• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди962
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы612
      • Показать ещё
      Компании607
      • Показать ещё
      Разное481
      • Показать ещё
      Издания155
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации96
      • Показать ещё
      Формат17
      Показатели8
      Сферы3
Джеймс Клеппер
23 марта, 01:24

Schiff: 'There Is More Than Circumstantial Evidence Now'

“There is evidence that … is very much worthy of investigation” of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia, the Democratic vice chair of the House intelligence committee tells Meet the Press Daily.

23 марта, 00:40

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 3/22/2017, #26

James S. Brady Briefing Room 1:41 P.M. EDT MR. SPICER:  Good afternoon.  First, at the top, I wanted to note that the President has been briefed on the situation in London.  He just spoke to Prime Minister May, and we’ll have a readout on that situation and that call soon.  We obviously condemn today’s attack in Westminster, which the United Kingdom is treating as an act of terrorism.  And we applaud the quick response that the British police and their first responders made to the situation.  The victims in this are in our thoughts and our prayers. The City of London and Her Majesty's government have the  full support of the U.S. government in responding to the attack and bringing those to justice who are responsible.  We will provide you with further updates as warranted and, as I mentioned, a readout of the President's call with the Prime Minister. Turning to the events of today -- this morning, the President received his daily intelligence briefing.  He stopped by the Women in Healthcare panel hosted by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Systems Administrator, Seema Verma.  And also, that event was attended by the Vice President and the Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Tom Price. Healthcare professionals have seen the challenges of implementing Obamacare firsthand.  They're a valuable asset to the President and his team as we continue to consider and enact policies, like the American Health Care Act, that will make healthcare more accessible and affordable for everyone.  The women who were at the roundtable today represent the physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and administrators who make sure that people around the country receive the necessary preventative and lifesaving care that they need every day. The doctors who attend to the patients in the family practices, emergency rooms, and clinics -- and those who support them on the administrative and technical sides -- are one of our country’s most treasured resources. With the passage of the American Health Care Act and the rest of the President’s healthcare reform agenda, everyone, regardless of their financial situation, will be able to take full advantage of this resource. That’s why, at last count, over 40 major associations have expressed their support for the American Health Care Act, with several of them, including the U.S. Chamber [of Commerce], the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and, just today, the National Taxpayers Union calling it a key vote. Following his appearance at the panel, the President and his legislative affairs team hosted several members of the House of Representatives for another meeting on the American Health Care Act.  The President acknowledged, as he has before, that the AHCA is only one step in the larger process of fixing the broken healthcare system created by Obamacare, but it’s an essential first step. Undoing and fixing all of the misguided policies is going to require a holistic, multistep process.  And that’s why the President and his team are fully committed to maintaining an open line of communication with Capitol Hill leadership throughout this entire process.  Throughout the weeks since the AHCA was first introduced, they have been meeting with Republican members from across the political spectrum, many of whom we’ve seen move from “no” to “yes,” as they learn more about the legislation and amendments that have been adopted.  Continued coordination between administrative and legislative actions will ensure that our new healthcare system is effective and efficient. This afternoon, the President will meet with the Congressional Black Caucus’s Executive Committee.  The President has brought in and will continue to hear from representatives of all interests as he continues to note that he is the President of all Americans.  Diversity makes our nation strong, and it also means that we don't necessarily agree on every policy item but that we continue to have a dialogue towards productive policies that help America move forward. The President looks forward to discussing the CBC’s policy priorities and finding ways that they can work together where those priorities align. This evening, the President will have dinner with Secretary  of State Tillerson.  Today at the State Department, Secretary Tillerson hosted the foreign ministers and senior leaders of the Global Coalition working to defeat ISIS for the first meeting of the full coalition of 68 members since December 2014.  This meeting follows up on the defense ministerial Secretary Mattis hosted last month in Brussels. The coalition is united in the fight against ISIS, and this meeting seeks to accelerate international efforts to defeat ISIS in the remaining areas it holds in Iraq and Syria, while maximizing pressure on its branches, affiliates, and networks. This meeting is a part of our whole-of-government approach to defeating ISIS.  The Trump administration will use all of the tools of national power, in coordination with our international powers [partners], to cut off ISIS’s funding, expand intelligence sharing, and deny ISIS geographic and online safe havens. Also today, over on the Hill, Judge Gorsuch [is] in his second day of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  During his nearly 12 hours of questioning yesterday -- now at least I know how someone else feels -- (laughter) -- the judge continued to prove himself an enormously qualified jurist that Americans will all be proud to see on the Supreme Court.  It’s not surprising that Senate Democrats are failing to gain traction for any of their potshots and opposition to Judge Gorsuch.  There’s simply not enough politicizing the Senate Democrats can do to hide the fact that Judge Gorsuch is an immensely qualified and thoughtful jurist with a lifelong dedication to our Constitution. A few administrative notes here before I take your questions:  Last night, we formally announced that the President will travel to Brussels for the May 25th meeting of NATO heads of state and government.  During this meeting, the President looks forward to reaffirming our strong commitment to NATO and discussing critical issues to the Alliance, especially Allied responsibility-sharing and NATO’s role against -- the fight against terrorism. The President will also host NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg to the White House on April 12th. Today, the President declared a major disaster exists in the state of Wyoming and ordered federal assistance to supplement state, tribal, and local recovery efforts in the areas affected by a severe winter storm and straight-line winds that occurred in February. We also announced that the President will deliver this year’s commencement address at Liberty University on May 13th. The President is proud to call Liberty’s president, Jerry Falwell, his wife Becki and their entire family, his friends, and looks forward to celebrating the success of this amazing graduating class on such a momentous occasion. Finally, a few minutes ago, many of you may have seen that the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, gave remarks on the surveillance collected on individuals associated with the President.  Let me quote him directly: “I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.  Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value, were widely disseminated in the intelligence community reporting.  And third, I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked.  And fourth and finally, I want to be clear, none of this surveillance was related to Russia or the investigation of Russian activities or [of] the Trump team.” My understanding is that Chairman Nunes is coming to the White House later to brief the President on this development, and we will have a readout for that meeting once it occurs. With that, I'll be glad to take your questions.  Mara. Q    Two questions.  One on Nunes and then healthcare.  Is your understanding that this -- none of these unmasked names were leaked? MR. SPICER:  I don’t know.  I literally read the statement -- or heard the statement, came out and briefed it.  It was wrapping up as we were beginning this. Q    Okay.  