Back from funeral. Leaving again Thursday. Probably last memo before Easter and Passover.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Man's Universal Weakness
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Back from funeral. Leaving again Thursday. Probably last memo before Easter and Passover.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Man's Universal Weakness
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jimmy Carter, how can Israel be an apartheid nation if it just appointed and promoted Druze Col. Ala Abu Rukon, the current military attache to China, to become a Brig. General and military secretary to the President of Israel? (See 1 below.)
And:
Other news involving Israel. (See 1a and 1b below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tax cheat, liar and anti-Semite to be receive honorary degree.
I have written time and again, everything in our society has become cheapened. When anything goes, there no longer is adherence to the rule of law, demand for drugs explodes, the family structure suffers, belief in a higher being erodes along with a solid education. That society likely may be doomed. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is a correlation between Zito's op ed and the WSJ article by Greg IP entitled: "What You Need To Be On The Fed - and It Isn't A PH.D..
I believe common sense, a real life working experience and an ability to understand what others, who claim to be experts, write is enough of a qualification to serve on The Fed, which is seldom right.
Furthermore, you do not need to go to college to live a productive life and support yourself in a job that offers advancement and a better than livable wage.
Yes, statistics prove lifetime earnings are higher for college graduates but it does not take into account the cost of the education and, for those who have to borrow to attend and the added burden of re-paying loans. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The redacted Mueller Report will be revealed Thursday and will constitute a large part of the report because The Atty. Gen. is required, by law, not to post what is both classified and testimony by grand jury of those not indicted.
I suspect the Democrats will yell and scream in order to accuse Barr of covering up so they can keep their charade going while disparaging him.
While driving back from the funeral we attended, I caught The 5, broadcast from Nashville. Donna Brazile defended Bernie,and the other radicals and when the audience got to express themselves their response suggested/validated what I believe and have been saying. the Brazile's of the world do not live in a reality tent. Bless their heart.. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Preferred Pronouns or Prison
“He.” “She.” “They.” Have you ever given a moment’s thought to your everyday use of these pronouns? It has probably never occurred to you that those words could be misused. Or that doing so could cost you your business or your job—or even your freedom. Journalist Abigail Shrier explains how this happened and why it's become a major free speech issue.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
==================================================================
1)
Israeli Druze officer appointed military secretary to President Rivlin
By ANNA AHRONHEIM
Col. Ala Abu Rukon has been appointed military secretary to the president of the State of Israel Reuven Rivlin, the IDF announced Thursday.
Abu Rukon, who is currently serving as the IDF military attach̩ to China, will replace Brig.-Gen Boaz Hershkovitz Рwho has served in the role for the past three years Рand be promoted to the rank of Brigadier General.
He was appointed following a decision by Rivlin together with Prime Minister and Defense Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen Aviv Kochavi.
Congratulating Abu Rukon on his appointment, Rivlin said “he is an impressive and professional addition to the team of advisers at Beit HaNasi. I am confident that his experience and skills will further deepen the strong ties with the IDF and the whole security establishment.”
While Druze in the Golan don’t need to serve, those in the Galilee like Abu Rukon do serve. Over 85% of Druze voluntarily serve in the IDF with a large majority in combat positions or in special units and border police, with many reaching senior positions in the military and police.
The 47 year-old Druze resident of Usfiya holds a PhD in Middle East Studies from Bar-Ilan University and is a married father of four children.
Abu Rokun has served in the IDF for the past 25 years beginning as a soldier and commander in the Paratroopers Brigade, and continuing in a series of command posts in the Intelligence Branch for many years.
In addition, Abu Rukon has commanded the Havat Hashomer base which helps soldiers who are part of populations at risk.
In January, Rivlin visited the base and thanked the commanders for their hard work in dealing with “some of the most complex educational and command challenges.”
“Your determination not to give up on any soldier – ‘no soldier left behind’ – the persistence, the mental resilience required from you when you are sowing and reaping seeds of hope, are an example to us all,” he continued.
