sessions out for his recusal in the Russia probe and downplaying his critical primary endorsement.  But a new report suggests the AG won’t back down.  Eugene Robinson & Ron Klain join Lawrence O’Donnell.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Time and again, Republicans gave Donald Trump a pass on his extreme policies and bad behavior.  So what’s the one move that has finally turned the GOP against their president?  Trump’s continued criticism of Jeff Sessions.  Lawrence O’Donnell examines.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell The Washington Post reports Donald Trump is considering replacing AG Jeff Sessions with a recess appointment.  Could he actually make that happen?  What would the ramifications be if he tried?  John Heilemann, Max Boot, and Mieke Eoyang join Lawrence O’Donnell.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams After days of being called ‘beleaguered’ and ‘very weak’ by his boss Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions responds – and our panel reacts.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Trump is still blasting his own Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a former GOP senator.  But if Trump were to go ahead and fire Sessions, how would Republicans react?  Our panel discusses.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams The Washington Post reports Trump may replace Jeff Sessions while lawmakers are on recess.  If that happens, what would come next?  Jeremy Peters, Michael Schmidt, & Andrea Mitchell join.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams With the president’s continued attacks on his own Attorney General, MSNBC National Security Analyst Jeremy Bash points out Sessions could end up being a witness in the Russia probe.

 

• And another thing, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was supposed to have recused himself from any decisions over the Russia investigation so how could Sessions then be writing any letters and making any recommendations to Trump to fire Comey?  And how could Trump be taking that recommendation when it comes to anything involving Russian investigations or investigators?  Firing Comey will not stop the investigations, it may slow them down but they will not stop.  We needed independent investigation by special prosecutors, As Soon As Possible, which Trump would also be able to fire, either directly or indirectly by ordering the US Attorney General (if one is appointed) or the Deputy US Attorney General to fire him or her like Nixon did but they would have to explain to Congress why the person was fired (and Trump doing that would make things worse for himself), and Rachel Maddow talks about other ways how Trump might try to end the special investigation and can the Trump-Russia special counsel be undermined by Trump.  But we finally got closer to getting a special prosecutor.

 

• June 13th, 2017 Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified but repeatedly refused to answer questions from senators about his private conversations with Trump, including whether he spoke to Trump about former FBI director James B. Comey’s handling of the investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential race.  In a number of testy exchanges with members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sessions said he would not answer many of their questions because of a long-standing Justice Department policy that he said protects private conversations between Cabinet secretaries and the president.  The attorney general confirmed elements of Comey’s dramatic testimony before the same panel last week while disputing others.  Sessions said he was in an Oval Office meeting in February with Comey and Trump when the president said he wanted to speak to Comey privately, and he acknowledged that Comey came to talk to him the next day about the meeting.  At other times, though, Sessions frequently said he couldn’t recall specifics, particularly when asked about his meetings with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign.

So suddenly Sessions has amnesia and can’t remember anything and on top of that Sessions basically invoked executive privilege for Trump even though Trump had not invoked executive privilege himself.  It is not up to Sessions to invoked executive privilege for Trump when Trump had not done it.  So perhaps the Senate Intelligence Committee should find Sessions in Contempt of Congress and put him in a federal prison.  Although, finding someone in Contempt of Congress involves lengthy court battles and there would not be any fast answers, the threat of going to prison or actually being in prison for a while may eventually shake loose some of Sessions’ memory and some answers that don’t involve Sessions’ trying to invoked executive privilege for Trump because Sessions would be too busy trying to get his own butt out of a sling to worry about Trump.

 

 

• Even Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, had meetings with Russians. And at least one of those meetings was in Trump Tower.  But Jared Kushner has been put in charge of almost everything.  As reported by The Huffington Post Jared Kushner, who comes to Washington with no government experience, no policy experience, no diplomatic experience, and business experience limited to his family’s real estate development firm, a brief stint as a newspaper publisher, and briefly bidding to acquire the Los Angeles Dodgers, will be working on trade, Middle East policy in general, an Israel-Palestine peace deal more specifically, reforming the Veterans Administration, and solving the opioid crisis.  Oh wait, that’s not all! Apparently, this new office will also be responsible for “modernizing the technology and data infrastructure of every federal department and agency; remodeling workforce-training programs; and developing “transformative projects” under the banner of Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan, such as providing broadband internet service to every American.”  We have certainly come a long way from “I alone can fix it.”, The Huffington Post said.

But when Jared Kushner sought the top-secret security clearance that would give him access to some of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets, he was required to disclose all encounters with foreign government officials over the last 7 years.  But Kushner did not mention dozens of contacts with foreign leaders or officials in recent months.  Applicants for major national security positions must submit a lengthy FBI questionnaire as part of a background check.  They are asked to list the dates and details of all contacts with representatives of foreign governments.  This is not just bureaucratic paperwork.  The form warns that “withholding, misrepresenting, or falsifying information” could result in loss of access to classified information, denial of eligibility for a sensitive job and even prosecution; knowingly falsifying or concealing material facts is a federal felony that may result in fines or up to 5 years imprisonment.

May 26th 2017 Reuters reported that Jared Kushner, had at least 3 previously undisclosed contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States during and after the 2016 presidential campaign, 7 current and former U.S. officials told Reuters.  And on top of that Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring.  Ambassador Sergei Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, son-in-law and confidant to then-President-elect Trump, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials.  Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.  Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate, a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team.  In addition to their discussion about setting up the communications channel, Kushner, Flynn and Kislyak also talked about arranging a meeting between a representative of Trump and a “Russian contact” in a third country whose name was not identified.  The Washington Post previously reported that Erik Prince, the former founder of the private security firm Blackwater and an informal adviser to the Trump transition team, met on January 11th, nine days before Trump’s inauguration, in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean with a representative of Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Here Intelligence expert and author Malcolm Nance put Jared Kushner’s alleged request to establish a secret channel with the Kremlin in perspective for average viewers.

News broke May 25th 2017 that Jared Kushner, Mr. in charge of almost everything, has come under FBI scrutiny in the Russia investigation.  Investigators believe Kushner has significant information relevant to their inquiry.  The FBI’s scrutiny of Kushner places the bureau’s sprawling counterintelligence and criminal investigation not only on the doorstep of the White House, but in the Trump family circle.  Previously, it had been reported by the Washington Post on May 19th that the Russia probe had reached a current White House official.  The law enforcement investigation into possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign had identified a current White House official as a significant person of interest, showing that the probe had reached into the highest levels of government, according to people familiar with the matter.  The senior White House adviser under scrutiny by investigators is someone close to the president, according to these people, who would not further identify the official.  And it turned out that Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and one of his senior advisers, is the previously unidentified current White House official that has come under FBI scrutiny in the Russia investigation.