Today in the pool spray, the President said "keep your doctor, keep your plan" didn't work out that way.  You didn't get your doctor.  You don't get your plan.  This is one of the reasons we have to repeal Obamacare.   Is the President assuring people who currently like their plan or like their doctor that under the American Health Care Act they can keep their doctor and their plan? MR. SPICER:  Well, that's the hope.  And what I mean by that is not to be cute, but last time they were promised something that didn't turn out.  I can't promise something that a doctor stays in a plan or a plan stays there.  But that's a bit different.   We understand that we're letting market forces come into play here.  Competition.  Doctors can change what insurances they take.  Plans can come in and out of markets. What I think we can be assured of is a couple of things.  One is that currently under Obamacare, premiums are set to continue to skyrocket.  We've seen an average of 25 percent.  We've noted before in Arizona, they've gone up 116 percent.  I think there’s no question that the additional competition and amendments that have been brought into this discussion will help lower the trajectory of that, number one. Number two is I think that they're going to see greater choice.  So I think those are the things that we're willing to talk about being part of this plan because you can't -- where they erred last time is went out and made promises that they couldn’t keep.  And I think that one of the problems that they did is that they’ve tried to suppress market forces and competition.  And instead of lowering costs and increasing choice, which is what they sought to do, it did the opposite.  So that's where this is headed, and I think that's important. John. Q    Thanks a lot, Sean.  On the AHCA, Mark Meadows, who appears to be a firm no in terms of his opposition to the replacement bill, said that 25 members of the Freedom Caucus are opposed to this replacement bill.  Do you dispute those numbers? MR. SPICER:  I’m not going to share our whip count.  I know we saw Lou Barletta, who was a hard no, come out and say he’s yes.  Steve King I believe had been a no; he’s a yes.  Member by member we're seeing tremendous support flow in our direction, and the count keeps getting stronger for us.  So I’m not going to start to get into yes or nos.  But I would just say that former Congressman Mulvaney, now Director of OMB Mulvaney, who is a leader in that caucus, has been a very strong advocate of this policy.  As you know, he’s been up on the Hill talking to his former colleagues, assuring them of the effort and why the process has to go the way it does. But I’m optimistic in the sense of what we're seeing and the trajectory that this is going, and the number of votes that are flowing our way, not the other way. Q    And on the confirmation hearing for Judge Neil Gorsuch, I have not seen any Democrat come out in support of Judge Gorsuch just yet.  Do you anticipate that you’ll get Democratic support on this particular nomination?  MR. SPICER:  I hope and believe so.  I think that there have been several that have been spoken very positively.  I think he’s been extremely impressive throughout this confirmation process, and you've heard members both in the Senate, on the committee, and then a lot of outside voices comment on how well he’s done, how qualified he is.  And I think it’s tough for anybody to say that he’s not immensely qualified for this position.  Alexis. Q    Sean, related to Congressman Nunes, can you explain why the White House has agreed to meet with him at all about what his findings are?  And the reason I ask that is because the minute that Director Comey said that there was an official investigate, it might appear as if the White House is interfering with the investigation.  And Congressman Nunes should present his information not to the White House but to the FBI.  So why is anyone here at the White House agreeing to meet with him about his findings?  MR. SPICER:  We’ll have a readout for you after that meeting.  I think he did this press conference.  He made the announcement that he was coming up to see the President to share these findings.  I don't know who else he’s shared them with.  I don't know -- to your question, I don't know if he’s briefed anyone else on it in terms of the intelligence community -- either Admiral Rogers or Comey -- of whether this is something they shared with him.   But I think after the meeting, hopefully depending on the classification level, we may be able to share more on that with you. Q    Can I just add, is the President concerned at all that there will be an appearance immediately, today that he has interfered with an ongoing investigation -- whether it’s a congressional investigation or the executive branch investigation by meeting privately with a congressman who says he has information? MR. SPICER:  So let me get this straight.  Number one, we asked -- as you know, two weeks ago, we said this was the appropriate venue.   Number two, you guys have asked us over and over again, why aren’t we meeting with certain individuals.  The chairman of the committee that -- one of the two committees that we asked to look into this -- wants to share his findings, or what he knows.  I think that is exactly how we’ve talked about this working.  But I would leave it to Congressman Nunes to come up, and to brief and share his thoughts.  I don’t know what his plan is.  Obviously, he sat -- he briefed the media before he briefed us.  He went down and talked about what he had found.   So, you know, it’s interesting, I didn’t see any complaints from you guys when he went down and held a press conference for the umpteenth time talking about his findings and what he's found.  There is no complaints from the media when he shares what he has found with you guys.  But when he wants to come up here and tell us, this is where the investigation stands and here’s what I've unloaded -- or excuse me, learned -- there’s seems to be a little bit of an interesting double standard on that. Q    Just to close the loop, because the President said that he had additional information that he believed the White House or he or his representatives would present, related to this investigation, what Congressman Nunes has is not related to that? MR. SPICER:  I don’t -- you’re asking me questions that -- he has not briefed us.  He has not briefed the President.  You guys, as I noted -- he actually went down and spoke to the media before he shared this with us.   So I would ask the colleagues that of yours that ask questions, more than you have -- you've had -- collectively, the media has more of an opportunity to ask questions and to hear what he has to say than we do at this point.  So once we have more to understand what he said, to the extent that we can, I’m sure we’ll be glad to share it with you.  But the media has more information than we do at this point. Jon. Q    Sean, staying on that, didn’t we already know that there was incidental collection of intelligence involving some members of the transition team?  And I point to -- MR. SPICER:  Not the way you guys ask the questions.  I mean, you questioned us every day about what we knew, and now you’re coming back to me saying, didn’t we already know this.  Well -- I’m doing somewhat of an effective job. Q    No, but didn’t we already know that Flynn was monitored in his conversations with Kislyak? MR. SPICER:  Right.   Q    So we know -- MR. SPICER:  Again, I guess my point, John, is I don’t know.  He made a statement, went down to the press.  Until we get briefed on this, until the President gets briefed, I don’t know what he knows.  And so to ask -- until that occurs, and until we have the ability to share some of that in an unclassified nature, I don’t want to get ahead of it.  I don’t know what he knows.  That’s why, apparently, he’s coming up to share his findings with the President.  At least that’s what he said.  Again, let’s wait and see how this unfolds. Q    And on the American Health Care Act, Mark Meadows says they don’t have the votes, they need to start over and do a new bill.  That sounds like you’re in pretty serious trouble. MR. SPICER:  No, that sounds like one member’s opinion.  As I mentioned -- Q    Who represents a large contingent of people who oppose the bill. MR. SPICER:  No, no, no, but again, I just named a few of the members that are part of that caucus that have come on board.  I think that -- look, every day, you see more and more of those members from that caucus and throughout the entire conference express their support for the bill.  The President was up yesterday for a while talking to them.   We’ve had members -- and the Vice President has been actively engaged -- Mick Mulvaney, Reince Priebus, Marc Short and Rick Dearborn, who lead our leg affairs team.  These guys have been flooding the Hill.  They’ve been on the phone, having meetings with them.  