Who told Flynn to call Putin's ambassador ? - Politico Magazine

Who Told Flynn to Call Russia?
Let’s stop focusing on the resignation, and start focusing on the real issue here: The mystery of Trump’s Russia ties.
By DANIEL BENJAMIN

Hours after national security adviser Michael Flynn resigned amid reports that he misled top officials about his pre-inauguration talks with the Russian ambassador, President Donald Trump took to Twitter to encourage everyone to move on. “The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington?” he tweeted out Tuesday morning.
In a sense, Trump is right: The real story is not Flynn. But it isn’t government leaks, either. No, the “real story here” is Trump himself—and the continuing mystery of his ties to Russia.

As official Washington and the press home in on the permanent disarray in the White House, whether the disgraced Flynn broke the law and who will succeed him after his three-week tenure, the key question is getting lost in the shuffle: Who told Flynn to call Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States? Because I’m convinced Flynn didn’t do it of his own accord. Flynn is a bit player in a much larger story regarding the president’s relationship with the Kremlin, and it’s this story the press needs to focus on.
There is little doubt that Trump elevated Flynn because of his loyalty and the optics of having a recently retired three-star general parroting his views, which few other generals of that rank would consider doing. But Flynn was no grand strategist. He would not have been capable of running a complex political realignment with Russia, and he was woefully ill-cast for the role of national security adviser. An army intelligence officer who had spent most of his career in the Middle East and Afghanistan, Flynn had no background in diplomacy, not to mention Asian or European affairs. And it strains credulity that someone with such limited experience was acting on his own initiative when he spoke with Kislyak on December 29, the day of the sanctions announcement. If, as reported, he called five times in a single day, then he was on a mission, and probably not of his own devising.
My view is informed by several years of knowing and following Flynn. After being fired as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency—where he was already behaving erratically—Flynn slid into ever stranger behavior.
During a weeklong visit that I arranged for Flynn here at Dartmouth College in April 2015, he repeatedly made oddball remarks. I had known Flynn as a capable and genial colleague from my time in government, and I was surprised by the change I saw. He was warm and engaging, especially with students, but his views on Islam and the terrorist threat seemed increasingly extreme—a line about Islam not being a religion but a political ideology, which he would use frequently in later months, struck me as a sign that he had moved beyond mainstream U.S. government thinking. But what stuck out most was his fixation on Iran. His visit coincided with the sprint to the end of the framework negotiations for the nuclear deal, and Flynn declared repeatedly in public events and private discussions that Iran’s perfidy was so diabolical, it “didn’t deserve a place at the negotiating table.” When asked who should negotiate on behalf of Iran, he had no answer but insisted it shouldn’t be Iran. (Full disclosure: Despite the troubling remarks, which left faculty and students bemused, Flynn was a fine guest, meeting with everyone and, remarkably, declining the negotiated honorarium for his weeklong stay.)
Over the next year and a half, his behavior became even stranger—reckless Islamophobia, chanting “lock her up” at Trump rallies (referring to Hillary Clinton)—all bizarre for a military officer, let alone a three-star general. Recent reporting suggests he was lost in his West Wing office, too, unaware, for example, that the State Department and Congress play central roles in arms sales and clueless about how to call up the National Guard in an emergency. Phoning Kislyak—inexplicably oblivious to the likelihood that his call would be heard by U.S. intelligence—is another indication that Flynn wasn’t operating at a level one would have expected for an incoming national security adviser.
Aside from his inexperience, there is another reason to doubt that Flynn was carrying on an unauthorized dialogue with the Russians: Unlike Trump, he has no longtime, demonstrated affection for Putin. While he was at DIA from 2013 to 2014, he had tried to build a better relationship with Russian intelligence, but that by itself tells us little. Out of uniform, he accepted a paid speaking gig in Moscow and wound up at an RT dinner seated next to Putin in December 2015, raising more than a few eyebrows. (How far along he was in his courtship with candidate Trump at that point is unclear.)
But Flynn was still talking tough on Russia until late 2015. In The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and its Allies, which he co-wrote with controversial foreign policy analyst (and, I would argue, conspiracy theorist) Michael Ledeen and which came out in mid-2016, Flynn counted Russia as one of those allies. Indeed, on the second page of the book’s introduction, he included Russia with North Korea, China, Cuba and Venezuela as the “countries … who though not religious fanatics, share their hatred of the West, particularly the United States and Israel.” He later added to the list: Iran, Syria, Bolivia and Nicaragua. (This litany of purported jihadist allies is just another sign of Flynn’s seriously misguided views.)
This all brings us back to the question: If Flynn didn’t initiate the discussion, who did tell him to call Kislyak? More than that, what is the nature of Trump’s relationship with Putin, and did the two collude on the hacking of the election?
Virtually all the reporters covering the Flynn imbroglio have lost track of this glaring mystery, focusing exclusively on the former general’s improprieties. In doing so, they are doing the White House a gigantic favor.
Politico Magazine

Details of Trump team contacting Russian intelligence during election - TIME

New York Times Says the Trump Campaign Had Repeated Contact With Russian Intelligence
Eric Beech / Reuters
3:21 PM AEDT
Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald Trump 's presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing four current and former U.S. officials.
U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said, according to the Times.
The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election, the newspaper said.
The officials interviewed in recent weeks said they had seen no evidence of such cooperation so far, it said.
However, the intercepts alarmed U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Trump was speaking glowingly about Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations last year between Michael Flynn, Trump 's former national security adviser, and Sergei I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, the Times said.
During those calls, the two men discussed sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in December. Flynn misled the White House about those calls and was asked to resign on Monday night.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters for comment on the Times story.
The Times reported that the officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other Trump associates.
On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the Russian government outside the intelligence services, the officials told the Times. All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified, the newspaper reported.
The officials said one of the advisers picked up on the calls was Paul Manafort, who was Trump 's campaign chairman for several months last year and had worked as a political consultant in Russia and Ukraine, the Times said. The officials declined to identify the other Trump associates on the calls.
Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, dismissed the accounts of the U.S. officials in a telephone interview with the Times on Tuesday.
Several of Trump 's associates, like Manafort, have done business in Russia. It is not unusual for U.S. businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society, according to the Times.
Law enforcement officials did not say to what extent the contacts may have been about business, the Times said.
Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, which Russian intelligence officials were on the calls, and how many of Trump 's advisers were talking to the Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Trump himself, the Times said.TIME

