Full Show - CNN Lays Groundwork For False Flag / Project Veritas Strikes Again 06/30/2017
Published on Jun 30, 2017 by Ron Gibson
Friday, June 30th 2017[, with Mike Cernovich co-hosting the fourth hour]: CNN Calls Americans 'Stupid as Sh*t' - Cable network CNN has set the stage for a false flag that could be blamed on Trump supporters after labeling incoming attacks "dangerous." We'll discuss the toxic atmosphere created by the "very fake news" network and look at the latest undercover sting video exposing the organization. Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman joins the show today to breakdown Trump's first six months. Executive Director of Project Veritas Russ Verney also discusses his organization's latest sting videos. And Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo gives her take on the fake news epidemic affecting the nation.
“I think this is the week in which the Trump Presidency turned the corner.”
“The nomination and election of Donald Trump is the hostile take over of the Republican party as we knew it, and now the Republican party will be remade in Donald Trumps image. A party of working people, a party of the middle class, a party of common sense, no longer the party of wall street, or the party of K- street, no longer a parry of the special interests and the Romney’s and Bush’s who talk a good game when it comes to cutting federal spending, or talk a good game about controlling the size of government or talk a good game about returning power to the people but who when they get in office emulate the democrats.”
Topics discussed - The Trump Administration - President Trump’s travel ban - The Republican party and its future - The Russian Narrative - Upcoming testimony to the house (non) Intelligence Committee - Time for President Trumps Justice Department - James Comey & the deep state - Robert Mueller coaching James Comey on his testimony - Democrats and the mainstream media - Many other topics
GOP’s latest worry: White House turmoil dividing Trump, Pence staffs June 30, 2017 WASHINGTON — Republicans are growing concerned that the staffs of Donald Trump and Mike Pence are starting to feud, the latest trouble to hit a White House that has spent months [ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article139648633.html ] battling crisis after crisis. They worry that any rift could be delaying decisions, distracting aides from their already stalled legislative agenda [ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article149807124.html ] and could lead to more infighting and leaks, problems that have plagued the White House since Inauguration Day [ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article127716134.html ]. A half-dozen Republicans, including four who advised or worked for Trump’s campaign or transition and are still in contact with their former colleagues, said they think the two sides are talking less, disagreeing more and occasionally bad mouthing each others’ bosses. One said the staffs are “walled off” from each other. Several of the Republicans asked to not speak publicly because of the sensitivity of the situation. “There is clearly tension between the two staffs,” a former Trump adviser said. “There’s so much internet chatter. That’s going to fuel the animosity.” Republicans say it’s only natural that some of the president’s aides are reconsidering who they can trust as the White House continues to reel from an undisciplined president and multiple inquiries into whether Trump associates joined Russia in meddling in the presidential election. “The administration doesn’t know who to trust,” Republican strategist Michael Steel said. “When you’re under attack the circle tightens.” At the same time, Republicans say, some of the vice president’s aides say they are frustrated over Trump’s many self-inflicted wounds [ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article155380309.html ], some of which the conventional and even-keeled Pence is forced to try to explain away as he looks to smooth over hurt feelings with members of even his own party. “Trump does something and Mike Pence has to do cleanup,” Republican strategist Doug Heye said. “That can be very frustrating for staff.” On Thursday, the vice president’s chief of staff Josh Pitcock resigned after just months on the job, saying he wanted to leave government work following a dozen years with Pence. He will be replaced in August by another long-term aide, Nick Ayers, who will lead a staff of about 50 or so who work in the building next to the White House, alongside some of the president’s staff. Spokespeople with the White House and the vice president’s office, which have separate communications staffs, deny there are any problems between their offices and point out none of the people who worry about a potential rift between the staffs are actually in the White House. They say the White House and vice president’s office they work together hand in hand every day and if anything the two sides have grown closer since the start of the administration. [...] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article159164854.html [with embedded video, and comments)]
--
Infowars Nightly News LIVE - Vampiric John Podesta Attacks Infowars
Streamed live on Jun 30, 2017 by The Alex Jones Channel
GOP Activist Who Sought Clinton Emails Cited Trump Campaign Officials
Kellyanne Conway and Stephen Bannon at the White House on April 18. Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Peter W. Smith listed Bannon, Conway and Clovis, besides Flynn, in a recruiting document; his purpose isn’t clear and there’s no indication he asked for or received any coordination with them
By Shane Harris, Michael C. Bender and Peter Nicholas June 30, 2017 Updated July 1, 2017 12:30 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON—A longtime Republican activist who led an operation hoping to obtain Hillary Clinton emails from hackers listed senior members of the Trump campaign, including some who now serve as top aides in the White House, in a recruitment document for his effort.