There’s been a series of members up here all day.  I think the trajectory is going very well for us. Q    And Heritage Action says you can easily fix this bill simply by removing the regulatory framework -- the tax credits and all of that -- and you’ll get massive buy-in from conservatives.  But can you do that? MR. SPICER:  There are certain constraints that we have in the reconciliation process.  And for those who are steeped in the arcane rules of the Senate, there's a thing called the Byrd Rule, and it does not allow policy to be recreated.  It has to do with the budgetary nature of that vehicle to get -- that’s sustainable at 50 votes.  Right now, there are certain things that I think a lot of people would like but that will not potentially get ruled in order by the Senate parliamentarian.   So I understand what people want, but I think that we have created a vehicle to get this done.  This is the only way that we will repeal and replace Obamacare.  And again, I think people have to recognize that there is a three-step process to doing this.  This is exactly how the Democrats enacted it, and this is exactly how we will unwind it and implement a much better system.  That’s it, plain and simple.   Margaret.  Q    Sean, I know you can’t get ahead of Nunes, but what he said was, incidental, legal surveillance using a FISA warrant, which would -- MR. SPICER:  I don’t believe he said FISA warrant. Q    He did. MR. SPICER:  Did he?  Okay. Q    He did.  And that’s why I’m asking this question, which is, does the Trump administration have the presumption that foreign leaders or foreign nationals will not be surveilled when they are in contact with -- MR. SPICER:  No, look, again, as I said, I don’t want to start talking or guessing what he may say or may not say, or explain this.  I think that we will have more information, or I hope to have more information once the President is briefed, and to find out what else has gone on in terms of additional information on this.  But I do think it is a startling revelation and there's a lot of questions that need to get asked.  I think it's interesting all of the questions are in the presumptive negative towards us, as opposed to "why was this taking place, why were people surveilled ostensibly; they were involved in the campaign."  Because it's not -- Q    Well, that's why I'm trying to clarify that -- MR. SPICER:  No, no, the question is -- the question -- Q    -- was your presumption that foreign nationals -- MR. SPICER:  No, no, it's not a presumption.  Actually, I'm not the one -- Q    (Inaudible.) MR. SPICER:  Right.  Respectfully, I'm not the one with the presumption -- you guys are.  I didn’t come up here presuming anything.  I actually started my comments off by saying that -- Q    Well, I would presume that foreign nationals are being monitored by U.S. intelligence when they are talking to anyone.   MR. SPICER:  And then the question -- I think there's a series of questions, which is, how many times was an individual picked up?  Why were they picked up?  Were they unmasked?  Again, a lot of this, if they're picked up during a FISA warrant, is that American citizens are prohibited by law from being unmasked, from "having their name put out there."  Why would someone's name get put out there?  What ways were they described?  There's a lot of questions that need to get asked.  Those are the relevant issues that need to get asked.  How many times was one individual followed?  Did their name get unmasked, and why?  But there's a lot of things that need to get followed up on.  We're not at that position yet, as I've said now multiple times.  The Chairman is going to come up here, brief the President, I don’t know to what extent and to what detail.  But hopefully, as we move forward, we will have more.   Q    Is this what you've been -- because you've said there's more information to come, more information to come.  Is this what you've been gesturing towards? MR. SPICER:  I don’t know.  For the eighth time, there is no -- we don’t know what he's going to come up here and explain and share.  And until that happens, for me to talk about where we think this is headed -- again, we're not in the business of trying to get to this point yet.  We say, this is what they have.  We've asked that the investigation be conducted and that people gather up information.  What they have and to what extent, we'll know soon.  April.  Q    Sean, I have a series of questions on a topic.  Gwen Carr, the mother of Eric Garner, met with an official here at the White House yesterday.  She's looking for fairness and justice in her son's case.  What should we expect to come out of that meeting with this White House official?  Should there be a push to make sure that there is an indictment of the police officer's -- MR. SPICER:  I mean, that's a Department of Justice question.  For us to get involved in a case, a specific case, would be highly inappropriate in terms of trying to guess what the outcome of a case should be. Q    Well, along that line, the official, according to Ms. Carr, reached out to the Department of Justice, the civil rights division, had the wrong number; called another department, had the right number.  Now, in previous administrations, to include the Obama administration and other administrations, the Department of Justice had limited the numbers of people to call over to the Department of Justice.  Has the Attorney General, this Attorney General Sessions, changed that memo?  What has he done? MR. SPICER:  Well, it would have to be reissued.  That's a separate issue in terms of -- every Attorney General issues a memo going back to, I think, Mukasey was the first one -- post-Watergate -- I'm trying to remember who issued the first one.  But it has been a practice of I think almost every Attorney General to issue a memo spelling out the procedures that officials in the Justice Department contact the White House and who they can contact, and the nature of which and what their exceptions are, et cetera.  Those memos get crafted by each administration, by each new Attorney General.  I would refer you back to the Department of Justice on the status of that under this Attorney General. Q    So how many officials here have that right, to call the Department of Justice, even if it's for -- MR. SPICER:  I don’t know the answer.  I would refer you to the Department of Justice. Q    But was there wrongdoing in this effort to call over to the Department of Justice? MR. SPICER:  I don’t know.  I don’t know the nature of -- I'll have to look into what you're asking.  But I would, again, refer you back to the Department of Justice. Hunter. Q    Yes.  Thank you, Sean.  I have two quick questions.  Last November, President Trump dismissed reports he was trying to obtain security clearances for his children as "a typically false news story."  Now there are reports Ivanka Trump is indeed attempting to obtain a clearance.  What changed there? MR. SPICER:  Well, at the time, it was not true.  I mean, she wasn’t obtaining a security clearance, so it was not accurate then.  There was no -- I think we addressed it during the transition.  An official had actually just inquired.  There was no actual attempt at the time.  The official in question was removed from the transition team.  They had merely made an inquiry into what it would take to get an SF-86 process moving forward.  No paperwork was ever drawn, no account was opened, and that official was let go. At this time, as I mentioned yesterday, Ivanka has decided to go above and beyond, and act in certain ways to ensure that she complies with certain rules by maintaining the Federal Records Act, getting a security clearance so that if she is privy to any information that is classified, she has to abide by the same rules and regulations in terms of being in a room and how it's handled, et cetera.  We have taken appropriate measures to do that.  I mentioned the statement yesterday and will stick by it. Q    And then the second question on Paul Manafort.  The Associated Press has published a report based on documents that he had a plan to "benefit" Vladimir Putin for a client.  And with him back in the headlines, I'm just wondering if you still stand by the comment that he had a "limited role" on the campaign.  And if you could explain a little bit more about how spending months as the campaign's top official is a limited role. MR. SPICER:  Yeah, thank you.  I've tried to avoid commenting.  I know I've talked to a lot of you about the individual stories, but I think obviously this one has started to catch a lot of buzz.  So to comment briefly on this, I think nothing in this morning's report referenced any actions by the President, the White House, or any Trump administration official.  I think that's got to be clear from the get-go.   The report is entirely focused on actions that Paul took a decade ago regarding -- he's a former advisor of the campaign, and the actions that came to light this morning are about a client that he had last decade.   