Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., left, and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., right, greet one another during a rally Friday, March 31, 2017, in Boston. The Republican group America Rising PAC is tracking both of them in preparation for the 2020 election. Steven Senne - AP [ https://apnews.com/3026d0b172a548ce8ed394b8b16d2b60 ]
By Katie Glueck and Alex Roarty July 12, 2017 5:00 AM
WASHINGTON — Democrats shouting about ethical lapses by Republicans in the Donald Trump era should be prepared for a taste of their own medicine in 2018.
A major Republican organization dedicated to digging up dirt on Democrats has restructured its leadership team and is now laying down congressional- and presidential-year campaign plans, which include a bigger push in digital advertising, highlighting Democratic “hypocrisy” on ethical issues and exploiting the divide on the left between centrists and progressives.
In an exclusive interview with McClatchy, America Rising PAC announced a new executive director: Alexandra Smith, the former chairwoman of the College Republican National Committee and the first woman to lead the group. Colin Reed, who previously held that role, is moving into a senior adviser position, where he will focus on tracking Democrats’ possible 2020 contenders – “developing a negative narrative on them early and often,” he said.
Democrats have been dramatically at odds since at least last year’s election, split between an energized liberal base and the more moderate establishment—mirroring, in some ways, the longtime divides in the GOP. It’s a fight that spilled into the open during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, when Bernie Sanders delivered a surprisingly strong showing against Hillary Clinton.
“The narrative has flipped from where it was with Republicans—in terms of having so many litmus tests in previous cycles, that narrative has now flipped to Democrats,” Smith said. “Where, for example, a litmus test is single payer on health care...senators in some of these more vulnerable states are going to have to answer to the left wing of the party while at the same time trying to appeal to these voters who voted overwhelmingly for Trump and congressional Republicans previously.”
Certainly, Republicans have no shortage of internal dissent over everything from the foundering health care bill to how to deal with President Donald Trump. But America Rising’s mandate is to focus solely on highlighting challenges for Democrats.
Their trackers across the country are keeping close tabs on politicians who may sound one note on progressive priorities in Washington and another back home, especially among the Democratic senators facing re-election in states Trump won.
And the America Rising officials also said that they see new openings to press Democrats on their own ethical vulnerabilities in the Trump era.
“Hypocrisy always sells. No one likes hypocrites,” Reed said.
Overshadowing any such GOP-driven effort, of course, are the multiple investigations underway into Russian interference in the U.S. election, and, critically, whether anyone in Trump’s orbit was involved. The president’s son sparked the latest controversy this week when emails surfaced in which he expressed interest in receiving negative information about Hillary Clinton that was clearly sourced to Russia’s government.
“Democrats have raised holy hell over ethical issues, potential conflicts of interest, vis a vis the administration,” Reed said, speaking broadly. “All of these candidates that will hold themselves to high moral ground when it comes to ethics in government are going to face an awful lot of scrutiny from groups like ours on their own personal financial disclosures, on their own FEC reports.”
Smith said that the organization plans to highlight such findings in part through a bigger emphasis on digital ads.
“One particular passion of mine is digital advertising: I think it can be weaponized in incredible ways for very specific audiences,” Smith said. “My goal is to introduce more of that, to take these smaller nuggets of information that maybe don’t make it to the big-league TV ads, but for smaller audiences online, can be really effective.”
America Rising was launched in 2013 by alums and allies of Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign. Also following Romney’s defeat, Smith oversaw the release of a 2013 report [ http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/gop-youth-vote-report-092119 ] that lambasted the GOP for turning off a younger, more diverse group of voters.
Now, she’s taking a big-tent approach to delivering opposition research, saying that part of her aim is to identify and share hits that might resonate with constituencies who are not considered traditional Republican demographics, including young people and women.
Last year, America Rising actually tried to help Sanders’ presidential campaign, boosting him in an attempt to weaken the candidate, Clinton, they expected to face in the general election.
But Reed and Smith said GOP groups now need to take Sanders more seriously – not as a “crazy old uncle,” Smith said—especially if Sanders decides to run for president in 2020.
“He’s never really undergone serious scrutiny,” Reed said. “He never really went under the microscope like Hillary Clinton and the way Mitt Romney did in terms of just having the full bore of the party apparatus against him.”
Reed also said Warren, in whose re-election campaign in Massachusetts next year America Rising is taking a special interest [ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article153446694.html ], would be a formidable candidate in the primary—but there’s a lot of information the group could be prepared to reveal about Warren if she runs for president in three years.
“People don’t know what she was doing prior to bursting on national scene five years ago,” Reed said “That’s where research groups like ours can come in and inform voters.”
America Rising, Reed said, is “keeping an eye on the rising blue stars, if you will. That’s a lane not filled by any other group, where we always try to go.”
Trump-Russia investigators probe Jared Kushner-run digital operation
Jared Kushner, senior advisor to President Donald Trump and also the president’s son-in-law, shown here arriving with wife Ivanka Trump for the president’s speech in Krasinski Square, in Warsaw, Poland on July 6th. Kushner ran the digital operation during Trump’s presidential campaign last year. Alik Keplicz - AP [ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3961963/donald-trump-warns-future-west-g20-summit/ (with comments)]
By Peter Stone and Greg Gordon July 12, 2017 5:49 AM
WASHINGTON — Investigators at the House and Senate Intelligence committees and the Justice Department are examining whether the Trump campaign’s digital operation – overseen by Jared Kushner – helped guide Russia’s sophisticated voter targeting and fake news attacks on Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Congressional and Justice Department investigators are focusing on whether Trump’s campaign pointed Russian cyber operatives to certain voting jurisdictions in key states – areas where Trump’s digital team and Republican operatives were spotting unexpected weakness in voter support for Hillary Clinton, according to several people familiar with the parallel inquiries.
Also under scrutiny is the question of whether Trump associates or campaign aides had any role in assisting the Russians in publicly releasing thousands of emails, hacked from the accounts of top Democrats, at turning points in the presidential race, mainly through the London-based transparency web site WikiLeaks [ https://wikileaks.org/ ].
Rep. Adam Schiff of California, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told McClatchy he wants to know whether Russia’s “fake or damaging news stories” were “coordinated in any way in terms of targeting or in terms of timing or in terms of any other measure … with the (Trump) campaign.”
By Election Day, an automated Kremlin cyberattack of unprecedented scale and sophistication had delivered critical and phony news about the Democratic presidential nominee to the Twitter and Facebook accounts of millions of voters. Some investigators suspect the Russians targeted voters in swing states, even in key precincts.
Russia’s operation used computer commands knowns as “bots” to collect and dramatically heighten the reach of negative or fabricated news about Clinton, including a story in the final days of the campaign accusing her of running a pedophile ring at a Washington pizzeria [ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article119065538.html ].
One source familiar with Justice's criminal probe said investigators doubt Russian operatives controlling the so-called robotic cyber commands that fetched and distributed fake news stories could have independently "known where to specifically target … to which high-impact states and districts in those states."
All of the sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, is confidential.
Top Democrats on the committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election have signaled the same.
Schiff said he wants the House panel to determine whether Trump aides helped Russia time its cyberattacks or target certain voters and whether there was “any exchange of information, any financial support funneled to organizations that were doing this kind of work.”
Trump son-in-law Kushner, now a senior adviser to the president and the only current White House aide known to be deemed a “person of interest” in the Justice Department investigation, appears to be under the microscope in several respects. His real estate finances and December meetings with Russia’s ambassador and the head of a sanctioned, state-controlled bank are also being examined.
Kushner’s “role as a possible cut-out or conduit for Moscow’s influence operations in the elections,” including his niche overseeing the digital operations, will be closely looked at, said the source knowledgeable about the Justice Department inquiry.
Kushner joined Donald Trump Jr. and Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort at a newly disclosed June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in New York.. The meeting, revealed by The New York Times, followed emails in which Trump Jr. was told the lawyer for the Russian government would provide him with incriminating information on Clinton and he replied “If it’s what you say I love it.”
That disclosure could only serve to heighten interest in whether there was digital collaboration.
Mike Carpenter, who in January left a senior Pentagon post where he worked on Russia matters, also has suspicions about collaboration between the campaign and Russia’s cyber operatives.
“There appears to have been significant cooperation between Russia’s online propaganda machine and individuals in the United States who were knowledgeable about where to target the disinformation,” he said, without naming any American suspects.
Trump has repeatedly repudiated or equivocated about the finding of four key intelligence agencies – the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and the Directorate of National Intelligence – that Russian cyber operatives meddled with the U.S. election.
Last Friday, during their first face-to-face meeting, Trump questioned Putin about Russia’s role in the election meddling and Putin denied culpability, said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was present. Trump then said the two countries should find ways to move forward in their relationship, Tillerson said.
A Russian official who was at the meeting said the two sides agreed to form a working group to address cybersecurity, including interference in other countries’ internal affairs. However, Trump backtracked Sunday night, saying in a tweet that he doesn’t believe such an effort can happen.
As more has been learned about the breadth of the Russian cyber onslaught, congressional Democrats have shown growing resolve to demand that the Republican-controlled intelligence committees fully investigate ways in which Trump associates may have conspired with the Russians.
“I get the fact that the Russian intel services could figure out how to manipulate and use the bots,” Virginia Sen. Mark Warner told Pod Save America recently. “Whether they could know how to target states and levels of voters that the Democrats weren’t even aware (of) really raises some questions … How did they know to go to that level of detail in those kinds of jurisdictions?”
The Russians appear to have targeted women and African-Americans in two of the three decisive states, Wisconsin and Michigan, “where the Democrats were too brain dead to realize those states were even in play,” Warner said.
Twitter’s and Facebook’s search engines in those states were overwhelmed, he said, meaning they couldn’t discern fake news from real news.
“On your news feed, you suddenly got … ‘Hillary Clinton’s sick’ or ‘Hillary Clinton’s stealing money from the State Department,’” said Warner.
It started even before Trump locked up the nomination. Throughout the Republican primary elections in early 2016, Russia sent armies of bots carrying pro-Trump messages and deployed human “trolls” to comment in his favor on Internet stories and in social media, former FBI special agent Clint Watts told Congress [ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article141746659.html ] weeks ago.
Watts, now a cybersecurity specialist with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, said the targets included former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.
As Donald Trump was locking up the Republican presidential nomination in May 2016, a U.S. intelligence intercept picked up Russians discussing ways to spread news damaging to Clinton, two people familiar with the matter said.
No one has proved that Russia’s attack influenced the vote count in the Nov. 8 general election., but it wouldn’t have taken much to tip the results and change the course of history.
Clinton lost the decisive states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by a combined 77,744 votes out of 13.9 million ballots cast. She could have won Michigan if 5,353 Trump voters had gone for her instead, Wisconsin if 11,375 votes had flipped to her and Pennsylvania if 22,147 Trump voters had instead picked her.
Kushner’s pivotal role in the Trump cyber effort was underscored by his hiring in 2015 of Brad Parscale, a Texas-based digital guru who previously had done work for the Trump Organization, said two GOP operatives familiar with the campaign.
Parscale’s company raked in about $90 million for work targeting many states with paid advertisements, social media messages and other cyber tools.
As the Trump campaign’s top digital director, Parscale ran much of the operation from his San Antonio offices. He is expected to appear before at least one of several congressional committees investigating aspects of Russia’s interference in the election.
Parscale could not be reached for comment.
CNN quoted him last month as dismissing suggestions that Russian-directed online bots would have been effective in swinging votes to Trump. He said the campaign did not find Twitter -- where those bots mainly functioned – to be an effective tool.
Washington attorney Abbe Lowell, who was recently hired to be Kushner’s chief defense counsel and has “a reputation as a guy you hire if you're going to do battle with the government,” according to one former federal prosecutor, declined to comment on the Russia inquiries facing Kushner.
Shortly after his name arose in the inquiry, Kushner publicly volunteered to tell Congress about his Russia contacts and to answer questions about all issues for which he’s being scrutinized. Another of Kushner’s lawyers, Jamie Gorelick, says he will cooperate with both congressional and Justice Department investigations.
However, no interview date has been set, and Kushner’s attorneys decline to say whether he has produced records sought by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Scoop: Trump lawyers want wall between Kushner, president President Trump's outside legal team wants to wall off Jared Kushner from discussing the Russia investigation with his father-in-law, according to sources with direct knowledge of the discussions. Jul 12, 2017 https://www.axios.com/trump-lawyers-demand-wall-between-kushner-president-2458146483.html
*
All Roads Now Lead to Kushner
Jared Kushner at the White House in May. Doug Mills/The New York Times
By Nicholas Kristof JULY 13, 2017
For a year, the refrain from the Trump camp has been a defiant mix of “Lock her up,” “but the emails” and “fake news.”
The question is where this goes next. I suggest two directions.
First, look beyond Donald Trump Jr. to Jared Kushner and to President Trump himself.
Second, explore how Trump Jr.’s attempt at collusion with Russians may relate to the bizarre effort by Kushner to set up a secret communication channel with the Kremlin.
To back up, just in case you’ve been stuck on a desert island, here’s what you missed this week. Donald J. Trump Jr. received an email in June 2016, eight days after his father clinched the Republican nomination for president, that said the Kremlin had “offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary. … This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
In 1960, the Kremlin made a similar offer to support the candidacy of John F. Kennedy against Richard Nixon, but the Kennedy campaign rebuffed it. Likewise, when the Al Gore campaign in 2000 received confidential materials relating to the George W. Bush campaign, it called the F.B.I.
Trump Jr. didn’t call the F.B.I.; instead, he responded, “I love it.” He apparently arranged a phone call to discuss the material (we don’t know that the call happened or, if it did, its content), and then set up a meeting for him, Kushner and campaign chairman Paul Manafort to meet with a person described in the emails as a “Russian government attorney.”
In other words, informed of a secret Kremlin effort to use highly sensitive information about a former secretary of state (presumably obtained by espionage, for how else?) to manipulate an American election, Trump Jr. signaled, “We’re in!”
“This was an attempt at collusion,” noted Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. It may or may not have amounted to a felony, for soliciting a foreigner to contribute something “of value” in connection with an American election. The Predict-It betting website now lists [ https://www.predictit.org/Contract/7183#data ] gambling odds about whether Trump Jr. will be indicted.
The Trumps insist that the president himself was unaware of the Russian offer. Yet the day after Trump Jr. received the first email and presumably had his phone conversation about the supposedly incriminating material, his father promised [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/11/what-happened-and-when-the-timeline-leading-up-to-donald-trump-jr-s-fateful-meeting/ ] to give “a major speech” in which “we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very, very interesting.”
That speech targeting Hillary Clinton didn’t take place. But on June 15, the first leak of stolen Democratic materials did.
Then there’s Kushner. Trump Jr. forwarded the emails to Kushner, whose response was to attend the meeting, although he apparently left within 10 minutes. Kushner later neglected [ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/jared-kushner-russians-security-clearance.html ] to report the meeting and others with Russians on his SF-86 forms to receive national security clearance (intentional omission is a felony).
The meeting gave the Kremlin potential blackmail material against the Trumps, and thus possibly leverage over them.
In addition, McClatchy reports [ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article160803619.html (in full second above)] that investigators in Congress and the Justice Department are exploring whether the Trump campaign digital operation — supervised by Kushner — helped guide Russia’s remarkably sophisticated efforts to use internet bots to target voters with fake news attacking Hillary Clinton.
But Barton Gellman, a careful national security writer, has another theory. He notes [ https://twitter.com/bartongellman/status/884945350825574400 ] that James Comey, the ousted F.B.I. director, in testimony to Congress referred to the risk that this channel could “capture all of your conversations.” Gellman suggests that this may mean that Kushner sought mobile Russian scrambling equipment to take to Trump Tower.
Look, this is a murky, complicated issue. But this much we know: Kushner attended a secret meeting whose stated purpose was to advance a Kremlin effort to interfere in the U.S. election, he then failed to report it, and finally he sought a secret channel to communicate with the Kremlin.
One next step is clear: Take away Jared Kushner’s security clearance immediately.
Full Show - Donald Trump Jr. Deserves A Medal For Investigating Hillary Clinton’s Crimes - 07/12/2017
Published on Jul 12, 2017 by The Alex Jones Channel
Wednesday, July 12th 2017[, with an appearance by Jerome Corsi]: Media Descends on Trump Jr. - The Russian witch hunt heats up as Donald Trump Jr., the son of US President Donald Trump, faces scrutiny for meeting with a Russian lawyer to discuss what he thought was opposition research against political opponent Hillary Clinton. We'll break down the establishment left's cries of treason as they devour the latest Russian nothing burger, and get the real inside scoop from Trump insider Roger Stone[, who also hosts the fourth hour]. Also today, threat assessment expert Chris Gaubatz, who posed as a muslim convert and then as an intern with the Hamas organization Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Virginia in 2007.
Trump in Paris: The curious case of his friend Jim Jul 12, 2017 WASHINGTON (AP) — For all things Paris, President Donald Trump’s go-to guy is Jim. The way Trump tells it — Jim is a friend who loves Paris and used to visit every year. Yet when Trump travels to the city Thursday for his first time as president, it’s unlikely that Jim will tag along. Jim doesn’t go to Paris anymore. Trump says that’s because the city has been infiltrated by foreign extremists. Whether Jim exists is unclear. Trump has never given his last name. The White House has not responded to a request for comment about who Jim is or whether he will be on the trip. Trump repeatedly talked about the enigmatic Jim while on the campaign trail, but his friend didn’t receive widespread attention until Trump became president. For Trump, Jim’s story serves as a cautionary tale - a warning that even a place as lovely as Paris can be ruined if leaders are complacent about terrorism. Jim’s biggest moment in the spotlight was during a high-profile Trump speech in February at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland. Trump explained that Jim “loves the City of Lights, he loves Paris. For years, every year during the summer, he would go to Paris. It was automatic, with his wife and his family.” Trump one day asked Jim: “How’s Paris doing?” “’Paris?” Jim replied, as relayed by Trump. “‘I don’t go there anymore. Paris is no longer Paris.’” The mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, responded by tweeting a photo of herself with Mickey and Minnie Mouse inviting Trump “and his friend Jim” to France to “celebrate the dynamism and the spirit of openness of #Paris.” France’s then-Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault also took to Twitter, noting that 3.5 million American tourists had visited France last year. The Jim story highlights differences on immigration between Trump and major European leaders, including Trump’s host in Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron. Trump has put immigration at the core of his anti-terrorism strategy. He proposed a Muslim ban during the campaign and is fighting in the courts to temporarily bar travelers from six Muslim-majority nations as well as refugees. Macron is an outspoken critic of discriminatory policies against France’s Muslim population. He favors strong external European Union borders and he’s also called for a united European policy on immigration so that countries like Greece are not disproportionately affected by the influx of refugees. Trump believes European policies fall short of any credible efforts to protect the public. He has vowed to push forward with a plan to build a wall along America’s southern border with Mexico and he advocates for “extreme vetting” to “keep terrorists out.” Trump never endorsed Macron’s election opponent, far-right candidate Marine Le Pen, but in an interview with The Associated Press, he noted that terrorist attacks in France would “probably help” her win since “she’s the strongest on borders and she’s the strongest on what’s been going on in France.” Trump has criticized several European leaders, accusing them of lax counterterrorism policies. He lashed out at London Mayor Sadiq Khan after an attack on London Bridge last month. In a February speech, Trump denounced Sweden’s policies and talked about “what’s happening last night in Sweden.” Swedish officials sought clarification because there were no known attacks in their country that night. Trump took to Twitter to explain: “My statement as to what’s happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden.” https://www.apnews.com/e18f254c4ac84e6bab4ceed56401cc65/Trump-in-Paris:-The-curious-case-of-his-friend-Jim
In Paris, Trump is Bastille Day guest of city he derided In this July 7, 2017, file photo, France’s President Emmanuel Macron talks with U.S. President Donald Trump after the family photo on the first day of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany. Trump and Macron may be the world’s most unlikely political odd couple. Far apart on climate change and immigration, the two leaders will look for common ground on terrorism and defense policy when they meet this week in Paris. Fresh off his second trip to Europe, the president is making a U-turn to be the guest of honor at this year’s Bastille Day events _ a celebration of French national pride at a time when, according to Macron, “our world has never been so divided.” Jul 12, 2017 https://www.apnews.com/5f3b1936639d437c813675b1bb312d11/In-Paris,-Trump-is-Bastille-Day-guest-of-city-he-derided
Thousands sign up to clean sewage because they didn't read the small print Those who fell for the gag clause inserted into wifi terms and conditions committed to more than a month of community service 14 July 2017 Do you read the terms and conditions? Probably not. No one does [ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/15/i-read-all-the-small-print-on-the-internet ]. And so, inevitably, 22,000 people have now found themselves legally bound to 1000 hours of community service, including, but not limited to, cleaning toilets at festivals, scraping chewing gum off the streets and “manually relieving sewer blockages”. The (hopefully) joke clause was inserted in the terms and conditions of Manchester-based wifi company Purple for a period of two weeks, “to illustrate the lack of consumer awareness of what they are signing up to when they access free wifi”. The company operates wifi hotspots for a number of brands, including Legoland, Outback Steakhouse and Pizza Express. Purple also offered a prize for anyone who actually read the terms and conditions, and flagged up the “community service clause”. Just one person claimed it. It’s no surprise that people will agree to anything to get free wifi. In 2014, cybersecurity firm F-Secure ran a similar experiment in London, operating a wifi hotspot that anyone could use – in exchange for their firstborn child [ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/29/londoners-wi-fi-security-herod-clause ]. The so-called “Herod clause” was clearly stated in the terms and conditions, and six people still signed up. Though it’s not clear how many of them simply dislike their eldest children. [...] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/14/wifi-terms-and-conditions-thousands-sign-up-clean-sewage-did-not-read-small-print [h/t Elroy Jetson, (linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=133009021 and preceding and following]
--
LISTEN: Sarah Huckabee Sanders holds off-camera White House news briefing
Published on Jul 12, 2017 by PBS NewsHour
On Wednesday, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders held an off-camera news briefing where she addressed and answered questions about President Donald Trump's FBI director nominee Christopher Wray's hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Donald Trump Jr.'s email with a Russian attorney and other topics.
Russian Officials Overheard Discussing Trump Associates Before Campaign Began
Donald Trump with son Donald Trump Jr. after the first presidential debate last September. Photo: jewel samad/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
It isn’t clear whether Mr. Trump’s associates had any connection to his presidential aspirations
By Shane Harris July 12, 2017 4:12 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON—U.S. intelligence agencies starting in the spring of 2015 detected conversations in which Russian government officials discussed associates of Donald Trump, several months before he declared his candidacy for president, according to current and former U.S. officials.
In some cases, the Russians in the overheard 2015 conversations talked about meetings held outside the U.S. involving Russian government officials and Trump business associates or advisers, these people said.
It isn’t clear which of Mr. Trump’s associates or advisers the Russians were referring to, or whether they had any connection to his presidential aspirations.
The reports were gathered by intelligence agencies that routinely monitor Russian espionage against the U.S. Such efforts can include monitoring phone calls and emails as well as information from informants. The efforts weren’t aimed at Mr. Trump or his associates, these people said.
The U.S. intelligence agencies weren’t sure what to make of the vague and inconclusive mentions of Mr. Trump’s associates, given that he had done business in Russia and was a global celebrity well-known to prominent people there. The names of Americans do sometimes show up benignly in conversations involving Russian officials that are overheard by U.S. intelligence.
The emails released this week by Donald Trump Jr. provide details about a meeting he arranged in June 2016—as his father had effectively clinched the Republican nomination—with a Kremlin-connected lawyer to discuss allegedly incriminating information about Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton obtained by the Russian government.
Donald Jr. and the Russian lawyer said no information on Mrs. Clinton was disclosed in the meeting. But the emails offer the first clear public evidence that senior officials in Mr. Trump’s camp were open to offers of assistance from Russia in his quest for the White House.
A lawyer for Mr. Trump didn’t return a call seeking comment on the overheard 2015 conversations.
As with other new revelations in the probes of Russian interference in the election, the Trump Jr. emails enable investigators to look at earlier reports with fresh eyes, to see if certain statements or names now seem more significant in hindsight, the current and former officials said.
The reports on the 2015 conversations weren’t particularly illuminating, the people familiar with them said. Donald Trump had business connections in Russia—he produced the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow—and had sold properties to Russians.
In that respect, the reports in and of themselves weren’t alarming. But the volume of the mentions of Trump associates by the Russians did have officials asking each other, “What’s going on?” one former official said.
Then, in the spring of 2016, U.S. intelligence officials’ suspicions about Russian meddling in the election grew after their counterparts in Europe warned that Russian money might be flowing into the presidential election, according to officials with knowledge of the warning. It remains unknown if or whether those funds were funneled to a particular campaign or to others to spend it on behalf of candidates.
In June 2016, officials at the Democratic National Committee revealed that their computer networks had been penetrated by hackers, whom the FBI and intelligence agencies later determined worked for the Russian intelligence services. Emails taken in those incursions subsequently were published by WikiLeaks, and in October, the site released emails that had been stolen from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta.
At that point, intelligence officials had little doubt that the Russian government was attempting to interfere in the presidential elections. By the end of 2016, they concluded publicly that the Russian hacking campaign was meant to undermine Mrs. Clinton and help Mr. Trump.
Now, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and several congressional committees are probing Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia over the years, as is special counsel Robert Mueller.
Appeared in the July 13, 2017, print edition as 'Surveillance From 2015 Revisited.'
Democrats Sue Trump Campaign Over Leaked Emails Tied to Russia
Roger J. Stone Jr. at the La Quinta Resort and Club in La Quinta, Calif., in March. He is accused in an invasion of privacy lawsuit. Jenna Schoenefeld for The New York Times
By CHARLIE SAVAGE JULY 12, 2017
WASHINGTON — Two Democratic Party donors and a former party staff member have filed an invasion of privacy lawsuit [ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3893506-Invasion-of-Privacy-lawsuit-complaint-Trump.html ] against President Trump’s campaign and a longtime informal adviser, Roger J. Stone Jr., accusing them of conspiring in the release of hacked Democratic emails and files that exposed their personal information to the public.
The case was organized by Protect Democracy, a government watchdog group run by former Obama administration lawyers. It filed the claim just short of a deadline under a one-year statute of limitations for privacy invasion lawsuits: WikiLeaks published the first archives of stolen Democratic National Committee emails [ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-release-of-democratic-emails-to-harm-hillary-clinton.html ], which intelligence agencies say Russia hacked to harm Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and help Mr. Trump, last July 22.
Mr. Trump and his political advisers, including Mr. Stone, have repeatedly denied colluding with Russia, and the 44-page complaint, filed on Wednesday in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, does not contain any hard evidence that his campaign did. But it is seeking to depose witnesses and obtain campaign emails and other documents during the discovery process that is a standard part of lawsuits.
If a judge permits the case to reach that stage, the lawsuit would become a new and independent fact-finding investigation into the Trump-Russia issue — one that is overseen by a judge rather than by congressional Republicans, like the oversight inquiries conducted by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, or by the Trump administration, like the criminal inquiry led by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
“These plaintiffs are using the law and the American civil justice system the way it was intended: to vindicate important rights and values, such as the right to privacy and the right to participate in the political process; and to deter others who might consider colluding with a foreign government for political gain,” said Ian Bassin, the executive director of Protect Democracy. “They want to ensure that what they have gone through does not become something we accept as part of our democracy.”
A spokesman for Mr. Trump’s outside legal team did not respond to a request for comment, but Mr. Stone called the lawsuit meritless and said he expected it to be “quickly dismissed.”
Among the plaintiffs is Scott Comer, who was the chief of staff in the finance department of the Democratic National Committee, and whose hacked emails revealed to his grandparents that he is gay, which strained family relations, the lawsuit said.
Mr. Comer also received harassing and threatening phone calls, and was marginalized at work because of comments he had made about co-workers, and eventually left his job, it said.
The plaintiffs also include two Democratic Party donors, Roy Cockrum and Eric Schoenberg, whose Social Security numbers, dates of birth, home addresses and other personal details became public when WikiLeaks published the files.
The lawsuit said the disclosures resulted in attempts by strangers to steal the plaintiffs’ identities and obtain credit in their names, which caused “significant distress and anxiety and will require lifelong vigilance and expense.”
The complaint noted that the goal of the hacking “was to harm the Democratic Party’s candidate for president of the United States and improve the Trump campaign’s likelihood of success.” But, it said, “the direct victims included Mr. Cockrum, Mr. Schoenberg and Mr. Comer.”
The complaint largely consists of a catalog of publicly known facts that it presents as circumstantial evidence that the defendants had the motive, desire and opportunity to conspire with Russia. It noted public statements by the defendants and revelations about meetings and contacts with Russians that various associates of Mr. Trump concealed when applying for security clearances.
Those facts include the Trump campaign’s efforts to soften language in the Republican Party platform condemning Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, and the disclosure in recent days [ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html ] that in June 2016, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, eldest son and son-in-law attended a meeting with a Russian lawyer whom they believed would give them dirt on Mrs. Clinton as part of Moscow’s support for Mr. Trump.
In addition to the invasion of privacy claim, the lawsuit contains two counts of other harms it said were a foreseeable consequence of the disclosure of the stolen emails: intentional infliction of emotional distress, and the violation of a statute that forbids conspiracies to intimidate classes of lawful voters from participating in the democratic process, or to injure them for having done so. The latter charge was brought under a federal statute [ https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985 ] that dates from a Reconstruction Era law to help combat the Ku Klux Klan. The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
It does not name as defendants Russia, which has sovereign immunity, or WikiLeaks, whose founder Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, is living in the embassy of Ecuador in London.
GOP Rep. dodges question of if he'd accept Russian help
All In with Chris Hayes 7/12/17
Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-NC) struggles to answer whether it's a good idea to accept campaign help from an adversarial foreign power, as Donald Trump Jr. appears to have done in newly released emails. Duration: 4:57
What everyone missed in the Donald Trump Jr. emails
All In with Chris Hayes 7/12/17
Donald Trump Jr. says he 'basically' had no contacts, other than over email, with his anti-Clinton source in Russia. The emails suggest otherwise. Duration: 8:36
In light of the president’s new interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, we relive one of our all-time favorite Trump clips from his interview with the CBN last summer. Duration: 1:48
Trump camp tries to turn narrative as Russia scrutiny intensifies
The Rachel Maddow Show 7/12/17
Rachel Maddow explores the latest reporting in the investigation into Trump campaign collusion with Russia as the investigation expands and Trump supporters struggle to recast the Trump Jr. collusion scandal. Duration: 20:50
Intel cites Trump Russia timeline starting in spring 2015: WSJ
The Rachel Maddow Show 7/12/17
Rachel Maddow looks at revelations in a new report from the Wall Street Journal that Russian officials were heard discussing Donald Trump in the spring of 2015. A year later European intel warned of Russian money flowing into the US election. Duration: 4:26
Trump Jr. collusion mails spark reassessment of older intel
The Rachel Maddow Show 7/12/17
Shane Harris, senior national security writer for the Wall Street Journal, talks with Rachel Maddow about his reporting on new perspectives on some of the earliest indications of interactions between Russia and Donald Trump associates. Duration: 5:57
Russian cyber propaganda attack eyed for US helpers
The Rachel Maddow Show 7/12/17
Greg Gordon, investigative reporter for McClatchy DC, talks with Rachel Maddow about how investigators are looking into whether Russians had assistance from Americans in strategizing where to direct their online propaganda. Duration: 6:04
Rachel Maddow shows how Mike Pence has had a hard time making truthful denials about the Trump campaign's interactions with Russia, and notes that Pence's spokesman couldn't give a straight answer on whether Pence himself had met with Russians during the campaign. Duration: 4:17
Senate GOP to try again to pass unpopular health care/tax bill
The Rachel Maddow Show 7/12/17
Rachel Maddow reports that Senate Republicans will try again to pass their Unpopular Obamacare-replacing health care/tax bill, even pushing into two weeks of their August vacation. Duration: 1:26
Lawrence O'Donnell explains why Jared Kushner could be in serious legal trouble for not disclosing the Russian lawyer meeting on his security clearance form and why Trump's lawyers are right for trying to build a wall between the President and his son-in-law. Duration: 9:47
Potential legal troubles for Kushner, Trump Jr. after meeting
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell 7/12/17
New details on the Trump business connection to the meeting Trump Junior and Jared Kushner had with a Russian lawyer and its possible legal consequences. Enron prosecutor Samuel Buell, investigative reporter Michael Isikoff, and David Frum join Lawrence O'Donnell. Duration: 9:14
GOP in crisis over Trump Jr.-Russia email revelation
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell 7/12/17
Republicans backed Donald Trump for President and now leaders like Paul Ryan find themselves are struggling to answer simple questions like, "would you have taken the meeting Donald Trump Jr. did?" David Frum and Ned Price join Lawrence O'Donnell. Duration: 6:45
Trump: Claims of collusion 'dumbest thing I've ever heard'
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 7/12/17
Speaking to Reuters and CBN, Pres. Trump defended his meeting with Putin and his son's meeting with a Russian lawyer blasting the idea his campaign colluded with Moscow. Our panel reacts. Duration: 8:55
NYT: Kushner downplayed Russian lawyer meeting to Pres. Trump
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 7/12/17
The New York Times reports Trump aide & son-in-law Jared Kushner downplayed the significance of the June 2016 meeting he, Paul Manafort, & Donald Trump Jr. took with a Kremlin-linked lawyer. Duration: 1:03
Was Trump compromised going into meeting with Putin?
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 7/12/17
The President is defending his 'excellent' meeting with Vladimir Putin saying it's 'important to have a dialogue' between Washington & Moscow. Fmr. Amb. Mike McFaul & Jeremy Bash discuss. Duration: 3:21
Despite Russia scandal, Trump's GOP base is sticking by him
The 11th Hour with Brian Williams 7/12/17
Despite scandals and a lack of progress on his agenda, a new poll shows Pres. Trump still has really strong support among Republican voters. Connie Schultz, Jon Meacham, & Eugene Robinson react. Duration: 6:42
Doncathlon - Fox News Defends the Indefensible Donald Trump Jr.: The Daily Show
Published on Jul 12, 2017 by The Daily Show with Trevor Noah
After Donald Trump Jr. admits to meeting with a Russian lawyer during the run-up to the 2016 election, Fox News comes up with ridiculous excuses to defend the first son.
John Oliver: The Don Jr. Scandal Is Something (If Something Means Anything)
Published on Jul 13, 2017 by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
'Last Week Tonight' host John Oliver believes the son of the President's emails are definitely something, but questions if something means anything to anyone anymore.
[originally aired July 12, 2017 (U.S. central time)]
After the nation’s worst mass shootings, in Newtown, Conn.; Aurora, Colo.; Orlando, Fla.; and Columbine High School in Colorado, gun control advocates rose to demand more rigorous laws: stricter background checks, limits on magazine capacities, bans on assault weapons and tougher controls on gun shows and online firearms markets — almost always to no avail.
But in the weeks after the June 14 shooting of Republicans at a congressional baseball practice, the response has had a twist: Conservative lawmakers, some of whom were nearly the victims of gun violence, have pressed to loosen gun controls.
Three bills introduced in the Republican-held House during the past two weeks would allow lawmakers to almost always carry a concealed weapon. A fourth would allow concealed carry permits obtained in other states to be recognized in the District of Columbia. Still another would eliminate federal controls on silencers.
Let's Challenge Evolution and Climate Change...In Schools
Published on Jul 12, 2017 by Mike Malloy
Less than a week after satellite temperature data was revised and the full extent of global warming became even clearer, Florida’s Republican Governor Rick Scott signed into law a bill that will make it easier for any Florida resident to object to science-based education in the classroom.
The statute, which went into effect on July 1, forces school boards to hire an “unbiased hearing officer” who will look into complaints about instructional materials, according to a report by The Washington Post. The main proponents of the law, a group called the Florida Citizens Alliance, have argued that state-approved textbooks are “too liberal.”
“Purchased at taxpayer expense, these materials teach our children that European Socialism is better than free markets and that the government is the answer to every problem,” the group complains on its website.
White House Correspondents’ Association President Jeff Mason on Monday night alleged that the White House had drafted him to criticize the work of other reporters. “There have definitely been times over the last several months where the White House has come to us — often to me specifically — asking that we or I intervene and criticize a member news organization or reporter,” said Mason at an event held at the White House Historical Association.
The topic brought to mind a specific instance: “In one case, and I won’t say the name, but in one case, I was asked to on behalf of the WHCA to release a statement criticizing a reporter’s story,” said Mason, to a wave of disbelief in the conference room. “And I said ‘No,’ because that’s not what we do and that’s not something we would ever do.”
For background, the White House Correspondents’ Association has a mission of ensuring “a strong free press and robust coverage of the presidency by advocating for access by the media to the President, White House events and administration officials.” The idea is to bug whatever administration is occupying the White House for as much official face time as possible — and that includes interviews, photo availability and wide-open press briefings, which have become an endangered species under President Trump.
Excerpts From Trump’s Conversation With Journalists on Air Force One
President Trump and his wife, Melania, arrived at Paris Orly Airport on Thursday. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, had invited Mr. Trump to a Bastille Day celebration. Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
The conversation was initially thought by the journalists to be off the record. However, the White House changed the terms of the exchange after Mr. Trump asked the pool reporter, who works for The New York Times, why it was not covered and she informed him that the journalists believed they were not allowed to use the material.
Note: Asterisks and ellipses denote sections of the president’s conversation that were left out by the White House.
9:15 P.M. EDT
On the visit to France:
Q When were you last in Paris? When were you last in France?
THE PRESIDENT: So I was asked to go by the President, who I get along with very well, despite a lot of fake news. You know, I actually have a very good relationship with all of the people at the G20. And he called me, he said, would you come, it’s Bastille Day — 100 years since World War I. And I said, that’s big deal, 100 years since World War I. SO we’re going to go, I think we’re going to have a great time, and we’re going to do something good. And he’s doing a good job. He’s doing a good job as President.
On North Korea, China, and trade:
THE PRESIDENT: A big thing we have with China was, if they could help us with North Korea, that would be great. They have pressures that are tough pressures, and I understand. And you know, don’t forget, China, over the many years, has been at war with Korea — you know, wars with Korea. It’s not like, oh, gee, you just do whatever we say. They’ve had numerous wars with Korea.
They have an 8,000 year culture. So when they see 1776 — to them, that’s like a modern building. The White House was started — was essentially built in 1799. To us, that’s really old. To them, that’s like a super modern building, right? So, you know, they’ve had tremendous conflict over many, many centuries with Korea. So it’s not just like, you do this. But we’re going to find out what happens.
Very important to me with China, we have to fix the trade. We have to fix the trade. And I’ve been going a little bit easier because I’d like to have their help. It’s hard to go ***. But we have to fix the trade with China because it’s very, very none-reciprocal.
Q Is that your bargaining chip with them to get on board with North Korea? Is, like, you want to —
THE PRESIDENT: Nobody has ever said it before. I say it all the time. Somebody said, what cards do you have? I said, very simple — trade. We are being absolutely devastated by bad trade deals. We have the worst of all trade deals is with China.
We have a bad deal with South Korea. We’re just starting negotiations with South Korea. South Korea, we protect, but we’re losing $40 billion a year with South Korea on trade. We have a trade deficit of $40 billion. The deal just came up.
That was another Hillary Clinton beauty. Remember she said it was five-year deal, and now it’s an extension period. She said this will put jobs in our country. She said we’ll make money with it. Great. We’re losing $40 billion a year. It’s a horrible deal. So we’re starting — we started, as of yesterday, renegotiating the deal with South Korea. We have to.
But the biggest strength we have are these horrendous trade deals, like with China. That’s our strength. But we’re going to fix them. But in terms of North Korea, our strength is trade.
Q And do you think that’s going to bring them around?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, yeah, when I say reciprocal — you make reciprocal deals, you’re talking about hundreds of billions of dollars. But before I did that, I wanted to give it a good shot. Let’s see. And they helped us. I have a very good relationship with him. I think he’s a tremendous guy. But don’t forget. He’s for China. I’m for the U.S. So that’s always going to be.
So he could be a tremendous guy, but he’s going to do what’s good for China. And he doesn’t want 50 million people pouring across his border. You know, there are a lot of things. I understand the other side. You always have to understand the other side.
Q What about steel?
THE PRESIDENT: Steel is a big problem. Steel is — I mean, they’re dumping steel. Not only China, but others. We’re like a dumping ground, okay? They’re dumping steel and destroying our steel industry, they’ve been doing it for decades, and I’m stopping it. It’ll stop.
Q On tariffs?
THE PRESIDENT: There are two ways — quotas and tariffs. Maybe I’ll do both.
On healthcare:
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think, first, I want to do — well, we have a few things. We have a thing called healthcare. I’m sure you haven’t been reading about it too much. It is one of the — I’d say the only thing more difficult than peace between Israel and the Palestinians is healthcare. It’s like this narrow road that about a quarter of an inch wide. You get a couple here and you say, great, and then you find out you just lost four over here. Healthcare is tough.
But I think we’re going to have something that’s really good and that people are going to like. We’re going to find out over the next — you know, we just extended for two weeks. Which, that’s a big —
On the border wall:
Q You were joking about solar, right?
THE PRESIDENT: No, not joking, no. There is a chance that we can do a solar wall. We have major companies looking at that. Look, there’s no better place for solar than the Mexico border — the southern border. And there is a very good chance we can do a solar wall, which would actually look good. But there is a very good chance we could do a solar wall.
One of the things with the wall is you need transparency. You have to be able to see through it. In other words, if you can’t see through that wall — so it could be a steel wall with openings, but you have to have openings because you have to see what’s on the other side of the wall.
And I’ll give you an example. As horrible as it sounds, when they throw the large sacks of drugs over, and if you have people on the other side of the wall, you don’t see them — they hit you on the head with 60 pounds of stuff? It’s over. As crazy as that sounds, you need transparency through that wall. But we have some incredible designs.
But we are seriously looking at a solar wall. And remember this, it’s a 2,000 mile border, but you don’t need 2,000 miles of wall because you have a lot of natural barriers. You have mountains. You have some rivers that are violent and vicious. You have some areas that are so far away that you don’t really have people crossing. So you don’t need that. But you’ll need anywhere from 700 to 900 miles.
Plus we have some wall that’s already up that we’re already fixing. You know, we’ve already started the wall because we’re fixing large portions of wall right now. We’re taking wall that was good but it’s in very bad shape, and we’re making it new. We’re fixing it. It’s already started. So we’ve actually, in the true sense — you know, there’s no reason to take it down or ***. So in a true sense, we’ve already started the wall.
On Donald Trump, Jr.:
THE PRESIDENT: Don is — as many of you know Don — he’s a good boy. He’s a good kid. And he had a meeting, nothing happened with the meeting. It was a short meeting as he told me — because I only heard about it two or three days ago.
As he told me, the meeting went — and it was attended by a couple of other people who — one of them left after a few minutes — which is Jared. The other one was playing with his iPhone. Don listened, out of politeness, and realized it wasn’t . . . .
Honestly, in a world of politics, most people are going to take that meeting. If somebody called and said, hey — and you’re a Democrat — and by the way, they have taken them — hey, I have really some information on Donald Trump. You’re running against Donald Trump. Can I see you? I mean, how many people are not going to take the meeting?
On President Putin and Russia:
Q Are you mad that Putin lied about the meeting that you had with him, especially about —
THE PRESIDENT: What meeting?
Q At the G20, when he said that you didn’t — you know, you accepted that the hacking wasn’t real.
THE PRESIDENT: He didn’t say that. No. He said, I think he accepted it, but you’d have to ask him. That’s a big difference. So I said, very simply — and the first 45 minutes, don’t forget, most of the papers said I’d never bring it up. Had to be the first 20 to 25 minutes.
And I said to him, were you involved with the meddling in the election? He said, absolutely not. I was not involved. He was very strong on it. I then said to him again, in a totally different way, were you involved with the meddling. He said, I was not — absolutely not.
Q Do you remember what the different way was that you asked —
THE PRESIDENT: Somebody said later to me, which was interesting. Said, let me tell you, if they were involved, you wouldn’t have found out about it. Okay, which is a very interesting point.
Q But did you say, okay, I believe you, let’s move on?
THE PRESIDENT: What I said, I asked him, were you involved? He said, very strongly — said to him a second time — totally different — were you involved? Because we can’t let that happen. And I mean whether it’s Russia or anybody else, we can’t let there be even a scintilla of doubt when it comes to an election. I mean, I’m very strong on that.
And I’m not saying it wasn’t Russia. What I’m saying is that we have to protect ourselves no matter who it is. You know, China is very good at this. I hate to say it, North Korea is very good at this. Look what they did to Sony Studios. They were the ones that did the whole deal to Sony. You know, we’re dealing with highly sophisticated people.
So, China is very good. You have many countries. And you have many individuals that are very good at this. But we can’t have — and I did say, we can’t have a scintilla of doubt as our elections and going forward.
Q Have you told him that?
THE PRESIDENT: I told him. I said, look, we can’t — we can’t have — now, he said absolutely not twice. What do you do? End up in a fistfight with somebody, okay? Because then I brought up Syria, and I said —
Q Afterwards?
THE PRESIDENT: Very shortly there afterward. And I said, there’s so much killing in Syria. We got to solve Syria. We’ve got to solve Ukraine. And you know, I’ve always said — and I’m not just talking about Russia — we’re a lot better off — like it’s a good thing that I have a good relationship with President Xi. It’s a good thing I have a good relationship with every one of them — Modi — you saw that. Every single one of them of all 19 — there’s 20 with us. All 19, I have a great relationship with.
More on the Visit to France and Trade:
So we’re doing well. I mean, we’re doing well and we’re having a good time. Now what we’ll do is we’ll go celebrate with the President of France — we have a good relationship — open up a little trade with them. But it’s got to be fair trade. I mean, every deal we have is bad. It’s got to be fair trade.
I mean, the European Union, as an example — I’m all for the European Union, but we have things that we can barely sell into the European Union. They’re very protectionist. And we’re not. And you have to be reciprocal.
To me, the word reciprocal is a beautiful word. Because people can say, we don’t like a border tax or we don’t like this or we don’t like that. But what they can’t say is that, if you’re selling a motorcycle and they’re coming into your country and not paying tax, and they’re going into another country and paying 100 percent tax, people understand that’s not fair. So we say we make it reciprocal.
More on President Putin and Russia, and on energy:
Q Do you think you’ll invite Putin to the White House?
THE PRESIDENT: I would say yes, yeah. At the right time. I don’t think this is the right time, but the answer is yes I would. Look, it’s very easy for me to say absolutely, I won’t. That’s the easy thing for me to do, but that’s the stupid thing to do. Let’s be the smart people not the stupid people. The easiest thing for me to tell you is that I would never invite him. We will never ever talk to Russia. That all of my friends in Congress will say, oh he’s so wonderful, he’s so wonderful. Folks, we have perhaps the second most powerful nuclear country in the world. If you don’t have dialogue, you have to be fools. Fools. It would be the easiest thing for me to say to Maggie and all of you, I will never speak to him, and everybody would love me. But I have to do what’s right.
And, by the way, I only want to make great deals with Russia. Remember this, I have built up — we’re getting $57 billion more for the military. Hillary was going to cut the military. I’m a tremendous fracker, coal, natural gas, alternate energy, wind – everything, right? But I’m going to produce much much more energy than anyone else who was ever running for office. Ever. We’re going to have clean coal, and Hillary wasn’t. Hillary was going to stop fracking. She was going to stop coal totally. Hey, in West Virginia I beat her by 42 points. Remember, she went and sat with the miners and they said get the hell out of here. So, I was going to — if Hillary got in, your energy prices right now would be double. You’d be doing no fracking. You’d be doing practically no fossil fuels.
So Putin, everything I do is the exact opposite. I don’t believe — in fact, the one question that I didn’t ask him that I wish I did — but we had so many other things going, and really the ceasefire was a very complicated talk, it was a very important talk to me because I wanted to see if we could start a ceasefire.
***
Now, why does that affect Russia? Because Russia makes its money through selling of oil, and we’ve got underneath us more oil than anybody, and nobody knew it until five years ago. And I want to use it. And I don’t want that taken away by the Paris Accord. I don’t want them to say all of that wealth that the United States has under its feet, but that China doesn’t have and that other countries don’t have, we can’t use. So now we no longer have the advantage. We have a tremendous advantage. We have more natural resources under our feet than any other country. That’s a pretty big statement. Ten years ago, five years ago even, you couldn’t make that statement. We’re blessed. I don’t want to give it up. I don’t want to say oh, okay, we won’t use it. But think of it. So, if Hillary is there, you’re going to have a far less amount of fuel. Therefore, energy prices will be much, much higher. That’s great for Russia.
So, the next time I’m with Putin, I’m going to ask him: who were you really for? Because I can’t believe that he would have been for me. Me. Strong military, strong borders — but he cares less about the borders — but strong military, tremendous. We’re going to be an exporter of fuel this year. We’re going to be exporting. What was the first thing I signed when I got in? The Keystone Pipeline, and the Keystone Pipeline goes from Canada all the way through our country right into the Gulf, and the ships are there to take it all over and compete with Russia.
More on Energy:
The first thing I signed, the first day, was the Keystone Pipeline. That first * was the Keystone and the Dakota Access Pipeline — also Dakota Access. Now, what does that mean? Dakota Access takes it to the Pacific. Who do they compete with? Russia. Hillary would have never signed — that was with the reservation — she would have never signed it. I was given great credit for that one. That was a tough one. First day. It’s also 48,000 jobs between both of them. The other one I signed, that was the Keystone. That was dead. That was dead for two years. It was never going to happen. I revived it on day one. You know, you’ll check, please check it. I have to be exactly accurate. They’ll say, oh I wasn’t totally accurate. But that goes to the Gulf, right? Competes with Russia.
More on Energy and Russia:
THE PRESIDENT: So now oil is getting to be record low — and gas — because we’re producing so much. That means Russia — and you know Russia *** is having a little hard time because it has come down so much.
On Russia sanctions:
Q But you wouldn’t sign a new sanctions bill if it passes the House?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I’m not talking about new, I’m talking about the old sanctions. Wait, we got to get this right. Ready? I think I said it right but just in case. We have very heavy sanctions on Russia right now. I would not and have never even thought about taking them off. Somebody said, Donald Trump wants to — I don’t want to take them off.
Q Putin didn’t raise that with you?
THE PRESIDENT: He never raised it. We did, I think, talk about the sanctions that Congress wants to pass, but it was very brief. Much of it was talked about Ukraine. Look, we talked about the elections. We talked about Ukraine and Syria. Not in that order. We talked about Syria and Ukraine. But I will just tell you, I didn’t say this to him. We didn’t talk about this aspect of it. I would never take the sanctions off until something is worked out to our satisfaction and everybody’s satisfaction in Syria and in Ukraine.
I saw a report and I read a report that Trump wants to take off the sanctions. I’ve made a lot of money. I’ve made great deals. That’s what I do. Why would I take sanctions off without getting anything?
On allegations of collusion with Russia:
THE PRESIDENT: What pressure? I didn’t — I did nothing. Hey, now it’s shown there’s no collusion, there’s no obstruction, there’s no nothing. Honestly, the whole thing, it is really a media witch hunt. It’s been a media witch hunt. And it’s bad for the country. You know, when you talk about Russia, if Russia actually did whatever they want to do, they got to be laughing, because look at what happens — how much time. . . .
They feel it’s a witch hunt, the people. There are a lot of people. And those people vote. They don’t stay home because it’s drizzling. We proved that. But every single party chairman said that my base is substantially stronger than it was in November. That’s a big compliment. That’s a big compliment. And I feel it.
And I think what’s happening is, as usual, the Democrats have played their card too hard on the Russia thing, because people aren’t believing it. It’s a witch hunt and they understand that. When they say “treason” — you know what treason is? That’s Julius and Ethel Rosenberg for giving the atomic bomb, okay? But what about all the congressmen, where I see the woman sitting there surrounded by — in Congress.
So I think it’s a good thing. When Hillary Clinton spent her ads — you know, she spent almost 100 percent of her ads on anti-Donald Trump ads. You know that. Every ad was an anti ad. When the election came, nobody knew what she stood for.
I heard tonight, and I saw tonight, and I read tonight that they’re making a big mistake. And I a lot of the Democrats feel — they say, we’re putting all our money into this Russia stuff and it’s making Trump stronger. Because my people and the people that support me, who are incredible people, those people are angry because they feel it’s being unfair and a witch hunt.
this is part 8 of a 10-part post which proceeds (point arising on the given) day by (point arising on the given) day from July 5, 2017 through July 14, 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 10 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 