The activist, Peter W. Smith, named the officials in a section of the document marked “Trump Campaign.” The document was dated Sept. 7, 2016. That was around the time Mr. Smith said he started his search for 33,000 emails Mrs. Clinton deleted from the private server she used for official business while secretary of state. She said the deleted emails concerned personal matters. She turned over tens of thousands of other emails to the State Department.
As reported Thursday by The Wall Street Journal [ https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-operative-sought-clinton-emails-from-hackers-implied-a-connection-to-flynn-1498770851 (included in full earlier in this post)], Mr. Smith and people he recruited to his effort theorized the deleted emails might have been stolen by hackers and might contain matters that were politically damaging. He and his associates said they were in touch with several groups of hackers, including two from Russia they suspected were tied to the Moscow government, in a bid to find any stolen emails and potentially hurt Mrs. Clinton’s prospects.
Mr. Smith’s purpose in listing the officials isn’t clear. There is no indication in the document that he sought or received any coordination from the campaign officials or the campaign in general.
Mr. Smith died in mid-May at age 81, about 10 days after he spoke to the Journal. He said he operated independently of the Trump campaign.
Officials identified in the document include Steve Bannon, now chief strategist for President Donald Trump; Kellyanne Conway, former campaign manager and now White House counselor; Sam Clovis, a policy adviser to the Trump campaign and now a senior adviser at the Agriculture Department; and retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who was a campaign adviser and briefly was national security adviser in the Trump administration.
Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Photo: MICHAEL REYNOLDS/European Pressphoto Agency
Mr. Bannon said he never met with Mr. Smith or anyone affiliated with a limited-liability company, KLS Research LLC, that the document said had been established for its mission. “Never heard of KLS Research or Peter Smith,” Mr. Bannon said.
Ms. Conway said she knew Mr. Smith from Republican politics but hadn’t spoken to him in years. “I never met with him” during the campaign, Ms. Conway said. “There were no calls, no meetings, no nothing.”
The White House didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Neither did the Agriculture Department, Mr. Clovis’s employer.
Mr. Flynn, his consulting firm Flynn Intel Group and his son Michael G. Flynn, who was chief of staff at Flynn Intel, were cited more extensively as Mr. Smith sought to recruit researchers, as well as in documents related to the effort that have been described to the Journal. Neither Mr. Flynn nor his son responded to requests for comment.
The names of the other campaign officials haven’t surfaced in connection with Mr. Smith’s work except in the document, which the Journal reviewed on Friday.
The document section that lists campaign officials is followed by the words, “in coordination to the extent permitted as an independent expenditure.”—a possible reference to campaign strictures imposed by campaign finance and disclosure laws.
The document was included in a package of opposition research Mr. Smith shared through an encrypted email with Matt Tait, a cybersecurity expert who once worked for British intelligence. Mr. Tait said he was approached last summer by Mr. Smith, who wanted him to help verify whether emails offered to the group by hackers came from Mrs. Clinton’s private server.
After discussing his project by phone and in emails Mr. Smith gave him a document called the “KLS research packet,” which contained articles Mr. Smith planned to use for opposition research, Mr. Tait said. The packet cover sheet is the document that listed the Trump campaign officials. Mr. Smith’s name and phone number are typed at the bottom of it.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Tait to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Mr. Tait said he declined and ceased communications with Mr. Smith, never reviewing any purported Clinton emails.
The document Mr. Smith presented to Mr. Tait, which he kept, is titled, “A Demonstrative Pedagogical Summary to be Developed and Released Prior to November 8, 2016,” which was Election Day.
It cites as the “preferred vehicle” for the effort a limited-liability company established in Delaware. Mr. Smith established KLS Research as that vehicle on Sept. 2, according to incorporation documents.