I know I commented on this the other day, and clearly I should have been more precise with respect to Paul's role.  So let me clarify this and kind of go through the facts.  Paul was hired to oversee the campaign's delegate operation.  He had played a significant role in the convention and delegate operations of four previous Republican nominees -- Bob Dole, former Presidents George H. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford.  And to be clear, he got the job done on the delegates.  The President won the Republican nomination after months of speculation after a potentially contested contest -- convention. In total, he was involved with the campaign for a total of just under five months.  He was first hired on March 28th to oversee delegate operations.  He was made the chief strategist and campaign chairman on May 19th.  And his relationship with the campaign ended on August 19th.   The AP story focuses on his activities from the last decade.  And to place in to context, Paul represented many foreign clients, according to publicly available data, in the Caribbean, Asia, Africa and Europe.  His representation of foreign clients is public and similar to the work of Tony Podesta, a Clinton campaign fundraiser, whose brother John chaired Hillary Clinton's campaign. Last year -- not last decade -- Tony Podesta lobbied against sanctions for Russia's largest bank.  And John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chair, sat on the board of a Russian-based energy company.  This was something tied to Hillary Clinton, who was the face of the failed Russia reset policy.  So it's not even close -- what we're talking about now isn't even close to her most significant role with respect to Russia. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, along with the Obama administration, approved a deal that gave Russia one-fifth of America's uranium reserves.  Hillary's husband, former President Bill Clinton, received over half a million dollars by a paid speech by a bank connected to the uranium deal.  And Vladimir Putin personally called the former President and thanked him for giving the speech. So an individual who worked for less than -- the campaign for five months for the President's two-year long campaign, who worked with a Russian entity a decade ago, is the subject of rampant media speculation all day long, even though the Clintons had much more expensive -- extensive ties, while Secretary of State Hillary was crafting a policy she said was designed "strengthen Russia." And to be clear, the President has no personal financial dealings with Russia.  His ties are limited to hosting a contest in Russia once, and selling a Palm Beach home to a businessman in 2005.  That's it.   And for members of the media trying to conflate Paul's role in activities with Monday's hearing, I have another reminder:  Numerous individuals, including former Obama Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, and acting CIA Director Mike Morrell and members of the intelligence community from both parties who have been briefed have said across the board that they have seen zero evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.  And that's not going to be changed by former business dealings of a campaign staffer from a decade ago. Sara. Q    Thanks, Sean.  You and other senior administration officials have sought to assure skeptical Republican lawmakers that phase two of these regulatory modifications will address some of their concerns.  So what is Secretary Tom Price waiting for?  Why not roll out phase two now if the vote is looking like it's going to be a very close marker? MR. SPICER:  I think in some of those cases -- and it's tied to -- it's all one package, and that's why I think you saw some of the stuff he is working on, some of the stuff he is doing.  But I think the important piece is to get the phase-one part of it done.  He has assured them and talked to them about different administrative actions.   Again, part of this is sequencing.  I mean, the same way that in Obamacare they didn’t just have Kathleen Sebelius then go out and start implementing things.  They passed the bill first through the reconciliation process, got that done, and then she did the administrative piece.  We're doing the same process because of how some of the sequencing has to occur.  And then the same thing on the legislative front, we've introduced in the House -- all those pieces of legislation have been done.  Leader McCarthy has started to talk about the, that do all of the prong -- three steps.   So a lot of it is coming together, but part of it is, is a sequencing aspect that needs to get taken care of.  But we are moving in the right direction. Can I go to John (inaudible) for the first question on Skype? Q    Yes.  Good afternoon, Sean, from (inaudible) in Newport.  Sean, you have a lot of members of the media saying that President Trump -- the President to all the people.  What does the President say -- (inaudible)?  Yesterday, you had (inaudible) White House grandstanding at the confirmation hearing.  We've had Elizabeth Warren (inaudible), the Boston Globe condemning the (inaudible).  You had Rhode Island Governor, Gina Raimondo, boycott.  You had (inaudible) while she fundraised around the country.  What's the President saying to frustrated Trump supporters who don’t feel they're getting proper representation (inaudible) and in Congress? MR. SPICER:  Well, I mean, I think with respect to Judge Gorsuch, which is I think -- pretty clear that's where you're headed on this -- Q    Yes. MR. SPICER:  Thank you.  I just -- I mean, when you look at the praise, I mean, obviously I would love for it to be universal.  And while we've gotten bipartisan praise from pundits and former law clerks in both parties, high number of jurists and former people -- legal scholars, members of Congress, we're not going to win everybody.  And I think that Democrats have tried to score some points on the committee.  They've largely fallen by the wayside.  And we've seen very high praise for him. So I would just suggest that anybody who's got a problem with him, I'd love to hear it, because so far most of the issues -- no one seems to have a problem with his academic credentials, his record or anything else.  So I'm pretty buoyed by a lot of what we've seen come out of Capitol Hill with respect to him. Blake. Q    Sean, thanks.  Do you take the House Freedom Caucus at their word, Mark Meadows at their word?  There are at least two dozen or so who are "nos."  So how do you get from this point right now policy-wise to tomorrow -- something, anything that maybe might flip that? MR. SPICER:  I think we're doing it.  I mean, piece by piece, member by member, we're getting there, and we're getting much closer.  The last couple days we've continued to do that.  But then today alone, I mentioned a couple of the other members.  Slowly but surely we're getting there, and I feel confident that when the vote comes up, we'll have the votes. Q    And let me ask you today, Patrick McHenry, congressman, deputy whip, described the President, as members of Congress were coming in here to the White House, as the "closer."  Do you embrace that label? MR. SPICER:  He is the closer. Q    Do you embrace that label here as it relates to healthcare? MR. SPICER:  Absolutely.  Ayesha. Q    You just said that you're confident that the healthcare bill will pass tomorrow.  I want to get a sense of how confident you are.  I don’t know if you want to rate your percentage on it.  Like, how confident are you that the bill will pass?  And if it doesn’t pass, is there a plan B? MR. SPICER:  No, there is no plan B.  There's plan A and plan A.  We're going to get this done. Q    And so you're confident -- 100 percent confident? MR. SPICER:  We're going to get it done.  That's it -- plain and simple. Q    Thanks, Sean.  I know you said you didn’t know what information you were going to find out today from Chairman Nunes, but my question for you is, when did the President know about this surveillance that the Congressman brought up today on Capitol Hill?  He spoke late last week about -- we'll find out more information that would support these wiretapping claims.  Is this the information he was talking about? MR. SPICER:  Until Chairman Nunes briefs him, we don’t know what he knows versus what the President has been made aware of.  And so how that jives, I don’t know.  I hope to have more for you later. Q    And a quick follow-up on healthcare and just a quick follow-up on Asia.  Does the President believe the healthcare bill will pass the House tomorrow? MR. SPICER:  Yes. Jonathan. Q    Two questions on Paul Manafort.  Did the President know that he had worked to advance Putin’s interests previous to becoming the campaign chairman? MR. SPICER:  No, the President was not aware of Paul’s clients from last decade.  