MoJo Author Feeds: David Corn | Mother Jones

Republican Congressman on Suspected Islamic Radicals: "Kill Them All"

David Corn and Hannah Levintova — Mon, 05 Jun 2017 15:21:09 +0000

In response to the London terror attack, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) had an extreme proposal: kill anyone suspected of being an Islamic radical.

On his campaign Faceboook page, Higgins, a former police officer, posted this message:

The free world…all of Christendom…is at war with Islamic horror. Not one penny of American treasure should be granted to any nation who harbors these heathen animals. Not a single radicalized Islamic suspect should be granted any measure of quarter. Their intended entry to the American homeland should be summarily denied. Every conceivable measure should be engaged to hunt them down. Hunt them, identity them, and kill them. Kill them all. For the sake of all that is good and righteous. Kill them all.

The post went up early on Sunday morning. On Saturday evening, suspected terrorists killed seven people during an attack on London Bridge. ISIS has claimed credit for these murders.

With his declaration that Christendom is "at war with Islamic horror," Higgins was embracing a theme of the far right: the fight against extremist jihadists is part of a fundamental clash between Christian society and Islam. And in this Facebook post, he was calling for killing not just terrorists found guilty of heinous actions, but anyone suspected of such an act. He did not explain how the United States could determine how to identify radicalized Islamists in order to deny them entry to the United States. It was unclear whether his proposal to deny any assistance to any nation that harbors "these heathen animals" would apply to England, France, Indonesia, Spain, and other nations where jihadist cells have committed horrific acts of violence.

Higgins office refused to allow a Mother Jones reporter to speak to a spokesman for the congressman. But in an email, his spokesman confirmed the Facebook post was authentic.

In late January, Higgins delivered a fiery floor speech attacking Democrats and the "liberal media" for opposing President Donald Trump's Muslim travel ban. He declared that "radical Islamic horror has gripped the world and…unbelievably…been allowed into our own nation with wanton disregard."

Shortly before running for Congress, Higgins resigned from his post as the public information officer of the St. Landry Parish Sheriff's Office, where he had earned a reputation as the "Cajun John Wayne" for his tough-talking CrimeStopper videos. Higgins abruptly quit after his boss, the sheriff, ordered him to tone down his unprofessional comments. "I repeatedly told him to stop saying things like, 'You have no brain cells,' or making comments that were totally disrespectful and demeaning," the sheriff said.

"I don't do well reined in," Higgins noted at the time. "Although I love and respect my sheriff, I must resign."

Update: Higgins' campaign spokesman, Chris Comeaux, told Mother Jones in an email: "Rep. Higgins is referring to terrorists. He's advocating for hunting down and killing all of the terrorists. This is an idea all of America & Britain should be united behind."

Trump Is Already Guilty of Aiding Putin's Attack on America

David Corn — Tue, 30 May 2017 11:00:09 +0000

The Trump-Russia scandal is the subject of multiple investigations that may or may not unearth new revelations, but this much is already certain: Donald Trump is guilty.

We don't need additional information about the Russian covert scheme to undermine the 2016 campaign, or about the curious interactions between Team Trump and Russia, or about Trump pressuring and then firing FBI Director James Comey, to reach the judgment that the president of the United States engaged in wrongdoing.

From the start, Trump and his crew have claimed they had nothing to do with the hack-and-leak operation mounted by Russian intelligence to help Trump nab the presidency. They have dismissed the matter as fake news, and they have insisted there is no issue because there has been no proof that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia. In May, for instance, Trump proclaimed, "Believe me, there's no collusion." Nothing to see; move along.

Explicit collusion may yet be proved by the FBI investigation overseen by special counsel Robert Mueller or by other ongoing probes. But even if it is not, a harsh verdict can be pronounced: Trump actively and enthusiastically aided and abetted Russian President Vladimir Putin's plot against America. This is the scandal. It already exists—in plain sight.

Did Team Trump conspire with the Kremlin? Here's a timeline of everything we now know about the attack on the 2016 election.

As soon as the news broke a year ago that the Russians had penetrated the Democratic National Committee's computer systems, Trump launched a campaign of denial and distraction. For months, he refused to acknowledge the Kremlin's role. He questioned expert and government findings that pinned the blame on Moscow. He refused to condemn Putin. Far from treating these acts of information warfare seriously, he attempted to politicize and delegitimize the evidence. Meanwhile, he and his supporters encouraged more Russian hacking. All told, Trump provided cover for a foreign government's attempt to undermine American democracy. Through a propaganda campaign of his own, he helped Russia get away with it. As James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, testified to Congress this spring, Trump "helps the Russians by obfuscating who was actually responsible."

On June 15, 2016, the day after the Washington Post reported that the DNC had been hacked and that cybersecurity experts had identified two groups linked to the Russian government as the perps, Trump's campaign issued a statement blaming the victim: "We believe it was the DNC that did the 'hacking' as a way to distract from the many issues facing their deeply flawed candidate and failed party leader." The intent was obvious: to impede somber consideration of the Russian intervention, to have voters and reporters see it as just another silly political hullabaloo.

Help us dig deep on Trump's ties to Russia. Make a tax-deductible monthly or one-time donation to Mother Jones today.

In the following weeks, Trump continued to claim the Russia story was fiction. After WikiLeaks dumped nearly 20,000 DNC emails—a move that nearly blew up the Democratic convention—Trump tweeted, "The new joke in town is that Russia leaked the disastrous DNC e-mails, which should never have been written (stupid), because Putin likes me." Two days later, he proclaimed at a news conference, "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." Trump supporters including Rep. Mike Pompeo, who would become Trump's CIA director, and Roger Stone, the longtime political dirty trickster, cheered on WikiLeaks.

By midsummer, numerous cyber experts had bolstered the conclusion that Russia was behind the hacks. And President Barack Obama echoed those findings. So anyone paying attention to the facts—say, a presidential candidate and his advisers—would have been aware of this fundamental point. Indeed, in August, during his first intelligence briefing as the Republican presidential nominee, Trump was reportedly told that there were direct links between the hacks and the Russian government.