The White House and a Russian state-owned bank have very different explanations for why the bank’s chief executive and Jared Kushner held a secret meeting during the presidential transition in December.  The bank maintained that the session was held as part of a new business strategy and was conducted with Kushner in his role as the head of his family’s real estate business.  The White House says the meeting was unrelated to business and was one of many diplomatic encounters the soon-to-be presidential adviser was holding ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration.  The contradiction is deepening confusion over Kushner’s interactions with the Russians as the president’s son-in-law emerges as a key figure in the FBI’s investigation into potential coordination between Moscow and the Trump team.  The discrepancy has thrust Vnesheconombank, known for advancing the strategic interests of Russian President Vladi­mir Putin and for its role in a past US espionage case, into the center of the controversy enveloping the White House.  Here Lawrence O’Donnell on Jared Kushner and ‘Putin’s slush fund’.

It turns out that VEB Bank is not even a real bank, it does not have most things that a real bank would have like a banking license.  VEB is apparently basically just a pass-through for Russian government money.  On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow relays a description of Russia’s state-run VEB bank as not being a bank in the traditional way, making Jared Kushner’s meeting with the chairman of that bank during the Trump transition all the weirder.

On June 15th 2017 the Washington Post reported that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is investigating the finances and business dealings of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, as part of the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, according to officials familiar with the matter.  FBI agents and federal prosecutors have also been examining the financial dealings of other Trump associates, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Carter Page, who was listed as a foreign-policy adviser for the campaign.  The Washington Post previously reported that investigators were scrutinizing meetings that Kushner held with Russians in December, first with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and then with Sergey Gorkov, the head of a state-owned Russian development bank.  At the time of that report, it was not clear that the FBI was investigating Kushner’s business dealings.  The officials who described the financial focus of the investigation spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.  At the December meeting with Kislyak, Kushner suggested establishing a secure communications line between Trump officials and the Kremlin at a Russian diplomatic facility, according to US officials who reviewed intelligence reports describing Kislyak’s account.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Seemingly no one in the Trump administration has a longer to-do list than White House aide & Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner.  So nearly six months in, how’s he doing?

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow reports that the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary has sent a letter to the FBI and the White House questioning Jared Kushner’s security clearance and Donald Trump’s role in his clearance process.  Representative Elijah Cummings and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Democrats, June 21, 2017 letter to Reince Priebus (pdf).  Bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee Leadership June 22, 2017 letter to Ms. Kelly and Acting Director McCabe (pdf)

June 19th 2017 reports came out that Kushner was said to be reconsidering his legal team.  Jared Kushner’s representatives have quietly contacted high-powered criminal lawyers about potentially representing him, sources said.  Then June 26th 2017 reports came out that Jared Kushner had hired Abbe Lowell, one of the country’s leading criminal defense lawyers, to represent him in the special counsel’s probe of potential Russian collusion with the Trump campaign and his financial dealings, as well as in separate congressional inquiries.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Nick Akerman, a former Watergate prosecutor, says the fact President Trump aide & son-in-law Jared Kushner changed his security form three times adding dozens of names shows he has lied.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams With news that Jared Kushner has changed his security clearance multiple times, what does that mean for both him and Ivanka Trump legally?  Defense attorney Brian Wice reacts.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell With Jared Kushner mired in controversy, Steve Bannon is back – but can anyone in the Trump White House actually govern?  Joshua Green, author of “Devil’s Bargain,” joins Lawrence O’Donnell to discuss Team Trump and breaking health care bill news.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell President Donald Trump’s adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner has released a revised financial disclosure that reveals he “inadvertently” omitted 77 of assets on his initial form.  Journalist David Cay Johnston and former prosecutor Joyce Vance join Ari Melber.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow reports on Donald Trump’s selection of a more permissive leader of the Office of Government Ethics and notes not only did the new leader approve Jared Kushner’s amended disclosure forms, but he released them at 7pm on a Friday instead of when they were signed.

 

• July 24th 2017 as reported in The Washington Post:  Jared Kushner, President Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, spent two hours Monday answering questions from Senate investigators about his contacts with Russian officials, as the various probes into Russian interference during the 2016 election entered a new phase involving some of those closest to Trump.

After his closed-door questioning, Kushner spoke briefly to reporters outside the White House.  “Let me be very clear: I did not collude with Russia, nor do I know of anyone else in the campaign who did so,” Kushner said.  “I had no improper contacts.  I have not relied on Russian funds for my businesses, and I have been fully transparent in providing all requested information.  “Since the first questions were raised in March, I have been consistent in saying I was eager to share whatever information I have with investigating bodies, and I have done so today,’’ he said.  “All of my actions were proper.’’

Legal experts expect that all of Kushner’s answers to the Senate Intelligence Committee will be shared with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who is conducting a separate probe into any potential criminal activity surrounding Russian meddling and key figures in the Trump campaign.

Kushner dismissed outright the notion that Russia could be responsible for his father-in-law’s election victory.  “Donald Trump had a better message and ran a smarter campaign, and that is why he won.  Suggesting otherwise ridicules those who voted for him,’’ he said.  Kushner’s appearance Monday will be followed by further questioning Tuesday — again, behind closed doors — before the House Intelligence Committee, which is also probing Russian election-year meddling.  US intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russian government orchestrated a far-reaching campaign to disrupt last year’s presidential campaign and influence the outcome in Trump’s favor.  A major question for the current investigations is whether any Trump associates acted to help or advise the Russian effort.

Kushner’s statement detailed four meetings he had with Russian officials or nationals during the 2016 campaign and transition period.  He described them as brief and unremarkable contacts in his role as the Trump campaign’s liaison to foreign governments.  Read Kushner’s prepared statement here.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Senator Ron Wyden talks with Rachel Maddow about Donald Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s responses to questions by the Senate Intelligence Committee on whether Kushner colluded with Russia for the Trump campaign in the 2016 election.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Jared Kushner’s 11-page statement about his contact with the Russians raises more questions than it answers, including why he signed an incomplete security clearance form.  Lawrence O’Donnell explains Kushner mishandled the most serious document of his life.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams From a White House lectern, President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner said he did not collude with Russia.  Jeremy Bash & Michael McFaul discuss his statement on the investigation.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Representative Chris Stewart (R-Utah) was in the room for Trump aide & son-in-law Jared Kushner’s closed door session with the House Intelligence Committee.  He joins to talk about what he heard.

 

 

• As reported by several articles in the New York Times Donald Trump Jr. was told in an email of Russian effort to aid the campaign and met with a Russian lawyer linked to the Kremlin during the campaign to get dirt on Clinton.  The New York Times now has the email to Donald Trump Jr. offering Russian aid to “incriminate Hillary.”  His reply: “If it’s what you say I love it.”  Read the new article.

Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.  The email to the younger Mr. Trump was sent by Rob Goldstone, a publicist and former British tabloid reporter who helped broker the June 2016 meeting.  In a statement on July 9th, Mr. Trump acknowledged that he was interested in receiving damaging information about Mrs. Clinton, but gave no indication that he thought the lawyer might have been a Kremlin proxy.  Mr. Goldstone’s message, as described to The New York Times by the three people, indicates that the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information.  It does not elaborate on the wider effort by Moscow to help the Trump campaign.

