US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6902

Flynn in FBI interview denied discussing sanctions with Russian ambassador

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn denied to FBI agents in an interview last month that he had discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States before President Trump took office, contradicting the contents of intercepted communications collected by intelligence agencies, current and former U.S. officials said.

The Jan. 24 interview potentially puts Flynn in legal jeopardy. Lying to the FBI is a felony offense. But several officials said it is unclear whether prosecutors would attempt to bring a case, in part because Flynn may parse the definition of the word “sanctions.” He also followed his denial to the FBI by saying he couldn’t recall all of the conversation, officials said.

Any decision to prosecute would ultimately lie with the Justice Department.

A spokesman for Flynn said he had no response. The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment.

Flynn spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak following Trump’s election and denied for weeks that the December conversation involved sanctions the Obama administration imposed on Russia in response to its purported meddling in the U.S. election. Flynn’s denial to the FBI was similar to what he had told Trump’s advisers, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
In a recent interview with the Daily Caller, Flynn said he didn’t discuss “sanctions” but did discuss the Obama administration’s expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats it said were “intelligence operatives.” The move was part of the sanctions package it announced on Dec. 29.

Earlier, in an interview with The Post, he denied discussing sanctions but later issued a statement saying “that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

Trump asked for Flynn’s resignation Monday night following reports in The Washington Post that revealed Flynn had misled Vice President Pence in denying the substance of the call and that Justice Department officials had warned the White House that Flynn was a possible target of Russian blackmail as a result.

Two days after the FBI interview, then-acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates and a career national security official informed Donald McGahn, Trump’s White House counsel, about the contents of the intercepted phone call in a meeting at the White House. Yates and other officials were concerned that Russia could not only exploit the mischaracterization of the call — which Pence had repeated on nationwide television — but also did not think it was fair to keep Pence in the dark about the discrepancies, according to officials familiar with their thinking.

At a news conference Thursday, Trump called Flynn a “fine person” and said he had done nothing wrong in engaging with the Russian envoy. Trump said he did not direct Flynn to talk to Kislyak. However, the president added, “I would have directed him because that’s his job.”

Trump said he had asked for Flynn’s resignation because of what the national security adviser had told the vice president about his communications with the Russian diplomat. “I was not happy with the way that information was given,” Trump said.
The president said the real issue in the Flynn saga was the divulging of classified information. “It’s an illegal process, and the press should be ashamed of themselves,” he said. “But more importantly, the people that gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves, really ashamed.”

Senior officials who have reviewed the phone call thought Flynn’s statements to Kislyak were inappropriate, if not illegal, because he suggested that the Kremlin could expect a reprieve from the sanctions.

At the same time, officials knew that seeking to build a case against Flynn for violating an obscure 1799 statute known as the Logan Act — which bars private citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes — would be legally and political daunting. Several officials said that while sanctions were discussed between Flynn and Kislyak in the December call, they did not see evidence in the intercept that Flynn had an “intent” to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.

“It wasn’t about sanctions. It was about the 35 guys who were thrown out,” Flynn told the Daily Caller in an interview just before he resigned and published Tuesday. “So that’s what it turned out to be. It was basically, ‘Look, I know this happened. We’ll review everything.’ I never said anything such as, ‘We’re going to review sanctions,’ or anything like that.”

It is not clear when the FBI began to probe Flynn’s communications with Kisylak. Senior members of the Obama administration learned in early January that the FBI was investigating the relationship, according to former officials.

On President Barack Obama’s final full day in office, Yates, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper and CIA Director John O. Brennan recommended informing the Trump team of the Flynn matter. But FBI Director James B. Comey pushed back, arguing that doing so could interfere with the bureau’s ongoing investigation. The FBI is examining contacts between Trump associates and Russian officials.

Comey dropped his objections after the FBI interviewed the national security adviser.

After Yates informed McGahn, the White House counsel informed Trump and then conducted an internal review of the matter, according to White House press secretary Sean Spicer.