The House Intelligence Committee and its counterpart in the Senate are investigating Russian election meddling and whether there was coordination with the Trump campaign. So is Special Counsel Robert Mueller. President Trump has denied any collusion. The Russian government has denied it tried to interfere.
U.S. investigators have examined reports from intelligence agencies that tell of Russian hackers discussing how to get emails from Mrs. Clinton’s server and transmit them to Mr. Flynn via an intermediary, according to U.S. officials with knowledge of the intelligence. It isn’t clear who the intermediary might have been or whether Mr. Smith’s operation was the one allegedly under discussion by the Russian hackers.
Mr. Smith said in the May interview he had assembled a group of technology experts, lawyers and a Russian-speaking investigator based in Europe to acquire emails his group theorized might have been stolen from Mrs. Clinton’s private server.
He said that after vetting batches of emails offered to him by hacker groups last fall, he couldn’t be sure enough of their authenticity to leak them himself and told the hackers to give them to WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks has never published such emails or claimed to have them. In a statement to the Journal, it said, “WikiLeaks has never revealed a source and never will.”
Appeared in the July 1, 2017, print edition as 'Clinton Email Seeker Cited Trump Aides.'
The Time I Got Recruited to Collude with the Russians
View of the Kremlin from the Bolshoy Kammeny Bridge. (Alexander Gusev)
By Matt Tait Friday, June 30, 2017, 10:50 PM
I read the Wall Street Journal’s article yesterday [ https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-operative-sought-clinton-emails-from-hackers-implied-a-connection-to-flynn-1498770851 (included in full earlier in this post)] on attempts by a GOP operative to recover missing Hillary Clinton emails with more than usual interest. I was involved in the events that reporter Shane Harris described, and I was an unnamed source for the initial story. What’s more, I was named in, and provided the documents to Harris that formed the basis of, this evening’s follow-up story [ https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-activist-who-sought-clinton-emails-cited-trump-campaign-officials-1498872923 (in full just above)], which reported that “A longtime Republican activist who led an operation hoping to obtain Hillary Clinton emails from hackers listed senior members of the Trump campaign, including some who now serve as top aides in the White House, in a recruitment document for his effort”:
Officials identified in the document include Steve Bannon, now chief strategist for President Donald Trump; Kellyanne Conway, former campaign manager and now White House counselor; Sam Clovis, a policy adviser to the Trump campaign and now a senior adviser at the Agriculture Department; and retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who was a campaign adviser and briefly was national security adviser in the Trump administration.
I’m writing this piece in the spirit of Benjamin Wittes’s account of his interactions with James Comey immediately following the New York Times story for which he acted as a source. The goal is to provide a fuller accounting of experiences which were thoroughly bizarre and which I did not fully understand until I read the Journal’s account of the episode yesterday. Indeed, I still do not fully understand the events I am going to describe, both what they reflected then or what they mean in retrospect. But I can lay out what happened, facts from which readers and investigators can draw their own conclusions.
For the purpose of what follows, I will assume readers are already familiar with the Wall Street Journal’s reporting on this matter.
My role in these events began last spring, when I spent a great deal of time studying the series of Freedom of Information disclosures by the State Department of Hillary Clinton’s emails, and posting the parts I found most interesting—especially those relevant to computer security—on my public Twitter account [ https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings ]. I was doing this not because I am some particular foe of Clinton’s—I’m not—but because like everyone else, I assumed she was likely to become the next President of the United States, and I believed her emails might provide some insight into key cybersecurity and national security issues once she was elected in November.
Initially, I assumed the query must have been about my work on the DNC hack; after all, few people followed my account prior to the DNC breach, whereas my analysis of the break-in at the DNC had received considerably more coverage. I assumed his query about the “Clinton emails” was therefore a mistake and that he meant instead to talk to me about the emails stolen from the DNC. So I agreed to talk to him, thinking that, whatever my views on then-candidate Trump, if a national campaign wanted an independent non-partisan view on the facts surrounding the case, I should provide it to the best of my ability.