The Times first reported on the existence of the meeting on July 8th, and a fuller picture has emerged in subsequent days.  Alan Futerfas, the lawyer for the younger Mr. Trump, said his client had done nothing wrong but pledged to work with investigators if contacted.  “In my view, this is much ado about nothing.  During this busy period, Robert Goldstone contacted Don Jr. in an email and suggested that people had information concerning alleged wrongdoing by Democratic Party front-runner, Hillary Clinton, in her dealings with Russia,” he told The Times in an email on Monday.  “Don Jr.’s takeaway from this communication was that someone had information potentially helpful to the campaign and it was coming from someone he knew.  Don Jr. had no knowledge as to what specific information, if any, would be discussed.”

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow rounds up the latest reporting on connections between the Donald Trump campaign and Russian interference efforts, including breaking news that Donald Trump, Jr. was informed in an e-mail that the Russian government was behind information being delivered by a Russia lawyer at an upcoming meeting.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow shares breaking news from the New York Times that Donald Trump, Jr. was told in an e-mail that the Russian government was behind the anti-Hillary Clinton information he would receive at a meeting with a Russian lawyer.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Congressman Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow about which aspects of the Trump Russia collusion investigation have the potential for criminality beyond mere scandal.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Congressman Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, talks with Rachel Maddow about the timeline of Russian hacking and the release of information to Wikileaks, and the Donald Trump Jr meeting with a Russian lawyer in that context.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell The New York Times reports Donald Trump Jr. was told via email the Russian government wanted to aid the Trump campaign.  Former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks says it looks like collusion.  Ron Klain and Bill Browder, who knows the Russian lawyer involved, join.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Lawrence O’Donnell talks to Ana Marie Cox and Ron Klain about President Trump’s reaction about the news about Donald Trump, Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow points out that Republicans are likely to try to undercut the Trump Russia investigation and the admission to collusion by Donald Trump, Jr., but the risk of how Russia might coerce the Trump administration with what else it could reveal adds urgency to Robert Mueller’s mission.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Mark Mazzetti, Washington investigations editor for the New York Times, talks with Rachel Maddow about the story of Donald Trump, Jr. meeting with Russians and what questions remain to be investigated.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, talks with Rachel Maddow about what laws Donald Trump, Jr. may have broken in colluding with Russia, and what further legal jeopardy his father may be in as a result of this meeting’s revelation.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Lawrence O’Donnell explains that while the revelations of Donald Trump Jr.’s emails pertaining to his meeting with a Russian lawyer during the campaign are damaging for Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort, the implications for Jared Kushner could be much, much worse.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell The Trump administration is under another round of fire for Don Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer, after he released damaging emails concerning him, Kushner, and Manafort.  Lawrence O’Donnell discusses with Bob Bauer, David Cay Johnston, and Max Boot.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Donald Trump Jr. is distancing himself from the Russians who set up his meeting with a Kremlin-linked lawyer, despite their history of business dealings with Donald Trump.  David Corn and Josh Barro join Lawrence O’Donnell to discuss Donald Jr.’s defense.

Trump’s legal team was informed more than three weeks ago about the email chain arranging a June 2016 meeting between his son Donald Jr. and a Kremlin-connected lawyer, two sources familiar with the handling of the matter told Yahoo News.  Trump told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday July 12th 2017 that he learned just “a couple of days ago” that Donald Jr. had met with the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, hoping to receive information that “would incriminate Hillary” and was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”  A day earlier, on Tuesday July 11th, Donald Jr. released the email exchanges himself, after learning they would be published by the New York Times.  Trump repeated that assertion in a talk with reporters on Air Force One on his way to Paris Wednesday (July 12th 2017) night.  “I only heard about it two or three days ago,” he said, according to a transcript of his talk, when asked about the meeting with Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in June 2016 attended by Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, then Trump’s campaign chief, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.  But the sources told Yahoo News that Marc Kasowitz, the president’s chief lawyer in the Russia investigation, and Alan Garten, executive vice president and chief legal officer of the Trump Organization, were both informed about the emails in the third week of June, after they were discovered by lawyers for Kushner, who is now a senior White House official.

On All In with Chris Hayes Everyone has been laughing about Kellyanne Conway’s show and tell on Fox News.  But did you catch exactly what she said there?

On All In with Chris Hayes Joy Reid and Lawrence Wright join Chris Hayes to discuss how the Republican Party has lowered the bar in the era of Trump.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow explores the latest reporting in the investigation into Trump campaign collusion with Russia as the investigation expands and Trump supporters struggle to recast the Trump Jr. collusion scandal.

Invasion of Privacy lawsuit complaint against Trump and Roger Stone over stolen e-mails due to Russian hacking.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow looks at revelations in a new report from the Wall Street Journal that Russian officials were heard discussing Donald Trump in the spring of 2015.  A year later European intel warned of Russian money flowing into the US election.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Shane Harris, senior national security writer for the Wall Street Journal, talks with Rachel Maddow about his reporting on new perspectives on some of the earliest indications of interactions between Russia and Donald Trump associates.

The Republican donor and operative from Chicago’s North Shore who said he had tried to obtain Hillary Clinton’s missing emails from Russian hackers killed himself in a Minnesota hotel room days after talking to The Wall Street Journal about his efforts, public records show.  In mid-May, in a room at a Rochester hotel used almost exclusively by Mayo Clinic patients and relatives, Peter W. Smith, 81, left a carefully prepared file of documents, including a statement police called a suicide note in which he said he was in ill health and a life insurance policy was expiring.  Days earlier, the financier from suburban Lake Forest gave an interview to the Journal about his quest, and it began publishing stories about his efforts in late June.  The Journal also reported it had seen emails written by Smith showing his team considered retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, then a top adviser to Republican Donald Trump’s campaign, an ally.  Flynn briefly was Trump’s national security adviser and resigned after it was determined he had failed to disclose contacts with Russia.

On All In with Chris Hayes A sad twist in the story of a GOP operative who sought Hillary Clinton e-mails he believed were in the possession of Russian hackers — and who intimated he was working with Michael Flynn.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Greg Gordon, investigative reporter for McClatchy DC, talks with Rachel Maddow about how investigators are looking into whether Russians had assistance from Americans in strategizing where to direct their online propaganda.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Michael Carpenter, former deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, talks with Rachel Maddow about why Russia would have needed American help in implementing tailored online propaganda to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell New details suggest Trump may have known weeks ago about the meeting his son, Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort had with a Kremlin-linked lawyer, contradicting his statements he only just found out about it.  Nancy Soderberg and Jeremy Bash join Lawrence O’Donnell.

