Wednesday, January 29, 2020

It’s Time to Question Michael Atkinson on FISA Abuses




Now that the Justice Department and the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court have confirmed at least two of the warrants for Carter Page were unlawfully obtained, it is time to ask Atkinson—in the open, for all to hear—what role he had in helping to orchestrate the illicit spying on the Trump campaign.

In a fair world—one with responsible media organizations that didn’t act as propagandists for the Democratic Party—the news that a secret government court admitted it authorized unlawful warrants to spy on an innocent American based on his political activity would be front-page news.
The January 7 order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court revealing that at least two of the four warrants against Trump campaign associate Carter Page were “not valid”—meaning they were illegally obtained—would be on a nonstop loop at CNN and would dominate the news and opinion pages of the Washington Post.
But alas, the average CNN viewer or Post reader will be hard-pressed to find coverage of such a shocking disclosure; after all, how could either outlet report that bombshell when two signers of the garbage applications—former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe—now work as paid contributors to those same news organizations?
Just as the Russia collusion hoax was designed to obfuscate the real scandal—that Barack Obama’s Justice Department targeted Donald Trump before and after the 2016 presidential election—Ukrainegate, so to speak, is now intended to do the work the Mueller investigation failed to do.
It’s not a coincidence, after all, that the allegedly impeachable July 25 phone call between Trump and the president of Ukraine occurred one day after Robert Mueller’s disastrous testimony on Capitol Hill. Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and his fellow coup plotters wasted no time in concocting the follow-up to the failed collusion ruse in an attempt to take down President Trump.
That’s why it’s necessary for Trump’s legal team to use this opportunity to remind Americans repeatedly how the former president, not the current one, abused his power in order to interfere in an election; and when that plot failed, the former president, not the current one, continued to abuse his power to sabotage the administration of a political foe he loathes to this day.
In his remarks from the Senate floor on Saturday, attorney Jay Sekulow read aloud portions of the newly declassified order as well as the FISA court’s “scathing” response to the December 2019 report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, which detailed how Barack Obama’s FBI under the leadership of James Comey systematically misled the secret court.
“This order responds to reports that personnel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation provided false information to the National Security Division of the Department of Justice, and withheld material information from NSD which was detrimental to the FBI’s case, in connection with four applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,” Sekulow said. “When FBI personnel mislead NSD in the ways described above, they equally mislead the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”
Sekulow would be wise to keep this up and for reasons aside from the need to reiterate the corruption and criminality of the Obama Justice Department: The top lawyer at the National Security Division when all four FISA warrants on Page were processed was Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community’s inspector general who pushed the “whistleblower” complaint at the heart of the current impeachment effort.
As I’ve previously reported, Atkinson is the one figure tied to the Russian collusion hoax, the FISA abuse scandal and and so-called Ukrainegate. Although Atkinson testified behind closed doors last year during the House’s impeachment inquiry, Schiff won’t release the inspector general’s transcript to the public.
Atkinson’s conduct has been criticized by Republicans in the House and Senate; following Atkinson’s closed door Senate testimony last October, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) sent him a letter demanding responses to questions that the Senate-confirmed bureaucrat had refused to answer. (Despite repeated requests over the past several weeks, Cotton’s office refuses to tell me whether Atkinson replied to his letter.)
In July 2016, the same month the FBI officially opened its counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign, Atkinson—a government lawyer with no background in intelligence—was brought on as the senior counsel for the National Security Division. His longtime colleague at the U.S. Attorney’s office in D.C., Mary McCord, was head of that agency which, in addition to other responsibilities, oversees the government’s pleadings before the FISC to target suspected foreign agents.
Atkinson held that job until he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in May 2018 as the new intelligence community’s watchdog.
That means he was the chief attorney for the agency that handled all four FISA applications on Carter Page. The Justice Department informed the FISC that two are invalid due to “insufficient predication to establish probable cause to believe that [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power.” The remaining applications, presented to the secret court in October 2016 and January 2017, are also under review by the Justice Department and could face the same judgment.
The court attempts to portray the National Security Division as a victim of FBI malfeasance and deception, but that’s hard to believe. It’s more likely, given the official record and McCord’s subsequent activism against Trump (she left the NSD in April 2017 and now serves as an advisor for the Democrats’ impeachment legal team) that top FBI and NSD officials, including possibly Atkinson, were in cahoots to defraud the spy court.

According to her testimony cited in the Horowitz report, McCord spoke almost daily with Andrew McCabe. Those conversations included discussions about the first FISA application on Page. McCord was aware of Christopher Steele’s relationship with Fusion GPS, the political chop shop that produced Steele’s bogus dossier on behalf of the Democrats and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
McCord told Horowitz that she asked McCabe about Steele’s funding arrangement with Fusion and advised that the application needed to reflect that contract. It didn’t, which was one of the key criticisms in the Horowitz report.