Yet Smith had not contacted me about the DNC hack, but rather about his conviction that Clinton’s private email server had been hacked—in his view almost certainly both by the Russian government and likely by multiple other hackers too—and his desire to ensure that the fruits of those hacks were exposed prior to the election. Over the course of a long phone call, he mentioned that he had been contacted by someone on the “Dark Web” who claimed to have a copy of emails from Secretary Clinton’s private server, and this was why he had contacted me; he wanted me to help validate whether or not the emails were genuine.
Under other circumstances, I would have gone no further. After all, this was occurring in the final stretch of a U.S. presidential election, and I did not feel comfortable, and had no interest in, providing material help to either of the campaigns beyond merely answering questions on my already public analysis of Clinton’s emails, or of the DNC hack. (I’m not a U.S. citizen or resident, after all.) In any case, my suspicion then and now was that Hillary Clinton’s email server was likely never breached by Russia, and moreover that if Russia had a copy of Clinton’s emails, they would not waste them in the run-up to an election she was likely to win. I thus thought Smith’s search for her emails was in vain.
But following the DNC hack and watching the Russian influence campaign surrounding it unfold in near real-time, Smith’s comment about having been contacted by someone from the “Dark Web” claiming to have Clinton’s personal emails struck me as critically important. I wanted to find out whether this person was merely some fraudster wanting to take Smith for a ride or something more sinister: that is, whether Smith had been contacted by a Russian intelligence front with intent to use Smith as part of their scheme by laundering real or forged documents.
I never found out who Smith’s contact on the “Dark Web” was. It was never clear to me whether this person was merely someone trying to dupe Smith out of his money, or a Russian front, and it was never clear to me how they represented their own credentials to Smith.
Over the course of our conversations, one thing struck me as particularly disturbing. Smith and I talked several times about the DNC hack, and I expressed my view that the hack had likely been orchestrated by Russia and that the Kremlin was using the stolen documents as part of an influence campaign against the United States. I explained that if someone had contacted him via the “Dark Web” with Clinton’s personal emails, he should take very seriously the possibility that this may have been part of a wider Russian campaign against the United States. And I said he need not take my word for it, pointing to a number of occasions where US officials had made it clear that this was the view of the U.S. intelligence community as well.
Smith, however, didn’t seem to care. From his perspective it didn’t matter who had taken the emails, or their motives for doing so. He never expressed to me any discomfort with the possibility that the emails he was seeking were potentially from a Russian front, a likelihood he was happy to acknowledge. If they were genuine, they would hurt Clinton’s chances, and therefore help Trump.
When he first contacted me, I did not know who Smith was, but his legitimate connections within the Republican party were apparent. My motive for initially speaking to him was that I wondered if the campaign was trying to urgently establish whether the claims that Russia had hacked the DNC was merely “spin” from the Clinton campaign, or instead something they would need to address before Trump went too far down the road of denying it. My guess was that maybe they wanted to contact someone who could provide them with impartial advice to understand whether the claims were real or just rhetoric.
Although it wasn’t initially clear to me how independent Smith’s operation was from Flynn or the Trump campaign, it was immediately apparent that Smith was both well connected within the top echelons of the campaign and he seemed to know both Lt. Gen. Flynn and his son well. Smith routinely talked about the goings on at the top of the Trump team, offering deep insights into the bizarre world at the top of the Trump campaign. Smith told of Flynn’s deep dislike of DNI Clapper, whom Flynn blamed for his dismissal by President Obama. Smith told of Flynn’s moves to position himself to become CIA Director under Trump, but also that Flynn had been persuaded that the Senate confirmation process would be prohibitively difficult. He would instead therefore become National Security Advisor should Trump win the election, Smith said. He also told of a deep sense of angst even among Trump loyalists in the campaign, saying “Trump often just repeats whatever he’s heard from the last person who spoke to him,” and expressing the view that this was especially dangerous when Trump was away.
Over the course of a few phone calls, initially with Smith and later with Smith and one of his associates—a man named John Szobocsan—I was asked about my observations on technical details buried in the State Department’s release of Secretary Clinton’s emails (such as noting a hack attempt in 2011 [ https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/745786276859740160, or how Clinton’s emails might have been intercepted by Russia due to lack of encryption [ https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/574989506073354240 ]). I was also asked about aspects of the DNC hack, such as why I thought the “Guccifer 2” persona really was in all likelihood operated by the Russian government, and how it wasn’t necessary to rely on CrowdStrike’s attribution as blind faith; noting that I had come to the same conclusion independently based on entirely public evidence, having been initially doubtful of CrowdStrike’s conclusions.