Still, he didn't change his tune. During a September 8 interview with RT, the Kremlin-controlled broadcaster that has been accused of disseminating fake news and propaganda, Trump discounted the Russian connection: "I think maybe the Democrats are putting that out. Who knows, but I think it's pretty unlikely." (Yes, he did this on RT.) He repeated a similar line at the first presidential debate at the end of that month, with his famous reference to how the DNC hacker "could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?"

The Spy Who Wrote the Trump-Russia Memos: It Was "Hair-Raising" Stuff

Private experts and US intelligence had already determined that Russia had pulled off this caper. Trump had been told this. Yet he continued to deny Russia's culpability, actively protecting Moscow.

Many Republicans followed his lead. Trump's stance—treating a widely shared conclusion as controversial speculation—essentially foreclosed a vigorous and bipartisan response to the Moscow intervention. It is hard to imagine how this did not embolden Russian intelligence and reinforce Putin's belief that he had backed the right horse.

On October 7, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence blew the whistle on Moscow, issuing a statement that the DNC hack and related cyberattacks had been authorized by "Russia's senior-most officials." Yet Trump remained on the side of the enemy. That same day, the now notorious grab-them-by-the-pussy video surfaced—and less than an hour after that story broke, WikiLeaks began releasing thousands of stolen emails from John Podesta, the Clinton campaign's chairman. Trump's response, at the second presidential debate: "I notice, anytime anything wrong happens, they like to say 'the Russians.' Well, [Hillary Clinton] doesn't know if it's the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking." The next day at a campaign rally, Trump, citing some of the Podesta emails, exclaimed, "I love WikiLeaks!"

What could be better for Putin? The US government had called him out, yet the GOP presidential candidate was discrediting this conclusion. Trump made it tougher for Obama and the White House to denounce Putin publicly—to do so, they feared, would give Trump cause to argue they were trying to rig the election against him.

At the final debate, Clinton accurately summed up Trump's position: "It's pretty clear you won't admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people." Trump replied, "Our country has no idea" who pulled off the hacks.

Read about the disturbing Trump-Russia dossier, whose existence was first reported by MoJo's David Corn.

After the election, he maintained this stance. "It's time for the country to move on," he said in December. Two weeks later, after the US intelligence establishment released a report concluding Putin had implemented this covert op to install Trump in the White House, the president-elect compared the intelligence community to Nazi Germany. Though he did at one point concede Russia was the culprit, Trump continued calling the Russia story a hoax whipped up by Democrats and eventually reverted to form, asserting that the hacks might have been waged by China or others. And he still showed no signs of confronting Putin. At the Russian leader's request, he jovially hosted the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in the Oval Office—and then disclosed top-secret information to them. Moreover, he did this the day after brazenly ousting Comey, who was overseeing the bureau's probe of Moscow's meddling and links between Trump associates and Russia.

It's been common for political observers to say the Trump-Russia controversy has generated a great deal of smoke, but the amount of fire is yet to be determined. It's true that the various links tying Trump and his associates to Russia have yet to be fully explained. Many questions remain: Was there any specific coordination? If not, did the Trump camp privately signal to Moscow that Russia would get a better deal if Trump were elected? That alone would have provided encouragement for Putin to attack.

This country needs a thorough and public investigation to sort out how the Russian operation worked, how US intelligence and the Obama administration responded, and how Trump and his associates interacted with Russia and WikiLeaks. But whatever happened out of public view, the existing record is already conclusively shameful. Trump and his crew were active enablers of Putin's operation to subvert an American election. That is fire, not smoke. That is scandal enough.

See our entire updated Trump-Russia timeline dating back to the 1980s.

The Mystery Behind the Half-Million Dollars Michael Flynn Received as a Foreign Agent

David Corn — Fri, 26 May 2017 14:07:51 +0000

It is hard to keep track of all the Michael Flynn scandals. The former national security adviser for President Donald Trump—who lasted only 22 days in the job—is at the center of various investigations. He has drawn scrutiny for his contacts with the Russian government (and for lying about those contacts), for his pocketing of $45,000 from Kremlin-backed RT (and his failure to disclose the payment), for his lobbying for Turkish interests (and his failure to disclose that as well), and for attending a meeting with Turkish officials during which a plan reportedly was discussed for abducting a US-based foe of that country's president. But one Flynn mystery has received little attention: What was the original source of the $530,000 he was paid last summer and fall—when he was Trump's top national security aide—to be an agent for Turkish interests?

In March, Flynn, who weeks earlier had been fired from the White House job for lying about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, retroactively filed with the Justice Department as a foreign agent. (It's illegal to lobby for foreign interests and not register with the Justice Department, and Flynn is reportedly under investigation for not registering at the time he did this work.) Flynn's retroactive disclosure noted that he had been hired in August 2016 by Inovo BV, a Dutch consulting company run by Ekim Alptekin, the chairman of the Turkey-US Business Council.

The paperwork Flynn filed with the government is confusing. Some of the records note that his company, the Flynn Intel Group, was hired to compile opposition research on Fethullah Gulen, a Muslim cleric living in Pennsylvania whom the Turkish government claims helped orchestrate an unsuccessful coup against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan last summer, and to prepare material on Gulen—presumably derogatory material—that could be publicly disseminated. But an attachment to the filing, citing an American law firm representing Alptekin, says that "Inovo represented a private sector company in Israel that sought to export natural gas to Turkey, and it was for support of its consulting work for this client that Inovo engaged Flynn Intel Group, specifically to understand the tumultuous political climate at the time between the United States and Turkey so that Inovo could advise its client regarding its business opportunities and investment in Turkey." In March, Alptekin told one reporter that he had hired Flynn "principally to produce geopolitical analysis on Turkey and the region" for a "regional energy company that is considering an investment in Turkey."