Even if you give NSD the benefit of the doubt up to that point, after BuzzFeed published the full dossier in January 2017, McCord would have known for certain that the material she relied upon to convince the FISA court to approve surveillance on Carter Page was flimsy and politically motivated. But the NSD greenlighted three subsequent renewals based on the dossier and Steele’s “credibility. 

Further, McCord, an Obama appointee, managed the early months of the probe into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to interfere in the election. After former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein took over that probe in the spring of 2017, according to McCord, she and Comey briefed Rosenstein on the collusion investigation. This certainly would have involved an update on the dossier-based FISA warrants, which Rosenstein himself signed a few months later.

It is impossible to believe that Atkinson, as McCord’s longtime colleague and closest legal aide, was unaware that campaign opposition research sourced by a foreign operative (Steele) and peddled by a well-known Beltway spin operation represented all the evidence the NSD presented to the FISA court four times. Either he is incompetent, willfully ignorant, or he acted as an accomplice in the entire collusion hoax.

Now that the Justice Department and FISC have confirmed at least two of the warrants were unlawfully obtained, it is time to ask Atkinson—in the open, for all to hear—what role he had in helping to orchestrate the illicit spying on the Trump campaign via Carter Page. Then the Senate and the public can judge for themselves whether Atkinson’s handling of the “whistleblower” complaint was legitimate or if it was simply a continuation of what his agency began in the summer of 2016. Atkinson’s public testimony is as important, perhaps more so, than that of either Hunter or Joe Biden. He should be at the top of the Republicans’ witness list.




Flock Of Monocled Geese In Top Hats Join

Flock Of Monocled Geese 

In Top Hats 

Joins Don Lemon In 

Round Of Laughter At The Commoners

NEW YORK, NY—Over the weekend, CNN’s Don Lemon burst out in a fit of laughter with his panel of monocled, tophat wearing geese.

While Lemon tried to talk about the half of the country that doesn't share his political views, the panel of geese went into fits of honking, cackles, and belly-laughs. Lemon himself could barely get a word out without going into another episode of laughs.

Later, Lemon and the geese went out for lattes and studied geography.

IG Report Proves Obama Administration Spied On Trump Campaign Big Time




The IG report established that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, and the spying was much worse than previously thought.

Last week, President Trump triggered the left when he tweeted a Photoshopped picture that portrayed former President Barack Obama perched midair outside Trump Tower, binoculars and listening device in hand.

The liberal outlet Vox condemned the president for his “increasingly bad tweets,” before declaring “there’s no evidence the Obama administration spied on Trump.” Vox then regurgitated the false narrative that, while the FBI did surveil former Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page, “that didn’t happen until after Page left the campaign.”


For years, conservatives tried to correct the record, noting that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) order gave the government access to Page’s past emails and other electronic communications with members of the Trump campaign, but the mainstream media ignored this reality. That the liberal and legacy press continue to push this narrative now, following the release of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on FISA abuse, is beyond baffling, because the IG report established that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, and the spying was much worse than previously thought.

Spying on Carter Page Was Spying on the Trump Campaign

The FISA warrants, of course, gave the FBI authority to spy on Page, and now that the government has finally made a mea culpa, we know that surveillance was illegal. But contrary to the continuing narrative, that spying wasn’t limited to Page. It included internal Trump campaign communications.

The IG report acknowledged this, noting that Gabriel Sanz-Rexach, the chief of the Office of Intelligence’s Operations Section, explained “that the evidence collected during the first FISA application time period demonstrated that Carter Page had access to individuals in Russia and he was communicating with people in the Trump campaign.”

Horowitz’s report added that, “based on our review of the Woods Files and communications between the FBI and [Office of Intelligence], we identified a few emails between Page and members of the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign concerning campaign related matters.” The Woods file is a record of compliance with procedures intended to “ensure accuracy with regard to…the facts supporting probable cause.”

Don’t let the “few emails” mislead: The FISA surveillance didn’t just accidently sweep in a few random campaign communications. Rather, the “few” campaign communications the IG identified came from its limited review of the Woods file and select FBI communications. The IG report made this point clear in a footnote, stating it did not review the entirety of the FISA-intercepted communications—only those “pertinent to” the IG’s review of FISA abuse.


While we do not know how many campaign emails and communications were swept into the FISA surveillance of Page, we do know the FBI would have had access to all campaign emails that originated from Page or included him as a recipient. And the number of emails accessed appears large, given that the IG report stated that 45 days into the surveillance order, the FBI “team had not reviewed all of the emails the first FISA application yielded and believed there were additional emails not yet collected.” The IG report also established that the Crossfire Hurricane team recognized “the possibility that the FISA collection would include sensitive political campaign related information.”