Towards the end of one of our conversations, Smith made his pitch. He said that his team had been contacted by someone on the “dark web”; that this person had the emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email server (which she had subsequently deleted), and that Smith wanted to establish if the emails were genuine. If so, he wanted to ensure that they became public prior to the election. What he wanted from me was to determine if the emails were genuine or not.
It is no overstatement to say that my conversations with Smith shocked me. Given the amount of media attention given at the time to the likely involvement of the Russian government in the DNC hack, it seemed mind-boggling for the Trump campaign—or for this offshoot of it—to be actively seeking those emails. To me this felt really wrong.
In my conversations with Smith and his colleague, I tried to stress this point: if this dark web contact is a front for the Russian government, you really don’t want to play this game. But they were not discouraged. They appeared to be convinced of the need to obtain Clinton’s private emails and make them public, and they had a reckless lack of interest in whether the emails came from a Russian cut-out. Indeed, they made it quite clear to me that it made no difference to them who hacked the emails or why they did so, only that the emails be found and made public before the election.
In the end, I never saw the actual materials they’d been given, and to this day, I don’t know whether there were genuine emails, or whether Smith and his associates were deluding themselves.
By the middle of September, all contact between us ended. By this time, I had grown extremely uncomfortable with the situation, so when Smith and his colleague asked me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, I declined to do so. My suspicion was that the real purpose of the non-disclosure agreement was to retrospectively apply confidentiality to the conversations we had already had before that point. I refused to sign the non-disclosure and we went our separate ways.
As I mentioned above, Smith and his associates’ knowledge of the inner workings of the campaign were insightful beyond what could be obtained by merely attending Republican events or watching large amounts of news coverage. But one thing I could not place, at least initially, was whether Smith was working on behalf of the campaign, or whether he was acting independently to help the campaign in his personal capacity.
Then, a few weeks into my interactions with Smith, he sent me a document, ostensibly a cover page for a dossier of opposition research to be compiled by Smith’s group, and which purported to clear up who was involved. The document was entitled “A Demonstrative Pedagogical Summary to be Developed and Released Prior to November 8, 2016,” and dated September 7. It detailed a company Smith and his colleagues had set up as a vehicle to conduct the research: “KLS Research”, set up as a Delaware LLC “to avoid campaign reporting,” and listing four groups who were involved in one way or another.
The first group, entitled “Trump Campaign (in coordination to the extent permitted as an independent expenditure)” listed a number of senior campaign officials: Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Sam Clovis, Lt. Gen. Flynn and Lisa Nelson.
The largest group named a number of “independent groups / organizations / individuals / resources to be deployed.” My name appears on this list. At the time, I didn’t recognize most of the others; however, several made headlines in the weeks immediately prior to the election.
My perception then was that the inclusion of Trump campaign officials on this document was not merely a name-dropping exercise. This document was about establishing a company to conduct opposition research on behalf of the campaign, but operating at a distance so as to avoid campaign reporting. Indeed, the document says as much in black and white.
The combination of Smith’s deep knowledge of the inner workings of the campaign, this document naming him in the “Trump campaign” group, and the multiple references to needing to avoid campaign reporting suggested to me that the group was formed with the blessing of the Trump campaign. In the Journal’s story this evening, several of the individuals named in the document denied any connection to Smith, and it’s certainly possible that he was a big name-dropper and never really represented anyone other than himself. If that’s the case, Smith talked a very good game.
I’m sure readers are wondering: why did I keep quiet at the time? Actually, I didn’t. In the fall, prior to the election, I discussed the events of the story first with a friend, and secondly with a journalist. The trouble was that neither I nor the reporter in question knew what to make of the whole operation. It was certainly clear that the events were bizarre, and deeply unsettling. But it wasn’t reportable.
After all, Clinton’s private emails never materialized. We couldn’t show that Smith had been in contact with actual Russians. And while I believed—as I still do—that he was operating with some degree of coordination with the campaign, that was at least a little murky too. The story just didn’t make much sense—that is, until the Journal yesterday published the critical fact that U.S. intelligence has reported that Russian hackers were looking to get emails to Flynn through a cut-out during the Summer of 2016, and this was no idle speculation on my part.