Trump team had repeated contact with Russian intelligence during election campaign - New York Times

Trump team had repeated contact with Russian intelligence during election campaign

Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing four current and former U.S. officials.

U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said, according to the Times.

The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election, the newspaper said.

The officials interviewed in recent weeks said they had seen no evidence of such cooperation so far, it said.

However, the intercepts alarmed U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Trump was speaking glowingly about Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The intercepted calls are different from the wiretapped conversations last year between Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, and Sergei I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, the Times said.

During those calls, the two men discussed sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Russia in December. Flynn misled the White House about those calls and was asked to resign on Monday night.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters for comment on the Times story.

The Times reported that the officials said the intercepted communications were not limited to Trump campaign officials, and included other Trump associates.

On the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the Russian government outside the intelligence services, the officials told the Times. All of the current and former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified, the newspaper reported.

The officials said one of the advisers picked up on the calls was Paul Manafort, who was Trump’s campaign chairman for several months last year and had worked as a political consultant in Russia and Ukraine, the Times said. The officials declined to identify the other Trump associates on the calls.

Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, dismissed the accounts of the U.S. officials in a telephone interview with the Times on Tuesday.

ALSO IN POLITICS

Trump knew for weeks that aide was being misleading over Russia: White House
Trump welcomes Israel's Netanyahu for Middle East talks
Several of Trump's associates, like Manafort, have done business in Russia. It is not unusual for U.S. businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society, according to the Times.

Law enforcement officials did not say to what extent the contacts may have been about business, the Times said.

Officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, which Russian intelligence officials were on the calls, and how many of Trump's advisers were talking to the Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Trump himself, the Times said.

(Writing by Eric Beech; Editing by Paul Tait) New York Times

White House in turmoil - CNN

White House in turmoil

Washington (CNN)In the White House East Room Monday, President Donald Trump held a news conference with the Canadian Prime Minister that was standard and drama-free. But that belied what is going on behind the scenes: a White House in turmoil.

Multiple Trump sources describe aides as worried that on any given day they could get fired because of a leak, or because another White House staffer may be out to get them. In fact, some campaign aides initially upset about not getting jobs inside the White House now say they are relieved to not be involved in what some of their friends call a toxic environment.
As for the White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, sources inside several Trump fiefdoms tell CNN that for now, he is on safe ground -- despite Trump friend, CEO of conservative Newsmax, Chris Ruddy, dissing Priebus this weekend as "weak."
reporters Monday that Preibus is doing a "great job."
One alliance that appears to be solid right now is that of Priebus and chief White House strategist Steve Bannon.
They have a close working relationship, several administration sources told CNN, and Bannon sees Priebus as a partner.
One source jokingly said Bannon and Priebus are "co-parenting."
In fact -- Priebus is with the President a lot. Even as Trump has kept a relentless schedule of meetings and photo ops, Priebus is almost always there.
The chief of staff's critics argue he should spend more time making the White House function. But sources say Priebus wants to be at the President's side so much for an important reason: President Trump is firmly in charge of his White House from the big picture to in-the-weeds decisions. Priebus feels he needs to be there, at every step, to cheer what he sees as good decisions and try to steer the President away from bad ones.
They have a close working relationship, several administration sources told CNN, and Bannon sees Priebus as a partner.
One source jokingly said Bannon and Priebus are "co-parenting."
In fact -- Priebus is with the President a lot. Even as Trump has kept a relentless schedule of meetings and photo ops, Priebus is almost always there.
The chief of staff's critics argue he should spend more time making the White House function. But sources say Priebus wants to be at the President's side so much for an important reason: President Trump is firmly in charge of his White House from the big picture to in-the-weeds decisions. Priebus feels he needs to be there, at every step, to cheer what he sees as good decisions and try to steer the President away from bad ones.


Communicating a consistent message is also challenge, even when it comes to something as sensitive as the fate of national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Monday afternoon White House counselor Kellyanne Conway went on television to declare Trump has "full confidence" in Flynn.
An hour later, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said something different.
"The President is evaluating the situation," said Spicer said in a statement.
Another dynamic inside White House staff: Trump rewards those who toe his line, especially on fact-free statements like claims of widespread voter fraud.
Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller did just that on Sunday.
"I can tell you this, voter fraud is a serious problem in the country," Miller had told ABC News.
Trump sources tell CNN that the President loves Miller who served as his campaign travel buddy and speech writer. Miller was instrumental in writing Trump's ill-fated travel ban and though the President was furious at the way that was handled, the 31-year-old Miller stays in the President's favor.
Miller's performance Sunday, warning the world not to question the President's power, didn't hurt.
"Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the President to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned," Miller had told CBS News.
After Miller appeared on four Sunday shows (CNN was not one of them), the television-watching President sent an attaboy tweet.
"Congratulations Stephen Miller- on representing me this morning on the various Sunday morning shows. Great job!" he said.