During his visit, Rivlin also asked soldiers who had criminal records to talk to their commanders and to begin the process of clearing their records and that he as President “will look at each application seriously.”
Abu Rukon is not the first member of a minority community to be appointed as military secretary to the President of Israel. Hassan Hassan, a retired brigadier general made history by being the first member of the Druze community to be appointed a military aide to the president of the State. He was appointed by President Shimon Peres, and stayed on for two years with Rivlin.
Hassan is involved in the struggle for the amendment to the Nation-State Law. Hassan’s father-in-law, Kamal Mansour, was for 40 years adviser on minorities to seven presidents of Israel, beginning with Zalman Shazar and concluding with Peres.
Greer Fay Cashman contributed to this story.
Abu Rukon is not the first member of a minority community to be appointed as military secretary to the President of Israel. Hassan Hassan, a retired brigadier general made history by being the first member of the Druze community to be appointed a military aide to the president of the State. He was appointed by President Shimon Peres, and stayed on for two years with Rivlin.
Hassan is involved in the struggle for the amendment to the Nation-State Law. Hassan’s father-in-law, Kamal Mansour, was for 40 years adviser on minorities to seven presidents of Israel, beginning with Zalman Shazar and concluding with Peres.
Greer Fay Cashman contributed to this story.
1a)
'Deal of the Century' will not include Palestinian statehood - report
By ILANIT CHERNICK
The Trump administration's peace plan, known as the "Deal of the Century" will reportedly include "practical proposals" for improving the lives of Palestinians, but it will probably stop short of the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel, The Washington Post reported Monday night.
The "Deal of the Century" is expected to be published soon following more than two years in which it was formulated by a small group of US President Donald Trump’s special envoys, which includes special representative Jason Greenblatt and senior advisor Jared Kushner.
According to The Washington Post report, comments from Kushner and other US officials suggest that "the plan does away with statehood as the starting premise of peace efforts" as was the case over the last 20 years or so.
The report goes on to quote several people who have spoken to Kushner's team as saying that "Kushner and other US officials have linked peace and economic development to Arab recognition of Israel and acceptance of a version of the status quo on Palestinian 'autonomy,' as opposed to 'sovereignty.'"
“What we’ve tried to do is figure out what is a realistic and what is a fair solution to the issues here in 2019 that can enable people to live better lives,” Kushner said in a rare interview with Sky News Arabia as he sought Arab support on a visit to the region in February.
The "Deal of the Century" is expected to be published soon following more than two years in which it was formulated by a small group of US President Donald Trump’s special envoys, which includes special representative Jason Greenblatt and senior advisor Jared Kushner.
According to The Washington Post report, comments from Kushner and other US officials suggest that "the plan does away with statehood as the starting premise of peace efforts" as was the case over the last 20 years or so.
The report goes on to quote several people who have spoken to Kushner's team as saying that "Kushner and other US officials have linked peace and economic development to Arab recognition of Israel and acceptance of a version of the status quo on Palestinian 'autonomy,' as opposed to 'sovereignty.'"
“What we’ve tried to do is figure out what is a realistic and what is a fair solution to the issues here in 2019 that can enable people to live better lives,” Kushner said in a rare interview with Sky News Arabia as he sought Arab support on a visit to the region in February.
“We believe we have a plan that is fair, realistic and implementable that will enable people to live better lives,” a senior White House official said Friday. “We looked at past efforts and solicited ideas from both sides and partners in the region with the recognition that what has been tried in the past has not worked. Thus, we have taken an unconventional approach founded on not hiding from reality, but instead speaking truth.”
Although Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said the US is biased, one of his chief advisers reportedly said they would not outright reject Trump's plan.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised to consider the plan, which Trump emphasized "will ask concessions of both sides," The Washington Post reported.
Kushner has described the plan as having four pillars: freedom, respect, security and opportunity for all parties involved.
In an interview with Army Radio on Tuesday, Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan responded to The Washington Post's report about "Deal of the Century" saying that "if the American administration understood that the idea of a Palestinian state has no justification, feasibility, or chance, this is significant news."