While McGahn and Trump were briefed on the matter on Jan. 26, it does not appear that they informed Pence. A spokesman for the vice president said he first learned that he had been misled when The Washington Post on Feb. 9 disclosed that Flynn had, in fact, discussed sanctions with Kislyak, contrary to the vice president’s public statements.

Flynn said in his resignation letter that he had “inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian ambassador.”

Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.

On February 17 2017 06:09 Logo wrote:


I don't really understand the set of views that can lead to these two statements side by side?

On February 17 2017 06:14 oneofthem wrote:

snowden leaked way too much, with stylized presentations designed to bolster foreign adversaries. his is a propaganda op. you can read this piece to see something close to my view on it.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-president-obama-wont-and-shouldnt-pardon-snowden

if he leaked the narrow bits about the 215 program, meh. would prob have been treated as an ellsberg type and gotten away with it

I think the most charitable moral/ethical case for leaking details of electronic intelligence operations abroad, including against our adversaries, is that these operations were harming the Internet, were hypocritical, were contrary to American values, and the like, and Snowden’s disclosures were designed to save the Internet and restore American values. This is not a crazy view; I know many smart and admirable people who hold it, and I believe it is ethically and morally coherent.

On February 17 2017 08:34 oneofthem wrote:
lets take a break from trump and look at what the evil neoliberals in clintonland are plotting today.

https://mobile.twitter.com/equitablegrowth/status/832370978655072256

On February 17 2017 10:36 IgnE wrote:


do you agree with this?

On February 17 2017 10:54 IgnE wrote:


shit they did a study on it? they are really cues into the REAL problems now and can lead us into a world where accumulation continued unabated.

i dont know what you dont get about this, but current levels of inequality, worldwide, that are continuing to get worse are now a major barrier to capital accumulation. one would EXPECT the davos-type think tanks to be looking into their overdetermined and well formulated "problem". its mainstream now buddy

To pay for their Obamacare replacement provisions, House Republicans are considering imposing a major change to the tax treatment of employer-based insurance plans as part of their legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

House members coming out of a GOP-caucus meeting Thursday on their health care overhaul plans said that capping the tax exclusion for employer plans -- i.e. imposing a monetary limit at which point health benefits are taxed like other forms of income -- was discussed as a potential revenue booster. The proposal is somewhat like the ACA's Cadillac tax, which was hated by Democrats and Republicans alike, and is often included in GOP replacement plans, including the "Better Way" outline offered by Speaker Paul Ryan last summer. Capping the exclusion could solve the problem for Republicans of how to pay for their replacement, as many of them have said that the ACA's current taxes need to be repealed right away. But since it will affect the types of plans used by a vast plurality of Americans, it won't come without a political fight.

"Capping the exclusion, which is to me a Cadillac tax ... it was discussed. I disagree," Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) told reporters after the meeting. Other members, such as Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), signaled they weren't comfortable with the idea.

So far, like many of the other proposals discussed in Thursday's meeting, the details of how the cap would be structured are vague. Republicans are waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to score pieces of the legislative text before making decisions in terms of revenue.

House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX), a key Republican in the repeal effort, confirmed that capping the tax exclusion was among the "whole range of options" GOP lawmakers are looking to finance the individual tax credits that they expect to put in their replacement plan.

"We visited with conference about the wide range of options. They're thinking about it, and we're going to come back ready to legislate," Brady said.

The ACA's Cadillac tax placed a 40 percent levy on employer plans that exceeded a certain threshold. It was hated by Republicans because, well, it was a tax -- and an Obamacare-related tax to boot. Democrats were skeptical of it because it was loathed by unions, who over the years have bargained for the sort of generous health plans for their members that would have been the tax's target.

Asked if he would be comfortable with capping the tax exclusion, Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ) said after the meeting he "would examine all options."

"But let me say that we want to make sure that health care plans that are provided by employers continue to exist, because that is the way that most Americans, or at least, the greatest number of Americans receive their health care," Lance continued. "This is related of course to the Cadillac tax, and unions quite appropriately are opposed to the Cadillac tax. I am in favor of the union movement in this county, and unions have fought for the members so that they have decent health care coverage."