The IG report also did more than confirm the Crossfire Hurricane team accessed some Trump campaign communications: It established that accessing Page’s communications with the Trump campaign was the goal of the FISA order.

For instance, a case agent working the Crossfire Hurricane investigation explained to the IG’s team that because Page had just “returned from his trip to Russia” before the Republicans’ national convention, the FBI’s “belief was that Page was involved in the platform change [concerning Ukraine] and the team was hoping to find evidence of that in their review of the FISA collections of Page’s email accounts.”

The FISA Warrant Allowed Physical Searches

Beyond the electronic campaign communications the FBI intercepted, agents may also have accessed hardcopies of campaign materials Page kept. As the IG report explained, FISA allows for both electronic surveillance and physical searches if, in addition to establishing that the target is a “foreign agent,” the application “states the facts and circumstances justifying the applicant’s belief that the premises or property to be searched contains ‘foreign intelligence information’ and ‘is or is about to be, owned, used, possessed by, or is in transit to or from’ the target.”

Whether the FBI conducted physical searches of Page’s various abodes and property is unclear from the IG report. But it appears from the IG report that the FISA orders at least authorized the FBI to conduct physical searches, as seen by an unredacted passage early in the report, which noted the IG was limiting its discussion of FISA “to the provisions applicable” to “the process the FBI used to obtain authorization to conduct electronic surveillance and physical searches targeting Carter Page” (emphasis added).

So, in addition to the Trump campaign electronic communications intercepted by the FBI, it is possible that the government dug through hard copies or computer files of campaign-related material Page had stored at the various locales where he stayed during this time.

FBI Tried to Influence the Trump Campaign

While the results of any physical searches related to Page are unknown, what is known is that federal spying on the Trump campaign through Page went further. Prior to the FISA surveillance orders, the FBI tasked informant Stefan Halper with targeting Page.

(Another agency may have as well.) The IG report revealed that in targeting Page, Halper sought specific details from Page related to the Trump campaign, and fed Page unsolicited (and potentially illegal) advice concerning campaign strategy.
Halper quizzed the foreign policy advisor on an ‘October Surprise.’

For instance, in an August 2016 conversation with Page that Halper secretly recorded, Halper quizzed the foreign policy advisor on an “October Surprise.” Halper then asked Page “if the Trump campaign could access information that might have been obtained by the Russians from the DNC files.” But Halper’s next line shows Halper was doing more than seeking evidence of collusion—he was trying to influence the Trump campaign: Halper told Page “that in past campaigns ‘we would have used [it] in a heartbeat.’”

To fully grasp the significance of Halper’s comments, one must understand his long history as a campaign advisor. That history dated back nearly four decades, with Halper holding a high-level position in George H.W. Bush’s presidential campaign in 1979. Halper then joined the staff of the Reagan-Bush campaign after Ronald Reagan won the nomination and tapped Bush as his choice for vice president. In fact, the IG report noted a Crossfire Hurricane case agent had initially reached out to Halper because he knew Halper “had been affiliated with national political campaigns since the early 1970s.”

Given Halper’s history as a seasoned campaign guru, his “we would have used [it] in a heartbeat” comment to Page sought, not to elicit information from Page that the Trump team was colluding with Russia, but to entice the Trump campaign to do just that.

Of course, we know from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report that didn’t happen, but here Halper was doing just what the unit chief of the Office of General Counsel told the IG was “her main concern about CHSs [confidential human sources] interacting with members of the Trump campaign”—“ensuring that CHSs were not ‘influencing steps the campaign was going to take.’”

FBI Surveillance Efforts Not Limited to Page

What else Halper asked Page about the campaign, or suggested the campaign do, during this August 2016 meeting is unknown, but there was ample time for the two to chat about campaign strategy. In fact, from the IG report it can be gleaned that Halper’s conversation with Page was fairly extensive, as the transcript of their recorded meeting spanned some 163 pages.

And that was just Page’s August conversation with Halper. A second taped conversation between Halper and Page took place on October 17, 2016, then in December 2016, Page made additional statements to Halper. The IG report did not elaborate on the campaign-related aspects of those conversations, focusing instead on the exculpatory information Page provided Halper that the FBI failed to include in the FISA applications.

Halper also used Page to connect to a senior member of the Trump campaign, Sam Clovis. Unlike Page, Clovis was not a target of Crossfire Hurricane. Clovis also had an impeccable pedigree, serving more than 25 years in the Air Force as a fighter pilot and instructor, and later spending serving in the Pentagon and Middle East, before retiring “as a colonel and inspector general of the U.S. Space Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command.”


