Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Your lagging behind aren't you? but that is a symptom of your condition.....and fresh name.."GLANDEROUS GLANDERS'.

Progressive One

Key Republican modifies claim on surveillance
Rep. Nunes apologizes to panel colleagues as calls increase for an independent inquiry of Trump’s Russia ties.
By David S. Cloud and David Willman
WASHINGTON — The head of the House Intelligence Committee partially backed away from his dramatic claim that officials in President Trump’s transition team had been subjects of surveillance by U.S. intelligence agencies, with an aide saying that Chairman Devin Nunes did not know “for sure.”
On Wednesday, Nunes (R-Tulare) said that names of transition team members had come up in conversations that were referred to in U.S. intelligence documents summarizing surveillance. But until Nunes sees the actual documents, he does not know whether any of the transition officials were actually part of the surveilled conversations or were just talked about by others, spokesman Jack Langer said Thursday.
“He’ll have to get all the documents he requested from the [intelligence community] about this before he knows for sure,” Langer said.
The partial walk-back of Nunes’ claim came as lawmakers stepped up calls for an independent investigation of possible links between Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia. Nunes’ decision to brief Trump about the surveillance claims before sharing them with other members of his committee put the House investigation under a cloud, say Democrats and some Republicans.
Nunes apologized to members of the committee at a closed-door meeting Thursday for having described the documents to Trump before sharing them with the panel. Democrats said, however, that he had not yet shown them any of the new evidence.
In a statement to reporters Wednesday and later at the White House, Nunes said he had learned of “dozens” of classified reports that recounted communications between members of Trump’s transition team — and possibly the then-president-elect himself — and individuals who were legally targeted for government eavesdropping for counterintelligence.
He said the reports were widely shared within the U.S. government and that the identities of at least some Trump associates had been included in the reports, despite rules requiring that the names of Americans picked up by communications intercepts be kept confidential in most cases.
Numerous transition officials could have communicated with foreign ambassadors or others in the United States who were under court-authorized surveillance for counterintelligence purposes. If so, they could have inadvertently, but legally, been monitored by U.S. intelligence.
White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, White House aide Stephen Miller, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Trump’s three eldest children all played formal roles in Trump’s transition, along with many other Trump associates and former government officials. Nunes himself was a member of the transition executive committee.
It’s also possible that Trump transition officials were mentioned in U.S. intelligence reports even if no phone conversations, email or other communications involving those officials were intercepted by U.S. intelligence.
Foreign officials under surveillance might have mentioned the names of Trump aides or claimed to have had conversations with them. A claim of that sort might have been considered important enough to be included in an intelligence report, a former intelligence official said.
Senior intelligence officials can decide to include names or other identifying information of Americans in classified foreign intelligence reports if they believe that doing so is important for understanding the intelligence, or if it shows clear evidence of a potential crime.
This process, known as unmasking, could have happened with the Trump transition team. It’s unclear whether any names of Trump transition officials were unmasked in the documents Nunes referred to, or whether their identities were masked yet obvious from their descriptions.
Critics said Nunes’ actions had called into question his ability to run a fair, thorough investigation.
The top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), called for the Justice Department to appoint an independent prosecutor for the case.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said a special House-Senate panel should be appointed to conduct its own inquiry.
“It’s a bizarre situation,” McCain, a frequent Trump critic, said of Nunes’ actions.
“I think that this back-and-forth and what the American people have found so far is that no longer does Congress have the credibility to handle this alone,” the senator said in an interview with MSNBC.
Any such move faces strong opposition, however. Republican leaders in the House and Senate have given no indication that they would back the creation of a special House-Senate panel, like the joint body that was created to investigate the Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan administration.
Nor has there been any indication that the Justice Department is considering appointing a special counsel to oversee the Trump investigation.
Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions recused himself from any decision about the inquiry after disclosures that he had multiple conversations with the Russian ambassador last year while he was still a senator. As a result, a decision about a special counsel would be up to the deputy attorney general. Trump’s nominee for that post, career prosecutor Rod Rosenstein, is awaiting Senate confirmation.
But Nunes’ decision to bypass his own committee and publicly reveal evidence that may be relevant to the investigation has roiled the House panel.
“It’s no way to run an investigation,” Schiff said in an interview. “You don’t go to someone who is associated with people that are under investigation with evidence and withhold it from the investigatory body.”
Trump told reporters that he felt “somewhat vindicated” by Nunes’ disclosures. They came only a week after the president promised revelations to back up his accusation that President Obama had ordered him to be wiretapped during the campaign, which would be illegal.
Nunes said, however, that no such wiretapping ever took place. The surveillance he referred to, he said, came after the election, was conducted legally and was not targeted at Trump or his associates.
Nunes’ disclosures came a day after FBI Director James B. Comey testified that the agency had opened a investigation into possible Trump campaign links with Russia.
Schiff said in the interview that links between Trump associates and Russia uncovered by the FBI went beyond circumstantial evidence.
“I can’t get into specifics. What I can say is that I think the FBI investigation is more than justified,” Schiff said.
“It’s not the evidence that you would present at trial, to a trial jury, to prove [guilt] beyond a reasonable doubt,” he added. “But it’s the kind of evidence you would put forward when you’re beginning an investigation.
“I think it certainly demands a thorough and objective investigation.’’
Despite being dismayed by Nunes’ actions, Democrats on the committee were not threatening to pull out of the committee’s investigation, Schiff said.
“People recognize that if the Democrats are not investigating this, then really no one is,” he said. “So we’re determined to plow on.”
david.cloud@latimes.com
Twitter: @davidcloudLAT