Here Are All The Companies Still Carrying Ivanka Trump’s Products - TIME Business

---

Here Are All The Companies Still Carrying Ivanka Trump’s Products Posted: 08 Feb 2017 01:02 PM PST In less than a week, five major retailers have dropped Ivanka Trump’s clothing, shoes and accessories from their inventory. Retail giants Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus, as well as the online stores Belk, Jet and ShopStyle, have all distanced themselves from her brand. Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus have both issued statements claiming the move was prompted by lagging sales, and not the political climate. Still, earlier this morning, the President shared a tweet defending his daughter while also lamenting Nordstrom’s decision. My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person — always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2017 Shannon Coulter, a digital strategist who led the movement #GrabYourWallet last year, urges consumers to divert dollars from the companies that support the Trump family. While Ivanka has no formal role at the White House, the decision to sell or drop Ivanka’s products from retail racks facing companies is growing more urgent. “On the campaign trail, a lot of women were looking at Ivanka Trump really closely,” Coulter says. “They were willing to cut her some slack, because it was her father’s campaign.” As movements like the Women’s March fill his opponents with an “unbridled appetite to do something,” she adds, attitudes have shifted. “The way see it, [Ivanka’s] poor sales performance is the result of her actions,” she says. “The boycott is a response to that.” As a private company, the Ivanka Trump brand does not release revenue data — but Nordstrom representatives point to dwindling sales as grounds for dropping the line. “Each year we cut about 10% [of brands] and refresh our assortment with about the same amount,” according to a statement provided to the Washington Post. “In this case, based on the brand’s performance we’ve decided not to buy it for this season.” As of this writing, the #GrabYourWallet hashtag has been tweeted more than 250,000 times, according to Coulter’s metrics. The movement’s website, which is a massive spreadsheet of all the companies that stock Trump family products, has seen up to 350,000 visitors a day, she says. Still, dozens of national retailers continue to carry the Ivanka Trump brand. Here’s a running list of those companies, courtesy of #GrabYourWallet. Macy’s – clothing and shoes Bloomingdales – shoes and handbags Dillard’s – clothing, shoes, and handbags Zappos – clothing, shoes, and handbags Amazon – clothing, shoes, and handbags TJ Maxx – brick and mortar only Lord & Taylor – clothing, jewelry, and handbags Bed Bath & beyond – diaper bags 6pm.com – clothing, shoes, handbags and accessories Hudson’s bay – clothing, shoes, and accessories DSW – shoes Bluefly – shoes Burlington Coat Factory – clothing Marshall’s – brick and mortar only Overstock – shoes Ross – brick and mortar only Saks off fifth – clothing Sears – shoes, clothing, handbags, jewelry Walmart – clothing, shoes, handbags, accessories Century 21 – clothing, shoes, accessories Buy Buy Baby – diaper bag, baby shoes Bon-Ton Stores (Bon-Ton, Carson’s, Bergner’s, Boston Store, Elder-Beerman, Herberger’s, Younker’s) – clothing, shoes, and baby apparel Filene’s Basement – clothing, shoes Steinmart – accessories Winners – brick and mortar only Note: Nordstrom, Nordstrom Rack, and Belk aren’t listed because as of publish, they were in the process of phasing out Trump’s products.

Few good options in Trump arsenal to counter defiant North Korea - Reuters

WORLD NEWS | Sun Feb 12, 2017 | 10:33pm EST
Few good options in Trump arsenal to counter defiant North Korea

By Matt Spetalnick | WASHINGTON

Despite his campaign vows to take a tougher line with North Korea, President Donald Trump's restrained public reaction to Pyongyang's first ballistic missile launch on his watch underscores that he has few good options to curb its missile and nuclear programs.

The responses under consideration - which range from additional sanctions to U.S. shows of force to beefed-up missile defense, according to one administration official - do not seem to differ significantly so far from the North Korea playbook followed by Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama.

Even the idea of stepping up pressure on China to rein in a defiant North Korea has been tried - to little avail - by successive administrations. But Beijing is showing no signs of softening its resistance under a new U.S. president who has bashed them on trade, currency and the contested South China Sea.

More dramatic responses to North Korea's missile tests would be direct military action or negotiations. But neither appears to be on the table - the first because it would risk regional war, the latter because it would be seen as rewarding Pyongyang for bad behavior. And neither would offer certain success.

"Trump's options are limited," said Bonnie Glaser, an Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington.

Trump's initial public comments on Saturday on the test launch of what was believed to be an intermediate-range Musudan-class missile were unexpectedly measured - and brief - compared to earlier bluster about another U.S. adversary, Iran, since he took office on January 20.

"I just want everybody to understand, and fully know, that the United States of America is behind Japan, our great ally, 100 percent," Trump told reporters in Palm Beach, Florida, speaking in a solemn tone alongside visiting Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The U.S. president did not mention North Korea or signal any retaliatory plans for what was widely seen as an early effort to test the new administration.

By contrast, Trump tweeted "It won’t happen!" in January after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said the North was close to testing an intercontinental ballistic missile.

White House adviser Stephen Miller insisted on ABC's "This Week" that Trump's one-sentence statement was an "important show of solidarity" with Japan. He told "Fox News Sunday" the administration was going to bolster its allies in the region against the "increasing hostility" of North Korea.

While no one can rule out that Trump might still take to Twitter with harsh rhetoric as he often does, some analysts said his relatively subdued initial statement could show that aides have convinced him not to be baited by Pyongyang into issuing threats that would be hard to carry out, especially while his North Korea strategy is still being formulated.

VOWING MORE ASSERTIVE APPROACH

Trump's aides have said that they will take a more assertive approach than the Obama policy dubbed "strategic patience," which involved gradually scaling up sanctions and diplomatic pressure and essentially waiting out the North Korean leadership. But the new administration has been vague about how it would do this.