The FBI allowed Halper to ingratiate himself with Clovis by feigning an interest in helping the Trump campaign.
Notwithstanding Clovis’ unimpeachable background and his high-level position in the Trump campaign, the FBI allowed Halper to ingratiate himself with Clovis by feigning an interest in helping the Trump campaign. Halper then secretly recorded the Trump campaign leader.

The FBI suggested tasking Halper to talk with Clovis was legitimate because Halper’s focus centered on how two unknowns—Page and Trump advisor George Papadopoulos—came to work for the Trump campaign. But when Halper spoke with Clovis on September 1, 2016, in a recorded conversation, Halper posed several questions about sensitive campaign strategies.

For instance, Halper asked Clovis “whether the Trump campaign was planning an ‘October Surprise,’” and he learned the Trump campaign planned to focus on “giv[ing] people a reason to vote for him, not just vote against Hillary.” Clovis also shared with Halper that Trump did not want to “do a traditional campaign,” and added “additional comments about the internal structure, organization, and functioning of the Trump campaign.”

Halper’s recorded conversation with Clovis delved even deeper into campaign concerns, with Halper discussing with Clovis “an internal campaign debate about Trump’s immigration strategy, efforts to reach out to minority groups and the impact of those efforts, and the campaign’s strategies for responding to questions about Trump’s decision not to release his tax returns.”

The IG report did not detail the content of these conversations, but here, an earlier comment Halper made to Page proves significant: Prior to meeting with Clovis, Halper told Page that he was available whenever Clovis “wants to chat,” then Halper added that he “would like to meet with [Clovis],” because there are “some things that have to be done at this part of … the campaign…. And if you don’t do them you’re going to lose.”

Maybe the FBI didn’t task Halper to spy on the Trump campaign, but Halper’s comments to Page, coupled with the topics he discussed with Clovis, reveal Halper ignored that directive.

Then There Was FBI Targeting of George Papadopoulos

The FBI also tasked Halper with targeting foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos. The FBI didn’t obtain a FISA warrant on Papadopoulos, but Halper recorded conversations with Papadopoulos in September 2016 and October 2016.

While Halper’s targeting of Papadopoulos didn’t translate into much information about the Trump campaign, the IG report still leaves unanswered whether other members of the intelligence community, either American or Western, had set up Papadopoulos, with Joseph Mifsud feeding him fake “intel” about Russia having dirt on Hillary Clinton, then arranging for a “friendly-foreign government” representative, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, to prompt Papadopoulos to disclose this supposed inside track on Russia collusion.

While Papadopoulos remained reticent with Halper, he did share “insight” on the Trump campaign team, telling Halper that former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn “does want to cooperate with the Russians and the Russians are willing to … embrace adult issues.” Unknown is what else Papadopoulos told Halper, or the other CHS tasked to chat him up, about the Trump campaign.

Setting a Trap for Michael Flynn

The FBI didn’t limit its spying efforts to outsourced CHSs, however. Rather, in addition to using Halper and several other CHSs, on August 17, 2016, the FBI dispatched a supervisor of the Crossfire Hurricane team, known broadly to be FBI Agent Joe Pientka, to a private security briefing for then-candidate Trump and Flynn.


The FBI viewed the briefing of candidate Trump and his advisors as a possible opportunity to collect information for the Crossfire Hurricane and Flynn investigations.

The IG report noted the FBI chose Pientka to provide this security briefing to “assess” Flynn in anticipation of a “subject interview,” but beyond that, Pientka was there to “overhear, whatever it was,” and record that. The IG report noted that the FBI viewed the briefing of candidate Trump and his advisors as a possible opportunity to collect information potentially relevant to the Crossfire Hurricane and Flynn investigations.

Pientka memorialized the results of the briefing in an official FBI document, summarizing questions posed by Trump and Flynn, “as well as comments made by Trump and Flynn.” Trump and Flynn’s statements were “added to the Crossfire Hurricane system and uploaded in the FBI’s case management system.”

It wasn’t just Flynn: the FBI monitored what should have been normal briefing sessions. The IG report revealed that prior to briefing President-elect Trump on the “salacious” details of Steele dossier, former FBI Director James Comey met with senior leaders of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

“One of the topics discussed was Trump’s potential responses to being told about the ‘salacious’ information, including that Trump might make statements, or provide information of value, to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.” So, while Comey told Trump during their private meeting that “the FBI did not know whether the allegations were true or false and that the FBI was not investigating them,” Comey tracked Trump’s reaction for the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Other CHSs Had Significant Access to the Trump Campaign, Transition Team, and Administration

Beyond the intentional spying, the IG report revealed quite a bit of “accidental” espionage occurred. While the IG concluded that the FBI had not placed any CHSs in the Trump campaign (or administration), the report revealed that “the FBI had several other CHSs with either a connection to candidate Trump or a role in the Trump campaign.”

