IGX

Turdacious wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2017 4:03 amSchiff (who has a Harvard JD) appears not to know the bounds of attorney-client privilege.

The Russian 2016 hacking, Morell told me, was in fact a U.S. “intelligence failure” in multiple ways. It was, he argued, at the least “a failure of imagination that’s not dissimilar to the failure of imagination that we had for 9/11,” with America’s spy agencies apparently unable to have conceived of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter and electronic hacking of Gmail being used to attack the country’s election.

But it was another kind of failure, too, Morell argued, of shifting money away from Russia and elsewhere in the name of fighting terrorism. “As we were trying to protect the country from terrorists,” he said, “we became more blind to what was going on in the rest of the world, both from a collection perspective and from an analytic perspective. And that was a cost…. When you make choices, you leave significant risk on the table.”

Morell: So, let’s talk about what I think the possibilities are, going forward. So, I would not be surprised if Bob Mueller concludes that the Trump campaign did not violate the law with regard to its interactions with the Russians. I’m really open to that possibility. Why? Because, as you know, The New York Times, The Washington Post, every media outlet that is worth its salt has reporters digging into this, and they haven’t found anything. And I think that, had there been something there, they would have found something. And I think Bob Mueller would have found it already and it would have leaked. So, I’m really open to the possibility that there’s no there there on a crime being committed by the campaign and the Russians. Right? That interaction leading to criminal charges.

The second point I’d make is that I wouldn’t be surprised if there were single individuals who were associated with the campaign who violated the law with respect to their interactions with the Russians on the election. Paul Manafort comes to mind. I think he has little to no integrity. There’s no way you spend that much time with the old Ukrainian government and not bump up against Russian intelligence officers a lot. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were single individuals who faced criminal charges here with regard to their interactions with the Russians, and Paul Manafort’s a possibility. But that’s different than a conspiracy by the campaign, right?

The third thing I’d say is, every FBI investigation that I’ve ever had visibility into or been involved in, the people who they’re looking at actually don’t end up getting charged with the crime they were being investigated for. They get charged with something else. Right? And that something else in this case could be the laundering of Russian organized crime funds. And if that was done by the Trump organization – if that was done knowingly – it’s a criminal violation. If it was done unwittingly, because you didn’t do the due diligence that’s required under U.S. law for where the money is coming from, from overseas – it’s a civil penalty. And the Trump organization gets fined. What the politics of all that is, I have no idea. That’s the third thing I’d say.

The fourth thing I’d say is, the obstruction of justice issue. In my view, when I read the statute, boy, it looks – you know, it looks like you could make a case. Now, the hard part is intent. Right? You have to intend to violate the statute. You have to intend to obstruct justice. That’s the difficult piece to prove here. You need something on paper, or you need somebody who heard the president say something about what he was trying to do here, or you need him to tell you that. Right? Well, he’s not going to do that. And so, while it looks like it to all of us, that that’s what he was trying to do – you’ve got to get to that intent part, and that’s what’s hard from a criminal perspective.

The U.S. Congress will allow a deadline on reimposing sanctions on Iran to pass this week, congressional and White House aides said on Tuesday, leaving a pact between world powers and Tehran intact at least temporarily.

In October, Trump declined to certify that Iran was complying with the nuclear agreement reached among Tehran, the United States and others in 2015. His decision triggered a 60-day window for Congress to decide whether to bring back sanctions on Iran.

Congressional leaders have announced no plans to introduce a resolution to reimpose sanctions before Wednesday’s deadline and aides say lawmakers will let the deadline pass without action.

The Kremlin was distinctly unhappy about US sanctions placed on Chechen warlord Ramzan Kadyrov and four other Russian citizens on Wednesday (Dec. 20): “We consider these sanctions illegal [and] we consider them unfriendly,” spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, adding it was “highly probable” that Moscow would reciprocate.

Kadyrov, on the other hand, claimed to be unfussed about being banned from accessing US financial institutions or entering the country due to his alleged role in “the gross violation of human rights.” The leader of the restive Republic of Chechnya, and close Putin ally, has a theatrical flair: he owns a golden gun, a wolf, a tiger, and a white cat called Chanel that may look familiar to James Bond fans. He took to his beloved Instagram account to respond.

Shortly after the sanctions were announced, the lumpy Kadyrov, a huge fan of mixed martial arts and newfound pal of boxer Floyd Mayweather, posted a video of himself clad in a camouflage tracksuit, aggressively bench-pressing a light weight. In the next clip, the 41-year-old acts as if he’s just finished pumping an enormous stack of metal and is about to start again.