No. Q    But is that a problem?  You know, now that all this is coming out and there is a whole lot scrutiny -- MR. SPICER:  No, no, but what is coming up?  What else don’t we know?  I mean, where he went to school, what grades he got, who played he played with in the sandbox? Q    Well, you didn’t know that Michael Flynn was -- MR. SPICER:  Okay, I -- thanks, Peter.  I’m answering a question --  Q    We're all part of the conversation.   MR. SPICER:  No, you’re not, actually. The answer to your question is, I think to talk about someone having a client from 10 years ago that had a consulting company with clients from around the world -- Q    He paid millions of dollars to advance Putin’s interests.  I mean, that’s enough --  MR. SPICER:  Well, I don’t know what he got paid to.  If you listen to what Paul -- Q    The documents said -- MR. SPICER:  Hold on.  I understand.  I’m going to answer your question, if you give me a second.  That he was a consultant, he had clients from around the world.  There is no suggestion that he did anything improper.  But to suggest that that President knew who his clients were from a decade ago is a bit insane.  There is not -- he was not a government employee.  He didn’t fill out any paperwork attesting to something.  There is nothing that he did that suggests, at this point, that anything was nefarious.  He was hired to do a job; he did it.  That’s it -- plain and simple. Q    I’m just saying, given that it was such a focus -- you brought it up just then with Hillary Clinton, that these were corrupt arrangements and that the Clinton Foundation was described as a criminal enterprise, and there was all this discussion of Russia.  And you've pointed out -- MR. SPICER:  There is a big difference between -- there was dollars -- hold on -- Q    I understand.  I'm not conflating the President.  I’m just asking, is he disappointed, now that he has found this out, that there was this -- MR. SPICER:  Found out what, Jonathan?  That he had a client over a -- Q    That he was working for Putin, for a lot of money. MR. SPICER:   -- in the past decade, he had a client, and you’re worried about what?  That he held -- I mean -- Q    That he was doing work to advance Putin’s interests. MR. SPICER:  I don’t know what work he was doing.  So to suggest that just because he had a client in the past decade that no one is suggesting was anything improper -- he was hired to count delegates, which is what he did, and he was successful at it, as he had done for George Herbert Walker Bush, Gerald Ford, and Bob Dole.  He was hired to do a job, and he did it, and he did it fine.  So -- Steven. Q    Sean, why did the President fire Paul Manafort? MR. SPICER:  Well, for two reasons.  One is, I think, that there were some issues coming up with his ties to Ukraine that were becoming a distraction.  And secondly, he was, I think, sixteen points down at the time.  And he was down in the 20s in women.  And I think the President recognized that he needed to make a change for those two reasons. Q    Second question on healthcare.  As confident and as optimistic as you are -- if at this point tomorrow you don’t have the magic number -- should the Speaker pull the bill from the floor? MR. SPICER:  No, this is it.  If you want to see Obamacare repealed and replaced, this is the vote, this is the time to act.  This is what people have told the American people is going to happen.  This vote needs to happen.  If you’re waiting for your chance, this is it.  We need to act. Cheryl. Q    Thank you.  Wall Street appears to be getting a little nervous about the possibility of tax reform this year.  Can you say definitively that the President will present a package of tax reforms this year? MR. SPICER:  Yes. Darlene. Q    What time is the President expected to meet with Chairman Nunes this afternoon?  MR. SPICER:  I don’t -- I was walking out as the Chairman was reiterating -- I literally heard him on the streaming -- like, on the -- you know, his comments -- as he was saying them.  So I don’t know that it was scheduled.  The President was wrapping up a call with Prime Minister May at the time that I walked out, so I don’t know what was scheduled. Q    And was there any consideration given to not meeting with the Chairman given the appearance -- MR. SPICER:  I don’t know.  I just know what the Chairman said he was doing.  I walked out of here before anything had been finalized.  He was still wrapping up the call with Theresa May at the time. Zeke. Q    Thanks, Sean.  You said the President is the closer, there is no plan B, tomorrow is it.  So if you -- MR. SPICER:  You’ve done a very good job, Zeke.  (Laughter.)  You guys better be careful, he’s going to put you out of work. Q    So if tomorrow night’s outcome doesn’t go your way, if the vote fails, what should we then read into the President’s ability to negotiate and close deals; the White House’s ability to plant any sort of legislation and a legislative -- MR. SPICER:  Look -- and I know what you’re trying to get me to -- but we feel very good about the trajectory of this.  Members continue to come with us.  The number is going higher and higher, not lower and lower.  So the trajectory is great.  As I mentioned, everybody is out there -- full court press on this, and this is opportunity for anybody who wants to see this done.   But I just want to be clear, we have a robust agenda -- tax reform, as I just mentioned, trade, immigration.  There’s a lot of other things that need to get done.  And I think there’s continued to be widespread support.  In a lot of cases, bipartisan support for the President’s agenda.  And so we’re going to continue to roll on in that.  But we feel very good about where we are now. Mark. Q    Sean, I was going to ask, in terms of after the vote tomorrow night, for those Republicans who decide to not support the White House, what kind of relationship -- any change in the relationship -- would they see going forward?  Would they expect to see maybe a primary challenge later on?  Or this is one of those things where they can vote their conscience if they really believe this isn’t the bill? MR. SPICER:  I think we’re obviously -- we believe that this is a great opportunity to achieve the principles that we laid out to the American people.  We’re not looking -- this is not -- the President made clear yesterday when he visited with the conference, he’s not there to threaten them; he’s there to explain political landscape to them, and to explain that -- I think that when you keep your promise, no matter what business you’re in, you tend to be rewarded -- whether it’s your customers or your friends, your family, your voters -- that Washington for too long has suffered a deficit of trust, and that we made very clear to the American people, if you gave us this opportunity and this honor to govern, that we would get certain things done.  And this was at the top of that list.   And this bill represents the best chance of repealing and replacing Obamacare and instilling a patient-centric healthcare system that increases choice and lowers cost, and that this is the only train leaving the station. Jonathan.  Q    Thank you, Sean.  Sean, would then-candidate Donald Trump have hired Paul Manafort, such an important and prominent position in his campaign, if he had known that he had had a $10 million contract with somebody so close to Vladimir Putin to “greatly benefit the Putin government”?  If he had known that, would he have hired him? MR. SPICER:  I don’t know.  I don’t want to -- Paul was hired, as I said, to count delegates.  That’s why he was brought in, as he had been for George W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Bob Dole.  He did his job.  That’s what he was there for.  And -- Q    And to run the campaign.  I mean, he was chairman of the campaign. MR. SPICER:  No, no.  After, what, May 19th or something.  But again, I’m not going to -- Q    And to run the convention.  I mean, you’ll notch it was a very prominent role. MR. SPICER:  Yeah -- as he had done for the other three.  He had held very significant -- look, so again, you’re basically saying, hey, the work that he did, he had a client a decade ago, would he have -- I don’t know the answer to that -- Q    $10 million to promote the interests of Vladimir Putin. MR. SPICER:  The answer to your question -- I don’t know.  To look back right now and to say, if we knew now what we know then, would we have done things different?  I don’t know.  That’s a question that the President would have to weigh at the time. Q    But he definitely didn’t know.   MR. SPICER:  No. Q    You’re saying he didn’t know. MR. SPICER:  No, he did not know.   Q    He had not idea that Manafort had done this. MR. SPICER:  Of course, not.  To suggest that he -- I mean, that’s like -- you can think about how many people are involved in a campaign of some sort.  