Connect with us


Trump’s Conflict of Interest in Declassification of Nunes Memo Brought Up by Intelligence Committee

Polipace Staff



At a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today, U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris questioned FBI Director Christopher Wray on President Trump’s access to information and evidence from an investigation into the President’s own campaign.

“Do you believe there is an actual – or at least the appearance of – a conflict of interest when the President is put in charge of declassifying information that could complicate an ongoing investigation into his own campaign?” said Harris.

Harris noted the clear conflict of interest that exists and asked whether the President would have access to more information concerning the investigation into his campaign and that he could potentially receive more information of this kind from members of Congress.

Harris previously criticized the releases of the Nunes memo, calling it an effort to “weaponize classified information for political gain and expediency.”

In light of recent political attacks on the intelligence and law enforcement communities, Harris also thanked the men and women of the intelligence and law enforcement communities for their critical work in service to the American people. “I would like to emphasize the point that we all I think share in making, which is we thank the men and women of your agencies for their selfless work,” said Harris. “They do it on behalf of the American people without any expectation of award or reward and we cannot thank them enough for keeping us safe.”

Full transcript of Harris’ questioning below:

Harris: Thank you. I want to echo the comments of my colleagues in thanking the men and women who serve in your agencies. I am concerned that the political attacks against the men and women of your agencies may have had an effect on your ability to recruit, retain, and also the morale of your agencies. So I would like to emphasize the point that we all I think share in making which is we thank the men and women of your agencies for their selfless work. They do it on behalf of the American people without any expectation of award or reward, and we cannot thank them enough for keeping us safe. Director Wray, Chairman Nunes’ memo included sensitive FISA information regarding a person who worked on the President’s campaign. According to the White House statement, the President was the one who authorized the memo’s declassification. Do you believe there is an actual – or at least the appearance of – a conflict of interest when the President is put in charge of declassifying information that could complicate an ongoing investigation into his own campaign?

Wray: Well, senator, as we have been very clear what our view was about the disclosure and accuracy of the memo in question, but I do think it’s the President’s role as Commander in Chief under the rule that was invoked to object or not to the declassification. So I think that is the President’s responsibility.

Harris: Regardless of whether there is an appearance or actual conflict of interest?

Wray: I leave it to others to characterize whether there’s appearance or actual conflict of interest, but I think the President was fulfilling his responsibility in that situation.

Harris: If the President asked you tomorrow to hand over to him additional sensitive FBI information on the investigations into his campaign, would you give it to him?

Wray: I am not going to discuss the investigation in question with the President, much less provide information from that investigation to him.

Harris: And if he received that information and wanted to declassify it, would he have the ability to do that from your perspective?

Wray: Information from the –

Harris: However he received it, perhaps from members of the United States Congress.

Wray: I think legally he would have that ability.

Harris: And do you believe the President should recuse himself from reviewing and declassifying sensitive FBI material related to this investigation?

Wray: I think recusal questions are something I would encourage the President to talk to White House counsel about.

Harris: Has the FBI done any kind of legal analysis on these questions?

Wray: Well happily, I am no longer in the business of doing legal analysis. I now get to be a client and blame lawyers for things instead of being the lawyer who gets blamed. So we have not-

Harris: Have you blamed any lawyers for their analysis of this issue?

Wray: What’s that?

Harris: Have you blamed any lawyers for their analysis?

Wray: I have not yet, no.

Harris questioning about counterintelligence threat from social media:

Harris: Okay. Is the FBI getting the cooperation it needs from social media companies to counter foreign adversaries’ influence on our elections?

Wray: I think the cooperation has been improving. I think we’re continuing to work with the social media companies to try to see how we can raise their awareness so that they can share information with us and vice versa. So I think things are moving in the right direction but I think there’s a lot of progress to be made.

Harris: What more do you need from social media companies to improve the partnership that you would like to have with them to counter the attacks?

Wray: Well, I think we always like to have more information shared more quickly from their end, but I think from their perspective, it’s a dialogue. They’re looking to get information from us about what it is we see so that they can give responsive information. So I think we’re working through those issues.

Harris: Do you believe that the social media companies have enough employees that have the appropriate security clearance to make these partnerships real?

Wray: That’s not an issue I’ve evaluated but I’d be happy to take a look at it.

Harris: Please do and then follow up with the committee. Director Coats, one of the things that makes guarding against foreign intelligence threats on social media so complex is that the threat originates overseas and so that would be within the jurisdiction of the CIA and the NSA and then it comes to our shores and then it passes onto the FBI and also the social media companies themselves. I’m not aware of any written IC strategy on how we would confront the threat to social media. Does such a strategy exist in writing?

Coats: I would have to get back with you on that. I would be happy to look into it. From my perspective right now, a written specific strategy is not in place but I want to check on that.

Harris questioning about WH refusal to implement Russia Sanctions:

Harris: Okay, please do follow up. Also last year, Congress passed a bipartisan Russia sanctions bill, however, the Administration has not imposed those sanctions. From an intelligence perspective, what is your assessment of how Russia interprets the Administration’s inaction?

Coats: I don’t have information relative to what the Russian thinking is in terms of that particular specific reaction. There are other sanctions, as you know, that are being imposed on Russian oligarchs and others through the United Nations and through other things that have been done in reference to the JCPOA. But specifically on your question, I don’t have an answer for that.

Pompeo: Senator Harris, may I just comment?

Harris: Yes.