The Trump administration had been expecting a North Korean "provocation" and will consider a full range of options in response, but they would be calibrated to show U.S. resolve while avoiding escalation, the U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The stakes would be higher, however, if nuclear-capable North Korea makes good on its threat to test an ICBM of a kind that could someday hit the United States, analysts said.

Trump and his aides are likely to weigh new U.S. sanctions to tighten financial controls, an increase in naval and air assets and joint military exercises in and around the Korean peninsula and accelerated installation of new missile defense systems in South Korea, the official said.

Trump has also made clear that he believes China has not done enough to use its influence to help rein in Pyongyang’s nuclear and ballistic programs.

ALSO IN WORLD NEWS

New nuclear-capable missile test a success, North Korea says
Marchers across Mexico vent anger over Trump, and their own president
The U.S. official told Reuters that Trump would now step up pressure on Beijing, but acknowledged that there were limits to how far China would go, especially in enforcing sanctions, because of its own interests in avoiding destabilization of North Korea.

It remains to be seen, however, whether the new administration might go a step beyond Obama's approach and focus on imposing "secondary sanctions" on firms and entities that help North Korea's weapons programs, many of which are in China.

Also unclear is whether Trump's phone call last week with Chinese President Xi Jinping, in which the U.S. president backed away from his threat to break from America’s long-standing “one China” policy, would engender greater cooperation from Beijing on North Korea.

"Beijing has enormous leverage over Pyongyang thanks to being one of its only trading partners and in fact could not survive without Chinese economic assistance," said Harry Kazianis, director of defense studies at the conservative Center for the National Interest.

Riki Ellison, who heads the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, an industry group, said Trump should also move quickly to beef up missile defense in both South Korea and Japan - for which the Obama administration has already laid much of the groundwork. "He cannot ignore this," he said. "It has to be swift."

North Korea's repeated missile launches prompted Washington and Seoul to agree to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile battery in South Korea later this year, a system strongly opposed by Beijing, which worries that its powerful radar undermines its own security.

(Additional reporting by Howard Schneider in Washington, Ayesha Rascoe in Palm Beach, Andrea Shalal in Berlin; Editing by Mary Milliken)

Reuters

Flynn did discuss sanctions with Russia before taking office - NBC News

National Security Advisor Mike Flynn discussed hacking-related sanctions with the Russian ambassador before the Trump administration took office, contrary to the public assertions of Vice President Mike Pence and White House spokesman Sean Spicer, a U.S. intelligence official told NBC News.

The official said he was told there was no quid pro quo and that there has been no finding inside the government that Flynn did anything illegal.

But he said he was surprised when Flynn initially denied to the Washington Post, which first reported this story, that he discussed the sanctions on Russia with the ambassador. His spokesman later said he didn't recall whether he did, according to the Post.

On Friday, a spokesperson for Flynn told NBC News that Flynn "can't be 100 percent sure," but doesn't remember talking sanctions.

The FBI and intelligence officials became aware of the contents of the conversations because they were monitoring the communications of Russian diplomats, current and former officials have said.

Democrats are furious over the disclosure, a senior congressional staffer said, and critics, such as foreign policy scholar David Rothkopf, are accusing Flynn of having "lied." The White House did not immediately respond to NBC News's request for comment.

Flynn's contacts with Sergey Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the U.S., were initially seen by critics as a potential violation of a 1799 law called the Logan Act, which prohibits a private citizen from negotiating with a foreign power in a dispute with the United States. But that law has rarely if ever been cited in a prosecution.

Flynn gave the Russian envoy any indication that the Trump administration would lift sanctions that were imposed to punish Russia for hacking and leaking emails during the U.S. presidential election, which intelligence officials say was meant to hurt Hillary Clinton and tip the election to Donald Trump.

The Russians did not respond as expected to the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S. as part of the sanctions. President Putin said he would not retaliate with expulsions of U.S. diplomats, and instead invited the children of diplomatic personnel in Russia to a Christmas and New Year's party.

As a candidate and as president-elect, President Trump repeatedly expressed doubt about whether Russia had interfered in the election, despite a unanimous "high confidence" assessment of the intelligence community. He later acknowledged Russian's role, but he has continued to praise Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Flynn spoke to Kislyak on Dec. 29, the same day the sanctions were announced, the White House has said, adding that the two also communicated by text message. White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the conversations were about routine matters such as scheduling a phone call between Trump and Putin. Spicer said the topics did not include the sanctions.

Vice President Mike Pence, appearing on the CBS program "Face the Nation," said Flynn and the Russian ambassador "did not discuss anything having to do with the United States's decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia."



An administration official told NBC News that Vice President Pence's only source for saying Flynn did not discuss sanctions with the ambassador was Flynn himself.

The Post, which based its new reporting on nine sources, said Flynn twice denied on Wednesday that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak, but then changed his answer on Thursday.

A spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C., told NBC News that the embassy "does not comment on our conversations with local contacts — any local contacts — which are being conducted every day. We respect them."

Flynn, a retired Army general who ran the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was forced out early during the Obama administration, has been under fire for his paid relationship with the television network RT, which is funded by the Russian government.

He said he was paid to appear at a 2015 RT dinner in Moscow, but he hasn't said how much. He likened RT — which U.S. intelligence agencies say is a Russian propaganda outlet — to CNN and MSNBC.

Last week a group of House Democrats sent a letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis calling for a Pentagon investigation into the matter, given Flynn's status as a retired general.

On Friday, Rep. Adam Schiff, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee said the possibility that Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak "raises serious questions of legality and fitness for office. If he did so, and then he and other administration officials misled the American people, his conduct would be all the more pernicious."

A few Democrats issued statements calling for Trump to fire Flynn.