It's unclear why there are conflicting accounts about Flynn's work for Inovo and Alptekin. And though Alptekin has asserted that his firm had no official or financial connections to the Turkish government, Flynn's retroactive registration—his company shut down in November—stated, "Flynn Intel Group's work for Inovo could be construed to have principally benefitted the Republic of Turkey." It was through his contract with Inovo that Flynn ended up in a September 19 meeting set up by Alptekin at the Essex House hotel in New York City with Turkish government officials, where reportedly the participants considered kidnapping Gulen. (A Flynn spokesman insisted Flynn had not discussed any illegal actions, and Alptekin has denied there was any talk of abducting Gulen at this gathering.)

Much is hazy about Flynn's work for Alptekin, including, most notably, the source of the funding for the project. According to Flynn's disclosure filing, Alptekin's Inovo made three payments to him from September 9 to November 14 totaling $530,000. None of the money came from Turkey, according to Alptekin's American attorneys. In an interview with a Dutch newspaper in April, Alptekin said the funds for the Flynn project came from a loan from his wife and payments from Ratio Oil Exploration, an Israeli natural gas company.

Here's where the story gets curious. An Israeli news station in March contacted Ratio Oil Exploration, and the firm said it had no relationship with Alptekin.

1/ Flynn and Turkey: Israeli gas companies tell us in @news10 that they had no connection whatsoever with @ekimalptekin , never employed him
— × ×“×‘ ××™×œ Nadav Eyal (@NadavEyalDesk) March 27, 2017

A day after disclosing that news, the Israeli station reported that Alptekin had told it, "I have never stated, confirmed, or denied that I acted for Ratio Oil."

1/Turkish businessman @ekimalptekin who hired General Flynn tells me: 'I have never stated, confirmed or denied that I acted for Ratio Oil..
— × ×“×‘ ××™×œ Nadav Eyal (@NadavEyalDesk) March 28, 2017

Yet weeks later, Alptekin was telling the Dutch newspaper that some of the money for Flynn had indeed come from Ratio Oil Exploration. Was Ratio Oil part of the Flynn deal? It would seem not, given that the company denied any connection to Alptekin. For his part, Alptekin had initially been dodgy about its possible involvement before stating that Ratio Oil had helped to finance the Flynn project. (Ratio Oil did not respond to a request for comment.)

As for his wife, Nigar Alptekin, she is an Azerbaijani fashion model who once was in a Turkish pop group with two other models that was called Adrenalin. Neither Nigar Alptekin (also known as Nigar Talibova or Nigar Talibzade) nor the music group have a prominent online presence. A music video from the group posted on YouTube in 2012 had only been viewed 4,387 times as of Thursday. Nigar Alptekin's Twitter feed has 155 followers.

Ekim Alptekin this week was in Washington for the 36th Annual Conference on US-Turkey Relations. When a reporter for Mother Jones, looking to ask about the source of the money and his wife's role, approached Alptekin, he declined to be interviewed. Alptekin did not respond to multiple email requests for comment. And a lawyer for Flynn also did not respond to a request for comment.

It's possible that Alptekin used money from a fashion model and an Israeli energy company to pay for Flynn's secret lobbying for Turkish interests. But confirming the source of these funds could well be on the to-do list of FBI investigators working the Flynn case, a list that seems to be rather long.

Republicans Focus on Protecting Trump at Russia Hearing

David Corn — Tue, 23 May 2017 17:55:28 +0000

The Republicans still are not serious about investigating the Trump-Russia scandal. That message came through resoundingly when the House Intelligence Committee held a public hearing on Tuesday morning with former CIA chief John Brennan. (Actually, this was not officially a committee hearing. Democrats on the committee were informed earlier that this would be considered a "task force" hearing because the Republican chairman of the committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, could not appear because he had recused himself from the Russia investigation.)

At the witness table, Brennan told a harrowing tale. As CIA director last summer, he saw what was happening with the hack-and-leak attack on the Democratic National Committee, and he reviewed top-secret intelligence and concluded that Russia was mounting this assault to disrupt the election, hurt Hillary Clinton, and help Donald Trump. He also at the time was aware of intelligence that showed contacts between Trump associates and Russia, and that caused him to conclude a thorough FBI investigation was warranted. He testified, "I saw interaction" that warranted concern.

This was a big deal. In March, then-FBI chief James Comey revealed during testimony to this committee that in July 2016 the bureau launched an investigation of contacts between Trump associates and Russia. Now the CIA head from then was stating that there was clear intelligence that justified that probe. He also revealed that in early August he was so concerned about the Russian operation he spoke to the head of Russia's FSB, the country's intelligence service, and warned him to knock it off. Brennan also revealed that in August and September he briefed a small number of congressional leaders and shared with them top-secret intelligence about Moscow's effort to subvert the election in part to benefit Trump. (This means that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan knew many details about the Russian operation but didn't challenge or correct Trump's continued public assertions that Russia was not necessarily the culprit in the DNC hack.)

Yet once again Republicans did not focus on the main elements of the story. When the Republicans on the committee had the chance to question Brennan, they did not press him for more details on Russia's information warfare against the United States. Instead, they fixated on protecting Trump.

The Republicans zeroed in on the issue of whether Trump and his associates colluded with any Russians involved in the attack on US democracy—to push Brennan to say he had not seen concrete evidence of such conspiring. Reps. Tom Rooney (R-Fla) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) grilled Brennan repeatedly on this point. They posed the same basic query: Did you see any evidence that Trump or his associates plotted with Russians? "I don't do evidence. I do intelligence," Brennan replied. Still, they kept pressing him. They were obviously hoping he would state that he had not come across any such evidence so Trump and his champions could cite Brennan as a witness for their claim no collusion occurred.

In the face of this questioning, Brennan repeatedly stated that the intelligence he saw regarding contacts between Trump associates and Russia was worrisome and deserved full FBI scrutiny. So the Republicans failed in their mission to provide cover for Trump—and they ended up highlighting the legitimacy of the FBI inquiry begun under Comey.