Meanwhile, a letter published in The Guardian by former EU officials, including six prime ministers and 25 foreign ministers, called for postponing the "Deal of the Century" because it was unfair to the Palestinians.
In the letter, which was sent to the European Union and EU governments, the former leaders argue that Europe must stand by the two-state solution and condemn the Trump government's policy that they claim is unilaterally in favor of Israel.
1b) Satellite images show possible Iranian
Although Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has said the US is biased, one of his chief advisers reportedly said they would not outright reject Trump's plan.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised to consider the plan, which Trump emphasized "will ask concessions of both sides," The Washington Post reported.
Kushner has described the plan as having four pillars: freedom, respect, security and opportunity for all parties involved.
In an interview with Army Radio on Tuesday, Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan responded to The Washington Post's report about "Deal of the Century" saying that "if the American administration understood that the idea of a Palestinian state has no justification, feasibility, or chance, this is significant news."
Meanwhile, a letter published in The Guardian by former EU officials, including six prime ministers and 25 foreign ministers, called for postponing the "Deal of the Century" because it was unfair to the Palestinians.
In the letter, which was sent to the European Union and EU governments, the former leaders argue that Europe must stand by the two-state solution and condemn the Trump government's policy that they claim is unilaterally in favor of Israel.
1b) Satellite images show possible Iranian
missile factory in Syria destroyed
By ANNA AHRONHEIM
Satellite images released by the Israeli intelligence firm ImageSat International (ISI) on Sunday showed the complete destruction of a possible Iranian surface-to-surface missile factory in Syria’s Masyaf District, allegedly struck by Israel on Saturday.
“The main industrial structures were completely destroyed, including the main hangar and the adjacent three production hangers and buildings. The rest of the structures were affected and damaged by the blast,” ISI said, adding that they “assess that all the elements and/or equip-ment which were inside are completely destroyed as well.”
According to ISI, “if the bombed site was indeed a missile factory, it could allow for the produc-tion and assembly of different SSM [surface-to-surface missile] elements or for improving the accuracy of missiles.”
The factory, ISI said, is located in the vicinity of other facilities likely linked to Iran’s SSM project in Syria, which have previously been struck in alleged Israeli strikes carried out over the past two years.
The factory was built in the western compound of the base between 2014 and 2016, and was surrounded by a wall to separate it from the rest of the military base. The entrance to the fac-tory passes through the base.
“The main industrial structures were completely destroyed, including the main hangar and the adjacent three production hangers and buildings. The rest of the structures were affected and damaged by the blast,” ISI said, adding that they “assess that all the elements and/or equip-ment which were inside are completely destroyed as well.”
According to ISI, “if the bombed site was indeed a missile factory, it could allow for the produc-tion and assembly of different SSM [surface-to-surface missile] elements or for improving the accuracy of missiles.”
The factory, ISI said, is located in the vicinity of other facilities likely linked to Iran’s SSM project in Syria, which have previously been struck in alleged Israeli strikes carried out over the past two years.
The factory was built in the western compound of the base between 2014 and 2016, and was surrounded by a wall to separate it from the rest of the military base. The entrance to the fac-tory passes through the base.
“It is possible that the location of the factory inside what looks like a regular military base was chosen in order to camouflage its real purpose,” ISI said.
While ISI wrote, “It is unclear which entity controls and owns the base” – the Syrian army, Iran or militias – if the factory allegedly attacked by Israel was “indeed controlled by Iran, it is prob-able that the eastern part of the base is controlled by them.”
The possible SSM missile factory included a main hangar measuring 60 meters by 25 meters, and several big industrial hangars and buildings which probably served for production and as-sembly of missiles.
“However, there is probably no manufacture or assembly of missile engines and warheads in this factory, since protected structures weren’t detected. Also, no missiles or launchers were identified within the compound,” ISI said.