Former GCHQ specialist claims 'Republican operative' sought 'Clinton emails hacked by Russia' 1 July 2017 A British former GCHQ information specialist has claimed a Republican operative tried to recruit him in a bid to verify emails purportedly hacked from Hillary Clinton, potentially by Russia. In the latest twist in the probe into whether there was collusion between anyone connected to Donald Trump [ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/donald-trump/ ]'s presidential campaign and Russia the British cyber-security expert Matt Tait said he had been approached by the operative last Spring. A Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russian interference in the US presidential election, called for the panel to immediately hear from Mr Tait. [...] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/01/former-gchq-specialist-claims-republican-operative-sought-clinton/ [with embedded videos]
*
What everyone should know about Peter W. Smith, the potential missing link in the Trump-Russia probe
Smith could be the missing link in the Trump-Russia probe that is now being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The FBI, CIA, NSA and Director of National Intelligence have publicly stated that Russia hacked emails to help Trump win the election [ https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf ]. The extent to which the Trump campaign collaborated with Russia in that effort is unknown. (Trump and his advisers have denied involvement.)
But beyond his alleged connections to Flynn, Smith has deep ties to the Trump orbit and the Republican establishment.
Smith was a longtime supporter and confidant to Newt Gingrich, a key member of the Trump campaign
“[W]hen Peter W. Smith talks, Newt Gingrich listens.” That was the introduction to a 1995 article in Crain’s Chicago Business about Gingrich’s “Illinois patrons.”
Smith was one of the earliest and most enthusiastic backers of Gingrich. The article details how Smith contributed “more than $109,000…since 1989 to Mr. Gingrich and his affiliated interests.” He raised even more money. It made Smith the “No. 1 financial backer of Mr. Gingrich, and one of the top 20 contributors nationwide.”
Smith, who worked in finance, also hosted “lunches in his Wrigley Building offices every month or so for visiting GOP luminaries, such as Mr. Gingrich.”
Smith had ties to Breitbart, the online news outlet run by Trump’s chief strategist
While Smith’s ties to Gingrich goes back decades, he more recently became acquainted with Matt Boyle, the Washington Political Editor of Breitbart. That publication was run by Steve Bannon until he left, first to join the Trump campaign and then the White House as chief strategist.
Smith has a history of funding dirty tricks against the Clintons
Smith’s attempt to connect with Russian hackers wasn’t the first time he sought to cross ethical lines to damage someone with the last name Clinton. In the 1990s, Smith “was behind the so-called ‘Troopergate’ affair [ http://observer.com/1998/03/gingrich-money-man-peter-smith-helped-david-brock-sock-clinton/ ], in which four state troopers who served on Mr. Clinton’s security detail when he was Governor of Arkansas charged that he had used them to procure women for sex.”
Smith brought the story to David Brock, then a right-wing reporter with the American Spectator. Eventually, Smith admitted in 1998 “to the Chicago Sun-Times that he had spent about $80,000 to get negative information about Clinton into the mainstream press.” The payments went to the troopers and Brock.
The story “led to the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton and to special prosecutor Kenneth Starr’s investigation into whether Clinton had sex in the White House with an intern,” the Chicago Sun-Times reported.
Just as he told the WSJ about his efforts to collaborate with the Russians to obtain Clinton emails, Smith claimed he was acting independently.
Smith claimed a connection to the Trump campaign
Smith’s history suggests he may have been in contact with the Trump campaign. This is also consistent with what Smith told potential collaborators as he sought hacked emails.
Bannon denied ever hearing of Smith, but we know that Smith was in contact with one of his most prominent reporters. Conway admitted she knew Smith but but said she hadn’t spoken to him recently. Clovis and Flynn did not comment.
Smith had information that suggests he was in contact with the Trump campaign
Smith’s activities were exposed after he contacted a UK security expert named Matt Tait. In a blog post detailing his interactions with Smith, Tait says Smith seemed well-informed about the inner workings of the Trump campaign [ https://lawfareblog.com/time-i-got-recruited-collude-russians (in full above)].
