DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Ex-FBI Officials Say Spy Inquiry into President Trump Is ‘Uncharted Territory’

Ex-FBI Officials Say Spy Inquiry into President Trump Is ‘Uncharted Territory’

If the Times’ story is right, retired agents and officials say that means the highest levels of Justice and the FBI knew the president was—and may still be—under investigation.

Spencer Ackerman,
Erin Banco,
Betsy Woodruff
01.11.19 11:34 PM ET
link

The White House is blasting as “absurd” a blockbuster new report that the FBI opened an investigation into the whether the president of the United States was working on behalf of the Kremlin. But respected former FBI special agents tell The Daily Beast such a momentous step would not be taken without “serious and substantial evidence.”

They told The Daily Beast that the senior-most levels of the FBI and Justice Department would have known about an event they considered without precedent in bureau history.

“This is uncharted territory,” said Ali Soufan, a retired FBI counterterrorism special agent. “I don’t believe that it had happened before… Ever.”

On Friday night, The New York Times reported that FBI agents opened a counterintelligence investigation in May of 2017 into whether President Trump had been operating “on behalf of Russia against American interests.”

If the Times is correct, then the FBI overcame its reluctance to investigate Trump after he fired one of its own: former director James Comey, whom the president dismissed that same month. One implication of that timeline is that Robert Mueller, who was appointed as special counsel a week later, would have had access to their investigation for at least substantial portions of his own.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat on the committee that oversees the FBI, said the Times’ reporting was intriguing, and “another powerful piece of the mosaic” on Trump’s relationship with Russia.  

The Times’ revelations also may reignite Republican criticism of FBI officials who privately expressed concern about Trump while working on investigations concerning him. After text messages between former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and former counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok became public—revealing their criticism of Trump—congressional Republicans brought them in for grilling sessions. Page in particular faced protracted and ugly attacks from Fox News opinion hosts. And the president himself also tweeted numerous times about her, sarcastically calling her “the lovely Lisa Page.” But the Times’ reporting indicates they were far from alone in their concerns about Trump’s posture towards Russia.

“There are a variety of ways to gather information about foreign efforts to influence a U.S. official that don’t require the sensitive step of targeting that official’s communications, and those who are criticizing the FBI for pursuing a counterintelligence investigation are doing so without any knowledge of what investigative steps were actually undertaken,” a Justice Department trial attorney told The Daily Beast.

Mike German, another retired FBI special agent, said an investigation like this would likely have required assent from the very top of the Justice Department.

“It would be most likely that the highest levels of of the FBI and DOJ signed off on the investigation,” German said.

The FBI issues specific guidelines on how agents should handle different levels of counterintelligence investigations. A preliminary investigation requires a low standard of evidence, that “information or an allegation” exists as to a crime or security threat. A full investigation requires “specific and articulable facts” raising a “reasonable indication” of the same. Both are well short of the probable cause needed for an indictment. It is unclear which sort of investigation, if any, Trump was or is under.

“Of course, with the U.S. president as a subject, the threshold would be much higher than normal,” German said.

The Justice Department trial attorney agreed, saying, “foreign efforts to influence presidential candidates are of course supremely serious.”

Soufan added that to open a case “on any official, or high-ranking official, requires some serious deliberations.” He continued: “Imagine if it is a case on the president of the U.S. acting as an agent of a hostile foreign power.”

Soufan went on to note that to open up a counterintelligence investigation into Trump would require “serious and substantial” levels of evidence of a relationship with a hostile foreign power.

It’s unclear whether or not that investigation is over. Former Justice Department officials told The Daily Beast that counterintelligence probes, especially those into a president, would take years to complete.

"They take a long time. They're not over quickly. And based on the president’s public statements and actions, I think you have to open a cointel investigation,” said one former senior DOJ official with knowledge of such counterintelligence investigations. “You might never know that it's resolved. These cases often never see the inside of a courtroom. The findings are often kept within the intelligence community, indexed and filed away.”

Trump’s attorney in the Mueller probe, the former New York City mayor and ex-U.S. attorney Rudy Giuliani, told the Times that, “The fact that it goes back a year and a half and nothing came of it that showed a breach of national security means they found nothing.” He did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Beast. The FBI did not comment for this story. The Department of Justice declined to comment as did the Special Counsel’s Office.