As reported in The Atlantic the Russian attorney at the center of the Trump Jr. scandal, who is Natalia Veselnitskaya, and what does she want?  Natalia Veselnitskaya, 42, once served as a prosecutor in the Moscow region, an area that encompasses the vast Moscow suburbs, military towns, and dacha communities.  The region is both rich and rife with corruption and organized crime.  It is this relatively rough and provincial background that makes Russian observers skeptical about Veselnitskaya’s sudden entrée into the distant scandals of Washington.  “Instead of the highest [Russian] officials, spies, and the famous diplomat [Sergei] Kislyak, we now get a Moscow region mover and shaker with a reputation for as a ‘fixer,’ who fits into the scandals at the local, regional level, but seems absurd as part of the world of geopolitics,” writes the Russian journalist Oleg Kashin.

Few people in Moscow had heard of Veselnitskaya until she burst onto the pages of The New York Times.  Those who had, though, spoke of her fearsome reputation.  “She was probably the most aggressive person I’ve ever encountered in all my conflicts with Russians,” says Bill Browder, a former investor in Russia who has been fighting Veselnitskaya in court for four years.  “She is vindictive and ruthless and unrelenting.”  According to Browder, Veselnitskaya hired a team and spent millions of dollars to track his movements around the world in order to serve him with a subpoena that would force him to turn over 20 years worth of documents.  Veselnitskaya did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The Moscow region was a good place for a young lawyer to sharpen her teeth, as well as to find the clients and political patrons that would help her rise.  She became close to both the powerful governor of the region, Boris Gromov, as well as to the family of Yury Chaika, then the Russian justice minister and now the prosecutor general of the Russian Federation.  (He seems to be the person mistakenly referred to as “the Crown prosecutor of Russia” in the emails Trump Jr. released this week.)  According to people who know her, she remains close to the Chaika family; she told The Wall Street Journal on Friday that she knew Chaika personally.  It was also during this time that Veselnitskaya became close to the family that would bring her to New York and, ultimately, to Trump Tower.

On All In with Chris Hayes How did a self-proclaimed adoption lawyer-lobbyist end up at the center of one of the biggest scandals in American political history?

The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. and others on the Trump team after a promise of compromising material on Hillary Clinton was accompanied by a Russian-American lobbyist — a former Soviet counterintelligence officer who is suspected by some U.S. officials of having ongoing ties to Russian intelligence, NBC News has learned.  The lobbyist, first identified by the Associated Press as Rinat Akhmetshin, denies any current ties to Russian spy agencies.  He accompanied the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, to the June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower attended by Donald Trump Jr.; Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law; and Paul Manafort, former chairman of the Trump campaign.

He had been working with Veselnitskaya on a campaign against the Magnitsky Act, a set of sanctions against alleged Russian human rights violators.  That issue, which is also related to a ban on American adoptions of Russian children, is what Veselnitskaya told NBC News she discussed with the Trump team.  But, given the email traffic suggesting the meeting was part of a Russian effort to help Trump’s candidacy, the presence at the meeting of a Russian-American with suspected intelligence ties is likely to be of interest to special counsel Robert Mueller and the House and Senate panels investigating the Russian election interference campaign.

As has been previously reported, the meeting was set up by music publicist Rob Goldstone, who told Donald Trump Jr. in an email chain that Veselnitskaya has “information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.”  Goldstone called Veselnitskaya a “Russian government attorney” — though she disputes that — and said the information was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”  The Associated Press quoted Akhmetshin saying that Veselnitskaya brought with her to the meeting a plastic folder with printed-out documents that detailed what she believed was a flow of illicit funds to the Democratic National Committee.  The lobbyist said Veselnitskaya presented the contents of the documents to the Trump team, suggesting it could help the Trump campaign, he said.

On All In with Chris Hayes A closer look at the oligarch and his pop singer son who offered to provide the Trump campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton – straight from the Russian government.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow reports on new revelations about the number of people in attendance at Donald Trump Jr.’s campaign meeting with Russians, and a bevy of new details about who those people are and what they did.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Michael Carpenter, former deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, talks with Rachel Maddow about Russia’s practice of finding local groups in the countries they target for cyber attacks and other intrusions.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Michael Carpenter, former deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, talks with Rachel Maddow about the sheer number of Kremlin-connected Russians who met with members of the Trump campaign.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Even with the news a former Soviet counter-intelligence officer was in Trump Jr’s June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer, there are still unanswered questions.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Discussing Donald Trump Jr’s meeting with a Russian lawyer, Boston Globe Washington columnist Indira Lakshmanan says ‘more shoes than in Imelda Marcos’ entire closet’ are still waiting to drop.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams A CIA veteran writes in The Washington Post that Trump Jr’s June 2016 meeting with multiple Russians looks like a ‘intelligence soft pitch’ by the Kremlin.  Rick Stengel & Ken Dilanian discuss.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Discussing proof of collusion in Donald Trump Jr’s emails, some fierce Trump defenders on Capitol Hill are asking what’s the big deal?  Shannon Pettypiece, Jason Johnson, & Jim Sharpe react.

As reported in the Washington Post an 8th person in the Trump Tower meeting is identified.  A US-based employee of a Russian real estate company took part in a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between a Russian lawyer and Donald Trump Jr., bringing to eight the number of known participants at the session that has emerged as a key focus of the investigation of the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russians.

Ike Kaveladze attended the meeting as a representative of Aras and Emin Agalarov, the father-and-son Russian developers who hosted the Trump-owned Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013, according to Scott Balber, an attorney for the Agalarovs who said he also represents Kaveladze.  Balber said Tuesday that he had received a phone call over the weekend from a representative of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III asking if Kaveladze would agree to be interviewed.  Balber said his client would cooperate.  The request is the first public indication that Mueller’s team is investigating the meeting.

The presence of Kaveladze at the Trump Tower meeting introduces a new and intriguing figure into the increasingly complex Trump-Russia drama.  A native of the Soviet republic of Georgia who came to the United States in 1991, Kaveladze was the subject nearly two decades ago of a congressional inquiry into Russian money laundering in US banks, although he was never charged with a crime and Balber said there was never any sign of wrongdoing by Kaveladze.  The emergence of new information on Tuesday (July 18th 2017) — some 10 days after the Trump Tower meeting was first reported — underscored how details of the session have been slow to emerge amid incomplete and potentially misleading explanations from Trump Jr.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow reports on the revelation of the identity of an eighth attendee at the meeting where Donald Trump Jr was told he’d receive anti-Hillary Clinton intel from the Russian government.  This new person has an uncomfortably close history with money laundering.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Who is Ike Kaveladze, the eighth person – and fourth Russian – we now know was in that June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr?  Ken Vogel of The New York Times discusses.

On All In with Chris Hayes What if Chelsea Clinton had that Russia meeting?  ‘Not only would we be consumed in impeachment proceedings,’ says Representative Jim Himes, ‘but we would have right-wing militias on the south lawn of the White House with torches in their hands.’