For instance, the IG report noted that one CHS who had been “in contact” with Trump during the campaign passed information to the FBI about Page and Manafort in August 2016. While the FBI did not task this CHS during the Trump campaign, according to the IG report, after the November 8, 2016 election, Pientka contacted the CHS’s handling agent “and asked for ‘a read-out from your CHS regarding possible positions in administration.’”

Pientka claimed he wasn’t attempting to task this CHS with spying on the administration, but “thought that the CHS might receive ‘a position somewhere in the administration,’” which would become a ‘sensitive matter that we would need to handle differently.’”

The IG appeared to have accepted Pientka’s explanation without question, even though in late November the CHS’s handling agent met with him and later “wrote a document stating one purpose of the meeting was ‘to obtain insight regarding the upcoming Trump Administration following the recent U.S. Presidential elections.’” But Pientka assured the IG “that this was not what he intended the Handling Agent to discuss with the CHS.” Sure, Joe.

A ‘Passive Listening Post’ on the Trump Campaign

The IG report next noted that Inspector General Horowitz’s team “also learned about a different CHS who at one point held a position in the Trump campaign,” but the Crossfire Hurricane team said they decided against tasking this CHS in the investigation and instead minimized contact with him. But again, an email uncovered by the IG, but buried in a footnote, told a different story.

“After careful consideration, the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE team has decided, at this time, it is best to utilize your CHS as a passive listening post regarding any observations [he/she] has of the campaign so far,” the email addressing the CHS’s role read, continuing: “Base[d] on current, on-going operations/developments in the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE investigation, we are not going to directly task or sensitize the CHS at this point in time. We appreciate [your] assistance in this matter and remain interested in any campaign related reporting that you guys may receive from the CHS during normal debriefs.”

Again, the IG accepted at face value the FBI agent’s claim that “the email was ‘incorrect’ and what he was asking for was any information about attempts by Russia ‘to screw around with the campaign or the elections.’”

The Embedded FBI Spies Didn’t Stop There

The IG report noted yet another CHS connected to the Trump campaign, explaining that Horowitz’s team discovered an October 2016 email written by an intelligence analyst on the Crossfire Hurricane team to Pientka. That “email copied information out of a CHS’s Delta file stating that the CHS is ‘scheduled to attend a ‘private’ national security forum with Donald Trump’ in October 2016, after which the CHS will provide ‘an update on the Trump meeting.’” (Delta is the FBI’s database that “contains all of the personal and administrative information about the CHS.”) But, alas, no one remembered “that any FBI CHS had been scheduled to attend a private forum with candidate Trump.”

In addition to these CHS connected to the Trump campaign, or candidate Trump, the IG report also revealed multiple CHSs involved in either the transition team or administration. While the specifics of those CHSs’ positions were redacted, the IG noted that in March 2017, one CHS provided his FBI handling agent “five sets of documents on multiple topics,” the details of which were blacked out. Even though the FBI didn’t task this CHS, agents passed this information on to the Crossfire Hurricane team and maintained it in the FBI file.

While it is impossible to know from the IG report (because of redactions) the level of access this CHS had, it must have been pretty significant because Associate Director of the Counterintelligence Division Bill Priestap told the IG “that he ‘absolutely should have been told that there was an active FBI CHS with” the unspecified “access.” In this situation, Priestap explained, it was “common sense” that “the bosses need to know.”
Still another CHS provided additional information to the FBI, “months after the presidential campaign was concluded,” but what exactly that CHS shared was redacted.

However, the IG report’s reference to UDP (“undisclosed participation”), tells us this CHS was a government employee, and possibly in the Trump administration, because, as the IG report explained: “Undisclosed Participation (UDP) takes place when anyone acting on behalf of the FBI, including a CHS, becomes a member of, or participates in, the activity of an organization on behalf of the U.S. government without disclosing their FBI affiliation to an appropriate official of the organization.” The IG concluded that because this CHS had voluntarily spied on the Trump administration, he did not meet the departmental definition of an UDP.

Oh, There Were Also ‘Undercover Employees’

Beyond Halper, the tasked and volunteer CHSs, Comey, and Pientka, the Crossfire Hurricane team also used “a few” Undercover Employees, or UCEs. But how those UCEs were used and what information they accessed is unclear because the IG report did not provide any details, leaving open the possibility that even more spying took place.

Substantial spying took place under the guise of investigating Russia collusion.

The IG report also stated that “the FBI did not use national security letters or compulsory process prior to obtaining the first FISA orders,” implying that after obtaining the FISA warrants, the FBI used these investigative techniques. But again, we don’t know what information the FBI gathered, and whether it included details about the Trump campaign.