And granted, in this campaign it was run lean and mean.  But to suggest that everybody knew everybody’s background -- did they pay their taxes, how much did they pay, what deductions did they take, who did they work for in the -- Q    Shouldn’t he have disclosed that?  I mean, he did work for -- MR. SPICER:  Disclosed what?  That he had done -- Q    He had worked on behalf of an adversary of the United States.  He got a $10 million contract.   MR. SPICER:  Again, I’m not here to vouch for what he did or how -- I don’t know. Q    -- but the President would want to know, wouldn’t he? MR. SPICER:  Maybe.  Maybe, maybe not.  I don’t know what the circumstances were at the time, and I don’t know what exactly -- so for me to start to infer that what he did or did not do was anything improper is not appropriate at this time.  I don’t know what work he did.  I know what he was hired to do, and he did his job. Shane. Q    I want to ask about Paul Manafort here, too.  Are you saying he wasn’t disappointed to learn, in the last 24 hours, that his chief strategist worked for Vladimir Putin’s -- MR. SPICER:  I don’t -- no, no -- because again, you’re -- Q    What was his reaction -- MR. SPICER:  I don’t know, because the story that came out this morning said that he had had client.  Paul has put out a statement that suggests this is what he did, this is how he handled it, there were -- I mean, you’ve all read the same.  We have not spent a ton of time going to investigate what he did for that client a decade ago. Q    Is the President disappointed to learn that this was -- MR. SPICER:  I really have not discussed the President’s -- I know what he has made very clear:  He hired him to do a job, he did the job well, he got him over the finish line.  On August 19th, he was let go of the campaign for the reasons that I have mentioned. Q    Can you say if Paul Manafort played any role in the hiring of any people in the federal government after the election?  Did he advise the President? MR. SPICER:  Not to my knowledge, at all. John. Q    Thank you, Sean.  Going back to the American Health Care Act, there was always nervousness that moving too quickly on it would leave some very dangerous points in the details.  Several publications, including Sara’s, reported today that as a result of a change of a few words, veterans who benefitted from a program called Veterans Affairs, or had the option of getting tax credits, would not get neither under the new legislation, and that 7 million veterans would be cost healthcare.  Is the administration following this, and is urging Congress to do anything about it? MR. SPICER:  Most veterans get their healthcare either through TRICARE or through Medicare, if they’re over 65 or a combination thereof, correct? Q    Well -- but there’s two programs.  One is the Veterans Affairs program, and the other is the option -- this is under the current law -- to have tax credits.  And my understanding, again, from Sara’s publication this morning and several others, is that 7 million veterans could possibly lose both under this program. MR. SPICER:  I would have to follow-up with you.  I’m not aware of any modifications to TRICARE in particular that would have that effect. Kristen. Q    Sean, thanks.  On Monday, the President accused former President Obama and Democrats of rushing through the healthcare law -- jamming it through -- when, in fact, they actually debated it for about a year.  This healthcare law was rolled out about 15 days ago.  So don’t you run the risk of rushing this through, of not giving it enough time for public debate? MR. SPICER:  I think Republicans have talked about repealing and replacing Obamacare since 2010.  We’ve campaigned on it in every election since.  The principles that are in a lot of these have been very public for a long time.  And -- Q    Understood.  But you just rolled out the specifics, Sean.  You just rolled out the actual -- MR. SPICER:  And it’s gone through three committees, two of which had unanimous Republican support. Q    Just a few days ago.   MR. SPICER:  I understand that.  But we’re working it through the process.  This was something the President campaigned on, told the American people would be his top priority.  Republicans who ran for the House and Senate said that it would be a top priority.  It’s something that they talked about for seven years, Kristen.  So to suggest that we’re rushing anything -- I think we’ve done this very, very, very deliberately, and very responsibly to make sure that people could read it.   So again, with all due respect to the folks who tackled this in the past, we actually put the bill online, let everyone in the entire world read it, didn’t jam it through and, to quote former Speaker Pelosi, say, if you want to read the bill, wait until we pass it.  We actually let the American people and the entire world read what was in it, watch the process occur, and I think that is a much more open and transparent process. Q    Let me just ask you a quick question about the terror attack.  You said that the President has been briefed.  He also spoke with Prime Minister Theresa May.  Can you give us any more information about who may have been behind it?  And should Americans have any concern, or are there any security changes that they should expect -- MR. SPICER:  No, that would be highly irresponsible at this point.  I know the British government is investigating this as an act of terrorism at this moment.  So for me to sort of get out and ahead of -- I know our homeland security team and our national security team are in contact with them.  Secretary Tillerson has issued a statement, as has Homeland Security Secretary Kelly. So we are continuing to monitor the situation.  We’re in touch with officials in the British government.  As I mentioned, as I was walking out here, the President was finishing up a call with Prime Minister May, and so we’ll try to have an additional readout to you, to the extent that that’s possible.  But we’re going to provide the assistance we can to the British government to help get to the bottom of this.  At this time, it would be highly irresponsible for us to get out in front of British officials.   Charlie. Q    You mentioned that there is no plan B, that plan A is the only vehicle -- the only train leaving the station, I believe you said.  Does that mean if the plan fails -- if the bill fails, will the President move on to other issues he’s concerned about, like trade, and leave Obamacare in place?  And if so, how long is he comfortable with leaving it in place? MR. SPICER:  Well, as I mentioned -- I mean, we’re not going to leave it in place because we’re going to repeal and replace it tomorrow, move it through the Senate, and the President will sign the bill.  We continue to see the enthusiasm and momentum coming to our direction.  So I’m not looking -- as I mentioned, we’re not looking at a plan B.  We have plan A, it’s going to pass, and we’re going to go from there. Jessica. Q    I’m going to talk about China for moment.  Do you now have the ability to formally announce the dates for when President Xi visits the United States? MR. SPICER:  I do not know at this time. Q    Why not? MR. SPICER:  Because that’s not how it works.  Because that’s something that we continue to work with President Xi and the Chinese government to coordinate the final dates and times.  And then obviously we coordinate the announcement with them as well.  But trust me, when we’re ready, we’ll let you and everyone else know. Q    And are you going to be prepared to talk about the parameters of the bilateral relationship at that time? MR. SPICER:  I’m sure that -- my guess is there will be a lot to discuss at that time. Jeff. Q    Sean, has the President asked the FBI director or the NSA or any other agencies involved to come here to the White House and brief him on this new information, or is it just the intel chair?  And if so, why not? MR. SPICER:  Well, Jeff, it just happened.  So it’s a silly question to ask me, literally as I’m walking out here, when the Chairman was wrapping up an event saying that he is announcing that he is coming down here.  It’s not like we picked up the phone and then called everyone else.  The first step is to actually hear what he has to say and to find out who else he’s briefed, where he’s got that information from, and then we’ll take the next steps going forward.   Q    Is this the first of several meetings, though?  Do you believe he would like to have the FBI director come in?  MR. SPICER:  I don’t know.  It’s literally -- it literally just happened as I was walking out here.  So to suggest that other steps have occurred, until that briefing occurs we’ll see what this leads to.  I don’t know. Q    What’s the state of his credibility tonight?  The Wall Street Journal, which has been very supportive of his candidacy and agenda, simply raised a question that he is not doing very well, and they said he could be on the verge of being a “fake President.”  