 

• July 31st 2017 as reported in The Washington Post Trump dictated son’s misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer.  On the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Germany earlier in July, Trump’s advisers discussed how to respond to a new revelation that Trump’s oldest son had met with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign — a disclosure the advisers knew carried political and potentially legal peril.  The strategy, the advisers agreed, should be for Donald Trump Jr. to release a statement to get ahead of the story.  They wanted to be truthful, so their account couldn’t be repudiated later if the full details emerged.  But within hours, at the president’s direction, the plan changed.

Flying home from Germany on July 8 aboard Air Force One, Trump personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said he and the Russian lawyer had “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children” when they met in June 2016, according to multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations.  The statement, issued to the New York Times as it prepared a story, emphasized that the subject of the meeting was “not a campaign issue at the time.”  The claims were later shown to be misleading.

Over the next three days, multiple accounts of the meeting were provided to the media as public pressure mounted, with Trump Jr. ultimately acknowledging that he had accepted the meeting after receiving an email promising damaging information about Hillary Clinton as part of a Russian government effort to help his father’s campaign.  The extent of the president’s personal intervention in his son’s response, the details of which have not previously been reported, adds to a series of actions that Trump has taken that some advisers fear could place him and some members of his inner circle in legal jeopardy.

As Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III investigates potential obstruction of justice as part of his broader probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election, these advisers worry that the president’s direct involvement leaves him needlessly vulnerable to allegations of a coverup.  “This was . . . unnecessary,” said one of the president’s advisers, who like most other people interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations.  “Now someone can claim he’s the one who attempted to mislead.  Somebody can argue the president is saying he doesn’t want you to say the whole truth.”  Trump has already come under criticism for steps he has taken to challenge and undercut the Russia probe.

On All In with Chris Hayes Philip Rucker of the Washington Post joins Chris Hayes with breaking news on the statement issued by Donald Trump Jr on his meeting with Russian lawyer.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Carol Leonnig, reporter for The Washington Post, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about new revelations that Donald Trump was responsible for the misleading statement by Donald Trump Jr. to explain his meeting with Russians offering Clinton dirt and Russian gov…

On The Rachel Maddow Show Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about the legal implications of Donald Trump personally drafting Donald Trump Jr’s misleading story about the meeting he took with Russians offering government collusion for dirt on Hillary Clinton.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Michael Crowley, Vivian Salama and Richard Painter offer analysis on the Washington Post’s breaking story about the president’s personal intervention in his son’s response.

On All In with Chris Hayes The White House has a pretty remarkable explanation for Trump’s role in his son’s grossly misleading statement about his Russia meeting.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Joyce Vance, former U.S. attorney, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about how prosecutors assemble an obstruction of justice case and how Donald Trump’s role in deceiving about his son’s meeting with Russians claiming to offer collusion with the Russian government might fit into such a case.

On The Rachel Maddow Show McKay Coppins, staff writer for The Atlantic, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about Donald Trump’s lack of credibility in trying to portray himself as an innocent bystander while his son was meeting with Russians he thought were delivering dirt on Hillary Clinton.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Former federal prosecutor Paul Butler says if reports that Trump weighed in on his son’s misleading statement about a meeting with Russians is true, there’s evidence Trump participated in a cover-up.  Peter Baker and Eli Stokols also join Lawrence O’Donnell.

 

 

• Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager, worked for the Russians.  A secret ledger found in the Ukraine by government investigators lists $12.7 million in cash payments for Manafort from Manafort’s main client, Viktor Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party, which was a corrupt network used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections from 2007 to 2012.  In addition to other transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership of Manafort and Oleg Deripaska, a Russian and close ally of Putin.  Manafort’s other business ties were also scrutinized.

In 2008, according to court records, senior Trump aide Paul Manafort’s firm was involved with a Ukrainian oligarch named Dmytro Firtash in a plan to redevelop a famous New York hotel, the Drake. The total value of the project was $850 million. Firtash’s company planned to invest over $100 million, the records say.  That same year, Firtash acknowledged to the U.S. ambassador in Ukraine that he got his start in business with the permission of a notorious Russian crime lord, according to a classified State Department cable.  Other cables say Firtash made part of his fortune through sweetheart natural gas deals between Russia and the Ukraine.

Around the same time, companies controlled by another Russian billionaire, Oleg Deripaska, paid $7.35 million toward management fees for Manafort and his partners in connection with an investment fund, according to a court filing in the Cayman Islands. Deripaska once was denied entry to the United States because of alleged mafia ties, current and former officials told NBC News. Deripaska is considered by U.S. officials to be among Putin’s inner circle.

In August, as tension mounted over Russia’s role in the US presidential race, Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, sat down to dinner with a business associate from Ukraine who once served in the Russian army.  Konstantin Kilimnik, who learned English at a military school that some experts consider a training ground for Russian spies, had helped run the Ukraine office for Manafort’s international political consulting practice for 10 years.  At the Grand Havana Room (666 Fifth Avenue, owned by the Kushners), one of New York City’s most exclusive cigar bars, the longtime acquaintances “talked about bills unpaid by our clients, about [the] overall situation in Ukraine . . . and about the current news,” including the presidential campaign, according to a statement provided by Kilimnik, offering his most detailed account of his interactions with the former Trump adviser.  Kilimnik, who provided a written statement to The Washington Post through Manafort’s attorney, said the previously unreported dinner was one of two meetings he had with Manafort on visits to the United States during Manafort’s five months working for Trump.  The first encounter was in early May 2016, about two weeks before the Trump adviser was elevated to campaign chairman.

Then, August 19th 2016, Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort resigned from the campaign.  After that came new campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and Breitbart chairman Steve Bannon.  After leaving Trump’s campaign it has been reported that Manafort registered as a foreign agent with FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act) but as reported by Rachel Maddow Manafort actually still had not done that.  But, finally, on June 27th 2017 the Washington Post reported that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort filed as foreign agent for Ukraine work.  A consulting firm led by Paul Manafort, who chaired Donald Trump’s presidential campaign for several months last year, retroactively filed forms June 27th showing that his firm received $17.1 million over two years from a political party that dominated Ukraine before its leader fled to Russia in 2014.  Manafort disclosed the total payments his firm received between 2012 and 2014 in a Foreign Agents Registration Act filing late June 27th that was submitted to the US Justice Department.  The report makes Manafort the second former senior Trump adviser to acknowledge the need to disclose work for foreign interests.  Manafort is one of a number of Trump associates whose campaign activities are being scrutinized by Special Counsel Robert Mueller as part of a probe of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.  Mueller’s team has been consolidating inquiries into matters unrelated to the election.  On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow relays reports that former Donald Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort has filed retroactively as an agent of a foreign government, the second top Trump aide to do so.