Israeli officials have repeatedly voiced concerns over Iran’s entrenchment in Syria and the smuggling of sophisticated weaponry to Hezbollah from Tehran to Lebanon via Syria, stressing that both are redlines for the Jewish state.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned on Sunday that anyone who puts Israeli citizens at risk “is in a much greater danger.”
“When Israel’s security is at stake, we are operating at full force, and whoever puts us at risk is in a much greater danger. We will continue to act on all fronts, including on the northern front, because we are not prepared to allow someone to establish power and endanger the State of Israel,” he said.
“Power is the guarantee of our existence, and it is the essential and fundamental condition for achieving peace with our neighbors.”
On Saturday, Syria’s SANA news agency reported that Israel had carried out air strikes against military positions near the city of Masyaf in Hama Province. The agency quoted a military source as stating that IDF jets carried out the strike from Lebanese airspace at around 2:30 a.m. and that Syrian air defenses “immediately intercepted the hostile missiles and downed some of them before reaching their targets.”
While SANA said the interception of the Israeli missiles resulted in the destruction of several buildings and the wounding of three “fighters,” according to a report by the London-based Syr-ian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), Iranian “elements” and pro-Iranian terrorists were killed and another 17 were injured.
According to SOHR, the strike targeted a Syrian military college in the town and two buildings used by Iranian forces in nearby villages – a development center for medium-range missiles in Zawi and a training camp in Sheikh Ghadban.
In January, Russia deployed its S-300 air defense system to Masyaf. Russia delivered the launcher, radar and command and control vehicle of the advanced air-to-surface missile sys-tem to the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad in early October as a response to the downing of a Russian reconnaissance plane by Syrian air defenses during an Israeli air strike on Iranian targets the previous month.
The S-300 was not used during this alleged Israeli strike.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) Outrage Follows Announcement That Al
Sharpton, Who Helped Incite 1991 Antisemitic
Riots, Is Slated to Receive Honorary Degree
An initiative by a City University of New York school to give Rev. Al Sharpton a doctorate of humane letters was met with outrage on Sunday due to Sharpton’s history of racial agitation and antisemitism.
Medgar Evers College in Crown Heights Brooklyn stated that the doctorate would be given due to its recipient’s “unwavering commitment to racial, educational and socioeconomic equity.”
In response to the news, members of the local Jewish community were quick to highlight Sharpton’s central role in inciting the infamous 1991 Crown Heights riots.
“Sharpton played a lead role in inciting a modern day blood libel against the Jewish community of Crown Heights,” Yaacov Behrman, founder of the Jewish Future Alliance based in Crown Heights, told The Algemeiner. Behrman said he found the school’s plan “deeply offensive.”
“He traumatized my generation,” he added, “and never apologized to his victims. It is inexcusable and shamefully low to honor him in the same neighborhood where he incited the violence.”
The 1991 riots began after a motorcade carrying Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson struck and killed a young African-American child named Gavin Cato. Soon afterwards 29-year-old yeshiva student Yankel Rosenbaum was stabbed and beaten to death by an African-American mob shouting “kill the Jew!”
In four days of rioting that followed the incident, mobs targeted Jews and Jewish-owned businesses, turning the protests into a pogrom. Sharpton was widely blamed for incitement during the riots. He spoke at rallies and organized a march of hundreds through the Hasidic section of Crown Heights chanting “No justice, no peace.” In his eulogy for Cato, Sharpton referred to “diamond merchants” and said Cato was killed by “the social accident of apartheid.”
An Italian-American salesman named Anthony Graziosi was later shot by an African-American while wearing clothes that could have easily been mistaken for Hasidic garb. It is widely believed that Graziosi’s killing was antisemitic in nature.
Yankel Rosenbaum’s brother Norman told the New York Post, “This is not a person you honor. Within the last 27 years he hasn’t changed. The same character is there.”
“I think he’s a fraud and a charlatan whose actions over the years speak for themselves and they’re not good actions,” he stated. “He’s a man who does not promote peace. He’s not told the truth.”