Progressive One

BACK STORY
Little clarity to new finding
Disclosure of inadvertent spying on Trump team stokes confusion
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Tulare) apologized for going public with his startling revelation before sharing that information with the full committee, a panel aide said. (Mark Wilson Getty Images)
By David S. Cloud
WASHINGTON — The disclosure by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, that communications by Trump transition members were inadvertently picked up by U.S. surveillance legally collecting foreign intelligence raises questions that are likely to consume Congress and the White House for months.
Among them:
Who in the Trump transition team was captured by the surveillance?
That’s not clear. Nunes gave no names other than to say it was possible that then-President-elect Trump might have been mentioned in classified intelligence reports written at the time.
Numerous transition officials may have communicated with foreign ambassadors or others in the U.S. who were under court-authorized surveillance for counterintelligence purposes — and thus inadvertently had their communications monitored by U.S. intelligence. White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, White House aide Stephen Miller, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Trump’s adult children all played formal roles in Trump’s transition, along with many other Trump associates and former government officials. Nunes himself was a member of the transition executive committee.
Who were Trump transition members talking to?
Again, Nunes didn’t say, except to note that the surveillance was not part of an ongoing FBI investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russian authorities who were meddling in the election. In addition to foreign diplomats or other obvious contacts, the U.S. intelligence dragnet could include almost any person in the United States under court-approved surveillance who was in contact with transition officials or who claimed to have been in contact with Trump transition members.
What were they talking about?
Again, Nunes didn’t say. But it’s most likely that the classified intelligence reports that Nunes cited discussed either attempts to influence the incoming Trump administration or policy changes that a foreign government was considering in response to Trump’s election. It’s also possible that the surveillance picked up discussions about business deals, though that is unlikely to generate intelligence reports unless the communications suggested a crime was being committed.
Was the surveillance done under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant?
Nunes said it was, which suggests that the communications occurred between Trump transition officials and other people in the U.S., not overseas, since the National Security Agency doesn’t need a warrant to conduct eavesdropping overseas.
What are the requirements for getting a FISA warrant?
The FBI asks a special federal court that conducts its proceedings in secret for such a warrant when it has reason to believe someone in the U.S. is acting as an agent of a foreign power — in the worst-case scenario, conducting espionage against the United States. But it’s also possible to get FISA warrants to intercept routine communications by ambassadors and other foreign officials in the United States, which seems to be how Trump’s former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, was detected on phone calls with Russia’s ambassador last year.
Aren’t the identities of U.S. persons who are picked up inadvertently by surveillance supposed to be protected under the FISA law?
Yes. But senior intelligence officials can decide to include their names or other identifying information in classified intelligence reports if they decided that doing so is important for understanding the intelligence, or if it shows clear evidence of a potential crime. This process, known as unmasking, could have happened with the Trump transition team. Nunes said it had, but Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) said in most cases he had been told the identities were not unmasked but were obvious. So far, Flynn is the only member of Trump’s team known to have been picked up by the surveillance.
How did Nunes get the information?
He said he got it from intelligence sources but did not identify them.
Does this mean President Trump was correct to claim on Twitter that he was wiretapped by President Obama?
No. There is no evidence of a wiretap at Trump Tower — as FBI Director James B. Comey confirmed in public testimony this week — and the intercepts were not aimed at Trump or his aides. They targeted foreign intelligence figures with whom Trump transition team members apparently were communicating.
What’s the impact of all this?
At a minimum, it has disrupted the House Intelligence Committee’s efforts to conduct a bipartisan investigation into Russia’s role in the election. Schiff, the ranking Democrat, was furious that Nunes held a news conference and then briefed the president Wednesday without sharing the information with the committee. On Thursday, a committee aide said Nunes had apologized “for not sharing information about the documents he saw with the minority before going public” and that he “pledged to work with them on this issue.”
david.cloud@latimes.com