A similar effort fell flat. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) questioned Brennan about the intelligence community assessment released in early January that concluded the Russian clandestine operation was designed to assist Trump. He several times asked Brennan if there had been evidence contrary to this conclusion that was not included in the report. Brennan explained that the assessment was the result of a thorough interagency process that looked to develop a consensus position. Still, King seemed to suggest that the assessment might be open to question. And Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) asserted he had reviewed raw intelligence, and he insisted the information supporting the assessment that Moscow had preferred Trump was not as solid as the intelligence community maintained. Here were Republicans trying to find wiggle room for Trump.

Rooney took another stab at undermining the dominant narrative of the Trump-Russia scandal. He asked whether the Russians had been rooting for Clinton to fail or for Trump to win. "It was both," Brennan replied. Rooney suggested that the Russians had gathered information damaging for Clinton's campaign that it did not release, and he asked Brennan, what would that mean for the conclusion that Russians were trying to help Trump? It appeared as if Rooney thought this would be an a-ha! moment: If the Russians sat on anti-Clinton material, well, that must be an indicator they hadn't' engaged in cyber-skullduggery to help Trump. Brennan shot this down with a simple reply: Since the Russians, like many others, believed Clinton would win, they might have been holding on to that material to damage her once she became president.

Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) also tried to race to Trump's rescue. Complaining that some Democrats on the committee have publicly said they have seen evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, Turner asked Brennan if it would be accurate to characterize the intelligence Brennan saw when he was CIA chief as evidence of collusion. Brennan responded that this would not be an accurate characterization. Turner smiled, as if he had just blown a hole in the Democrats' case. Moments later, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) asked Brennan if he had seen the evidence and material shared by the FBI with the House Intelligence Committee in classified meetings. No, he had not. So Turner had proved nothing.

Perhaps the most absurd act of GOP distraction came when Rep. Ben Wenstrup (R-Ohio) raised an episode from 2012, when President Barack Obama was caught on a hot mic telling Dmitry Medvedev, then the president of Russia, that he would have more flexibility to negotiate with Vladimir Putin after the US presidential election. Calling this moment "pretty disturbing," Wenstrup asked Brennan, "Would you question that interaction?" Brennan didn't take the bait and said he had nothing to say in response. Wenstrup suggested that perhaps this should be investigated. Brennan didn't reply.

Gowdy finished up his questioning by concentrating on leaks and the unmasking within top-secret reports of Americans picked up incidentally by US intelligence surveillance. This has become a favorite topic of Republicans looking to defect from the core features of the Trump-Russia scandal. And Gowdy, a bit defensively, noted he had waited until the end of the hearing to pose these questions so the claim could not be made that Republicans are "hyperfocused" on the matter. Yet compared with previous hearings, Gowdy was restrained in declaiming leaks. This time he did not suggest, as he has before, that journalists should be prosecuted for publishing stories containing classified information.

When the hearing ended, the Republicans departed the room quickly. A few Democratic members lingered. One complained about the slow pace of the committee's investigation. Another pointed out that Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who's leading the committee's Russia investigation in Nunes' absence, had barely participated in the hearing. Conaway had opened the hearings without any reference to the interactions between Trump associates and Russia, but he had presented a prayer that invoked Jesus. As one Democrat noted, Conaway did not ask a single question during the proceedings. "That tells you all you need to know," this member said.

Joe Lieberman's Benghazi Connection

David Corn — Fri, 19 May 2017 20:37:32 +0000

As President Donald Trump escaped Washington on Friday for his first overseas trip, the White House announced that he wasn't yet ready to reveal his pick to replace James Comey, the FBI director he brazenly fired the previous week. But one name on his list appeared to be ahead of the others: former Sen. Joe Lieberman, the onetime Democrat who was Vice President Al Gore's running mate in the 2000 presidential campaign.

Lieberman may not be an odd choice for Trump. He finished up his Senate career as an independent. Perhaps more important, since leaving the Senate in 2013, Lieberman has been a senior counsel at the Kasowitz Benson Torres law firm, which has defended Trump in numerous disputes over the years. But as a member of that law firm, Lieberman also had the unusual job of promoting and representing a Libyan businessman and politician who tried to court an alleged terrorist accused of leading the 2012 attack on the Benghazi compound that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

In Lieberman's final days as a senator, a reporter asked him if he would become a lobbyist. "No, I'm not going to do that," he replied. But in November 2013, as Politico reported at the time, his law firm signed up as a foreign agent for Basit Igtet, a Libyan businessman and activist who was considering running for prime minister in Libya. Igtet made his money through assorted ventures in Switzerland, where his family had sought exile. He married Sara Bronfman, the daughter of Edgar Bronfman, who had been the billionaire chairman of Seagram and the president of the World Jewish Congress. The foreign agent registration form filed at the Justice Department noted that Lieberman would be part of the team handling this $100,000 project that would provide "government relations services" to Igtet.

A Benghazi native, Igtet was a long-shot candidate for prime minister. As Forbes noted, "Igtet believes he's got the technocratic prowess to transform his country of six million people from the brink of civil war into the crown jewel of northern Africa. But skeptics say his status as a longtime expatriate and his lack of national security experience leave him ill-prepared to grasp control of deteriorating relations among warring rebel factions, police and the army." And having a Jewish wife was probably not an asset.

As part of his campaign, Igtet emphasized his connections to the United States, pointing out his wife was involved with the US-Libya Chamber of Commerce and boasting that he personally knew Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain. But Foreign Policy reported in early 2014 that as part of his campaign, he also sought out a terrorist suspect wanted by the United States for orchestrating the attack on the Benghazi facility:

Igtet not only has built ties with America's friends, he's also met with its enemies. He sat down last year with Ahmed Abu Khattala, the Benghazi militant charged by the Justice Department for his involvement in the 2012 attack on the American mission in Benghazi that killed US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. The State Department declared Abu Khattala a specially designated global terrorist in January.

