Rep. Adam Schiff says releasing Russia investigation files, as Trump ordered, would cross a 'red line' for FBI, DOJ
In announcing he was ordering the declassification of selected sensitive documents and text messages related to the active investigation of Russian campaign interference and his own campaign, President Trump cited "reasons of transparency" and requests from "a number of committees of Congress." Conservative House Republicans allied with Trump, who have been demanding the documents for months over the objection of intelligence officials, cheered the win for "transparency."
On the other hand, The Wall Street Journal reports, "legal experts and former government officials said the move represented an extraordinary level of presidential involvement in an investigation that has notched guilty pleas from five of Mr. Trump's associates," including his former campaign chairman and vice-chairman and his national security adviser. The materials deal with how the FBI obtained a FISA warrant to surveil Trump adviser Carter Page, and "because FISA deals with espionage matters, it is one of the most closely guarded processes in the federal government," the Journal notes.
Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Trump's "selective release of materials he believes are helpful to his defense team and thinks will advance a false narrative" is a "clear abuse of power," and based on his conversations with federal law enforcement officials, the FBI and Justice Department see the release of these unredacted documents as "a red line that must not be crossed as they may compromise sources and methods."
Trump didn't tell the Justice Department what he was going to declassify before making the public announcement, The Washington Post report, and the Justice Department emphasized that Trump triggered "a declassification review process that is conducted by various agencies within the intelligence community, in conjunction with the White House counsel, to seek to ensure the safety of America's national security interests." You can watch CNN's Evan Perez discuss what Trump and his allies are looking for and happens next below. Peter Weber
Trump publicly admitted his son, campaign met with Russians to get dirt on Clinton, which may be a crime
On Sunday morning, President Trump interrupted his 11-day working vacation at a golf resort in New Jersey to acknowledge that the purpose of the 2016 meeting his son Donald Trump Jr. held with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was "to get information on an opponent," Hillary Clinton. In doing so, he conceded that the first explanation for the meeting, which he dictated to Don Jr. from aboard Air Force One, was false.
Trump's lawyers and two White House press secretaries later said falsely that Trump didn't have anything to do with the misleading statement, and on Sunday, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow admitted to ABC News he "had bad information at that time and made a mistake in my statement." Sekulow went on to ask "what law, statue, or rule or regulation has been violated" by meeting with Russians offering Kremlin "dirt" on Clinton, because, "nobody has pointed to one"; George Stephanopoulos suggested several.
"It is illegal for a campaign to accept help from a foreign individual or government," The New York Times explains. "The president and his son have maintained that the campaign did not ultimately receive any damaging materials about Mrs. Clinton as a result of the meeting. But some legal experts contend that by simply sitting for the meeting, Donald Trump Jr. broke the law." Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who's examining the meeting, "is investigating whether anyone associated with Trump coordinated with the Russians, which could result in criminal charges if they entered into a conspiracy to break the law," The Washington Post adds.
The impetus for Trump's Sunday morning tweet was to deny a Post article from Saturday in which a Trump adviser said the president "does not believe his son purposefully broke the law, but is fearful nonetheless that Trump Jr. inadvertently may have wandered into legal jeopardy." Trump also insisted Sunday he didn't know about the meeting, an assertion contradicted by former lawyer Michael Cohen. Peter Weber
On Tuesday, the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee released a report backing up the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia attempted to help President Trump win the 2016 election.
"The Russian effort was extensive and sophisticated, and its goals were to undermine public faith in the democratic process, to hurt Secretary [Hillary] Clinton, and to help Donald Trump," Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the committee's vice chairman, said. The committee is continuing to investigate any collusion that may have happened between Russia and the Trump campaign.
Earlier this year, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, led by Trump ally Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), said they determined that some intelligence agencies made errors in their assessment of Russia and its intentions during the election. Catherine Garcia
Last spring, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe wrote a confidential memo regarding a conversation he had at the Justice Department with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein about President Trump's abrupt firing of McCabe's predecessor, James Comey. Rosenstein told McCabe that Trump had originally asked him to reference Russia in a memo he used to justify firing Comey, several people familiar with the discussion told The New York Times.
Rosenstein's memo instead took Comey to task for the way he handled the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. McCabe has reportedly given his memo and other documents to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating whether Trump attempted to obstruct the probe into his campaign's ties to Russia. Rosenstein never told McCabe what exactly Trump wanted him to say about Russia, the Times reports, but McCabe felt the anecdote could be potential evidence that Comey's firing was related to the FBI's investigation into Trump and Russia, and that Rosenstein was providing cover for Trump by writing about the Clinton probe.
McCabe was fired in March right before his retirement, after an internal investigation determined he released information to the media that he shouldn't have. He says this was politically motivated, an attempt to discredit him as a witness in the Mueller investigation. Catherine Garcia
Ex-intelligence chief James Clapper says Russia won the election for Trump. This study backs him up.
President Trump and his allies have been attacking former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper over the past few days, part of his attempt to make "Spygate" happen. Clapper is on a media tour to promote his new book, Facts and Fears, and along with explaining how Trump is distorting his words and the FBI's attempt to investigate Russia, Clapper has been explaining his contention in the book that the Russians, to their surprise, "swung the election to a Trump win."