What do you believe the state of his credibility is as we sit here today in week nine? MR. SPICER:  I think the President has made several promises to the American people, and he’s kept them.  He appointed Neil Gorsuch as the judge, which was one of 20 people on a list.  He withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  He established a five-year lobbying ban and a foreign ban on -- lifetime, which is all what he said he was going to do.   He said he was going to cut regulations, and he did that.  He said he was going to start to bring back jobs -- he did that.  He said that he was going to start to pay real attention and respect taxpayers, bringing down costs.  He’s already done that.  He’s backed a plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.  We’ve talked about that ad nauseam.  He’s talked about putting forth a budget that puts defense first -- he did that.  He took action on Dakota and Keystone Pipeline -- he did that. I think when it comes to the President making promises to the American people and keeping them, he’s got a pretty high record of doing it. Peter. Q    Sean, if I could ask you about the conversation we’ve been having about Paul Manafort, but not specific to Paul Manafort.  When Michael Flynn’s name came up at the time, having not registered as a foreign agent, there was a lot of focus on the vetting process that goes into individuals.  Back then you said, “We trust people to fill out the appropriate forms that they need to.  He has been very” -- referring to the President -- “he has been very committed to making sure we institute high standards here and we’re held to them.” So given your words, is it sufficient to trust the information that the people you hire give you?  And can you say with certainty with right now that there isn’t anybody else that’s working in the interests of another foreign government working for this government right now? MR. SPICER:  It’s a good question, Peter, because there’s a big difference between working for a campaign or an entity where there’s no forms to fill out -- when you work for the United States government, especially here in the White House, you fill out a security clearance form, you fill out an employment form that asks certain questions under the penalty of law. Those questions --  Q    And Michael Flynn still got through, I guess.   MR. SPICER:  Hold on.  No, well -- but again, he filled out forms under the penalty of law.  I don’t know what was on his forms or what not was on his forms.  Remember, what the President let him go for was not being truthful to the Vice President, not necessarily for what was on a form, which I do not know what he filled out or did not fill out. If somebody fills out a form here, an SF-86, a security clearance form, or another employment document, and lies on that form or misleads, then they’re going to face the penalty of law on that.  That’s a big difference between saying when someone was hired on a campaign or another entity, that they should disclose everything in their past whether or not they -- who their clients were.  But again, I mean, if someone presented a résumé and it was faulty, sure, I think that if that was -- as you recall, there was another person during the transition that was named to a position that was discussed as not being truthful with some of their works.  We let them go. People write things.  They have jobs.  They describe themselves a certain way.  And every time that I’m aware of that we’ve had an incident where someone has not been forthright and truthful, we’ve let them go.  But when you work for the United States government, you actually fill out security clearance forms, employment forms under the penalty of law.  None of those cases occurred in the past.  And to dredge up someone’s work from a decade ago -- it’s not that Paul wasn’t truthful, just to be clear -- you’re trying to conflate something that’s there.  You’re trying to make the accusation that somehow he was dishonest or distruthful. Q    I’m not asking about Paul Manafort -- MR. SPICER:  No, you are. Q    I’m not asking about Paul Manafort at all. MR. SPICER:  Who are you asking about? Q    In fact, what I’m asking is, can you say with certainty that right now -- that there’s nobody working for this White House that is presently working in the interest of a foreign government? MR. SPICER:  I can tell you that every form has been filled out --  Q    So you trust that the information is -- MR. SPICER:  Absolutely.  You’ve got to -- people who are filling out forms -- so to sit here and ask me whether I can vouch for -- whatever it is -- a few hundred people that have filled out everything, that would be ridiculous for me to stand here and suggest that I possibly could. What I can tell you is, under the penalty of law, every single person has filled out a form that is being vetted by whatever level of classification that they need to get by the appropriate law enforcement agencies or HR entities.  But I can’t prevent somebody from fully disclosing everything on their taxes or filling out a form.  What I can tell you is that -- and if there is an instance brought to our attention where someone has misled it, either they will be referred to the appropriate law enforcement agency or dismissed, or appropriate action will be taken. But yes, there is no tolerance for that. Q    And then very quickly, in regards to Devin Nunes and the fact that he’s going to come today and the comments that you began the briefing by telling us -- on March 4th, the President tweeted:  “How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process.  This is Nixon/Watergate.  Bad (or sick) guy!”  Does the President stand by his statement that President Obama is a “bad (or sick) guy”? MR. SPICER:  I think the President’s tweets stand for themselves. Q    So he thinks he’s a “bad (or sick) guy.” MR. SPICER:  I’m going to answer the question -- Q    Okay, but you said it stood for itself, so I was asking.   MR. SPICER:  I know.  I think the President’s tweets speak for themselves.  As for the rest of the tweets, let’s see, as we’ve mentioned before, how this process evolves and what information we can further gather up. Q    Thanks, Sean.  On the executive order on energy independence, that’s been delayed for several weeks now.  Can you -- MR. SPICER:  Hold on, why would it be delayed?  We never announced them. Q    Your office said that it was going to be released several weeks ago.  It wasn’t.  And then there were reports consequently that said it would be released, and it hasn’t been.  So can you give us -- MR. SPICER:  I don’t -- with all due respect, I don’t believe I ever announced that that was scheduled to come out. Q    Okay.  Can you tell us when it will be released? MR. SPICER:  No. Q    And also, in it, it addresses the Clean Power Plan, which is the Obama-era climate change regulation.  And there is apparently no replacement opportunity in that executive order. MR. SPICER:  Can I just -- I’m going to cut you off here.  We’ve discussed executive orders in the past.  I’ve told before -- until they’re ready to be announced, I don’t comment on the scheduling or the -- Q    This is a policy question -- MR. SPICER:  I know it is, but you’re asking me the contents of it.  It’s not a policy question. Q    No, no, I just haven’t been able to finish my question. MR. SPICER:  Okay. Q    Thank you.  So apparently there’s no replacement for it.  That is the answer to a Supreme Court ruling in 2007.  Does the administration feel that it is legally bound to regulate greenhouse gases? MR. SPICER:  Let’s wait and see what the executive order says or doesn’t say.  I don’t want to get into -- Q    (Inaudible.) MR. SPICER:  I understand the question.  I’m not getting ahead of this at this point. Q    Sean, will President Trump hold a news conference on the attack?  And also, on his upcoming travel, do you have any guidance on other rallies that he may have?  Because that’s where he sends his message out to the American people, including social media. MR. SPICER:  He sends his message out in a lot of ways.  If there are rallies, then I would refer you to the campaign website to get updates there.  As for future press conferences, stay tuned on when the next one is going to be. Q    Sean, when you learned that the members of the President’s team may have been in contact with someone who the intelligence community and a federal judge has deemed to be a little bit dodgy, does that give you any pause at all? MR. SPICER:  Who are you referring to? Q    The people who are subject to the FISA order. MR. SPICER:  I’m sorry, can you rephrase the question? Q    It’s a reference to Nunes.  Members of the President’s team, whether it’s the transition or the campaign, are said to have been in contact -- being picked up by when they were in contact with someone who was the subject of a FISA order.  