Congress included a delay of the Cadillac tax's implementation until 2020 as part of a larger tax packaged passed in 2015.

But its supporters argue that proposals aimed at the tax exclusion of employer plans are crucial in bending the curve of health care costs. Additionally, the tax exclusion amounts to the largest single subsidy in the entire tax code. Proponents also say that capping the exclusion could help raise wages for low-income workers, as employers are currently more incentivized to pay them in generous health benefits, given the preferential treatment of health plans by the tax system.

"If you really want to fix health care, and make health care available for all, then you've got to look at the imbalance between the way employers buy health care coverage and the way families buy health care coverage," Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX) said. "Somewhere those disparate treatments need to be broken down and equalized."

He acknowledged that "it was a tough approach," in terms of the political dynamics.

On the Senate side -- where in a symbolic vote, members in 2015 voted 90-10 to kill the Cadillac tax -- Republicans were maintaining an open mind until they saw the details.

"I think until you know if they defined the cap, you don't know," Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) said, when TPM asked him if the Senate would support a cap to the exclusion.

"It's an idea on the table," Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who chairs one of the committees with jurisdiction over repeal, told TPM. "There's a lot of support for repealing all the Obamacare taxes. We want to put in place a conservative approach to helping people who need help buying insurance, and you have to pay for it somehow, so that's one option."

A potential fight over the tax exclusion cap is just one of many debates bogging down Republicans' Obamacare repeal effort.

"The question is finding 51 votes in the Senate for something that moves the ball forward on repealing and replacing Obamacare," said Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), who has raised concerns about major changes to employer plans in the past. "I am more concerned about getting 51 than getting exactly what I want."

On February 17 2017 10:51 oneofthem wrote:

my view is that given current attitudes, yes. but in an ideal world where the need for law enforcement ad security is better appreciated, the equilibrium would be a fully traceable internet but one where the mechanism of investigation is very secure, with content access enjoying full legal protection comparable to physical surveillance.

there will be special privilege for intelligence and white collar crime investigators. but you'd have oversight on those too.

generally i tend to favor transparency over privacy, especially transparency of elites with feudalist tendencies. these guys are the true enemies of anything resembling democracy.

On February 17 2017 10:57 oneofthem wrote:

it is not motivated by a desire to protect capital. this is deeply delusional.

rather, humans are far more complex creatures than vulgar marxism can accommodate

On February 17 2017 11:01 IgnE wrote:


ok well we partially agree then. cyber surveillance and investigation that is personalized and limited would be more analogous to the warrant and manpower requirements for investigations that pierce the veil of citizen privacy. but you just made an argument that the segregation of society with respect to education is a "rock rolling downhill". the MASS surveillance and capture of everything that's said or thought is exactly this on a magnified scale. it's the fastening of a totalitarian apparatus upon the world that will remain fastened as appointments and administrations change. not everyone is a benevolent philosopher-king but you can't roll back that elimination of privacy when caligula ascends to the throne.

On February 17 2017 11:05 IgnE wrote:


please, it only looks delusional to you because you think in conspiracy theories. see all your ridiculous jibes at the "left" and at "snowden" despite claiming to think in an analytic manner about how flows of material, human, and cultural resources shape outcomes. this isn't "vulgar" marxism. clinton's project fails with zero or negative growth. this is a fact. stop pretending it's delusion.

On February 17 2017 11:14 IgnE wrote:
just to be clear, no one cares about Clinton's intentions in some crude sentimental sense

just ask two questions:

1) does inequality present a problem to economic growth under current regimes?

if yes, as Davos and Clinton agree and should be obvious then:

2) are there ways to ameliorate those solutions without changing the underlying logic or processes which structure that regime?

intentions don't matter, and neither does whatever "dialectical materialist" classical "vulgar" pre-structuralist marxism you want to wave your hand about