We also don’t know if there were any sub-sources placed in the Trump campaign or with access to the campaign, because the FBI does not track sub-sources in its classified Delta database. Last week’s release by Sen. Chuck Grassley of a letter he penned to the Department of Defense’s Office of Net Intelligence concerning Halper suggests it is a real possibility that sub-sources were tasked with spying on the Trump campaign. In that letter, Grassley asked whether Halper “used any taxpayer money in his attempt to recruit Trump campaign officials as sources.”

While the IG report stated that it “found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any CHSs within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign,” as is clear from the above detailed analysis of the IG report, substantial spying took place under the guise of investigating Russia collusion—and there were many hints that even more spying occurred that has yet to be exposed.

In fact, it might well be the only tactic the FBI refrained from deploying was suspending Obama aloft outside the Trump Tower.

France warns U.S. against pulling troops from fight against Islamists in Africa’s Sahel

WASHINGTON/PARIS (Reuters) – France delivered a stern warning on Monday against possible U.S. troop cuts in West Africa, where groups linked to al Qaeda and Islamic State are expanding their foothold.
The Pentagon is considering withdrawing the personnel as part of a global troop review meant to free up more resources to address challenges from China’s military, after nearly two decades of prioritizing counter-terrorism operations around the world.
French Defense Minister Florence Parly said she warned her U.S. counterpart during a visit to the Pentagon that joint counterterrorism efforts in West Africa would be harmed by cuts to U.S. military assistance.
“I had the opportunity to (say) again, to mention again, that the U.S. support is critical to our operations and its reduction would severely limit our effectiveness against terrorists,” Parly said at a joint news conference, standing alongside U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper.
Esper, who is spearheading the review, said no decisions had been made. But he did not suggest any reconsideration of potential cuts to U.S. forces in the region.
The possibility of cuts has alarmed France, which relies on U.S. intelligence and logistics for its 4,500-strong mission in the Sahel. The deaths of 13 French soldiers in a helicopter crash during a combat mission in Mali in November increased France’s determination to secure more support in the zone.

France believes it is time to increase, not ease, pressure on militants to prevent “Islamic State from rebuilding in the Sahel,” a senior French defense ministry official told Reuters.
Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian had said ahead of the Pentagon talks to reporters that he hoped Washington “will be rational to keep this partnership … and that good sense will prevail.”
The U.S. currently has around 6,000 military personnel in Africa. Although some experts say a repositioning of forces is overdue, many U.S. officials share French concerns about relieving pressure on militants in Africa.
“Any withdrawal or reduction would likely result in a surge in violent extremist attacks on the continent and beyond,” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Democrat Chris Coons wrote in a letter to Esper this month.
Former colonial power France intervened in 2013 to drive back militants who had seized northern Mali the previous year. Fighters have since regrouped and spread. Over the past year, militants have stepped up attacks in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.
Although groups in the Sahel are believed to have the intent to carry out attacks against the United States, they are not currently believed to have the capacity to do so, officials say.

SCRAMBLING DRONES
General Francois Lecointre, chief of staff of the French armed forces, told Reuters that the loss of U.S. intelligence from intercepted communications would be the “biggest setback”.
“I’m doing my utmost to prevent this from happening,” he said, adding that French drone-based spying systems would not be operational until year-end.
France said this month it would deploy 220 additional troops to the region, despite rising anti-French sentiment in some countries and criticism at home that its forces are bogged down.
Parly recently visited the Sahel with counterparts from Portugal, Sweden and Estonia to press European allies to do more, especially by contributing special forces to a new French-led unit due to be set up this year.
One of the main aims of the outfit, officials said, is to improve coordination between regional troops and French planes able to carry out air strikes.
So far, take-up has been limited, with only Estonia committing 40 troops. Discussions continue with eight nations. Germany has refused to take part.
https://www.oann.com/france-urges-u-s-to-stay-in-fight-against-islamists-in-africas-sahel/

Bolton and the Consequences of the Destruction of Executive Privilege



The get-Trump movement is legal nihilism

and the antithesis of the rule of law.

Fred Fleitz, a former deputy to John Bolton, the national security advisor President Trump fired in September 2019, over the weekend published an opinion piece explaining the dangers of his former boss’s anticipated tell-all book.

“Given the importance of protecting a president’s confidential discussions with his senior advisers,” Fleitz wrote, “I strongly disagree with Bolton’s decision to release the book before the November presidential election and call on him to withdraw it from the publisher immediately.”

Bolton is just the latest example of former advisors cravenly monetizing the confidential access to a president.

Fleitz represents what seems to be the last gasp of a legal tradition that is vital to our constitutional self-government. The consequences of this ongoing assault on presidential privileges will be catastrophic not only to the security of our Republic but also to self-government.