Progressive One

Nunes’ troubling disclosure
C an this investigation be saved? That’s a fair question to be asked about the House Intelligence Committee’s probe of foreign meddling in the 2016 election after an extraordinary violation of protocol by its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Tulare).
Nunes went public Wednesday with sensational assertions that U.S. surveillance operations aimed at foreign targets had collected communications involving several members of President-elect Trump’s transition team, and that some of the U.S. citizens were identified or “unmasked” despite a requirement that their names be suppressed. He also claimed that details about transition team members “with little apparent foreign intelligence value” were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting, presumably to various agencies.
Nunes’ preemptive disclosure (and his interpretation of the information) surprised and angered Democrats on his committee; he reportedly has apologized for not informing them beforehand. Some experts are also questioning whether Nunes himself improperly discussed classified matters in public.
That Americans — including members of the Trump transition — might be “incidentally” recorded as the result of lawful surveillance of foreign officials and diplomats wouldn’t mean that any law was violated. It would be troubling only if their identities weren’t “minimized” as required by law before the information was shared among intelligence agencies. But by publicizing this information on his own — and going to the White House to brief President Trump about it — Nunes brought his credibility as an impartial investigator into question. He also assisted, even if unintentionally, in Trump’s efforts to downplay questions about possible undue Russian influence on Trump or his associates.
Sure enough, Trump, who famously (and recklessly) accused former President Obama of wiretapping of Trump Tower during the election, said he felt somewhat vindicated by Nunes’ revelations — even though FBI Director James Comey and Nunes himself have debunked that assertion.
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) complained that Nunes’ decision to share information with the White House first was a “profound irregularity.” He warned that Nunes “cannot conduct a credible investigation this way.”
He’s right: Nunes shouldn’t be briefing the president whose election campaign his committee is expected to scrutinize. Unless the chairman can reassure the public and his colleagues that his freelancing days are over, the public may look elsewhere — the Senate Intelligence Committee or a proposed 9/11-style independent commission — for a trustworthy account.