Rabbi Eli Cohen, Executive Director of the Crown Heights Jewish Community Council, said the award would undo years of efforts to rebuild relations between the local communities. “For more than 25 years we have worked closely with Medgar Evers and others to bring the community together,” he told The Algemeiner. “The idea of a college in Crown Heights honoring a man who incited antisemitic violence here goes against everything we have accomplished.”
“Honorary doctorates should be awarded to individuals who are role models for the students of today,” he added. “Sharpton does not fill that role. He has not even expressed true regret for his actions.”
Behrman concurred, saying, “Honoring him will hurt Medgar Evers’ efforts to recruit local Orthodox Jews and help them feel safe on campus.”
In another notorious case, in 1995, Sharpton railed against a local Jewish-owned business called Freddie’s Fashion Mart, calling the owner a “white interloper.” Following this, an African-American gunman opened fire in the store and set it aflame, killing seven.
Sharpton has since expressed regret for his statements about Freddie’s Fashion Mart, but has never apologized for his role in the Crown Heights riots.
According to the Post, if the Medgar Evers proposal passes CUNY’s Committee on Academic Policy, Programs and Research Monday, it will go before the full CUNY board next month.
Representatives for Medgar Evers College did not immediately respond to The Algemeiner‘s request for comment.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) An answer to the cost of college and community collapse:Community colleges
by Salena Zito
When the Pirates opened their season last week at PNC Park, Nathan Sibley, a York County, Pa., kid who struggled in high school and subsequently stood little chance to attend a four-year college, had earned the job for the major league club that nearly every fan in the ballpark pays attention to.
3) An answer to the cost of college and community collapse:Community colleges
by Salena Zito
When the Pirates opened their season last week at PNC Park, Nathan Sibley, a York County, Pa., kid who struggled in high school and subsequently stood little chance to attend a four-year college, had earned the job for the major league club that nearly every fan in the ballpark pays attention to.
“I am the captioner for the Pirates for the JumboTron,” Sibley said.
He earned the job after he interned for the Pirates last summer through a program at the community college he attends.
It's a dream come true for a student who did not make great grades in high school but had a real talent he was unsure what to do with: typing very fast.
“I initially thought IT programming might be the way to go, but I found I didn’t care for that. Then a teacher suggested court reporting. There weren’t many options out there until I saw what CCAC had,” Sibley said of Community College of Allegheny County, where he will be graduating early from in May.
Every year, more than 25,000 students enroll at that community college in the greater Pittsburgh area, picking one of more than 150 degree or transfer programs. On top of that are the thousands more who take workforce development courses at the school.
In a city that boasts six major universities within its city limits — University of Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon, Duquesne, Robert Morris, Chatham, Point Park, and Carlow — those are impressive numbers.
While nationwide enrollment is down at community colleges across the country, despite the dramatic cost savings of beginning a college education at a community college and either transferring or going straight into the workforce with an associate’s degree, the benefits schools such as Community College of Allegheny County have, not just for the students but also the communities they serve, are immeasurable.
A student pays $110 per credit here at the school, compared to $795 at University of Pittsburgh or $1,406 at Harvard University. On average, student borrowers in higher learning institutions outside of community colleges owe $28,650, according to the nonprofit research and advocacy group Institute for College Access and Success.
The cost of higher education became a political football in America since 2016, when Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., made free college the core of his Democratic presidential primary campaign. His 2020 rivals have jumped on the bandwagon.
These schools help students such as Sibley find their niche, and they also provide opportunity for students who weren’t ready to put themselves or their parents in debt.
“I didn't really know what I wanted to do,” Alex Lopez, 23, told me. “I was trying to figure out what I actually wanted to do. I'm like, ‘Let me go give computer science a try.’ Well, I gave it a try, and it really wasn't for me. I had a teacher tell me, ‘Why don't you go into teaching.’ I'm like, ‘Sure, why not?’ And I just set it off from there.”
It was his parents who urged him to start his journey as a teacher at a community college.