In 1974, the Supreme Court upheld the necessity of executive privilege, writing:
The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of his conversations and correspondence, like the claim of confidentiality of judicial deliberations, for example, has all the values to which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens and, added to those values, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision making. A President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions, and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of Government, and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution.

The get-Trump forces have assaulted cherished traditions of executive and attorney-client privileges over the last three years, including the savaging of President Trump’s privileged communication with his private attorney Michael Cohen, the public disclosure of the call records of Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani, the public disclosure of confidential communications with the heads of state of Mexico and Australia, the lawless confiscation of private communications of Trump’s transition team, the leaks of private conversations with the head of the FBI, the leaks of Trump’s national security advisor’s communication with the Russian ambassador, and the leak of Trump’s confidential communication with the Ukrainian ambassador, just to name a few such violations.

The damage the get-Trump forces are doing is not limited to Trump personally. These lawless vigilantes are blinding all future presidents from advice and communication vital to the office. Further, they have chilled cooperation between future presidents and legitimate law enforcement inquiries into public corruption.

To illustrate the harm these villains have done to national security and democracy, let’s conduct some thought experiments.

Suppose you become the president and you learn that your staff has been approached by the FBI to investigate supposed malfeasance. Do you now cooperate with confidence that the FBI will call balls-and-strikes without regard to politics?

Suppose one of your staff members refuses to cooperate with the FBI, citing the example of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and the instance in which Peter Strzok quizzed him about a recorded conversation. When Flynn failed the memory test, Strzok gave his notes of Flynn’s answers to partisan FBI officials Lisa Page and Andrew McCabe, the latter himself later fired for lying to an internal FBI investigator.

Those individuals, who were not present during Flynn’s interview with Strzok, edited Flynn’s words. Flynn was then charged with lying based upon the account that the FBI altered.

No, you would not trust the FBI if you had any reason to think its politics did not align with your own. But suppose you really did have a bad apple in your organization. You wouldn’t know. Because the people charged with rooting out that rat don’t take care of the rats in their own organization.

Suppose a foreign country attempted to interfere in domestic U.S. politics. Suppose the CIA reported to you it had “high confidence” that a highly placed member of your administration was colluding with Albania. Would you blindly trust the CIA or would you reflect back on the fact that key portions of the CIA’s national intelligence assessment were merely a regurgitation of the lies commissioned by a president’s political opponent?

Suppose the State Department sent over experts on Albania to help advise you on a phone call you planned to have with Albania’s head of state. Would you allow these experts to listen in on that phone call? Not if you planned to have a candid conversation with the Albanian leader because such advisers can no longer be trusted to keep those conversations confidential. The smart thing to do would be to freeze them out if you plan to chart a foreign policy that does not comport with the strongly held opinions of the permanent bureaucracy.

Suppose you learned of some corrupt behavior by a member of your administration. A Justice Department official suggests the appointment of a special counsel to “clear things up.” You would be a fool to agree now that it has been confirmed that special counsel Robert Mueller knew, or should have known, on day one that Trump had already been exonerated by the FBI but that bureaucrats wanted to keep the investigation going anyway for political reasons.

Suppose the FBI approaches you to offer a briefing on intelligence threats to your administration. Now that we’ve learned that the FBI used those briefings to gather dirt on Trump, future presidents would have good reason to decline those briefings.

Suppose you’re considering appointing a national security advisor who will challenge what you think. You want the ability to hear his strong opposition to your foreign policy to keep yourself honest. Suppose you believe that having voices that strongly disagree with you helps you consider tough issues without an echo chamber of yes men. You would be a fool to allow a dissenter into your circle of trust now because he will inevitably breach confidentiality to recount those disagreements in a tell-all book.

Bolton has now confirmed that a president can no longer trust anyone to give advice without using his access to embarrass and undermine the commander-in-chief’s final decision. Opposition lawmakers in Congress will use any unelected bureaucrat they can find as a “whistleblower” to undermine the president from within. The best course of action? Don’t use advisers who disagree with you. That creates an unhealthy echo chamber that will lead to more horrible mistakes.

Imagine our country being led by a president who refuses to take advice from attorneys because he’s afraid of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York seizing those communications and releasing their contents to the world.

Imagine our president shunning foreign policy and security experts because he cannot trust anyone not to leak. Imagine conducting foreign policy with leaders who can’t trust the U.S. government to keep the conversations confidential.

These villains are neutering the office of the president to seize power for themselves at the expense of the American people. Long after Trump is gone, the damage will remain. The get-Trump movement is legal nihilism and the antithesis of the rule of law.


U.S. Expands Airport Screening for Coronavirus; ...