Igtet says he told Abu Khattala that he is opposed to Libyans "being kidnapped or transferred somewhere else"—a reference to the U.S. policy of rendition, which Libyans saw firsthand last year when US commandos snatched al Qaeda suspect Abu Anas al-Libi off a Tripoli street and eventually brought him to New York to stand trial. Abu Khattala fears this could be his own fate.

"We are Libyans, this is our country and if someone has done something wrong here, they have to be judged in this country," said Igtet. "Abu Khattala told me he is sure of his innocence. He said he has no problem to go to the court in Benghazi and face these issues there."

Khattala never made it to a Benghazi court. In June 2014, he was captured by US special forces in a villa south of Benghazi, interrogated on a Navy ship for 13 days, and brought to the United States. US prosecutors have accused him of being a ringleader of the Benghazi assault. He has denied the charge. His trial is scheduled to begin in September.

Contacted by Mother Jones, Lieberman's office said he was not available for comment.

When Khattala was nabbed, he was one of the FBI's most-wanted terrorists, and bureau agents participated in the mission that grabbed him. Yet months earlier, Lieberman was working for a Libyan who had reached out to Khattala. Now, Lieberman may be Trump's choice for FBI chief. If Lieberman does end up in the job, it will certainly be a first: an FBI director who once was a foreign agent for an overseas politician who cozied up to an alleged terrorist accused of killing Americans.

Will Republicans and conservatives care about this Benghazi connection?

There's No Way Republicans Will Truly Confront Trump on His Scandals. It Would Destroy Their Party.

David Corn — Thu, 18 May 2017 18:52:46 +0000

Following the explosive report that President Donald Trump leaned on then-FBI director James Comey to go easy on former national security adviser Michael Flynn—and the explosive report that Trump's transition team knew Flynn was under FBI investigation when Trump tapped him to be his top national security aide—an increasing number of congressional Republicans have begun to accept the need for full-scale investigations along with the appointment of Robert Mueller as the new special counsel to examine the Trump-Russia affair. But party leaders have not reached the point where they are willing to truly confront the scandal-plagued president. The GOP establishment can't and won't thoroughly challenge Trump over the assorted controversies brewing within his chaotic administration. To do so would risk a nuclear civil war that could blow their party to smithereens.

Ever since Trump moved into the White House, liberals (and others) have plaintively asked, why aren't Republicans fiercely investigating Trump and his crew and seeking to hold them accountable for various instances of improbity? There's been plenty to choose from: the Trump-Russia scandal, the smorgasbord of financial conflicts of interests involving Trump and his family members in and out of government, other possible ethics violations (including nepotistic hiring), the ever-widening Michael Flynn affair, and so on. In the wake of Trump's firing of Comey, the guy in charge of a FBI investigation that could land on Trump's doorstep, and the subsequent report (denied by the White House) that Trump pressured Comey on Flynn, some GOPers on Capitol Hill have gently called for probes into these matters. But by and large, Republican leaders have not dared to take on Trump vigorously. "The last thing I'm going to do is pre-judge anything," House Speaker Paul Ryan said Wednesday.

One reason Republicans have been reticent to criticize Trump is obvious: they care more about working with—that is, using—Trump to attain their most beloved policy desires: generous tax breaks for the wealthy, draconian budget cuts for government programs (including those that assist low- and middle-income Americans), and the repeal-and-replace-or-whatever of Obamacare. But there's a related reason: if congressional Republicans were to challenge Trump in forceful fashion, it could destroy the GOP.

Pop quiz: who's the most vengeful politician on the scene today? Yes, it's Trump. As I reported before Election Day, Trump is completely obsessed with revenge. For years, Trump often said in paid speeches that a key to success is that you have to be a merciless SOB when dealing with foes. Here's how he spelled it out: "Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it." Another time, he elaborated:

One of the things you should do in terms of success: If somebody hits you, you've got to hit 'em back five times harder than they ever thought possible. You've got to get even. Get even. And the reason, the reason you do, is so important…The reason you do, you have to do it, because if they do that to you, you have to leave a telltale sign that they just can't take advantage of you. It's not so much for the person, which does make you feel good, to be honest with you, I've done it many times. But other people watch and you know they say, "Well, let's leave Trump alone," or "Let's leave this one," or "Doris, let's leave her alone. They fight too hard." I say it, and it's so important. You have to, you have to hit back. You have to hit back.

With the president showing signs of narcissism and paranoia—on Tuesday, he declared, "No politician in history...has been treated worse or more unfairly" than he has been—Republican politicians who dare to confront Trump can expect to be targeted and mowed down by Trump.

Prior to the recent Comey and Flynn controversies, many GOPers were scared of Trump. A House Democrat a few weeks ago told me of a conversation he had with a Republican colleague whom he was close to persuading to sponsor a piece of legislation that would likely be popular in the GOPer's district but not fancied by the Trump White House. "I just can't do it," the Republican finally admitted to the Democrat. "He'll come after me on Twitter." The wrath of Trump was something this Republican feared deeply—just over a policy disagreement.

Imagine if Republicans squared off against Trump regarding a matter involving his integrity—or one that could pose an existential threat to his presidency. (Examining the Comey issues as possible acts of obstruction of justice could well lead to the question of impeachment.) Trump certainly would not consider such action kindly. And if he were going to screw them back 10 times as hard, what would that mean for congressional Republicans?

It would be quite improbable that a raging and revenge-seeking Trump would be able to collaborate with Republicans on legislative priorities. What would be more important for Trump: working with Republicans to achieve tax reform or extracting payback?

If the going gets tougher, Trump will insist on fealty from his fellow Republicans. Yet if some opt to join the forces of investigation, a dividing line would be created within the party: you're with Trump, or you're not. Of course, Trump and his minions would be keeping score. During the the first and chaotic effort of House Republicans to gut Obamacare, the Trump White House considered compiling an enemies list of those GOPers who opposed the Trump-backed bill. Republicans who threatened his presidency could expect much worse than being placed on a roster of unfriendlies.