“And I wanted to, to be honest, I didn’t want to break their bank,” he said of a larger university.
Lopez, who is half black and half Latino, decided teaching Spanish would be a natural fit for him. “Half of my family is fluent in Spanish,” he said.
There's more. A community college often makes itself an integral part of its community. “We [are] situated inside of a community," Community College of Allegheny County President Quintin B. Bullock says, "and most of the time individuals who choose the community college as their point of access of higher education and workforce training, they are making a commitment to stay in the community."
Ninety-four percent of that university's students remain, live, and work following graduation, Bullock says. “That affirms the importance of the community college."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)
Behind the Obama administration’s shady plan to spy on the Trump campaign
In Senate testimony last week, Attorney General William Barr used the word “spying” to refer to the Obama administration, um, spying on the Trump campaign. Of course, fainting spells ensued, with the media-Democrat complex in meltdown. Former FBI Director Jim Comey tut-tutted that he was confused by Barr’s comments, since the FBI’s “surveillance” had been authorized by a court.
(Needless to say, the former director neglected to mention that the court was not informed that the bureau’s “evidence” for the warrants was unverified hearsay paid for by the Clinton campaign.)
The pearl-clutching was predictable. Less than a year ago, we learned the Obama administration had used a confidential informant — a spy — to approach at least three Trump campaign officials in the months leading up to the 2016 election, straining to find proof that the campaign was complicit in the Kremlin’s hacking of Democratic e-mails.
As night follows day, we were treated to the same Beltway hysteria we got this week: Silly semantic carping over the word “spying” — which, regardless of whether a judge authorizes it, is merely the covert gathering of intelligence about a suspected wrongdoer, organization, or foreign power.
There is no doubt that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign. As Barr made clear, the real question is: What predicated the spying? Was there a valid reason for it, strong enough to overcome our norm against political spying? Or was it done rashly? Was a politically motivated decision made to use highly intrusive investigative tactics when a more measured response would have sufficed, such as a “defensive briefing” that would have warned the Trump campaign of possible Russian infiltration?
Last year, when the “spy” games got underway, James Clapper, Obama’s director of national intelligence, conceded that, yes, the FBI did run an informant — “spy” is such an icky word — at Trump campaign officials; but, we were told, this was merely to investigate Russia. Cross Clapper’s heart, it had nothing to do with the Trump campaign. No, no, no. Indeed, the Obama administration only used an informant because — bet you didn’t know this — doing so is the most benign, least intrusive mode of conducting an investigation.
Me? I’m thinking the tens of thousands of convicts serving lengthy sentences due to the penetration of their schemes by informants would beg to differ. (Gee, Mr. Gambino, I assure you, this was just for you own good . . .) And imagine the Democrats’ response if, say, the Bush administration had run a covert intelligence operative against Obama 2008 campaign officials, including the campaign’s co-chairman. Surely David Axelrod, Chuck Schumer, The New York Times, and Rachel Maddow would chirp that “all is forgiven” once they heard Republicans punctiliously parse the nuances between “spying” and “surveillance”; between “spies” and “informants”; and between investigating campaign officials versus investigating the campaign proper — and the candidate.
The “spying” question arose last spring, when we learned that Stefan Halper, a longtime source for the CIA and British intelligence, had been tasked during the FBI’s Russia investigation to chat up three Trump campaign advisers: Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and Sam Clovis. This was in addition to earlier revelations that the Obama Justice Department and FBI had obtained warrants to eavesdrop on Page’s communications, beginning about three weeks before the 2016 election.
The fact that spying had occurred was too clear for credible denial. The retort, then, was misdirection: There had been no spying on Donald Trump or his campaign; just on a few potential bad actors in the campaign’s orbit.
It was nonsense then, and it is nonsense now.
The pols making these claims about what the FBI was doing might have been well served by listening to what the FBI said it was doing.