Although it wasn’t initially clear to me how independent Smith’s operation was from Flynn or the Trump campaign, it was immediately apparent that Smith was both well connected within the top echelons of the campaign and he seemed to know both Lt. Gen. Flynn and his son well. Smith routinely talked about the goings on at the top of the Trump team, offering deep insights into the bizarre world at the top of the Trump campaign. Smith told of Flynn’s deep dislike of DNI Clapper, whom Flynn blamed for his dismissal by President Obama. Smith told of Flynn’s moves to position himself to become CIA Director under Trump, but also that Flynn had been persuaded that the Senate confirmation process would be prohibitively difficult. He would instead therefore become National Security Advisor should Trump win the election, Smith said.
This is, of course, exactly what happened. (After being named National Security Adviser, Flynn was forced to resign after lying about his conversations with Russian officials.)
Smith set up a shell company ‘to avoid campaign reporting’
According to Tait, Smith said he set up a shell corporation in Delaware, KLS Research, “to avoid campaign reporting [ https://lawfareblog.com/time-i-got-recruited-collude-russians ].” This comment suggests Smith may have been paid by an entity operating under the Federal Election Commission that is required to disclose their expenditures. This could mean either a campaign or a Super PAC.
The cause of Smith’s death is unknown
Smith died about 10 days after talking to the Wall Street Journal reporter Shane Harris. While there is no evidence of foul play, and Smith was 81 years old, the cause of his death is unknown and not discussed in his obituary [ http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/chicagotribune/obituary.aspx?pid=185474380 ].
On MSNBC, Harris said he tried to find out how Smith died. “I should say we do not know how he died. We made multiple attempts, both with family members and with associates of his, as well as government officials in the town where he lived, to try and determine his cause of death, and we were unsuccessful,” Smith said.
Trump considering lawyer for White House Russia role: sources U.S. President Donald Trump arrives at the Celebrate Freedom Rally in Washington, U.S. July 1, 2017. Jul 3, 2017 President Donald Trump is considering adding a veteran Washington lawyer to the White House counsel's office to deal with Russia-related issues, people familiar with the matter said. Ty Cobb, a white-collar defense lawyer with the firm of Hogan Lovells and a former federal prosecutor, met with Trump about a week ago, another person said. White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said the administration had "no announcement at this time." Cobb did not respond to requests for comment except to say he was on vacation. Cobb, 66, represented a number of individuals in government investigations during the Clinton administration, including former Democratic National Committee fundraiser John Huang and former White House aide David Watkins. Trump has been seeking a senior-level lawyer to join the office led by White House Counsel Don McGahn to focus on the various Russia investigations, one of the people said. In addition to a probe by special counsel Robert Mueller, several congressional panels are investigating Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and potential collusion by Trump's campaign. Moscow has denied any interference and Trump has denied any collusion. The role Cobb met with Trump about is separate from the legal team gathering to represent the president personally. That team, led by New York lawyer Marc Kasowitz, now includes constitutional lawyer and evangelical radio talk show host Jay Sekulow, Washington lawyer John Dowd, and Michael Bowe, a partner at Kasowitz’s firm. According to sources familiar with the matter, lawyers from major firms have turned down joining Trump's outside legal team, citing conflicts at their firms and concerns Trump would not listen to them. Others lawyers have also turned down the role for which Cobb is being considered. William Burck, a partner at Quinn Emanuel, and Emmet Flood, a partner at Williams & Connolly, both turned down the opportunity, according to people familiar with the matter. [...] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-lawyer-idUSKBN19O29Z
--
Truth about Trump admin. is only coming from the press
All In with Chris Hayes 6/30/17
Because it is so hard to get the truth from the Trump Administration, much of what we now know only came to light in spite of the White House. Duration: 11:41
The moment that President Trump admitted he fired the FBI director, James Comey, because of the Russia investigation, is now being cited throughout the ongoing inquires on Capitol Hill. Duration: 7:48
Rachel Maddow reacts to new Flynn connections with Russia
All In with Chris Hayes 6/30/17
Trump wanted Hillary Clinton's emails. He thought Russia had them. And he knew Michael Flynn had connections. Rachel Maddow joins to discuss the new reporting on Trump campaign contacts with Russia. Duration: 13:51
MS Secretary of State says "go jump in the Gulf" over voter files
All In with Chris Hayes 6/30/17