This is far more than an inside-Washington affair. Trump's base is the party's base. Despite all the screw-ups, false assertions, broken promises, and flip-flops of Trump's still young (but exhausting) presidency, he remains hugely popular among Republicans—84 percent of Republicans still approve of Trump in the latest Gallup poll—who presumably buy his "fake news" attacks on media reports that cast him as an autocratic, truth-challenged, and bumbling president. If Republicans on Capitol Hill turn against Trump they could well encounter the fury of their most dependable voters. In the fight for the soul of the party, could GOP leaders (Washington insiders!) best the demagogic Trump? Sen. Mitch McConnell or Rep. Paul Ryan would be no match for him. The idea of a President Pence would likely be little consolation for the base during a clash between Republicans and Trump.

The Republican establishment has already demonstrated that political calculations, not principles, are its driving force. And one calculation is easy to process: if the GOP breaks rank with Trump on any of these scandals, there will be no turning back. An irate (and irrational?) Trump would demand retribution. A base already suspicious of GOP insiders could become furious. Tax cuts and the like would be at risk. The party itself would be endangered. Of course, as is so often noted, if the Republicans start to feel Trump-related electoral pain—say, they lose one of the upcoming special House elections in GOP-leaning districts—they might reevaluate their situational loyalty to Trump. But the smart ones know the costs of such a course—even if necessary for survival—could be exceedingly high.

There is no good answer for congressional Republicans facing the dilemma of what to do about Trump. They long ago decided to lash themselves to a man with a decades-long record of dishonesty, arrogance, bullying, sleazy deal-making, and score-settling. There are no easy escape routes. No convenient off-ramps. No lifeboats on this ship. He made the bed, and they leaped into it. (Oh, Donald!) Now they're screwed. The old cliché is that you don't go after the king unless you can kill the king. But for Republicans, the situation is worse that that: it may not be possible for them to battle their king without razing their kingdom.

A Top Intelligence Official Tells Trump to Shut Up—Sort Of

David Corn — Fri, 12 May 2017 17:45:33 +0000

Donald Trump won't stop claiming that the Russia story is fake news and a hoax cooked up by Democratic sore losers. And to back up his claim he (and his White House crew) keep citing former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Yet on Friday, Clapper essentially said that the president has been brazenly misrepresenting his words and that he was no defense witness for Trump.

This is how this whole thing began. On March 5, Clapper appeared on Meet the Press, and host Chuck Todd asked if there were any evidence of collusion between Trump associates and the Russians. "Not to my knowledge," Clapper replied. Trump and his lieutenants seized on this answer, as if it proved there was nothing to the Russia story. On March 20, Trump tweeted, "James Clapper and others stated that there is no evidence Potus colluded with Russia. The story is FAKE NEWS and everyone knows it!" White House press secretary Sean Spicer repeatedly deployed this Clapper statement to back up his assertion there was no collusion.

They were investing far too much in this one quote. At a Senate hearing on Monday, Clapper killed this favorite White House talking point. Asked about his exchange with Todd, Clapper noted that it was standard policy for the FBI not to share with him details about ongoing counterintelligence investigations. He explained that he had not been aware of the FBI's investigation of contacts between Trump associates and Russia (which FBI Director James Comey revealed at a House Intelligence Committee hearing two weeks after Clapper's Meet the Press appearance). Clapper pointed out that when he told Todd that he was not familiar with any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, he was speaking accurately. But he made clear that he was not in a position to know one way or the other at that time.

Clapper's testimony should have buried this piece of spin. But that didn't happen. Trump wouldn't let go. That night, hours after Clapper's testimony, Trump tweeted, "Director reiterated what everybody, including the fake media already knows-there is 'no evidence' of collusion w/ Russia and Trump."

Director Clapper reiterated what everybody, including the fake media already knows- there is "no evidence" of collusion w/ Russia and Trump.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 8, 2017

This was literally a black-is-white tweet. Completely false. And for a while, it was part of the banner at the top of Trump's Twitter feed. Then on Friday morning, in the middle of a tweet storm, Trump posted this missive, "When James Clapper himself, and virtually everyone else with knowledge of the witch hunt, says there is no collusion, when does it end?"

When James Clapper himself, and virtually everyone else with knowledge of the witch hunt, says there is no collusion, when does it end?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 12, 2017

So Clapper had to be called back to duty to shoot down the president's lie. On Friday afternoon, he appeared on Andrea Mitchell's MSNBC show. Out of the gate, she asked him about this tweet and Trump's use of Clapper as cover.

Clapper was clearly not comfortable dinging he president, but he again explained that he often was not informed—purposefully—of the FBI's sensitive counterintelligence work. Referring to the FBI's probe of interactions between Trump associates and Russians, Clapper said, "It's not surprising or abnormal that I would have not known about that investigation…or the content of this investigation." He spelled it out: "I don't know if there was collusion or not…Nor should I have." He added that there was no evidence of collusion that rose to the level of "high confidence" when the intelligence community in January was preparing its assessment of the Russian meddling in the 2016 campaign. Yet he added, "That's not to say there wasn't evidence."

Mitchell also asked Clapper to comment on Trump's assertion that the Russia story is a fraud.

"I don't believe it is," he said, adding that this scandal is "dark cloud" hanging over Trump's presidency. Clapper also praised James Comey, the FBI director Trump canned in part due to the Russia investigation. And Clapper challenged the White House line that morale at the FBI was low because of Comey: "I can attest personally to the very high esteem and respect the people in the FBI had and still have for Jim Comey."

So will Trump get the message and cease citing Clapper as he tries to depict the Trump-Russia scandal as nothing but a scam orchestrated by his political enemies? That's anyone's guess. As for Clapper, he remarked that Russian interference in the 2016 election is "the issue we ought to be focusing on."

Trump's Top Intelligence Official Says Trump Has No Grand Plan to Protect US Elections

David Corn — Thu, 11 May 2017 17:02:23 +0000

On Wednesday, as the political firestorm caused by President Donald Trump's firing of FBI chief James Comey raged, Trump met in the White House with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. At one point, all three of them posed for a photo, each looking rather jolly.