There was, for example, then-Director Comey’s breathtaking public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on March 20, 2017. Comey did not just confirm the existence of a counterintelligence probe of Russian espionage to influence the 2016 election — notwithstanding that the government customarily refuses to confirm the existence of any investigation, let alone a classified counterintelligence investigation. The director further identified the Trump campaign as a subject of the probe, even though, to avoid smearing people, the Justice Department never identifies uncharged persons or organizations that are under investigation. As Comey put it:
“I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts . . .”
Barr thinks spying occurred on Trump campaign
The FBI was spying, and it was doing so in an investigation of the Trump campaign. That is why, for over two years, Washington has been entranced by the specter of “Trump collusion with Russia” — not Page or Papadopoulos collusion with Russia. Comey went to extraordinary lengths to tell the world that the FBI was not merely zeroing in on individuals of varying ranks in the campaign; the main question was whether the Trump campaign itself — the entity — had “coordinated” in Russia’s espionage operation.
In the months prior to the election, as its Trump-Russia investigation ensued, some of the overtly political, rabidly anti-Trump FBI agents running the probe discussed among themselves the prospect of stopping Trump, or of using the investigation as an “insurance policy” in the highly unlikely event that Trump won the election. After Trump’s stunning victory, the Obama administration had a dilemma: How could the investigation be maintained if Trump were told about it? After all, as president, he would have the power to shut it down.
On Jan. 6, 2017, Comey, Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan and National Security Agency chief Michael Rogers visited President-elect Trump in New York to brief him on the Russia investigation.
Just one day earlier, at the White House, Comey and then–Acting Attorney General Sally Yates had met with the political leadership of the Obama administration — President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and National Security Adviser Susan Rice — to discuss withholding information about the Russia investigation from the incoming Trump administration.
Rice put this sleight-of-hand a bit more delicately in the memo about the Oval Office meeting (written two weeks after the fact, as Rice was leaving her office minutes after Trump’s inauguration):
“President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia. [Emphasis added.]”
It is easy to understand why Obama officials needed to discuss withholding information from Trump. They knew that the Trump campaign — not just some individuals tangentially connected to the campaign — was the subject of an ongoing FBI counterintelligence probe. An informant had been run at campaign officials. The FISA surveillance of Page was underway — in fact, right before Trump’s inauguration, the Obama administration obtained a new court warrant for 90 more days of spying.
In each Page surveillance warrant application, after describing Russia’s espionage operations, the Justice Department told the court, “The FBI believes that the Russian Government’s efforts are being coordinated with Candidate #1’s campaign[.]” Candidate #1 was Donald Trump — now, the president-elect.
The fact that the Trump campaign was under investigation for collaborating with Russia was not just withheld from the incoming president; it had been withheld from the congressional “Gang of Eight.”
In his March 2017 House testimony, answering questions by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), then-director Comey acknowledged that congressional leadership was not told about the Trump-Russia probe during quarterly briefings from July 2016 through early March 2017, because “it was a matter of such sensitivity.” Let’s put aside that the need to alert Congress to sensitive matters is exactly why there is a Gang of Eight (comprised of bipartisan leaders of both chambers and their intelligence committees).
Manifestly, the matter was deemed too “sensitive” for disclosure because that would have involved telling Republican congressional leadership that the incumbent Democratic administration was using foreign counterintelligence powers to investigate the Republican presidential campaign, and the party’s nominee, as suspected clandestine agents of the Kremlin.
How to keep the investigation going when Trump took office? The plan called for Comey to put the new president at ease by telling him he was not a suspect. This would not have been a credible assurance if Comey had informed Trump that (a) his campaign had been under investigation for months, and (b) the FBI had told a federal court it suspected Trump campaign officials were complicit in Russia’s cyber-espionage operation.
So, consistent with President Obama’s instructions at the Jan. 5, 2017, Oval Office meeting, information about the investigation would be withheld from the president-elect. The next day, the intelligence chiefs would tell Trump only about Russia’s espionage, not about the Trump campaign’s suspected “coordination” with the Kremlin. Then, Comey would apprise Trump about only a sliver of the Steele dossier — just the lurid story about peeing prostitutes, not the dossier’s principal allegations of a traitorous Trump-Russia conspiracy.