"It's clear that concerns about General Flynn's ties to Russia were well warranted," said Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "The President must relieve General Flynn immediately."

Others called for further investigation.

"That General Flynn may have misled the vice president of the United States and others raises the most serious questions about his ability to continue serving as national security advisor," said Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a Senate Foreign Relations Committee member. "I hope federal law enforcement professionals investigate this matter immediately. Any effort to undermine our nation's foreign policy - even during a transition period — may be illegal and must be taken seriously."

Did Kellyanne Conway’s Ivanka Trump Fashion Line Plug Violate Ethics Rules? - NBC News

NEWS

 

FEB 9 2017, 10:39 PM ET

Did Kellyanne Conway’s Ivanka Trump Fashion Line Plug Violate Ethics Rules?

The Trump administration faced continued criticism over possible ethics violations Thursday after a White House official promoted Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a television interview. 

"Go buy Ivanka's stuff," Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, told Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy. 

Ivanka Trump has a "wonderful line," Conway added. "I own some of it. I fully, I'm gonna just going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today everybody. You can find it online." 

Related: Nordstrom Says It Told Ivanka Trump Last Month Her Line Would Be Dropped

Conway was immediately accused of breaking federal ethics rules. 

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz sharply criticized Conway for her remarks. 

"That was wrong, wrong, wrong. It is wholly unacceptable — no if, ands or buts about it," the chairman told NBC News by phone. 

Related: Federal Ethics Agency Site Crashes on Day Trump Adviser Plugs Ivanka's Duds

Chaffetz, R-Utah, and the committee's ranking Democrat, Elijah Cummings of Maryland, are "jointly going to send a letter to the White House and Office of Government Ethics for a referral. Earlier in the day, Cummings asked the congressional panel to review Conway's actions.

they better learn this lesson very quick," Chaffetz said. 

Chaffetz said he is not sure what the remedy is or whether his committee will have a hearing looking into the matter, but this letter and referral is a first step. 

Two watchdogs groups, Public Citizen and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, have also asked the Office of Government Ethics to investigate. 

Both cited regulations that say: "An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity."

Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said that Conway's statement could not be misinterpreted as anything but a violation. 

"Since she said it was an advertisement, that both eliminates any question about whether outsiders are unfairly reading into what's being said, and two, it makes clear that wasn't an inadvertent remark," Weissman said. 

Weissman said Conway's remark was "yet more evidence" that Trump's earlier assertion that he'd separate his family's business interests from White House activities "was untrue." 

CREW said in a letter to the Office of Government Ethics that it was "concerned about what appears to be a pattern developing of the use of official offices, particularly the White House and the Executive Office of the President, to benefit business interests of relatives and supporters of the president." 

Conway was responding to the outcry over Trump's criticism of Nordstrom for dropping his daughter's line. In a tweet on Wednesday, the president accused the retailer of treating his daughter "unfairly." 

told NBC News that the brand had been selling well and that the move was in response to pressure from advocacy groups. Nordstrom has denied that. 

Nordstrom stock ticked up a bit on Wednesday and Thursday. 

Norm Eisen, former special counsel on ethics for Obama, told MSNBC that Trump's tweet was an abuse of power. 

"He's putting the bully in the bully pulpit to attack this company on dubious factual assertions in order to promote his daughter," Eisen said. 

Eisen pointed out that it remains unclear if the president has any financial stake in his daughter's business, and that there are a number of questions about his links to other parts of his family's empire. 

"Literally everything he does has this miasma of conflict around it," Eisen said. 

Related: Nordstrom Drops Ivanka Trump Line, Citing Poor 'Performance'

Eisen also said Trump's tweet gave Nordstrom grounds to sue. 

"This is unfair business practices," he said. "There's a serious legal question. There are statutes across the country, including a very tough one in California." 

But lawyer Maxwell Blecher, who specializes in unfair competition and antitrust cases, said Nordstrom did not have basis to sue under the California law. 

"It's an expression of opinion," Blecher said. "It is not defamatory and it is not an unfair business act."

morning plug on Fox. 

Eisen returned to MSNBC to echo Lu's accusation of an ethical breach. 

"It is not allowed for a government employee to use your public office for private gain," he said. "And by doing this ad, I have never seen anything like it. It's a violation of the rule. Pure and simple." 

NBC News

Asked about Conway's comments during Thursday's White House press briefing, Sean Spicer said she "has been counseled on that subject, and that's all." 

The lesson from the Nordstrom incident - do business with the Trumps or else - New York Times

The lesson from the Nordstrom incident - do business with the Trumps or else

It is a clear violation of the ethics rules for White House staff members, or any other federal employees, to use their official positions for private gain. But what President Trump did on Wednesday in his Twitter attack on the Nordstrom department store chain, castigating it for dropping Ms. Trump’s line, was far worse.


In sum, Nordstrom made a business decision not to do business with the president’s daughter because
her
clothing line was not selling well
, and the president used his official position to attack the company for this decision.
The president’s tweet — posted on his personal account and then re-sent from his White House account — is an act of intimidation. Nordstrom interacts with many executive branch agencies: the Department of Labor, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service and others. Each one of these agencies will be headed by Trump appointees. Most will be staffed with other political appointees as well. The president is telling all of these people that he is very angry with Nordstrom. The message is clear, and it won’t take much for a political appointee in some agency to conceive of an ingenious way of ingratiating himself with the White House by making life difficult for the store chain.

Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.


Most important, regardless of whether such retaliation actually happens, Nordstrom and the handful of other companies that announced they, too, would drop the line have to live in fear of it for the rest of the Trump administration. And now every other department store knows that it had better not make a similar “business decision” that displeases the president. In other words, do business with the Trump family and help the Trump family promote its products, or else.