The news soon emerged that Trump had received Lavrov in the White House in response to a request from Russian leader Valdimir Putin. So Trump was granting a favor to the fellow who had mounted a covert operation to subvert the presidential campaign. And Trump took no action at this meeting to assure the American public that he was working to prevent another such attack from Putin. The White House report on this gathering included no indication that Trump said anything to the Russians about their intervention in the US presidential election.

Since taking office, Trump has showed no sign that he takes Putin's attack seriously and that he is committed to securing future American elections from similar cyber-assaults. In January, before taking office, Trump promised that in his first 90 days in office, he would draw up a plan for countering cyber-meddling in US elections. He missed that deadline last month, and worse, the White House couldn't even say if anyone was working on such a project.

On Thursday morning, there was another indication this is not a priority for Trump's administration.

Each year, the Senate intelligence committee holds a public hearing on global threats to the United States, and the heads of several intelligence agencies appear to discuss the various risks. At this annual hearing on Thursday, there were questions from senators about the Comey firing, yet few answers. (Comey's replacement, acting director Andrew McCabe, vowed he would inform the committee if anyone tried to impede the bureau's ongoing Russia investigation, but he refused to comment on Trump's highly suspicious assertion that Comey thrice told Trump he was not a subject of that investigation.)

One of the more intriguing exchanges was related to the Russian hacking of the 2016 campaign. Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), the senior Democrat on the committee, asked the panel what steps were being taken to prevent a repeat of Moscow's hack-and-leak attack. He noted that Russia might try a repeat and that other foreign governments could do the same. Warner insisted that the federal government should be working with states to secure voter files and collaborating with social-media companies to address fake news and information warfare. He asked Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, if there were a "strategic effort" within the Trump administration to thwart another covert assault on the US political system.

Coats replied that the Russians have "upped their game" and are spreading their cyber operations "across the globe." He stated this continued to be a "threat to our democratic process." But Coats said he was not aware of any "grand strategy" to counter cyberattacks against the US election system. He pointed out that the various intelligence agencies can provide intelligence needed to draft such a strategy. But as far as Coats knew, no one within the Trump administration had the mission of devising an overarching plan on this front.

That was not surprising. Trump has repeatedly referred to the Russia story as fake news or a hoax. He has railed against the ongoing investigations as money-wasting charades. He warmly welcomed Putin's henchmen into the White House the same week he fired the guy in charge of investigating Moscow's intervention in the 2016 campaign. And he has not made any public efforts to safeguard elections from foreign intervention. Coats' remarks were evidence that Trump remains more concerned with defending his political standing than protecting American democracy.

Why Trump's Firing of Comey Should Be Investigated

David Corn — Wed, 10 May 2017 13:48:25 +0000

There are multiple investigations of the Trump-Russia scandal underway, including two conducted by the House and Senate intelligence committees, one by a Senate judiciary subcommittee, and one (or more) by the FBI. They cover a range of issues: Vladimir Putin's secret operation to subvert the 2016 campaign to help Donald Trump win, interactions between Trump associates and Russia, ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn's contacts with the Russian ambassador (and how the White House handled that controversy, as well as Flynn's acceptance of foreign payments from Russia and other nations and his other business dealings), and, possibly, the business- and lobbying-related actions of Paul Manafort, who managed Trump's campaign, and other people close to Trump. Now there is a need for a new investigation that focuses on Trump's firing of FBI chief James Comey.

This could well be the most serious inquiry of all because it would raise the sensitive issue of impeachment.

When Trump pink-slipped Comey on Tuesday, his Justice Department released a three-page letter with reasons why Comey should be booted. The justifications were all related to how he managed the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails at the State Department. The criticisms were familiar and old: Comey had gone too far when he first held a press conference in July to declare the investigation was over but harshly criticized Clinton and then informed Congress days before the election that his agents had revived the investigation to look over a newly found cache of Clinton emails (which turned out to hold essentially no new information). Of course, Trump enthusiastically praised Comey for his October surprise, because it dealt Clinton a blow in the final days and conceivably helped Trump win. But now, suddenly, Comey's conduct in that episode is supposedly the grounds for Trump showing Comey the door.

The initial news reports tell another story. Various insider accounts—yes, based on anonymous sources—indicate that Trump's firing of Comey was motivated, at least in part, by Trump's anger over the ongoing Russia investigation. Politico reports:

[Trump] had grown enraged by the Russia investigation, two advisers said, frustrated by his inability to control the mushrooming narrative around Russia. He repeatedly asked aides why the Russia investigation wouldn't disappear and demanded they speak out for him. He would sometimes scream at television clips about the probe, one adviser said.

And who was the best target for his anger? Comey.

Last month, Comey appeared before the House intelligence committee, and his testimony put Trump in a bad spot. Comey noted that the FBI had no information to support Trump's baseless charge that President Barack Obama had wiretapped Trump before the election. He was practically calling Trump a nut or a liar. Then Comey, in an unprecedented move, revealed that the FBI had been investigating interactions between Trump associates and Russia since last July. It was a stunning moment: the FBI chief disclosing that his bureau was running an investigation that could lead to his boss, the president. All of this showed the Trump-Russia scandal was still on fire.

Naturally, Trump was enraged. He has dismissed the Russia story as fake news and a hoax. Comey said it was nothing but.

If Trump fired Comey to impede the Russia investigation, he possibly engaged in obstruction of justice. That is a crime. That is a case for impeachment. In fact, the first of the three articles of impeachment filed by the House judiciary committee against Richard Nixon in 1974 was for obstruction of justice. That article listed as one reason for impeachment: "interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees."

Trump certainly appears to have tried to interfere with the Russia investigation by dismissing Comey.