The White House was quick to lash out, however. “Unlike President Obama, who let Russia and other foreign adversaries push America around, President Trump has actually been tough on Russia,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement, adding that the Timesreport was “absurd.”

But just the idea of the sitting U.S. president being probed as a possible agent of a foreign nation, especially one like Russia, has former senior government officials and former prosecutors grasping for the right words to describe the news.

“It’s mind-blowing and even though it’s separate from criminal inquiry, any determination that the president of the U.S. had been or was a Russian agent would be out of The Manchurian Candidate,” said Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney. “And I would have to imagine it would make it untenable for him to be president but it would also be the political scandal of all time.”

I probably shouldn't comment on this, but I do wonder how SHS can possibly sleep at night...

Sleep? Robots shut off.

During the Nixon years they called it “deep throat”.

Y’all need to check out trumps lastest tweet storm. Absolute gold.

His normal charming self...

Been saying it forever it seems. POTUS is a traitor, a Manchurian President!

Trump lashes out at FBI after report he was investigated over national security


By BRENT D. GRIFFITHS 01/11/2019 10:22 PM EST Updated 01/12/2019 07:21 AM EST
link


President Donald Trump on Saturday lashed out following a New York Times report that said the FBI opened an inquiry into the commander in chief shortly after he fired FBI Director James Comey that centered on whether Trump was a national security threat to his own country.

"Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired Lyin’ James Comey, a total sleaze!" Trump tweeted.

According to the Times' report, published online Friday and in print Saturday, the FBI's investigation was related to whether Trump had obstructed justice by firing Comey but also included a counterintelligence component on whether Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had fallen under the Kremlin's influence — a revelation that had not been previously reported.

"This is absurd," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement provided to POLITICO late Friday. "James Comey was fired because he’s a disgraced partisan hack, and his Deputy Andrew McCabe, who was in charge at the time, is a known liar fired by the FBI."

Friday's report was based in part on the accounts of unnamed former law enforcement officials, "others familiar with the investigation" and former FBI general counsel James. A Baker's private congressional testimony.

The report further states that the bureau's investigation, including the counterintelligence aspect, was taken over by special counsel Robert Mueller, whose appointment was put into motion by Trump's decision to fire then-FBI Director James Comey on May 9, 2017.

The president has repeatedly changed his reason for firing Comey. The White House initially said Trump fired Comey at the recommendation of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who penned a memo suggesting firing Comey over his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

However, several days later, the president told NBC’s Lester Holt that he fired Comey over the investigation into Russian collusion.

Trump followed up his initial tweet Saturday by launching a broadside against Comey over his handling of the Clinton email investigation, calling Comey, without evidence, "a crooked cop."

In his fourth tweet before 8 a.m., Trump alleged Comey "is being totally protected by his best friend, Bob Mueller." (Although Comey and Mueller are acquaintances, it recently emerged that Mueller is very good friends with Trump's nominee for Attorney General, Bob Barr.)

Just after 10 a.m., Comey tweeted: "'I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” — FDR.'"

Deputy Director McCabe was fired from the FBI in March 2018 just hours before his retirement, following criticism from Trump and allegations by an internal Justice Department watchdog that he misled investigators probing the FBI's handling of the 2016 Hillary Clinton email investigation.

In an acknowledgment of just how serious an FBI investigation of a sitting president would be, the report details a "vigorous debate" among former law enforcement officials about whether the probe was an overreach.

Rudy Giuliani, Trump's attorney, said the FBI's investigation into Trump should have resulted in an outcome, otherwise the bureau is "imperiling our national security." But legal experts pointed out that a counterintelligence investigation is different from a criminal probe and the lack of previous public knowledge of the investigation or of any possible outcomes is not surprising.

"If it was a counter intelligence investigation and it obtained any evidence, it would have to have resulted in some action being taken or they are imperiling our national security," Giuliani said in a statement to MSNBC. "This shows how out of control they are."

The report drew quick reaction among legal analysts on social media. Carrie Cordero, an adjunct law professor at Georgetown, said the report showed a "cautious" FBI "not eager" to investigate the president.

Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor and Democratic candidate for Illinois Attorney General, said the report showed the FBI opened a counterintelligence probe "because it had good reason to believe that Trump was secretly working on behalf of Russia against our interests."

The Times previously reported that Trump, in a meeting with Russian officials in the Oval Office shortly after Comey's ouster, bragged that "pressure" on him was now alleviated.

"I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Trump allegedly said. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

In a further tweet Saturday, Trump claimed, without evidence, he had been tougher on Russia than previous presidents, before adding, "I have often said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday we will have good relations with Russia again!"

Yet another Trump temper tantrum.

Is any of this even legal?

Nope, deep state went rouge.

Ask yourself this...if there is nothing to the various incidents that show Trumps campaign connections to Russia...why would Manafort be sending internal campaign information to a Russian who might be a spy for Putin?

Why would Manafort, TRUMPS CAMPAIGN MANAGER...why would he want to share any information with the Russian spies?

How many believe Manafort went rogue and was simply acting on his own without Trump's permission?

The excuses..they should be spectacular!


Week 86: FBI’s Blockbuster Probe of Trump’s Loyalty Revealed


Meanwhile, thanks to a paperwork goof there’s little doubt Manafort sent campaign polling data to a Ukrainian pal who might be a Russian spy.

By JACK SHAFER January 12, 2019
link

he FBI was so distressed by President Donald Trump’s behavior in the second week of May 2017, when he fired FBI Director James B. Comey, that it opened criminal and counterintelligence investigations to determine if the president was acting on behalf of Russia against the United States or had fallen under its sway, the New York Times reported on Friday night. Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III soon assumed control of and merged the FBI investigations into his own, and no evidence has surfaced publicly to show that Trump had become a willing Russian dupe. But even so, the Times account pulses like a John le Carré thriller as the FBI works to determine if the country has fallen to the Russians in a silent coup.

FBI antennae began twitching in summer 2016 during the campaign, the Times reports, when Trump urged the Russians to find and release Hillary Clinton’s missing emails. Trump seemed never to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Republican Party platform went soft on the Russians over the Ukraine invasion. Later, as the Steele dossier gained circulation inside higher Washington circles, directly claiming that Trump had been compromised, worries inside the bureau became palpable. But it was the firing of Comey, buttressed by the interview Trump gave to NBC News’ Lester Holt in which he said he sacked the director because of the Russia investigation, that prompted the FBI to act.

The Times' FBI scoop overshadowed—but not by much—news from midweek that was as redolent of the musk of collusion as anything we’ve encountered since the Russia scandal commenced. Thanks to a redaction error made in a legal filing by convicted felon Paul Manafort’s lawyers, we learned that special counsel Mueller believes that former Trump campaign director Paul Manafort lied about passing, in spring 2016, political polling data to two Russia-aligned Ukrainian oligarchs he had previously worked for. Using his right-hand man— suspected Russian intelligence asset Konstantin Kilimnik as his go-between—the Manafort pass-through splinters Donald Trump’s protestations that his campaign was free of connections to the Russians.

Trump denies knowing about the sharing of polling data. “No. I didn’t know anything about it. Nothing about it,” Trump said this week.

Why did Manafort offer the oligarchs polling data, the New York Times asked. To impress them with his campaign chops? To do them a political favor by lending a window on the Trump campaign? Or, the newspaper alternately muses, was he trying to impress the oligarchs as a way to stall the predations of Russian billionaire Oleg V. Deripaska, an important Putin ally, to whom he is said to owe millions?

Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio, who met with Mueller in early 2018, also worked for Manafort on Ukrainian elections, narrowing the circle of participants. He says he didn’t know the data was shared, but, according to Bloomberg News, Fabrizio can be found on email chains with Manafort and Kilimnik. After the election, Fabrizio explained to Frontline how powerful his data was in identifying “Trump targets” who were ready to change direction in the upcoming election.

Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., did not inhibit himself from speculating that the polling data was put to direct use. “Did the Russians end up using this information in their efforts that took place later in the fall where they tried using the Internet Research Agency and other bots and other automated tools on social media to suppress, for example, the African-American vote?” Warner said.