This is not the way free markets work, particularly in the United States. We fought a revolution in part against the mercantilism that prevailed in Britain, where the king and members of Parliament played favorites and people who wanted to ingratiate themselves with the government did business with companies in which powerful politicians had an interest (the South Sea Company and the East India Company were the two most notorious examples). Edmund Burke and Adam Smith railed against this type of corrupt relationship between business and government in Britain; similarly, the founders of our country did not want that type of abuse of power going on here.

The modern-day Tea Party movement arose in the aftermath of the Great Recession, a reaction to the perception that politicians were playing favorites in bailing out Wall Street banks and auto companies. The Republican Party for years has made a very strong case for an economy in which market actors make their own decisions free of government interference.

And now all of that — and indeed the bedrock principles of limited government power that go back to Thomas Jefferson — lies in shambles as a president seeks not only to use his official position to promote the business of the Trump family but also to retaliate against other businesses for the decisions they make in the marketplace.

Americans have worried about losing freedoms in the Trump administration, including freedom of religion and of the press, as well as the right to be heard by an independent judiciary. We learned this week that free markets are at risk as well.

Richard W. Painter (@RWPUSA), a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007.

New York Times

Connecting Trump's dots of unconnected campaign promises - Financial Times

Connecting Trump’s Dots - unconnected campaign promises based on incoherent world view
Every day, the president’s behavior becomes more worrying. One day he demeans a federal judge who challenges him; the next day, without evidence, he accuses the media of hiding illegal voting or acts of terrorism. His lack of respect for institutions and truth pours out so fast, you start to forget how crazy this behavior is for any adult, let alone a president, and just how ugly things will get when we have a real crisis. And crises are baked into this story because of the incoherence of President Trump’s worldview.

How so? The world today is more interdependent than ever. The globalization of markets, the spread of cellphones, the accelerations in technology and biology, the new mass movements of migrants and the disruptions in the climate are all intertwined and impacting one another. As a result, we need a president who can connect all of these dots and navigate a path that gets the most out of them and cushions the worst.

But Trump is a dot exploiter, not connector. He made a series of reckless, unconnected promises, not much longer than tweets, to get elected, and now he’s just checking off each one, without thinking through the linkages among them or anticipating second-order effects.

It is a great way to make America weak — and overstretched — again.

Where do I start? Trump wants to get tougher with China on trade and security. That’s not crazy. But how would I do that? I’d organize an alliance of Pacific trading nations that surround China and enlist them in a trade pact that supports U.S.-style rule of law, greater market access for U.S. intellectual property and products and promotes U.S. values — as opposed to China’s. I’d call it the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP for short.

Oh wait, President Barack Obama did that, but Trump scrapped TPP on Day 1, without, I am sure, having read it. Now there is every reason to believe our Asian-Pacific allies will fall even more under China’s economic sway and trade “rules.” How smart is that?

And by the way, why is labor in Mexico cheaper than in America? One reason is that Mexico has weaker labor rights and environmental standards. Let’s see … what would TPP require of Mexico and other signatories? That they bring their labor rights and environmental standards closer to ours.

Instead, Trump is building a wall to keep out Mexican immigrants and force companies to move to the U.S. Let’s see … what happened after 9/11, when the border crossings with Mexico and Canada were severely constricted for security? It forced some assembly line shutdowns at U.S. auto companies, like Ford, because their supply chains stretched to Mexico and Canada. The lower-cost work is done in Mexico and then integrated with higher-value-added work in America, which enables our car companies to compete on price in Europe, Japan and China.



So what did the U.S., Canada and Mexico do after 9/11? They created a North American security envelope, explained Seth Stodder, Obama’s assistant secretary of homeland security, so if you fly into Mexico or Toronto from the Middle East, our Homeland Security Department now probably knows about it.

“Since 9/11, we and our Mexican and Canadian partners have worked to secure the North American perimeter by sharing information on people and goods coming to our countries, cross-referencing that information against terrorism databases and working collaboratively to identify potential bad actors trying to come to North America,” Stodder said. If we build a wall and demand that Mexico pay for it, how long will it go on cooperating with us?

And if Trump forces all these U.S.-based multinationals to move operations from Mexico back to the U.S., what will that do? Help tank the Mexican economy so more Mexicans will try to come north, and raise the costs for U.S. manufacturers. What will they do? Move their factories to the U.S. but replace as many humans as possible with robots to contain costs.

The U.N. says there’s a record 65 million displaced migrants and refugees, mostly from the developing world, trying to get into secure places like the U.S. or Europe. Why? A mix of civil wars, state failures, climate stresses and population explosions. What did Trump do his first week? Appoint climate deniers to key posts and ban U.S. aid to health groups that provide abortion as a family-planning option in developing nations.

Trump wants to partner with Vladimir Putin to defeat ISIS in Syria — a worthy goal. But Putin hasn’t been trying to defeat ISIS. He’s been trying to defeat democracy in Syria to keep the genocidal pro-Russian dictator there in power.

Will that be our goal, too? And who are Putin’s allies in Syria? Iran, Hezbollah and Shiite mercenaries from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Will they be our allies, too? No. We will enlist Iraqi and Syrian Sunnis to help us, says Trump. Really? But he just barred them from entering the U.S. How cooperative will they be?

And whom else might this ban keep out? Remember Steve Jobs? His biological father was Abdulfattah “John” Jandali. He came to America as a student in the 1950s and studied at the University of Wisconsin. He was from … Homs, Syria.

It’s amazing what a mess you can make when you only check boxes and don’t link them.