U.S. Expands Airport Screening for Coronavirus; Officials Add Risk of Extensive Infections Is Low
WASHINGTON—The U.S. has expanded screenings of passengers for the coronavirus to 20 airports, even as health officials sought to assure the public that the virus doesn’t yet pose a threat to most Americans.
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said he wouldn’t hesitate to declare a national health emergency if needed, but underscored that there are just five confirmed cases of the virus in the U.S. so far.
“This is potentially a very serious health threat, but at this point Americans should not worry for their safety,” Mr. Azar said at a news conference with officials from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies.
In addition to screening air travelers coming to the U.S., federal health officials said they are accelerating efforts to find vaccines and other therapies to arrest the spread of the virus that originated in China, where it has been blamed in more than 100 deaths.
The State Department on Tuesday advised Americans to reconsider any travel to China and specifically to avoid Hubei province where the virus was first identified.
“Americans should not travel there,” Mr. Azar said.
Meanwhile, airlines around the global have begun curtailing service to China, while technology giant Apple Inc. has adjusted its operations in the world’s second-largest economy.
The U.S. last week began screening at international airports in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Atlanta—and added 15 more airports this week, officials said.
AIRPORTS SCREENING FOR CORONAVIRUS
Travelers from areas affected by the virus will be screened at airports in these locations.
•  Anchorage
•  Atlanta
•  Boston
•  Chicago
•  Dallas/Fort Worth
•  Detroit
•  El Paso
•  Houston
•  Los Angeles
•  Miami
•  Minneapolis-St. Paul
•  New York
•  Newark
•  Philadelphia
•  San Diego
•  San Francisco
•  San Juan, Puerto Rico
•  Seattle-Tacoma
•  Washington/Dulles
For the five known cases in the U.S., officials said they are taking the standard procedure of isolating patients and identifying others they came in contact with in hopes of stopping further infections.
Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said, as of now, “there is no proven therapy for coronavirus infection.” He said officials are working to develop a vaccine and determining if certain existing antiviral drugs can be effective.
“We are proceeding as if we will have to supply a vaccine,” said Dr. Fauci. He said his institute hopes to begin an early-phase clinical trial “within the next few months.”
Mr. Azar said his department is also studying the nation’s stockpile of emergency medicines to assess the nation’s readiness if such an epidemic were to spread here.
Mr. Azar said the Chinese government interaction with the U.S. on the illnesses is significantly improved from the time years ago of the severe acute respiratory, or SARS, epidemic.
Robert Redfield, director of the U.S. CDC, said coronavirus is spreading rapidly in China, with at least 4,500 known cases—and nearly 1,700 cases in the prior 24 hours.
“We really don’t know a lot about this new coronavirus,” Dr. Redfield said.
So far, the coronavirus appears to be less deadly than SARS, which erupted in China in 2002 and spread globally. SARS killed about 10% of the people it infected, while about 3% of the people confirmed to be infected with the new coronavirus have died.
Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said that the basic steps of identifying patients and their contacts appear to be holding the disease in check in the U.S. so far.
“Right now, we think the risk of the virus in the U.S. is low,” Dr. Messonnier said.
Because the virus is new, some basic features aren’t yet understood—including how long the incubation period and infectivity periods are and whether a person can carry the virus, and infect others, without showing the symptoms.
Four strains of the coronaviruses can cause common colds, but others are more serious and even deadly, leading to SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome, or MERS.
Separately on Tuesday, United Airlines Holdings Inc. became the first U.S. carrier to cancel flights due to the coronavirus—suspending 24 round trip-flights between the U.S. and China starting Feb. 1 and citing a significant decline in demand since the virus outbreak.
Air France-KLM said it canceled flights to Wuhan—the Hubei province city where the virus is believed to have originated in a large animal and seafood market, probably stemming from bats. The airline also is offering rebooking and cancellation at no extra charge to and from China. British Airways and Deutsche Lufthansa AG. are offering similar free rebooking policies.
The U.S. State Department evacuated staff from its consulate in Wuhan, as well as a limited number of U.S. citizens, via a charter flight bound for Ontario, Calif. on Tuesday.
Also, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook said the company is limiting travel to China in the wake of the virus and has reduced store operating hours in the country. Apple also has alternative sources to its suppliers in Wuhan, he said, adding factories outside of that city have pushed back plans to reopen after the Lunar New Year to Feb. 10 from the end of January.
Meanwhile, business travel to China is grinding to a halt, travel managers said. “Nearly every one of our business travel customers has put restrictions in place, many stopping travel” to China, said Chip Juedes, chief executive of Fox World Travel in Oshkosh, Wis. “The question is going to be, what will it take to get the all clear to start travel back up?”
Alison Sider and Tripp Mickle contributed to this article.