Federal investigators have requested the banking records of Paul Manafort as part of an ongoing investigation into Russia’s interference in the Presidential election.  And Federal investigators have subpoenaed records related to a $3.5 million mortgage that Manafort took out on his Hamptons home just after leaving the campaign.  NBC estimates that Manafort should owe $36,750 in taxes on the property.  Manafort took out a loan for the home under the shell company Summerbreeze LLC, which he registered Aug. 19, 2016, the same day he resigned from the Trump campaign following allegations that he received millions of dollars from a pro-Russia group in Ukraine.

• Even after leaving the Trump campaign Manafort gave Trump’s people advise on starting a fake investigation to distract from the real investigations.  Manafort discussed with Trump allies the possibility of launching a countervailing investigation into efforts by Ukrainian government officials who allegedly worked in conjunction with allies of Trump’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton to damage Trump’s campaign, according to an operative. The operative added that Manafort saw such an investigation as a way to distract attention from the parallel FBI and congressional Russia probes.

American spies collected information last summer (2016) revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Trump through his advisers.  The conversations focused on both Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn.  Both Flynn and Manafort are key figures in the Russia investigations.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow relays a report from the Wall Street Journal that the Manhattan district attorney’s office in New York has issued a subpoena to a Chicago bank run by a Trump adviser over $16 million in loans to former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow looks at some of the background of former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort that is being looked at in the Trump Russia investigation and notes that if Trump is afraid the investigation is getting to close, he’ll have to fire Jeff Sessions before he can fire Robert Mueller.

 

• July 25th 2017 as reported in The New York Times:  Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, met with Senate Intelligence Committee investigators on Tuesday (July 25th 2017) to discuss the June 2016 meeting between a Russian lawyer and Mr. Trump’s inner circle that was set up for the campaign to receive damaging information about Hillary Clinton, according to a spokesman for Mr. Manafort.  “Paul Manafort met this morning, by previous agreement, with the bipartisan staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee and answered their questions fully,” said the spokesman, Jason Maloni.  Mr. Manafort gave the investigators notes he had taken during the meeting, according to one person familiar with Tuesday’s discussion with congressional investigators at a Washington law firm.

The meeting came as another panel, the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced that it issued a subpoena for Mr. Manafort to appear at a hearing on Wednesday (July 26th 2017).  But the committee later rescinded the subpoena and canceled his appearance.  Mr. Manafort’s lawyers are now working out how and when he will be interviewed by the committee.  The panel is conducting its own investigation into possible ties between Mr. Trump’s campaign and the Russian government.  Mr. Manafort has been at the center of inquiries into whether Mr. Trump’s senior advisers coordinated with Kremlin efforts to disrupt last year’s election.

 

• August 9th 2017 as reported in The Washington Post:  FBI agents raided the home in Alexandria, Virginia, of Trump’s former campaign chairman, arriving in the pre-dawn hours late last month and seizing documents and other materials related to the special counsel investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.  The raid, which occurred without warning on July 26, signaled an aggressive new approach by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and his team in dealing with a key figure in the Russia inquiry.  Manafort has been under increasing pressure as the Mueller team looked into his personal finances and his professional career as a highly paid foreign political consultant.

Using a search warrant, agents appeared the day Manafort was scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and a day after he met voluntarily with Senate Intelligence Committee staff members.  The search warrant requested documents related to tax, banking and other matters.  People familiar with the search said agents departed the Manafort residence with a trove of material, including binders prepared ahead of Manafort’s congressional testimony.  Investigators in the Russia inquiry have previously sought documents with subpoenas, which are less intrusive and confrontational than a search warrant.  With a warrant, agents can inspect a physical location and seize any useful information.  To get a judge to sign off on a search warrant, prosecutors must show that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed.

“I think it adds a shock and awe enforcement component to what until now has followed a natural path for a white-collar investigation,” said Jacob Frenkel, a former federal prosecutor.  “More so than anything else we’ve seen so far, it really does send a powerful law enforcement message when the search warrant is used. . . . That message is that the special counsel team will use all criminal investigative tools available to advance the investigation as quickly and as comprehensively as possible.”

On All In with Chris Hayes It’s not a great sign when a dozen FBI agents wielding a search warrant execute a pre-dawn raid at your house.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Carol Leonnig, reporter for The Washington Post, talks with Rachel Maddow about a pre-dawn FBI raid on the house of former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Joyce Vance, former US attorney, talks with Rachel Maddow about what can be inferred from the details and the timing of the FBI raid on the home of former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Lawrence O’Donnell explains why Paul Manafort is not the only one who should be very, very worried that the FBI, working with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, raided his house in the middle of the night in search of evidence of a crime.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell Retired ATF Special Agent Jim Cavanaugh, who worked with Robert Mueller when he was FBI Director, gives a riveting look at the raid on Paul Manafort’s home and the likely state of the special counsel’s legal case.  John Heilemann & Mieke Eoyang join Lawrence O’Donnell.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams The Russia investigation reached a new level after news broke the FBI raided the home of former Trump campaign boss Paul Manafort.  Our panel of reporters & legal experts react.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow reports on former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort changing his legal team and adding a lawyer whose areas of specialty paint a stark picture of Manafort’s legal concerns.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Greg Farrell, investigative reporter for Bloomberg News, talks with Rachel Maddow about Trump-Russia investigators looking into former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s financial records and what that might mean to the investigation broadly.

 

 

• Several of Trump’s people, one of them being Mike Flynn but he was not the only one, were communicating with the Russians at least a year before the election, while the Russians were hacking the DNC.  And they talked to the Russians about getting rid of sanctions on them after the election too.  Flynn was warned by Trump’s transition team, a month before Flynn was recorded discussing US sanctions against Russia, about the risks of his contacts with the Russian Ambassador.  Flynn was told during a meeting that Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak’s conversations were almost certainly being monitored by US intelligence agencies.

Trump’s people were so concerned that Flynn did not fully understand the motives of the Russian Ambassador that the head of Trump’s National Security Council transition team asked the Obama administration for a classified CIA profile of Kislyak. The document was delivered within days but it is not clear whether Flynn ever read it.  The Obama White House grew deeply distrustful of Trump’s dealing with the Kremlin and anxious about his team’s ties.  The concern, compounded by surges of new intelligence, including evidence of multiple calls, texts and at least one in-person meeting between Flynn and Kislyak, eventually grew so great that as the Obama White House prepared to levy sanctions and oust Russians living in the in the US in retaliation for the hacks Obama officials did not brief the Trump team on the decision and delayed telling Trump’s team about plans to punish Russia for its election meddling until shortly before it was announced publicly.  The timing was chosen in part because they feared the transition team might give Moscow lead time to clear information out of the two compounds the US was shuttering, Obama officials worried Trump’s incoming administration might tip off Moscow.  President Barack Obama said December 29th that the compounds were being “used by Russian personnel for intelligence-related purposes” and gave Russia 24 hours to vacate them.  Separately, Obama expelled from the United States what he said were 35 Russian “intelligence operatives.”  And Mr. Obama was right to worry about the Trump administration because May 31st 2017 the Washington Post reported that the Trump administration is moving toward handing back to Russia the two diplomatic compounds, near New York City and on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, that its officials were ejected from in late December as punishment for Moscow’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.  So on top of everything else Trump wants to reward the Russians (that must have been just part of the deal Trump made with the Russians).