New York Times

Tim Cook Just Bought Himself More Time to Prove Apple Doubters Wrong - TIME Business

Tim Cook Just Bought Himself More Time to Prove Apple Doubters Wrong

Posted: 01 Feb 2017 06:39 AM PST

Steve Jobs is a tough act to follow. How tough? Six years after Tim Cook took control of operations at Apple from Jobs, he’s still trying to escape the long shadow of his predecessor.

Cook has led Apple since January 2011, when Jobs went on medical leave to battle pancreatic cancer. The following August, Cook formally assumed the title of CEO. Under his leadership, Apple’s market cap has risen 144%, besting the 104% gain in the Nasdaq Composite Index. During the previous six years – the last six of Jobs’ tenure – Apple’s stock rose 329%.

Those numbers underscore the dilemma Cook faces. On the one hand, he’s steered Apple into a success that surpasses that of most of its Silicon Valley peers. On the other, he’s not Steve Jobs. And that has left Cook in a position where, no matter how well Apple is doing, it never quite seems to be good enough.

In the last year alone, Apple’s stock has risen more than 25% – again outperforming the Nasdaq by a good margin. And yet in recent weeks, many observers have been questioning Cook’s leadership, prompted in good part by the 10-year anniversary of the iPhone’s now legendary introduction by Jobs.

Some observers feel Apple has been losing its focus. One entrepreneur compared Cook to Steve Ballmer, who while CEO of Microsoft missed opportunities in search and mobile. A Wall Street analyst complained that Apple “lacks the courage to lead the next generation of innovation.” A former Apple employee tweeted, “The very first thing Tim did as CEO was convert Apple from a dynamic change-maker into a boring operations company.” 

Read more: Everything we think we know about the next iPhone

Of course, Cook has his defenders. But 2016 presented Apple with its share of challenges. In its fiscal year through September, Apple saw its revenue decline for the first time in 15 years. Upgrades to the iPad, the Apple Watch and the MacBook Pro were steady improvements enough, but lacked the panache of years past. The company was seen as lagging behind Google and Microsoft in artificial intelligence. Bold new products, long promised by Cook, didn’t arrive soon enough to placate Apple skeptics.

All of these developments tugged at a core concern: Apple is losing its innovative edge. It had become The iPhone Company – the device makes up 70% of company revenue – and smartphones are becoming a saturated market. Even if that wasn’t Cook’s fault, it remained a big problem for him. When The New York Times asked Peter Thiel if the age of Apple were over, he said yes. “It’s not the fault of Tim Cook, but it’s not an area where there will be any more innovation.”

On Tuesday, Cook had his chance to disagree with all these naysayers. Apple said it returned to year-over-year growth last quarter for the first time in four quarters. Cook was careful to enumerate all the financial records it set last quarter: iPhone revenue. Watch revenue. Mac revenue. Revenue from the App Store and other services. Overall, revenue rose 3% last quarter, while earnings per share rose to $3.36. (Not everything was a record: Net income fell 3% to $17.9 billion).

One bright spot was services like the App Store and Apple Music. Revenue there grew by 18% last quarter as the number of paid subscribers grew to 150 million and as the average spend per customer also increased. Cook said he expects services revenue to double to around $50 billion in four years.

But the better news concerned Apple’s core iPhone business. Apple sold 78.3 million iPhones last quarter, above the 77 million estimate analysts had been looking for. iPhone revenue was strong in all regions except China, and many sales were coming from both upgrades and people switching from other manufacturers – two important developments as the global market for smartphones grows saturated.

That’s crucial for Cook, because it gives him time to prepare for the next iPhone, Apple’s most anticipated release in years. Not only is the next iPhone arriving on the 10th anniversary of the first model, it’s rumored to have features like an OLED screen, a glass casing, a battery that charges wirelessly, and possibly augmented reality features that Cook has hinted at in recent months.

If the “iPhone 8,” or whatever it ends up being officially named, revives Apple’s sales the way the iPhone 6 did a few years ago, Cook will have more time to deliver on the longer-term products he keeps insisting are in the pipeline. Unlike many previous earnings calls, no analyst asked for an update on that pipeline. The focus right now is squarely on the next iPhone, the next version of the game-changer Jobs unveiled a decade ago. And for Cook, that’s enough. Unlike skeptics like Thiel, he sees plenty of life left in the smartphone.

“I think the smartphone is still in the early innings of the game. I think there’s lots more to do,” Cook said during Apple’s earnings call Tuesday. “We think different about a bunch of things,” he added, invoking an old Apple slogan. “This is just one more thing.”

DeVos sworn in as Seccretary of Edocation after marathon grilling where Pence used casting vote - ABC News

Michigan billionaire education activist Betsy DeVos was confirmed today to serve as the secretary of education in President Trump’s administration, after Vice President Mike Pence cast a tiebreaking vote in the Senate.

The Senate voted on DeVos’ highly contentious nomination this afternoon, and the tally was split evenly, requiring Pence to use his authority as president of the upper chamber of Congress to break the impasse. This was the first time that a vice president has broken a tie to confirm a Cabinet nominee.

Pence read the vote count 50-50 and then voted himself, rendering the tally 51-50.

The day before the vote, Democrats staged a 24-hour marathon of speeches, with more than 30 lawmakers taking to the floor to urge at least one additional Republican to vote against DeVos and block her confirmation.

“It is hard to imagine a worse choice,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said before she read letters from constituents urging her to vote no.

DeVos stirred up vehement opposition from teachers’ unions and all 48 Senate Democrats. Many cited concerns about her support of school vouchers, which critics believe will weaken public schools, and her lack of experience, since she never attended or worked in the public education system. Others cited her lack of familiarity with a landmark law protecting the education needs of disabled children.