A congressional investigation of Trump's action is warranted. There are White House and Justice Department officials who can be questioned on this subject. They can be asked how the firing was discussed and handled by administration officials. (Congress might also want to ask Comey about the president's claim, in his termination letter to the FBI director, that Comey had assured Trump on three occasions that he was not a target of the bureau's investigation.) There may be documents to subpoena. (One side issue: How could Attorney General Jeff Sessions participate in this decision, as he did, if he recused himself from anything to do with the Russia investigations because he had lied about his own meetings with the Russian ambassador?)

This is not simply a personnel matter. Trump does have the right to fire Comey. But if this was done to smother an investigation, Trump may have violated the law, defending himself and not the Constitution. He knows why he did this—and presumably so do Sessions and assorted White House and Justice Department officials. Congress needs to step in and guarantee for the American public that the president has not abused his power and obstructed justice to protect himself. And there are several committees in the House and Senate that could assume this critical mission. With Trump's firing of Comey, the Trump-Russia scandal has moved from a tale of a foreign power undermining American democracy to the story of a president possibly doing the same.

Trump Goes Full Watergate—and Threatens Russia Investigation

David Corn and AJ Vicens — Tue, 09 May 2017 23:32:28 +0000

Not since Watergate.

How else can one start an article about President Donald Trump summarily firing FBI chief James Comey?

On March 20, Comey appeared before the House Intelligence Committee and took the unusual step of publicly disclosing that his bureau had been investigating interactions between Trump associates and Russians since last July. This was a historic moment. First Comey said Trump's allegation that President Barack Obama had wiretapped him in Trump Tower was complete bunk. Then he noted the bureau had been conducting a top-secret counterintelligence operation targeting people close to Trump. So the FBI chief was calling the president a liar and saying his associates were being probed. He was a threat to Trump and the White House.

It's hard to envision a more important and sensitive investigation than one focused on people linked to a president or one that looks at how Vladimir Putin covertly intervened in an American election to benefit the eventual winner. And now Trump has potentially upended these inquiries by firing the guy in charge. This is reminiscent of when President Richard Nixon dismissed Archibald Cox, the special Watergate prosecutor who was getting too close to the truth. Nixon canned Cox rather than cooperating with his investigation.

The Trump White House announced Comey was being fired at the recommendation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy Rod Rosenstein—as if to suggest that this was not Trump's initiative. But Sessions had supposedly recused himself from investigations related to the Trump-Russia scandal. Calling for the firing of the man supervising the investigation would seem to violate such a recusal.

The Justice Department duo contended that Comey deserved to be shown the door for his handling of the Hillary Clinton email server case—in particular, holding a press conference in July to say the case was closed but criticizing Clinton and then a week before the election notifying Congress that the investigation was being revived to review a new cache of Clinton emails found on a laptop belonging to disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner. (Those emails ended up being a big nothing-burger.)

A three-page letter put out by Sessions and Rosenstein did not refer to the Russian investigations. It highlighted old criticisms of Comey related to the Clinton email case. But in a letter sent to Comey, Trump pointed out that Comey had thrice informed the president that he was not a target of the Russia probes. Clearly, the Russian matter was on Trump's mind as he decided to pink-slip Comey. (An FBI director is appointed to a 10-year term, but he can be fired before finishing the stint.)

Trump's action is a reversal from his previous bromance with Comey. Last October, Trump said "it took guts" for Comey to renew the Clinton email investigation. On January 22, a smiling Trump hugged Comey during a White House meeting and said with a chuckle, "He's become more famous than me." (What could be higher praise from Trump?) On April 12, Trump said he had confidence in Comey. On May 3, White House press secretary Sean Spicer reiterated that Comey had Trump's support.

So what changed? Judging from his tweets, Trump seems to feel threatened by the ongoing Russia investigations, which have not faded. On Monday, a Senate hearing revealed that Trump's White House did not quickly act in response to a warning that national security adviser Michael Flynn had lied about his conversations with the Russian ambassador and that Flynn was vulnerable to Russian blackmail. Testimony also showed that US intelligence had obtained information in late 2015 on interactions between Trump associates and known or suspected Russian agents. During that hearing, Rep. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked about Trump's business ties to Russia, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper gave an answer that suggested US intelligence had looked into this. Hours after this hearing, Trump sent out a series of false tweets calling the Russia story a hoax and claiming (inaccurately) that Clapper had said there was no collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia. The president was protesting too much.

Trump's decision to terminate Comey cannot be separated from the Russia investigation. After all, his political and business associates were being probed by Comey. And there's no telling how this move will affect this investigation. "FBI agents value their integrity more than anything, and if nothing else, this is a challenge to the integrity of whatever investigation Trump is trying to stifle," David Gomez, a former FBI agent, tells Mother Jones.

After this brazen move, several Democrats tied it to the Russia investigation. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, tweeted, "Director Comey should be immediately called to testify in an open hearing about the status of the investigation into Russia and Trump associates at the time he was fired." Sen. Mark Warner, the senior Democrat on the committee, issued this statement: "The administration insists there's no 'there there,' yet President Trump has so far fired the acting Attorney General, nearly every U.S. attorney, and now the Director of the FBI. In addition, this President's choice for Attorney General has been forced to recuse himself, and the National Security Advisor has resigned, as a result of undisclosed contacts with Russian officials. Now more than ever, it is vital that our ongoing investigation is completed in a credible and bipartisan way. We also need to hear directly from former Director Comey about the FBI investigation and related events." And Sen. Chuck Schumer called for the appointment of a special prosecutor, noting that if Rosenstein does not appoint such an investigator, Americans will suspect "a cover-up."

Trump now gets to appoint the next FBI director. How can anyone he places in this job be trusted to manage these sensitive Russia-related inquiries that may lead to Trump's doorstep? Comey has been attacked by both Democrats and Republicans at different points. He had few political supporters in Washington. But Comey was independent of the White House and Sessions' Justice Department. That gave him space to oversee the critical Trump-Russia inquiries. Trump has now obliterated that space and independence. That's big trouble. And this is a crisis.