Trump lied and claimed that Mike Flynn lied about all this and Trump is still lying about it.  This is illegal, criminal acts, it’s collusion and the attempt to cover it up afterwards is obstruction of justice, some people consider it treason, but whether it is treason or not some people want Trump impeached.

 

• Mr. Obama himself warned Trump, less than 48 hours after the November election when the two sat down for a 90-minute conversation in the Oval Office, against hiring Flynn as his National Security Adviser.  Sally Yates, the former acting Attorney General before Jeff Sessions was confirmed, that Trump claimed he fired for refusing to defend his illegal travel ban, had warned Trump’s transition team about Mike Flynn and his Russian connections almost 3 weeks before it became public.  But Trump did nothing to Flynn before the situation became public, almost 3 weeks later, what Trump did was fire Sally Yates just days after she tried to warn Trump.

 

• So when it became public that Mike Flynn was communicating with the Russians Flynn resigned but he was just a scapegoat, a fall guy, for Trump and Vice President Pence because Trump and Pence already knew about it at least as early as January 4th 2017 (and possibly even earlier than the date reported) but it didn’t bother Trump until it was public.

And when it became public the lie was that Flynn had lied to Pence because Pence was on TV saying that Flynn had no communications with the Russians so they were trying to make it look like Pence didn’t lie but rather that Pence had been lied to by Flynn.

 

• On May 18th 2017 Reuters reported that Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 previously undisclosed calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 Presidential race.  And the false denials from Mike Pence continue to stack up.  Rachel Maddow looks at the many times Mike Pence has denied something about the Trump team only to be proven wrong by further reporting.  Apparently Pence knows everything but wants to claim that he knows nothing.

Mike Flynn had also received money from the Russians.  Senior officials across the government became convinced in January that the incoming national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, had become vulnerable to Russian blackmail.  At the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency), the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, agencies responsible for keeping American secrets safe from foreign spies, career officials agreed that Mr. Flynn represented an urgent problem.  Yet nearly every day for three weeks, the new CIA director, Mike Pompeo, sat in the Oval Office and briefed Trump on the nation’s most sensitive intelligence, with Mr. Flynn listening.  Mr. Pompeo has not said whether CIA officials left him in the dark about their views of Mr. Flynn, but one administration official said Mr. Pompeo did not share any concerns about Mr. Flynn with the president.  The episode highlights a remarkable aspect of Mr. Flynn’s tumultuous, 25-day tenure in the White House: He sat atop a national security apparatus that churned ahead despite its own conclusion that he was at risk of being compromised by a hostile foreign power.

 

• And Flynn was also working for the government of Turkey, he lobbied for Turkey’s interests, at the time of Trump’s transition and sitting in on top secret national security meetings (and that is important because he could have given some of that high security information to Turkey to use against the US).

 

• Trump and his people said that the transition team knew about Flynn working for Turkey but Vice President Pence was the head of the transition team and he claimed that he didn’t know about Flynn working for Turkey.  That doesn’t even make any sense how can the transition team know about something but the head of that transition team doesn’t know about that same something that everybody else in the team knows about?

So Pence is obviously lying about that too but they need to get their stories straight, pick a lie and stick to it.  Pence is lying to the point that on June 15th 2017 the Washington Post reported that Pence lawyered up, Vice President Pence has hired outside legal counsel to help with both congressional committee inquiries and the special counsel investigation into possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia.  The vice president’s office said June 15th that Pence has retained Richard Cullen, a Richmond-based lawyer and chairman of McGuireWoods who previously served as a US attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow follows up on previous reporting on the possibility that Mike Pence would use PAC money to pay for his legal defense noting that absent that he could also use Trump/Pence campaign money.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow shows how Mike Pence has had a hard time making truthful denials about the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russia, and notes that Pence’s spokesman couldn’t give a straight answer on whether Pence himself had met with Russians during t…

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell The New York Times reports that Vice President Mike Pence and other Republicans appear to be eyeing a run for president in 2020.  The Trump White House is pushing back, but Lawrence O’Donnell says it’s obvious — and it’s not just because of Mueller’s Russia probe.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Vice President Pence is denying reports he’s reading for a possible 2020 run should Trump decide not to run.  But why does he have a PAC & why is he raising his own cash?  Our panel reacts.

 

• And, like everything else surrounding Trump links back to Russia, it turns out that Flynn’s lobbying for Turkey links back to Russia too.  May 19th 2017 CNN even reported that Russian officials bragged in conversations during the presidential campaign that they had cultivated a strong relationship with former Trump adviser retired General Michael Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team.

 

• Since Flynn was a retired military General he was specifically warned in 2014 by the Pentagon not to take any foreign money from any foreign governments without advance permission.  Flynn did not get any permission so Flynn is now also under investigation by the Pentagon for possibly breaking the law with that.  Flynn also may have broke the law last year by making false statements during a background-check interview for his top-secret security clearance.  Lying to federal investigators during a background check can be a felony under federal law.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Congressman Eric Swalwell talks with Joy-Ann Reid about the House Intelligence Committee’s perspective on the Trump Russia investigation and whether the repeated updates and amendments by Michael Flynn undermine his credibility.

 

• June 29th 2017 The WSJ reported a Republican operative named Peter W. Smith sought out Clinton campaign emails from hackers before the 2016 presidential election, and said he was discussing the matter with Michael Flynn, the Wall St Journal reports.  Flynn at the time was serving as an advisor to then-candidate Trump.  The WSJ reports Smith and his colleagues considered Flynn and his consulting company “allies in their quest.”  Eric York, a computer security expert who searched on behalf of Smith for people who had access to the hacked emails told the Journal Smith said, “‘I’m talking to Michael Flynn about this — if you find anything, can you let me know?'”  The Russia connection: Smith said he and his colleagues found two of the five hackers claiming to have Clinton’s emails were Russians.  Flynn did not respond to requests for comment.  A Trump campaign official said Smith didn’t work for the campaign and that if Flynn coordinated with Smith on the matter, it would have been as a private citizen.  Smith died May 14, ten days after the WSJ interviewed him.

On All In with Chris Hayes The Wall Street Journal reports that GOP operative Peter Smith sought stolen Clinton emails from Russian hackers – and intimated he was working with Michael Flynn.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Shane Harris, national security reporter for the Wall Street Journal, talks with Rachel Maddow about his new reporting about Peter Smith, a Republican activist who sought the help of Russian hackers who may have found Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, and implied he was working with Donald Trump aide Mike Flynn.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Matthew Miller, former chief spokesman for the Justice Department, talks with Rachel Maddow about Donald Trump allies going on offense to discredit the FBI officials and the Trump Russia investigation.