This strategy did not sit well with everyone at the FBI. Shortly before meeting with Trump on Jan. 6, Comey consulted his top advisers about the plan to tell Trump he was not a suspect. In later Senate testimony, Comey admitted that there was an objection from one FBI official:
“One of the members of the leadership team had a view that, although it was technically true [that] we did not have a counterintelligence file case open on then-President-elect Trump[,] . . . because we’re looking at the potential . . . coordination between the campaign and Russia, because it was . . . President-elect Trump’s campaign, this person’s view was, inevitably, [Trump’s] behavior, [Trump’s] conduct will fall within the scope of that work.”
Note that Comey did not refer to “potential coordination” between, say, Carter Page or Paul Manafort and Russia. The director was unambiguous: The FBI was investigating “potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.”
Perspicaciously, Comey’s unidentified adviser connected the dots: (a) because the FBI’s investigation focused on the campaign, and (b) since the campaign was Trump’s campaign, it was necessarily true that (c) Trump’s own conduct was under FBI scrutiny.
Then-director Comey’s reliance on the trivial administrative fact that the FBI had not written Trump’s name on the investigative file did not change the reality that Trump, manifestly, was the main subject of the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation.
Remember last year’s hullabaloo over special counsel Robert Mueller’s demand to interview the president? What need would there have been to conduct such an interview if Trump were not a subject of the investigation? Why would Trump’s political opponents have spent the last two years demanding that Mueller be permitted to complete his probe of collusion and obstruction if it were not understood that the investigation — including the spying, or, if you prefer, the electronic surveillance, the informant sorties, and the information gathered by national-security letter demands — was centrally about Donald Trump?
That brings us to a final point. Congressional investigations have established that the Obama Justice Department and the FBI used the Steele dossier to obtain FISA court warrants against Page.
The dossier, a Clinton-campaign opposition-research project (again, a fact withheld from the FISA court), was essential to the required probable-cause showing; the FBI’s former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, testified that without the dossier there would have been no warrant.
So . . . what did the dossier say? The lion’s share of it alleged that the Trump campaign was conspiring with the Kremlin to corrupt the election, including by hacking and publicizing Democratic Party e-mails. This allegation was based on unidentified Russian sources whom the FBI could not corroborate; then-director Comey told Senate leaders that the FBI used the information because the bureau judged former British spy Christopher Steele to be credible, even though (a) Steele did not make any of the observations the court was being asked to rely on, and (b) Steele had misled the FBI about his contacts with the media — with whom Steele and his Clinton campaign allies were sharing the same information he was giving the bureau.
It is a major investigative step to seek surveillance warrants from the FISA court. Unlike using an informant (a human spy), for which no court authorization is necessary, applications for FISA surveillance require approvals at the highest levels of the Justice Department and the FBI. After going through that elaborate process, the Obama Justice Department and the FBI presented to the court the dossier’s allegations that the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to undermine the 2016 election.
To be sure, no sensible person argues that the government should refrain from investigating if, based on compelling evidence, the FBI suspects individuals — even campaign officials, even a party’s nominee — of acting as clandestine agents of a hostile foreign power. The question is: What should trigger such an investigation in a democratic republic whose norms strongly discourage an incumbent administration’s use of the government’s spying powers against political opponents?
The Obama administration decided that this norm did not apply to the Trump campaign. If all the Obama administration had been trying to do was check out a few bad apples with suspicious Russia ties, the FBI could easily have alerted any of a number of Trump campaign officials with solid national-security credentials — Rudy Giuliani, Jeff Sessions, Chris Christie. The agents could have asked for the campaign’s help. Instead, Obama officials made the Trump campaign the subject of a counterintelligence investigation.
That only makes sense if the Obama administration’s premise was that Donald Trump himself was a Russian agent.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor, is a contributing editor of National Review
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment