Saturday, February 3, 2018

The memo alarmed national security officials and outraged Democrats, who accused the Republicans of misrepresenting sensitive government information through omissions and inaccuracies - New York Times

House Republicans Release Secret Memo Accusing Russia Investigators of Bias
By NICHOLAS FANDOS, ADAM GOLDMAN and CHARLIE SAVAGEFEB. 2, 2018
The Nunes Memo vs. the Schiff Memo
There are now two memos agitating Washington. One from Representative Devin Nunes and one from Representative Adam B. Schiff. Feeling confused? You’re not alone. By DREW JORDAN, CHRIS CIRILLO and SARAH STEIN KERR on Publish Date February 2, 2018. . Watch in Times Video »
WASHINGTON — House Republicans released a politically charged memo on Friday that accused F.B.I. and Justice Department leaders of abusing their surveillance powers to spy on a former Trump campaign adviser suspected of being an agent of Russia.
The memo alarmed national security officials and outraged Democrats, who accused the Republicans of misrepresenting sensitive government information through omissions and inaccuracies. President Trump declassified it over the objections of the F.B.I., which had expressed “grave concerns” over its accuracy in a rare public break from the White House.
The three-and-a-half-page memo, written by Republican congressional aides, criticized information used by law enforcement officials in their application for a warrant to wiretap the former campaign adviser, Carter Page, and named the senior F.B.I. and Justice Department officials who approved the highly classified application.
But it fell well short of making the case promised by some Republicans: that the evidence it contained would cast doubt on the origins of the Russia investigation and possibly undermine the inquiry, which has been taken over by a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. The Page warrant is just one aspect of the broader investigation.
Instead, the document confirmed that contacts between a former Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, and Russian intermediaries were a primary factor in the opening of the investigation in July 2016.
Opinion Editorial
We’ve Got the Memo. Now What About Trump’s Tax Returns? FEB. 2, 2018
Opinion Michelle Goldberg
Don’t Believe the Liberal F.B.I. FEB. 1, 2018
Opinion Op-Ed Contributor
In Trump vs. the F.B.I., Trump Will Lose FEB. 1, 2018
Trump Clears Way for Secret Memo’s Release FEB. 1, 2018
Right and Left React to the Debate Over the G.O.P. Memo on the F.B.I. FEB. 1, 2018
RECENT COMMENTS
Jenny Piccolo 9 minutes ago
This regime creates such sadness.
Frank Casa
I don't know whether to be amused or outraged by the innate dishonesty of Republicans. I hope that in their hearts they are aware of what...
John Hay
Poor fool, this went nowhere for him.
The memo was outlined in news reports in recent days as Republicans pushed for its release. Several details show that it reflects a line of attack circulating for weeks in conservative news media outlets, which have been amplifying a narrative that the Russia investigation is the illegitimate handiwork of a cabal of senior Justice Department and F.B.I. officials who were biased against Mr. Trump and set out to sabotage him.
A previously secret memo released on Friday claims that F.B.I. officials abused their authority and favored Democrats in the early stages of the Russia investigation. Read our reporters’ annotations
Representative Devin Nunes of California, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, portrayed the memo as recounting an “alarming series of events” in which intelligence and law enforcement agencies were “exploited to target one group on behalf of another.”
One of its chief accusations centers on the inclusion in the warrant application of material from a former British spy, Christopher Steele. Mr. Steele was researching possible connections between Russia’s election interference and Trump associates, but the application to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge did not explain that he was partly financed by the Democratic National Committee and lawyers for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, the memo says.
“Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the D.N.C., Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior D.O.J. and F.B.I. officials,” said the memo, which was written by committee staff members.
But a 10-page Democratic memo written to rebut the Republican document says that the F.B.I. was more forthcoming with the surveillance court than the Republicans say. The F.B.I. told the court that the information it received from Mr. Steele was politically motivated, though the agency did not say it was financed by Democrats, according to two people familiar with the Democratic memo.
Notably, the Republican memo does not assert that Mr. Steele’s information was the fountainhead of the broader Russia investigation as many Republicans and conservative media commentators have insinuated.
By a party-line vote, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee voted to release their memo this week and rejected Democrats’ appeal to make public their own still-classified memo at the same time. Democrats have accused Republicans of suppressing evidence that would correct what they say are mischaracterizations.
DONALD TRUMP By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 00:28
Trump on Memo: ‘A Lot of People Should Be Ashamed’
Video
Trump on Memo: ‘A Lot of People Should Be Ashamed’
President Trump declassified the highly controversial Republican memo on Friday, despite a plea from the F.B.I. not to release it. By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS.
“The sole purpose of the Republican document is to circle the wagons around the White House and insulate the president,” Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the committee, said on Friday.
The Republican memo does not provide the full scope of evidence the F.B.I. and Justice Department used to obtain the warrant to surveil Mr. Page, and it is not clear to what extent the application hinges on the material provided by Mr. Steele. In December 2017, the Republican memo said, Andrew G. McCabe, then the deputy director of the F.B.I., told the House Intelligence Committee that no surveillance would have been sought without Mr. Steele’s information.
But the people familiar with the Democratic memo said that Republicans had distorted what Mr. McCabe told the Intelligence Committee about the importance of the information from Mr. Steele. Mr. McCabe presented the material as part of a constellation of compelling evidence that raised serious suspicions about Mr. Page, the two people said. The evidence included contacts Mr. Page had in 2013 with a Russian intelligence operative.
Mr. Page’s contacts with the Russian operative led to an investigation of Mr. Page that year, including a wiretap on him, another person familiar with the matter said.
Mr. McCabe told the committee that the decision to seek a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, was also prompted by Russia’s attempts to target Mr. Papadopoulos, by a trip Mr. Page took to Moscow in July 2016 and by the Russian hacking of Democratic emails that appeared to be aimed at harming the Clinton campaign, the two people familiar with the Democratic memo said.
Among the handful of other details in the memo was that the application also cited a September 2016 article published by Yahoo News. It cited unnamed sources saying that government investigators were scrutinizing Mr. Page’s links to Russia.
Confused By All the News About Russia? We Are Here to Help
Most of the news about Russia falls into one of three categories, which we break down.
Mr. Steele was later revealed to be a source for the article, and the memo suggests that law enforcement officials’ inclusion of it in their warrant application means they were using the same source twice but presenting him as separate sources.
“This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News,” the memo said, underlining the assertion.
Mr. Schiff deemed this claim to be one of several serious mischaracterizations, saying the article was not used to corroborate Mr. Steele’s material.
It was more likely to have been included “to show that the investigation had become public, and that the target therefore might take steps to destroy evidence or cover his tracks,” said David Kris, a FISA expert and former head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division in the first term of the Obama administration.
The Republican memo said the initial FISA warrant for surveillance of Mr. Page was approved by James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, and Sally Q. Yates, then the deputy attorney general, both of whom Mr. Trump later fired.
The warrant was renewed three times, which was required every 90 days, meaning Mr. Page was under surveillance for about a year. At various points in the renewals, other law enforcement officials who signed off included Dana J. Boente, now the general counsel of the F.B.I.; Mr. McCabe, the former F.B.I. deputy director who resigned under pressure this week; and Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who appointed Mr. Mueller as special counsel and has been a target of the president’s displeasure over the Russia inquiry.
Under Justice Department regulations, Mr. Rosenstein oversees Mr. Mueller and is the only person who can fire him — and only if he finds that the special counsel has committed misconduct. Mr. Rosenstein has repeatedly said he would refuse any order to fire the special counsel without such a finding, and that he has seen no sign of misconduct.
Asked at the White House on Friday whether he would fire Mr. Rosenstein in light of the Republican memo — a move that would enable him to put someone else in charge of Mr. Mueller — Mr. Trump cocked his head suggestively and said, “You figure that one out.”
Pressed on whether he had confidence in Mr. Rosenstein, the president would not answer.
The Republican memo also highlights Bruce Ohr, then an associate deputy attorney general, who has been attacked in conservative news media outlets in recent weeks because his wife, Nellie Ohr, worked as a contractor with FusionGPS, the opposition research firm that hired Mr. Steele. Mr. Ohr also met with Mr. Steele himself. The memo says the Ohrs’ relationship with them “was inexplicably concealed” from the intelligence court.
The memo does not mention that Mr. Ohr worked on counternarcotics, not counterintelligence. It does not allege that he played any role in the Russia investigation or the wiretap application.
The document also notes that the FISA application mentions Mr. Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty last year to lying to the F.B.I. about his contacts with people connected to the Russian government. The memo said there is no evidence that Mr. Papadopoulos conspired with Mr. Page.
But Mr. Schiff said that the Justice Department was instead providing the court “with a comprehensive explanation of Russia’s election interference, including evidence that Russian agents courted another Trump campaign finance adviser” as “the context in which to evaluate Russian approaches to Page.”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement on Friday that he would evaluate the Republicans’ criticism of the Justice Department.
“I am determined that we will fully and fairly ascertain the truth,” he said.
In a message to F.B.I. employees on Friday, Christopher A. Wray, the bureau’s director, said he stood behind the agency’s employees.
“You’ve been through a lot in the past nine months, and I know it’s often been unsettling, to say the least,” he said. “And the past few days haven’t done much to calm those waters.”
Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Eileen Sullivan and Matthew Rosenberg contributed reporting.

Nunes memo: Key extracts and what they mean - BBC News

Nunes memo: Key extracts and what they mean
Anthony Zurcher
North America reporter
@awzurcher on Twitter
2 February 2018
After days - weeks - of breathless anticipation, the secret memo is a secret no more. Was it a bomb or a dud?
Written by House Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes and his staff, the memo was being billed by some conservatives as revealing misdeeds "worse than Watergate" and offences "a hundred times bigger" than what prompted the American Revolution.
Meanwhile Democrats in Congress, and members of Donald Trump's Justice Department, were fighting to keep the memo, warning that it contained "material omissions" and threatened revealing important intelligence-gathering methods.
That's a lot to pack into a four-page document.
So what's the scoop? Here's a look at four key passages from the memo, and what they mean.
An excerpt from the Nunes memo.
The words "essential part" do the heavy lifting in this paragraph. This sets up the central point of the memo that the application to begin surveillance of Carter Page was dependent upon information contained in the Steele dossier - the collection of raw intelligence information, much of which has not been substantiated and some of which is quite salacious - compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele.
The memo notes that Steele's efforts were funded in part by the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, although it neglects to mention that the Fusion GPS opposition research effort directed toward Mr Trump was originally bankrolled by a prominent conservative donor and activist.
The memo asserts that the FBI did not present evidence of this possible bias to the Fisa judge tasked with reviewing the surveillance warrant - and that this is evidence of, at best, neglect or, at worst, an anti-Trump agenda.
An excerpt from the Nunes memo.
As further evidence of Steele's bias, the memo recounts how Steele, during contacts with a senior Justice Department official, expressed negative views about Mr Trump.
Bruce Ohr, the official in question, made a record of Steele's opinions - somewhat undercutting the accusation of rampant bias within the department, given that a truly compromised individual wouldn't jot that sort of thing down. That notwithstanding, the memo says this information also should have been - but wasn't - included in the Fisa application.
For a bit of context, the Fisa warrant review system was established by Congress in 1978 and, as of 2013, had reviewed more than 35,000 surveillance requests. Of that number, the judges on the court had rejected only 12 applications.
The question, then, is whether knowing a bit more about Christopher Steele's motivations or opinions would have been enough to put this application in the very small pile of discarded requests. Or would the evidence Steele presented, or other information that the Nunes memo may have omitted, have stood on its own and justified the surveillance?
An excerpt from the Nunes memo.
The portion of this paragraph questioning James Comey's decision to inform Mr Trump about the dossier was probably well-received by the president, but it seems irrelevant to the point. It does, however, somewhat mischaracterise how the then-FBI director described the Steele dossier.
Yes, Mr Comey used the words "salacious and unverified" - but that was only in relation to portions of the dossier. He declined to comment on the veracity of certain "criminal allegations" in other parts of the dossier - at least in open testimony.
With this in mind, the final line of this paragraph is of particular note. The memo asserts that Andrew McCabe, the then-deputy director of the FBI, testified that there would have been no surveillance request without the dossier.
If this is in fact an accurate characterisation of Mr McCabe's testimony, then it would go a long way toward substantiating the memo's contention that the dossier and the surveillance request are inextricably linked. But without Mr McCabe's actual testimony, this becomes a very big "if".
An excerpt from the Nunes memo.
The last paragraph of the Nunes memo contains a somewhat jaw-dropping "oh, by the way" aside.
The memo makes a considerable effort to draw a line from the Steele dossier to the Page surveillance request to questions about the legitimacy of the Russia investigation as a whole. The memo then notes it was information about George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, that prompted the launch of the FBI counterintelligence investigation in July 2016 - months before the Page surveillance request was granted.
Read the memo in full on the House website
The things that don't add up about Carter Page
The biggest news was Papadopoulous
Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian nationals while a Trump campaign adviser and was told by one contact that the Russians had "dirt" on Mrs Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails".
The memo doesn't address any of this, instead opting to recount how that investigation was initiated by Peter Strzok, a senior FBI agent who has since become mired in a scandal surrounding an affair with a co-worker in which they made derogatory remarks about Mr Trump via text message on government mobile phones.
George Papadopoulos: The Trump adviser who lied to the FBI
The document concludes with the oft-cited line about an "insurance" policy for the possibility of Mr Trump's election, although it provides no context for this vague reference in an isolated text.
The memo's focus on Page is interesting. The unpaid Trump campaign adviser had been on the FBI's radar since 2013, because of his ties to a Russian bank executive who was later convicted of spying on the US.
Page had resigned as a Trump foreign policy adviser in September 2016 - a month before the Fisa warrant was approved.
The Trump team has characterised Page as a bit player in the campaign, which raises questions about whether an order to monitor Page should be viewed as a direct assault by the FBI on the heart of the Trump campaign, undermining the entire Russia investigation, or a particularly colourful sideshow to a much larger and justifiable endeavour.

Donald Trump Has Some Thoughts About the ‘Resistance’ - New York Magazine

FEBRUARY 2, 2018
Donald Trump Has Some Thoughts About the ‘Resistance’
By
Lisa Ryan
@lisarya
President Donald Trump. Photo: Pool/Getty Images
Over the weekend, President Donald Trump confirmed that he isn’t a feminist (to the surprise of absolutely no one). And on Thursday, the McDonald’s lover also made it clear that, shocker, he isn’t a member of the “resistance” movement, either.
At the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting in Washington on Thursday night, the thirsty boy shared his thoughts about Democrats who have mobilized against (or “resisted”) many of the policies he’s been trying to push forward (his indefensible DACA policy, stance on abortion, his immigration ban, and so on).
“You know, the name is resist,” Trump said in remarks aired by Fox News. “That’s the name of their movement. ‘Resist.’ That’s all they do is resist. I don’t know if they’re good at it; they can’t be too good at it because we’re passing a lot of things.”
@FoxNews
Moments ago, @POTUS addressed the RNC.
12:35 PM - Feb 2, 2018
Shortly after making the comment, according to The Hill, Trump then kicked the reporters out of the meeting. So we guess we’ll never know if the president also talked about his true enemies: sharks.

This is why the Dow is plunging - CNN Money

This is why the Dow is plunging
by David Goldman @DavidGoldmanCNN
February 2, 2018: 4:35 PM ET
The Dow had its worst week in two years. Why?
Stocks were pummeled on Friday, capping the worst week in two years. Here's what's going on.
1. Concerns that the Fed will raise rates
Stocks have been rising steadily since the election in part because the economy is so strong. Unemployment is historically low, and there are more open jobs than people to fill them.
Companies are starting to pay workers more to retain existing employees and attract new hires. Businesses will eventually have to raise prices on the stuff they sell to afford their growing payrolls. In economics, that's called inflation.
Though the economy has been growing steadily for almost nine years, inflation has remained stubbornly and mysteriously low. The Federal Reserve combats inflation by raising its interest rates. The central bank has been unable to significantly raise its interest rates over the past decade, fearing it could stymie the economic recovery and perhaps cause prices to fall.
The Fed planned on raising interest rates slowly this year -- just three times in 2018. But if inflation picks up, the Fed could raise rates more often and more steeply than it had planned.
2. Rising interest rates
When the Fed raises rates, the cost of borrowing money increases. That means companies have to pay more for their loans, which cuts into corporate profits. It also means Americans will pay more for mortgages and loans.
Another reason the stock market has risen so much over the past year has been the steady growth in corporate profits. Companies are healthy, and investors have rewarded them by pushing up their stock prices.
When interest rates rise sharply, stocks often fall. Investors worry that businesses' profit parade will slow down.
3. Worries about the bond market
Stocks have also been on a tear because they have been one of the only investments with a decent return. U.S. Treasury bond yields have been so low that many stock dividends are paying better.
But stocks are a higher-risk investment than bonds, which are backed by the United States Treasury. If bond yields start to rise, investors will want to take some of their money out of stocks and put it into safer bonds.
Sure enough, bond yields hit a four-year high Friday. The recent tax bill has forced the Treasury to borrow more money, which will put more bonds into play. A supply glut could devalue bonds. Prices and yields move in opposite directions, and bond buyers will want a higher yield (and lower price) to make it worth their investment.
Inflation is bad for bonds, too. If borrowing costs increase, bond investors will want more return -- a higher yield.
Attractive yields on a safer investment have made stocks suddenly less attractive.
4. Ugly politics
Politics has played a part in stocks' steady march higher, too. The Republican tax cut is great for corporate profits. Investors have rewarded companies' promises of bigger stock buybacks and dividends by raising their stock prices. Business confidence is on the rise, in part thanks to the Trump administration's push to cut regulation.
On Friday, the controversial release of a once-classified memo about the Russia investigation gave investors pause. Turmoil in Washington could be bad for business. It could create a logjam in Congress.
It's not top of mind for investors, but it's adding to their concerns.
5. Too far, too fast
Stocks have been rising pretty much in a straight line since November 2016, and that's not exactly healthy. Stock market analysts believe the stock market is long overdue for a 5% pullback or even a 10% correction.
A cooling-off period would be a good thing. It would make stocks cheaper and more attractive to investors, especially if the underlying companies are healthy, cranking out strong sales and profits.
The market finally began to come down to earth -- just a bit -- this week, and investors wonder whether this is the beginning of a correction. There could be a little groupthink taking place in the downturn.
CNNMoney (New York)
First published February 2, 2018: 4:28 PM ET

University of Pennsylvania Is Rescinding Honorary Degrees for Steve Wynn and Bill Cosby - TIME

Posted: 01 Feb 2018 02:39 PM PST

The University of Pennsylvania is removing casino mogul Steve Wynn’s name from a commons and a scholarship and rescinding his honorary degree following allegations of sexual harassment.
The decision comes nearly a week after The Wall Street Journal’s report containing multiple allegations of sexual misconduct against the casino mogul. Among the claims is a $7.5 million payout he allegedly made to a manicurist who alleged he had sex with her despite her protests. Wynn has denied the allegations. He has since stepped down from his position as finance chairman at the Republican National Committee.
“Late last week, multiple credible reports emerged in the national press detailing pervasive and decades-long acts of sexual harassment and intimidation by Steve Wynn, former Penn Trustee and College alumnus,” David Cohen, chair of Penn’s Board of Trustees and Penn President Amy Gutmann said in an emailed statement, reprinted in full by The Daily Pennsylvanian. “The nature, severity, and extent of these allegations, and the patterns of abusive behavior they describe, involve acts and conduct that are inimical to the core values of our University.”

Wynn’s name will be removed from “Wynn Commons,” an outdoor plaza between several college halls and an auditorium. According to The Daily Pennsylvanian, a metal rectangle has already been placed over his name on a seal outside of one of the halls. The scholarship created from Wynn’s donation will no longer bear his name, though it will still be awarded.
Along with the decision regarding Wynn, the Ivy League university said it would also be stripping Bill Cosby, who has been accused of multiple accounts sexual assault and misconduct, of his honorary degree. This is a reversal from their decision in 2015, when a spokesperson for Penn stated, “While the allegations against Mr. Cosby are deeply troubling, it is not our practice to rescind honorary degrees.”
Cosby has denied the allegations. A criminal case against him last year ended in a mistriala retrial is scheduled for this year.
Penn’s decision was made after recommendations to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees; it has been a century since Penn rescinded an honorary degree, according to the statement.
On Wednesday, a similar decision was made at University of Iowa. University leadership announced that school will be removing Wynn’s name from the Institute for Vision Research, the first time it has stripped a donor’s name from a building.