The Wall Street Journal added to their June 29th reporting on June 30th 2017, a Republican activist who sought last year to obtain Hillary Clinton’s personal emails that had been deleted from a private email server had included the names of top Trump campaign officials in a recruiting document, The Wall Street Journal reported June 30th 2017.  Among those listed in the document are now-White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, now-counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway, now-Agriculture Department policy adviser Sam Clovis and former national security adviser Michael Flynn.  The document is dated Sept. 7, 2016, according to the Journal.  Around that time, GOP activist Peter Smith began assembling a team of lawyers, tech experts and Russian-speaking investigators to obtain 33,000 of Clinton’s private emails that he believed had been stolen by hackers.  Smith, who died last month shortly after speaking with the newspaper, said that his operation was not tied to the Trump campaign, and the recruiting document does not suggest that he was coordinating with campaign officials.  It is not clear why the former campaign officials were listed in the document.

Smith told the Journal that his operation had been in contact with several hacker groups, including two that he had suspected of being tied to the Russian government.  Smith believed that the deleted Clinton emails could have been obtained by hackers and might have included politically damaging information.  The Journal reported this week that US investigators have examined intelligence reports indicating that Russian hackers discussed how to obtain Clinton’s emails and pass them to Flynn through an intermediary.  That intelligence was collected around the same time that Smith’s group was operating, though it isn’t clear who the intermediary in question was.  A special counsel and multiple congressional committees are investigating Russia’s role in the 2016 election, as well as possible ties between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Rachel Maddow relays new reporting from the Wall Street Journal about a long-time Republican operative’s effort to recruit hackers, including Russian hackers, to find Hillary Clinton e-mails, and a document listing Donald Trump campaign officials in a recruitment document.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Michael Isikoff, chief investigative correspondent for Yahoo News, talks with Rachel Maddow about Peter Smith’s anti-Bill Clinton efforts long before he turned up in the Wall Street Journal’s reporting on recruiting hackers to find deleted Hillary Clinton e-mails to help Donald Trump.

On All In with Chris Hayes Trump wanted Hillary Clinton’s emails.  He thought Russia had them.  And he knew Michael Flynn had connections.  Rachel Maddow joins to discuss the new reporting on Trump campaign contacts with Russia.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell The GOP operative who sought to obtain hacked Clinton emails from Russians cited Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon in a document uncovered by The Wall Street Journal.  Malcolm Nance and Naveed Jamali join Ari Melber with reaction to the report.

On Lawfare — Matt Tait:  I read the Wall Street Journal’s article yesterday on attempts by a GOP operative to recover missing Hillary Clinton emails with more than usual interest.  I was involved in the events that reporter Shane Harris described, and I was an unnamed source for the initial story.  What’s more, I was named in, and provided the documents to Harris that formed the basis of, this evening’s follow-up story, which reported that “A longtime Republican activist who led an operation hoping to obtain Hillary Clinton emails from hackers listed senior members of the Trump campaign, including some who now serve as top aides in the White House, in a recruitment document for his effort”.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Shane Harris, reporter for The Wall Street Journal, talks with Rachel Maddow about whether the Republican operative who tried to recruit hackers to get Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, Peter Smith, was part of the Donald Trump campaign as he apparently claimed.

 

• Congressional investigators wanted Sally Yates to testify in it’s Russian investigation, Trump tried to block that in a cover-up effort.  But Sally Yates did testify anyway on 5/8/17.

 

• Mike Flynn offered to testify for the Senate Intelligence Committee if he gets immunity from prosecution.  The immunity was denied, at the time it was too early in the investigation for immunity, still I had hoped to hear Flynn testify.  But then news came out that without immunity Flynn would refuse to comply with a Congressional subpoena for documents in his possession that might relate to the Senate intelligence committee’s investigation into Russia’s interference with the 2016 election and invoke the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

The top two leaders of the Senate intelligence committee are leaving the door open to holding Michael Flynn in contempt of Congress, the panel was reviewing a range of options to compel Flynn to disclose records about his meetings with Russian officials, including holding Flynn in contempt.  “It does us no good in having people pleading the Fifth if we are trying to get information,” Senator Richard Burr said. He added: “The only thing I can tell you is immunity is off the table.”

So the Senate Intelligence Committee said that they plan to subpoena 2 of former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn’s companies to get the documents he has declined to provide for their Russia probe since the businesses can’t invoke a Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

Here Rachel Maddow looks at some of the background of Brandon Van Grak, the veteran Justice Department prosecutor who specializes in espionage and now reportedly leads the grand jury inquiry into disgraced Trump NSA Michael Flynn.

And Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, talks with Rachel Maddow about what it means to be an espionage prosecutor and why one might be assigned to the the case of disgraced Trump NSA Mike Flynn.

 

• August 4th 2017 as reported in The New York Times:  Investigators working for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, recently asked the White House for documents related to the former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn, and have questioned witnesses about whether he was secretly paid by the Turkish government during the final months of the presidential campaign, according to people close to the investigation.  Though not a formal subpoena, the document request is the first known instance of Mr. Mueller’s team asking the White House to hand over records.

In interviews with potential witnesses in recent weeks, prosecutors and F.B.I. agents have spent hours poring over the details of Mr. Flynn’s business dealings with a Turkish-American businessman who worked last year with Mr. Flynn and his consulting business, the Flynn Intel Group.  The company was paid $530,000 to run a campaign to discredit an opponent of the Turkish government who has been accused of orchestrating last year’s failed coup in the country.  Investigators want to know if the Turkish government was behind those payments — and if the Flynn Intel Group made kickbacks to the businessman, Ekim Alptekin, for helping conceal the source of the money.

The line of questioning shows that Mr. Mueller’s inquiry has expanded into a full-fledged examination of Mr. Flynn’s financial dealings, beyond the relatively narrow question of whether he failed to register as a foreign agent or lied about his conversations and business arrangements with Russian officials.

Mr. Flynn lasted only 24 days as national security adviser, but his legal troubles now lie at the center of a political storm that has engulfed the Trump administration.  For months, prosecutors have used multiple grand juries to issue subpoenas for documents related to Mr. Flynn.

On The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell A new report says Robert Mueller has now asked the White House for documents related to Michael Flynn’s business practices, a first for the probe, and investigators are interviewing witnesses.  Walter Dellinger, Samuel Buell, and Michael Isikoff join Ari Melber.

On The 11th Hour with Brian Williams Report: Special Counsel seeks White House documents on Flynn.  Shannon Pettypiece, Steve Kornacki and Robert Traynham discuss the new report from the New York Times and the opportunity for the White House to regroup around the president’s vacation.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Michael Schmidt, Washington correspondent for The New York Times, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about Special Counsel Robert Mueller requesting documents on Mike Flynn from the White House.

On The Rachel Maddow Show Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, talks with Joy-Ann Reid about the legal power of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to compel the White House to give him what he needs to carrying out the Trump Russia investigation, including the Mike Flynn probe.