Pompeo: I think we ought to look at that in a broader context, that is, how the Russians view all of the actions of this Administration, not just a particular set of sanctions or the absence thereof. So as we have watched the Russians respond to this Administration’s decision to provide defensive weapons in Ukraine, to push back against Russian efforts in Syria, sanctions placed on Venezuela were directly in conflict with Russian interests. The list of places that the Russians are feeling the pain from this Administration’s actions are long.

Harris: But Director Pompeo I’m sure you would agree that in order to understand the full scope of effect, it is also important that we analyze each discrete component, including what is the interpretation of this Administration’s failure to enact the sanctions as has been passed and directed by the United States Congress in a bipartisan manner. Have you done that assessment?

Pompeo: Senator, in closed session, I will tell you what we know and don’t know about that discrete issue.

Harris: Great.

Pompeo: And yes, I agree with you, it is important to look at each one in its own place. But I think what we most often see in terms of Russian response, it’s to the cumulative activities in response to Russian activities, and how the United States responds to those in a cumulative way.

Harris: Thank you, I look forward to our conversation.

Pompeo: Yes, ma’am.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Motel 6 Denies Couple Room Saying Puerto Rican Driver’s License isn’t U.S. ID

Polipace Staff



A Puerto Rican couple visiting Sacramento County for their niece’s wedding said they were unable to check into a Rancho Cordova Motel 6 because the racist front desk clerk didn’t believe they had valid U.S. identification.

When Raul Villanueva presented his Puerto Rico driver’s license late Wednesday night, the clerk told him, “Oh, you need a license from the United States,” he said.

“I said, ‘This is a license from the United States, that’s Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is the United States.’ She said, ‘No, it isn’t,’” Villanueva recalled.

Villanueva needed his ID in order to verify his reservation. The woman working at the front desk then asked for his and his wife’s passports, which he reluctantly retrieved.

“She wouldn’t take the passports after all,” Villanueva said. “When I brought them she said, ‘No, I won’t take it. I won’t take that.’ So I said, ‘OK, then give me my money back.’”

The couple called Motel 6’s corporate office Thursday and talked to a representative. The person apologized for the mistake and admitted Puerto Rican identification is on their list of accepted IDs.

The couple ended up staying the night with a relative. They still haven’t received their money back from Motel 6.

Continue Reading


Border Patrol Turns Against Trump, Calls His Border Plan “Colossal waste.”

Polipace Staff



The National Border Patrol Council seemingly has turned against Trump, calling Trump’s efforrts to send National Guard troops to the American-Mexican border, nothing but a huge “colossal waste of resources.”

“We have seen no benefit,” said Brandon Judd, president of the union that represents 15,000 agents, the National Border Patrol Council. “We generally support the administration, but we’re not going to be cheerleading when things are not going well,” Judd said.

Additionally, Agent Chris Cabrera, a spokesman for the union in the Rio Grande Valley, said troops are stationed far from the border, duplicating rather than lessening agents’ workload – and often getting in the way and sometimes getting lost.

He points out that most of the troops are just standing around, having to find “busy work.”

Texas Rep. Mary E. Gonzalez, who represents a district outside El Paso, agrees. “The National Guard deployment is a waste of finite resources, and is duplicative of existing border security efforts.”

Continue Reading


Trump Using Non-Secure Smart Phone Again, Relies on “Twitter Security” To Protect Him

Polipace Staff



Our “stable genius” president Donald Trump’s impulsive use of his personal cellphone has always been a problem. This is partially because it symbolizes the total lack of control that Trump’s handlers have over him, because of the the enormous security risk it poses to America.

According to Politico, Trump uses two different phones that serve different purposes (one is only for calls and one is one is literally just for tweets).

The issue is that he has apparently gone five months without turning in his Twitter-enabled device to make sure it hasn’t been compromised or hacked—which, to be clear, would be bad. Politico was unsure how often the device he uses for calls, which the site likened to burners, is rotated out, but reports that it lacks “sophisticated security features designed to shield his communications.”

I had noticed last year at Earlier, “that Trump—at least sometimes—appears to leave location tagging on, pointing as evidence to a tweet, sent during the president’s recent international trip, which was tagged with the location “from Taormina, Italy.”

A senior staffer insisted to Politico that the phones Trump uses to call people are “seamlessly swapped out on a regular basis” and that Trump’s tweeting phone doesn’t need to be swapped out “because of the security controls of the Twitter phone and the Twitter account.”

What? They are relying on Twitter Security?

To compare, unlike Trump, former President Barack Obama did not use a phone with a camera or microphone and routinely submitted his phone to be checked for security breaches and whatnot every 30 days. But Trump is sooo not into that:

While aides have urged the president to swap out the Twitter phone on a monthly basis, Trump has resisted their entreaties, telling them it was “too inconvenient,” the same administration official said.

Yes, “too inconvenient” to get off the phone with the folks at Fox & Friends for maybe a couple hours? “Too inconvenient” despite a huge part of the Trump campaign relying on criticizing Hillary Clinton for using a private email server which was vulnerable to hacking? “Too inconvenient” despite the massive leaks that plague his White House? “Too inconvenient” despite chief of staff John Kelly’s own phone being compromised???!?!

It feels good to know that America’s downfall won’t come by means that are too fancy, but probably just because someone hacked our idiot president’s Twitter phone.

Continue Reading

Recent Posts


What's Hot

Copyright © 2017 Pace Lattin Inc. powered by WordPress.