Senate Democrats Begin 24-Hour Protests Against Trump's Education Secretary Pick, Betsy DeVos

Senate Confirmation Hearings: Everything to Know

She was panned for a gaffe during her confirmation hearing, when she hedged on an answer about guns in schools by saying they might be needed in states like Wyoming to defend against “potential grizzlies.”

DeVos' nomination drew above-average negative reactions from the public, with voters flooding Senate phone lines and email accounts in recent weeks. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said his office received 14,000 calls about DeVos.

In addition to the entire Democratic caucus, two moderate Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowskiof Alaska announced they would not support DeVos.

During a speech announcing her opposition, Collins said DeVos’ focus on charters and vouchers “raises the question of whether or not she fully appreciates that the secretary of education’s primary focus must be on helping states and communities, parents, teachers, school board members and administrators strengthen our public schools.”

Before the confirmation vote, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee voted along party lines, 12-11, to refer DeVos’ nomination to the full Senate.

ABC News’ Morgan Winsor contributed to this report.

Trump orders a dress code in the White House - Financial Times

by: Jo Ellison

Donald Trump is trying to implement some sartorial rigour within his administration. According to intelligence from the White House, the president believes his staff should “have a certain look” and aspire to “be sharply dressed”. Men should wear a tie. Female colleagues have been told to “dress like a woman”, whatever that means. Perhaps he wants them to swing through the White House on tree vines, wearing jungle pelts in the manner of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Jane?

Select topi

Enter email address

In

As with so many of his executive orders so far, it’s predictably disappointing. And possibly misguided. One of the few joys to find in this new world order is in observing just how uniformly shambolic and ill-matched it is. I assumed the administration’s chaotic deportment was in fact a marvellously choreographed campaign to deflect “the opposition party” from the fine details of the day.

What better way to disguise your flailing incompetence at a press briefing, for example, than by wearing a tie of such exceptional ugliness that no one will really hear what you’re trying to say? Sean Spicer knows how to make headlines. The White House press secretary’s clumsy attempts to explain the botched military operations that led to the death of civilians and a Navy seal following a raid on Yemen last week were overlooked as focus fell instead on the diagonally striped monstrosity in poison yellow and navy tied around his neck.

I just assumed the tie was sartorial spin. Call it Project Blind: dull the people to the ineptitude of your policymaking and practice by wearing an eye-wateringly unattractive wardrobe. Donald Trump’s ill-fitting suit, Fanta complexion and feathery comb-over are already well documented: but he looks almost suave compared to the unshaven Steve Bannon, with his livid red proboscis, stained T-shirts and straining shirt buttons. So slovenly is he, and so swollen with choler, he seems to ooze with an especially Chaucerian brand of humour. Watching him slumped in his flannel shirts in the Oval Office, I am reminded of The Nun’s Priest Tale: “For God’s love, as tak som laxatyf.”

Then there’s Mike Pence, who wears smarter white button-down shirts, electric-coloured ties and navy suits, with all the self-possession of a Weeble. Or secretary of defence James Mattis, cadaverous in camo. Attorney-general Jeff Sessions wears pocket-sized suits and ties in reflux yellow and spotted vermilion: he carries them both with the skittery, overly keen mien of a warm-up host.

For comic opportunities alone, I hope Trump has directed his female staffers to follow the lead of Kellyanne Conway in their efforts to look “like a woman”. The counsellor to the president is the undisputed star of this fashion circus: a feisty, former cheerleader who, to judge by the state of her inauguration ensemble, takes her style inspiration from the Peruvian refugee Paddington Bear.

; a muddle of lurid jackets and look-at-me ensembles in primary brights — citrine, vermilion, blood — that are every bit as jarring as her coarse rhetoric. She embraces the type of womanly power glamour observed by weather girls and newscasters: her sleeveless dresses testify to a woman’s right to bare arms or, in the case of the ruffled gold jacket she wore to canvass at Trump Tower last November, the right to resemble a gilded valance sheet. But time has been cruel to Conway. Where once she might have been described as perky, the first weeks in office have lent her sleep-starved, kohl-rimmed looks the ravaged expression of a raptor. I can’t wait to see what she’ll wear next.

Whatever about “dressing sharp”. It must take a concerted effort, a willingness even, to look so collectively dreadful. It’s also in keeping with the evolution (or should that be devolution?) of world-leader style. After years of slick homogeny on the political stage — slim, dark-suited, smug — we’re now seeing a return of the fashion maverick: think Yanis Varoufakis and his football manager leathers, or Nigel Farage in his Toad-of-Toad-Hall Crombie and tulip-pink ties.

Similarly, British prime minister Theresa May’s affection for a voluminous tartan suit by Vivienne Westwood has been much discussed in recent weeks. As with the fabled leopard-print shoes in which she strode to power, May has worn the suits in moments of political — and personal — vulnerability, to announce her determination to lead the Conservative party, for example, or lay down a challenging Brexit strategy. Like Spicer’s tie, the tartan suit has proven a nifty decoy: capable of sucking up headlines and loud enough to distract from the political business of the day.

It may look daft, but the wacky wardrobe is a formidable weapon: bad clothes stimulate alternative conversations, they’re diverting and normalising. Conway’s flowerpot hats are awful, Bannon’s flak jacket is filthy and Spicer’s ties are plain obnoxious, but they all throw light on the individual that wears them. They give the wearer personality. Even more significantly, the clothes are humanising: one could almost feel sorry for Spicer; while Bannon’s gorilla-like bearing has become as morbidly fascinating as his guerrilla-style of governance. It’s all quite stupefying to behold — which, presumably, is the point.

So rather than insist his aides smarten up, if I were Trump I’d order everyone to keep on clowning around: brighter ties, Hawaiian print shirts, lots of gold lamé. Dressing like a fool never seemed so wise.

@jellison; jo.ellison@ft.com