Today, in other breaking news, as Trump gunsel and body man Bill Barr continues to rail against what he strongly suggests was “likely” “criminal” “spying” on Trump and associates by the Obama administration:
Mr. Barr told a congressional committee last month that he was determined “to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus ‘Russiagate’ scandal.” He has appointed a criminal prosecutor, John H. Durham, to review the investigation and the actions of intelligence and law enforcement officials trying in 2016 to understand the Kremlin’s interference and possible links to Trump associates.
the final, 966 page, volume of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian interference in the 2016 election (and the grounds for reasonable suspicions and the investigations into it) was released today.
The Senate intel committee is made up of 9 Republicans and 6 Democrats (the chairman has recused himself, due to an investigation into possible pandemic-related insider trading, but he apparently endorsed the final report). In spite of that majority, the report contained some very compromising information that Mr. Trump will find infuriating, for example:
“While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those materials to aid Trump’s electoral prospects,” the report said. “To do so, the Trump campaign took actions to obtain advance notice about WikiLeaks releases of Clinton emails; took steps to obtain inside information about the content of releases once WikiLeaks began to publish stolen information; created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following their release; and encouraged further theft of information and continued leaks.”
This last reference to “Trump’s recollection” is in connection to the president’s sworn written answers to the Mueller “witch hunt”. Answers drafted by Trump’s legal team that Mueller tactfully called “inadequate” (in one case, the final question, that inadequate answer was NO ANSWER WHATSOEVER ).
The majority Republican Senate Intelligence Committee, author of the report, is currently headed by acting chair Marco Rubio (R-Florida). Its website contains a link to the report, as well as Marco Rubio’s cherry-picked partisan spin on Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities, volume five of its massive Russian Active Measures, Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 Election.
The Grey Skank (NY Times) reported today:
The report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, provided a bipartisan Senate imprimatur for an extraordinary set of facts: The Russian government undertook an extensive campaign to try to sabotage the 2016 American election to help Mr. Trump become president, and some members of Mr. Trump’s circle of advisers were open to the help from an American adversary.
The president must be spitting mad today. Traitors on all sides!!
On the other hand, his people on the committee stood up for him being a victim of liberal fascists (also from the failing NYT):
Senators split along partisan lines over whether to absolve or condemn the Trump campaign.
A Republican appendix to the report:
“After more than three years of investigation by this Committee, we can now say with no doubt, there was no collusion.”
A Democratic appendix:
“The committee’s bipartisan report unambiguously shows that members of the Trump campaign cooperated with Russian efforts to get Trump elected. … Paul Manafort, while he was chairman of the Trump campaign, was secretly communicating with a Russian intelligence officer with whom he discussed campaign strategy and repeatedly shared internal campaign polling data. … This is what collusion looks like.”
This on the same day that Trump mega-donor Postmaster General Louis DeJoy reversed his mail slowing policies including closing post offices and cutting all overtime (no word yet about restoring mailboxes taken off the streets or the hundreds of high-speed sorting machines taken off-line) until after the election. DeJoy backed down in the face of concerted resistance by several state AGs who were initiating legal actions against DeJoy and Trump. Trump’s new postmaster general be on the hot seat in front of the Senate and House next week. Stay tuned.
SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:
b. Following the Obama Administration’s imposition of sanctions on Russia in December 2016 (“Russia sanctions”), did you discuss with Lieutenant General (LTG) Michael Flynn, K.T. McFarland, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Jared Kushner, Erik Prince, or anyone else associated with the transition what should be communicated to the Russian government regarding the sanctions? If yes, describe who you spoke with about this issue, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).
c. On December 29 and December 31, 2016, LTG Flynn had conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the Russia sanctions and Russia’s response to the Russia sanctions.
i. Did you direct or suggest that LTG Flynn have discussions with anyone from the Russian government about the Russia sanctions?
ii. Were you told in advance of LTG Flynn’s December 29, 2016 conversation that he was going to be speaking with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, describe who told you this information, when, and what you were told. If no, when and from whom did you learn of LTG Flynn’s December 29, 2016 conversation with Ambassador Kislyak?
iii. When did you learn of LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak’s call on December 31, 2016? Who told you and what were you told?
iv. When did you learn that sanctions were discussed in the December 29 and December 31, 2016 calls between LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak? Who told you and what were you told?
d. At any time between December 31, 2016, and January 20, 2017, did anyone tell you or suggest to you that Russia’s decision not to impose reciprocal sanctions was attributable in any way to LTG Flynn’s communications with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, identify who provided you with this information, when, and the substance of what you were told.
e. On January 12, 2017, the Washington Post published a column that stated that LTG Flynn phoned Ambassador Kislyak several times on December 29, 2016. After learning of the column, did you direct or suggest to anyone that LTG Flynn should deny that he discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, who did you make this suggestion or direction to, when, what did you say, and why did you take this step?
i. After learning of the column, did you have any conversations with LTG Flynn about his conversations with Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016? If yes, describe when those discussions occurred and the content of the discussions.
f. Were you told about a meeting between Jared Kushner and Sergei Gorkov that took place in December 2016?
i. If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of the meeting.
g. Were you told about a meeting or meetings between Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev or any other representative from the Russian government that took place in January 2017?
i. If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of the meeting(s).
h. Prior to January 20, 2017, did you talk to Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, or any other individual associated with the transition regarding establishing an unofficial line of communication with Russia? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of such an unofficial line of communication.
(No answer provided.)