"Since I left the government," Clapper told PBS NewsHour on Wednesday, "it's what I call my informed opinion that given the massive effort the Russians made, the number of citizens that they touched, and the variety and the multidimensional aspects of what they did to influence opinion and affect the election, and given the fact that it turned on less than 80,000 votes in three states, to me it just exceeds logic and credulity that they didn't affect the election, and it's my belief they actually turned it."
On CNN Thursday night, Clapper swatted down more Trump team attacks and reiterated his "informed opinion" about Russia handing the election to Trump, though, he told Jake Tapper, "I don't have the empirical evidence to go with it."
But there is some empirical evidence, if not conclusive, in a new working paper at the National Bureau of Economic Research. Automated Twitter bots — a key tool that Russians used in the election — may have added 3.23 percentage points to Trump's vote in 2016, as well as 1.76 percentage points to the "leave" vote in Britain's Brexit campaign, the researchers found. "Our results suggest that, given narrow margins of victories in each vote, bots' effect was likely marginal but possibly large enough to affect the outcomes," write authors Yuriy Gorodnichenko from U.C. Berkeley and Tho Pham and Oleksandr Talavera from Britain's Swansea University. You can read more about the study at Bloomberg News. Peter Weber
Trump has apparently branded the FBI informant a 'spy' because it sounds more nefarious and headline-worthy
President Trump is "a little rusty, but he's on offense" in the federal Russian collusion and obstruction of justice investigation, longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone told Vanity Fair's Gabriel Sherman. "And it's always better to be on offense than defense." His offense involves calling reports about an FBI informant feeling out a few of his campaign advisers in 2016 evidence that a "spy" infiltrated his campaign, and on Wednesday, Trump debuted his newest brand: "Spygate."
There is no publicly available evidence that there was any politically motivated "spying" on his campaign, and plenty of common-sense reasons to doubt the idea, but "the president himself is convinced that the secret FBI informant who reportedly met with several Trump campaign advisers in 2016 was not merely an informant, but an Obama political operative," Sherman reports. The Associated Press corroborated that narrative on Wednesday, but added in the suggestion from an ally of the president's that Trump's cynical showmanship came into play, too:
Trump has told confidants in recent days that the revelation of an informant was potential evidence that the upper echelon of federal law enforcement has conspired against him, according to three people familiar with his recent conversations but not authorized to discuss them publicly. Trump told one ally this week that he wanted "to brand" the informant a "spy," believing the more nefarious term would resonate more in the media and with the public. [The Associated Press]
Think about all the coverage Trump's unsubstantiated "spying" accusations and new nickname have been getting, and he may have a point. Peter Weber
Who blinked in Monday's high-stakes White House meeting about an FBI source: Trump or Rod Rosenstein?
President Trump hosted Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, FBI Director Chris Wray, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly on Monday for a meeting about Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russian collusion and the Trump campaign. Specifically, the group discussed the demand by Trump allies in the House for highly classified documents tied to Mueller's investigation and Trump's demands that the Justice Department investigate the president's unsubstantiated suggestion there was improper political spying on his campaign. Everybody walked away with something, but it isn't clear what exactly anyone got.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the group agreed that "Kelly will immediately set up a meeting with the FBI, DOJ, and DNI together with congressional leaders to review highly classified and other information they have requested," probably by the end of the week.
"It was not clear after Monday's meeting how much of that information will now be shared with lawmakers and in what form, or who it will be shared with and in what venue," The New York Times notes. The FBI and CIA had "strenuously resisted" the request by House Republicans to see the documents about a covert intelligence source who met with members of the Trump campaign, warning it could cost lives and burn allies. It is already significant that "the president effectively requested, and apparently received, a review of the investigation into his campaign," The Washington Post adds, though the Kelly-brokered meeting could either be "a concession from the Justice Department" or "a bureaucratic maneuver to buy time and shield actual documents."
Trump's personal lawyer "Rudy Giuliani made it clear today that he wants these documents for the Trump legal defense team," Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Monday. "That is not appropriate, and I have a concern about anyone from the White House being present for review of these sensitive documents," including Kelly. Peter Weber
President Trump is raising a fuss and crossing some perilous lines over an American academic in Britain who met with three Trump campaign foreign policy advisers in the summer and fall of 2016 and passed some information about those interactions to the FBI. After Trump was elected, his top trade adviser, Peter Navarro (pictured), recommended naming Stefan Halper, widely reported to be the FBI source, as ambassador to an unidentified Asian country, Axios reports. "A White House official said Halper visited the Eisenhower Executive Office Building last August for a meeting about China," too.
Navarro put forward Halper's name, as well as several other candidates, because Halper is a fellow China hawk who worked with Navarro on an anti-China book and movie, Axios says. Halper, who taught international affairs, American studies, and intelligence seminars at Cambridge University from 2001 to 2015, is also a veteran of three Republicans administrations. "Most friends describe him as a moderate Republican who is hawkish on China and deeply committed to U.S. institutions, having worked for years inside and around the federal government," The Washington Post reports.
So Halper, 73, may not have been a perfect fit with the Trump administration, allegedly informing on the Trump campaign notwithstanding. "During classes at Cambridge, he often raised questions about [President George W.] Bush's decisions and embraced a traditional Republican approach to foreign policy that emphasized long-standing Western alliances and limited foreign intervention," the Post reports. Peter Weber