Manafort’s partner in crime, confessed felon Rick Gates, told an associate that “Person A” (now widely known to be Kilimnik) “was a former Russian Intelligence Officer with the GRU” (the Russian military intelligence agency) according to a March 2018 Mueller filing. The filing later states that Kilimnik still had his Russian intelligence ties in 2016. This might not make Kilimnik the smoking gun in the Russia caper, but surely he qualifies as a hot bullet. That a top associate to the campaign director of an American presidential campaign was directly connected to Russian spies—perhaps even working in their service—sounds like a paranoiac’s fantasy. But there it is.

If Gates knew Kilimnik was spooked up with the Russians, it stands to reason that Manafort did, too. Manafort and Gates had to have known also that the data they shared would have been re-shared with darker audiences, presumably those residing in Moscow. The delivery of the polling data to Russia-friendly powers is consistent with other efforts by Russia to become more intimate with the Trump team. At least 16 Trump associates—Manafort, Gates, Michael Flynn, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, George Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Jeff Sessions, J.D. Gordon, Roger Stone, Michael Caputo, Erik Prince, Avi Berkowitz, Michael Cohen, Ivanka Trump and Felix Sater—met face-to-face with Russians during the 2016 campaign or transition, texted or spoke telephonically with them or exchanged emails. The Russians were smarting from the economic sanctions levied on them for the Crimea invasion and famously pressed incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn for relief the month before the Trump inauguration. (Flynn later pleaded guilty of lying to investigators about his conversations.) Russian agent Maria Butina, too, asked Trump about sanctions in a 2015 town hall.

But back to Kilimnik, who was indicted by Mueller in June 2018 for tampering with witnesses in a case about Manafort’s foreign lobbying. The latest court filing also indicates that Manafort and the Soviet-born Kilimnik were working on a Russia-friendly “peace plan” in August 2016, just as Manafort got canned from the Trump campaign after his business with the Russia-aligned moguls in Ukraine was publicized. The duo met again, including in Madrid in early 2017.

Kilimnik’s fingerprints pop up practically everywhere in the Russia saga. He allegedly helped Manafort illegally conceal income he earned while consulting in Ukraine. He also figures in the case of Washington lobbyist, W. Samuel Patten, who pleaded guilty last summer for lying to the Senate Intelligence Committee. He also made illegal straw purchases of inaugural tickets for an unnamed Ukrainian oligarch. (Foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing to inaugurations.) Patten also “worked with Mr. Kilimnik and Russia-aligned Ukrainians looking to build ties to the Trump administration,” reported the New York Times. Called “Manafort’s Manafort“ by some, Kilimnik was the political consultant’s point man in dealings with Deripaska, meeting with the mogul and then communicating to Manafort about the sessions via email, including one message where Manafort offers to give Deripaska “private briefings“ on the campaign.

When Franklin Foer contacted Kilimnik last June for the Atlantic via email, “Manafort’s man in Kiev,” as he has been described, was cagey about where he was living. (Mueller has hinted Russia, Foer writes.) “I don’t want to play a role in this zoo,” Kilimnik said. The Foer feature plots Kilimnik’s ascent from Manafort’s gofer and fixer to a position of influence in the Ukraine government the pair helped elect. In 2016, Kilimnik turned his focus to the United States, and as Politico reported in March 2017, he claims to have helped spike a tough-on-Russia plank in the Republican Party platform. Manafort defended Kilimnik against Politico’s questions about his links to Russian intelligence, calling them “smears.”

Where isn’t it raining Ukrainians? A dozen rich Ukrainians who made a splash at Trump’s inaugural have drawn the Mueller probe’s attention, the New York Times reported this week. Like Manafort and Kilimnik, some of them came bearing “peace plans” for Ukraine that just so happen to call for the lifting of Russian sanctions. One of the inauguration partiers, Serhiy Lyovochkin, was one of the two oligarchs who got 2016 polling data from Kilimnik. Lyovochkin, the Times continues, also seems to match the description of the oligarch who got Patten to buy him illegal tickets.

Manafort maintains he didn’t lie about the polling data pass-through, he just didn’t remember making the contact. Should we laugh at his moxie or sympathize with him? It’s conceivable, I guess, that he made so many contacts as Trump’s campaign director that it has slipped his mind. Alas for Manafort, Mueller is there to help us recall what Trump would rather we all forget.

Open the court filing. Scroll down to the blacked-out sections. Clip and paste those section into a new document and voila, view the redactions. Send your best redactions to Shafer.Politico@gmail.com. My email alerts work for the Ukrainians, my Twitter feed for the Russians, my RSS feed for the highest bidder.

Not much of what Trump does is legal or ethical.

Obviously he shared the information to make sure those kids in Russia are able to get adopted by some loving American families.

Trump concealed details of meetings with Putin from senior officials: report

BY CHRIS MILLS RODRIGO - 01/12/19 06:35 PM EST
link

President Trump late Saturday dismissed a Washington Post report that he tried to conceal conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling it “ridiculous.”

Trump told Fox News host Jeanine Pirro during an interview on "Justice with Judge Jeanine" that he had a “great conversation” with Putin.

"I'm not keeping anything under wraps, I couldn't care less. I mean, it's so ridiculous. These people make it up," Trump said.

"Anybody could have listened to that meeting, it is open for grabs. The whole Russia thing it's a hoax, it's a total hoax, everybody knows it," he added.

He also said he does what "every president does.”

"I have many one-on-one, nobody ever says anything about it, but with Putin they say, 'Oh what did they talk about?'" he said.

"We talked about very positive things," he added.

Current and former U.S. officials told Post that Trump on multiple occasions concealed details about encounters. The Post reported that there is a lack of detailed records on five of Trump’s face-to-face meetings with Putin.

Trump reportedly took notes on an encounter from his own interpreter on one occasion and directed a linguist not to discuss the meeting with other administration.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the Post report "outrageously inaccurate."

"The Washington Post story is so outrageously inaccurate it doesn't even warrant a response," she said in a statement.

"The liberal media has wasted two years trying to manufacture a fake collusion scandal instead of reporting on the fact that unlike President Obama, who let Russia and other foreign adversaries push America around, President Trump has actually been tough on Russia."

anybody listen to trump's phone interview on fox news?

talk about unhinged. he even called for someone to look into cohen's father in law.

I am curious, is that the same meeting the left was triggered about that no one was allowed to be in, only trump and the Russians were in?

So how did they get the quote?

The Russians released a report and Trump refused to deny the stuff in the report.

No it isn't. The interview nobody was allowed into AND Trump took the notes from so nobody could see them was in Helsinki Finland.

There ya go.

I think it uncharterd territory we now have the left accusing President Trumnp being a traitor.


What go around comes around folks.


Sell your soul to gain the office, you will pay the price, and I am not even talking about from the right. I am talking about from your own side.


Just look at California. It's a total mess out there.

Talk about false equivalency.

OMG - this takes the biscuit. WOW.

If it walks like a duck! Open your eyes man.

No there was one in the oval office, where he kicked out the press and the left went crazy.

Funny we are referring to the fact that there are MULTIPLE meetings between Putin and Trump - without any other US presence/help/support/witnesses .....

I can remember the FIRST time Trump met with Putin alone - and it was discussed on this board how Trump was going to be owned by the ex-KGB chief ... and how it was unusual/unprecedented that the POTUS would insist on meeting Putin in those circumstances.

The quote about Trump firing Comey to take the heat off him? You seem to be insisting reporters were present? Not true.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

The White House document that contained Mr. Trump’s comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion.

Sounds a lot like collusion.

That's why he made sure the notes of the translators were taken in Helsinki.

In this day in age I don't believe that the New York Times is a credible news source anymore, far from it actually. I want the source names, official names of who they got the data from and when. If not then it didn't happen.

"One official read quotations tot he Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion."

What is that?

I take every news source with a grain of salt. But at some point I can't avoid the obvious. There's an overwhelming amount of subterfuge coming from this White House. Guliani's story is in constant flux and it's hard for me to believe that everyone is on some witch hunt to get Trump. Trump lies on a daily basis. It's all pretty overwhelming for any one that takes an objective look.