More than 20 states have either partially or completely rejected a request for voter data from President Trump's new commission on election integrity. Duration: 2:01
Thing 1/Thing 2: ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli’s appearance in court today didn’t stop him from talking to reporters. It also didn't stop his lawyer from responding as well. Duration: 2:32
Maddow: Trump behavior hurts the presidency, but he doesn't care
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/30/17
Rachel Maddow explains that because Donald Trump does not own or value the presidency, the harm his offensive behavior does to the office and the U.S. generally for political gain is not something he cares about. Duration: 22:30
New Trump voting rolls project met with rejection from states
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/30/17
Rachel Maddow reports on a new initiative from the Donald Trump administration, led by Kris Kobach, to gather lots of personal data from state voting records, a request that is not being well received by state officials. Duration: 6:46
Trump seen hatching voter suppression plan with new fraud group
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/30/17
Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, talks with Rachel Maddow about why Donald Trump's history and the people he is putting on his voter fraud commission point to a goal of suppressing voter participation. Duration: 6:07
Bannon, Conway named in GOP activist hacker recruitment doc: WSJ
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/30/17
Rachel Maddow relays new reporting from the Wall Street Journal about a long-time Republican operative's effort to recruit hackers, including Russian hackers, to find Hillary Clinton e-mails, and a document listing Donald Trump campaign officials in a recruitment document. Duration: 2:41
Long-time Clinton critic newly spotlighted in Trump scandal
The Rachel Maddow Show 6/30/17
Michael Isikoff, chief investigative correspondent for Yahoo News, talks with Rachel Maddow about Peter Smith's anti-Bill Clinton efforts long before he turned up in the Wall Street Journal's reporting on recruiting hackers to find deleted Hillary Clinton e-mails to help Donald Trump. Duration: 8:09
GOP strategist: Trump health care flip 'immoral,' 'wrong'
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell 6/30/17
Republican strategist Evan Siegfried says Trump's apparent shift in health care – wanting to repeal first, then replace – goes back on a long-held promise and would do severe damage to the public. Ari Melber also discusses with Joan Walsh and Shannon Pettypiece. Duration: 12:18
WSJ: Activist seeking hacked Clinton emails cited Trump aides
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell 6/30/17
The GOP operative who sought to obtain hacked Clinton emails from Russians cited Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon in a document uncovered by The Wall Street Journal. Malcolm Nance and Naveed Jamali join Ari Melber with reaction to the report. Duration: 9:05
Trump's Twitter fight distracts from the job of being President
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 6/30/17
With threats from North Korea, an upcoming meeting with Putin, & more - the President seems more interested with the Twitter fight he's having with MSNBC hosts Mika Brzezinski & Joe Scarborough. Duration: 10:10
Why European officials worry over Trump's meeting with Putin
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 6/30/17
European officials are reportedly worried that Vladimir Putin will go into his meeting with Trump at next week's G-20 summit convinced he can get what he wants. Steve Clemons discusses. Duration: 4:44
Trump 'doesn't know what he's talking about' on health care
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 6/30/17
George Will, a Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist for the Washington Post and MSNBC Contributor, explains why he thinks Pres. Trump has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to policy. Duration: 4:23
Trump will have 'no specific agenda' for meeting with Putin
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 6/30/17
George Will, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and MSNBC Contributor shares his thoughts that Trump's advisers are giving him no specific agenda for his meeting next week with Vladimir Putin. Duration: 1:23
Richard A. Clarke: Warnings | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)
Published on Jun 30, 2017 by Real Time with Bill Maher
Richard A. Clarke – former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism – joins Bill to discuss his latest book: Warnings: Finding Cassandras to Stop Catastrophes.
this is part 14 of a 17-part post which proceeds (point arising on the given) day by (point arising on the given) day from June 17, 2017 through July 3, 2017 -- the preceding part is the post to which this is a reply; the next part is a reply to this post -- the following 'see also (linked in)' listing, updated for intervening posts along the way, is common to all 17 parts
--
in addition to (linked in) the post to which this is a reply and preceding and (any future other) following, see also (linked in):
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