Progressive One

Perry decries disputed college election
Energy chief calls gay student’s win at Texas A&M ‘a mockery.’
associated press
AUSTIN, Texas — Energy Secretary Rick Perry, whose agency oversees the nation’s nuclear arsenal, is inserting himself into an unusually small political dispute: an election for student body president at Texas A&M University.
In an op-ed submitted to the Houston Chronicle, the former Texas governor suggested his alma mater’s first openly gay president may have stolen the outcome. Perry wrote that the campus election “at best made a mockery of due process and transparency” and at worst “allowed an election to be stolen outright.”
“It is difficult to escape the perception that this quest for ‘diversity’ is the real reason the election outcome was overturned,” he wrote. “Does the principle of ‘diversity’ override and supersede all other values of our Aggie Honor Code?”
Those who know Perry best said they were not surprised that he would take the unusual step of weighing in on a parochial issue at his alma mater.
“There are three institutions that are most important to Rick Perry: his wife and family, the U.S. military and Texas A&M,” said Ray Sullivan, a former Perry chief of staff and veteran of the ex-governor’s presidential runs in 2012 and 2016.
The campus election ended with junior Bobby Brooks winning about 4,200 votes. Robert McIntosh, son of Dallas-based GOP fundraiser Alison McIntosh, got nearly 5,000 votes but was disqualified amid complaints he intimidated voters and failed to provide receipts for glow sticks used in an online campaign video.
McIntosh appealed to a student court, which dismissed charges of voter fraud but upheld those of incomplete financial disclosure, awarding the election to Brooks this week.
Brooks takes office next month but has declined to comment since the publication of Perry’s op-ed. After being declared election winner, he posted on Facebook: “To those of you who spoke poorly about me based upon my sexual orientation or personal religion (and talk gets around, my friends), I forgive you.”
A Texas A&M spokeswoman did not return messages seeking comment Thursday. Energy Department Spokesman Bob Haus said Perry “did this in his personal capacity, and DOE has no official comment.”
A 1972 A&M graduate with a degree in animal sciences, Perry was twice elected yell leader, a coveted role akin to a male cheerleader. He was Texas’ longest-serving governor, from 2000 until 2015, then moved to a home he built in rural Round Top, Texas, near his alma mater’s campus in College Station.
He took an active role in A&M policy as governor, pushing the school to implement a plan devised by a conservative Texas think tank seeking greater scrutiny of faculty productivity, which university officials charged put ideology before academics. He also helped place allies in key school positions — including one who brandished a pocket knife as the university discussed his firing. A&M University System Chancellor John Sharp was once Perry’s roommate.
Perry has previously been outspoken about what he branded political correctness run wild when it came to another institution near and dear to his heart, the Boy Scouts of America. An Eagle Scout, Perry wrote the 2008 book “On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting For.” In it, he questioned whether sexual identity is determined at birth or is a matter of choice, noting he didn’t believe in “condemning homosexuals that [he knows] personally.”

Big Bass

Why! You did it with aplomb.

Glaucon

Your comment is somewhere between child is immature. You need to get back to creating cute insult names for Obama.

Big Bass

Firstly: your English is abysmal. Once you have improved that, you will be ready to play with normal people.

Glaucon

You missed the point and the issue of my comment and went directly to deflection and gibberish. GTFU.

Big Bass

When are you going to be ready to play with normal people?

Progressive One

there is nothing normal about you racist hateful motherfkers..........

Big Bass

So says our token ni**er.

Progressive One

you're funny....do you really thinks that bothers black people in 2017? It'll just get your ass stomped as a matter of principle.........

Big Bass

All the black folks I know are not racists who go around calling all whites mfkers, or any other kind of racist, or hateful epithets that you do all the time. You are the only entity that this description fits perfectly. Your argument is meritless.

Progressive One

I call whites who call me nigger and thrown insults my way mothefkers....you've been trying really hard to make it an 'all whites' thing with me despite my explanation regarding black and white conservatives and my non-racist declaration.......you want it to be an 'all whites" thing from my perspective because in your little mind, it justifies you calling me a nigger and trying to act as if you're not racist yourself....at the same time...but you are a racist but the beauty of it is that I don't give a fk what you are.....but you know that trying to insist i'm talking about ALL WHITES makes you a dishonest piece of shit ass person.......