Does that give you any pause at all given the things that you haven’t known before about Manafort and Flynn, et cetera? MR. SPICER:  Not until we know further details.  I think to get ahead of what we know -- until we know what the chairman is going to brief him on, for me to suggest what he is going to reveal to him about whom and when and how would be inappropriate, at this point, to comment on. I’m going to go to Elizabeth Crisp out of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Q    Hi, Sean, thanks.  Last year, Louisiana suffered one of the worst flooding disasters in our nation’s history.  Today, thousands of people remain displaced, and communities are struggling to rebuild.  With support from the Obama administration, the state received about $1.6 billion in flood assistance through the CDBG program.  The state is seeking $2 billion more in federal aid, and our governor has asked for President Trump’s support. So my question is twofold.  What is the Trump administration’s position exactly on the federal government’s role in long-term disaster recovery efforts?  And also, can Louisiana count on this administration’s support for additional flood recovery assistance? MR. SPICER:  Thanks, Elizabeth.  I believe the process works such that the governor makes a request to FEMA; FEMA then puts it through the process.  I’m not aware of what the request is or where it stands in the process, and I would refer you back to FEMA on that. Q    This is actually -- this is aid separate from FEMA.  It’s the long-term part to this.   MR. SPICER:  Okay.  So I know that the budget that was just presented allows for substantial funding for humanitarian assistance, including disaster refugee program funding in priority areas.  I think at this point the budget process has just kicked off, and we will now begin the process of working with Congress on -- them draft a budget, and talk about our priorities and where they go forward.   The President will have a full budget out in May, and so that will be an appropriate time to do that.  But I would refer you back to the governor at this point, and figure out where that stands in the process. Cecilia. Q    Can you say today, with certainty, that Paul Manafort never tried to pressure or encourage the campaign to take on a more pro-Russia position on any issues? MR. SPICER:  Not that I’m aware of.  I can’t -- but there’s nothing that suggests that that was the case. Q    And on Nunes, from what you know about what he has said so far, is the White House viewing this, in any way, as vindication of the President’s wiretapping tweets? MR. SPICER:  I would refer you to his comment specifically.  Until we know what he is going to brief the President on, I don’t want to have to get ahead of this.  I think, obviously, the suggestion that he made that people were what they call “unmasked,” meaning that an American citizen who is caught up in a surveillance has, by rule of law, has their name protected; the idea that individuals’ names were unmasked and let known suggests -- raises serious questions:  Why was that name unmasked?  What was the intention of doing that?   There’s a lot of questions that I think his statement raises, and I hope that we can continue to get to the bottom of.  But right now, we just don’t -- we’re not there yet.  I think that there are a series of questions that need to get answered as to what happened, why it happened, and hopefully we will be able to share more with you going forward. Todd. Q    Thanks, Sean.  On the border wall, the President’s budget blueprint calls for a couple of dozen lawyers who are going to be dedicated to acquiring land.  And I think people are wondering just how aggressive the eminent domain effort is going to be, and how that squares with respect for private property rights. MR. SPICER:  As I recall, during the Bush administration similar efforts were undertaken to secure the appropriate property that would be where a fence or a wall, in this case, would be.  So this is nothing new.  This is the government doing what it has to do to protect its border.  I think there’s nobody in America, and I daresay the world, that didn’t believe that the President was committed to building a wall.  And I think that we’re going to take the steps necessary to fulfill that promise, to make sure that we have to. So I know that the steps are starting to be taken both in terms of the funding and the administrative steps, to see the President’s vision fulfilled on this pledge that he made to the American people.  And we’ll go from there. Q    Is there any update on how the wall will be financed? MR. SPICER:  I think both the 2017 supplemental has some initial funding in it.  The 2018 budget does, and has two -- Q    But that's general.  I’m talking about where the money will come from. MR. SPICER:  Right.  And I think that we’re going to continue to do it.  Right now, the initial funding that was put in place will allow it to begin.  The President has been very clear that using existing resources we’d go forward.  There would be continuing discussions about the financing of the wall, both in terms of how we will pay for it and who will be the source of that payment. Q    Has he given up on Mexico paying for it? MR. SPICER:  No, not at all. Thank you guys, very much.  I’ll see you tomorrow.  We’ll try to have updates on the subjects that are currently pending.  Thank you. END  2:40 P.M. EDT

22 марта, 20:19

Nunes claims some Trump transition messages were intercepted

The move gave cover to the White House but was rebuked by top Democrats.

21 марта, 01:19

The Conspiracy Against President Trump

The Conspiracy Against President Trump Paul Craig Roberts March 20, 2017: Listening today to the broadcast of testimony by FBI Director Comey and National Security Agency Director Admiral Michael Rogers before the House Intelligence Committee (an oxymoron) made it clear that the Democrats, Comey, and Rogers intend conflict with Russia. The Republicans, for the most… The post The Conspiracy Against President Trump appeared first on PaulCraigRoberts.org.

20 марта, 22:42

Let's Revisit All Those Times Trump Surrogates Said You Can't Elect Someone Under FBI Investigation

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); And so it came to pass on Monday, during the House intelligence committee’s hearings, that FBI director James Comey confirmed the veracity of the most-speculated-upon rumor in Washington: The agency is ― as numerous anonymous insiders have insisted to the press over the past few months ― investigating Russian-led efforts to “interfere with the 2016 presidential election.” And what’s more, this probe “includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.” Obviously, the mere existence of an investigation hardly proves something nefarious happened, and many Democratic officials have warned it would be unwise to presume a massive scandal is waiting in the wings to swoop in and capture the imagination. As Buzzfeed’s Ali Watkins reported last week, Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee are concerned about “wildly inflated” presumptions concerning what might be uncovered, and have attempted to lower expectations about “evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives” coming to light. Nevertheless, we have a president under FBI investigation. How do you like that? You know, not for nothing, but back in my day (2016) there was a lot of consensus opinion-having that merely being the subject of an FBI probe was a disqualification for serving as the leader of the free world. Yep, if my dusty memories serve as any guide, then that was, at one point, a whole big thing that lots of people believed. And they especially believed it about then-presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. People such as presidential candidates! Here’s old Jeb Bush, giving “Fox & Friends” his considered opinion on the matter: “All I’m saying is that she’s under investigation by the FBI. Just pause and think about that. That’s not, that’s a pretty uncommon thing for a presidential candidate. And each and every week it just seems like there’s more information.” Just pause and think about Marco Rubio, talking to voters about what separated the Republican presidential candidates from their Democratic cohorts: RUBIO: Now look, I’m not here to badmouth the other Republicans, we have a good group of people running. At a minimum I can say this: None of them is a socialist. None of our candidates is under FBI investigation. Lest you think Rubio was treating the matter as a mere laugh line, it really was something he wanted people to think about seriously. RUBIO: Obviously, we all understand the importance of this presidential race. I would just ask everybody this: Can this country afford to have a president under investigation by the FBI? Think of the trauma that would do to this country. Oh, man. Marco Rubio must be pretty traumatized right now. Presidential candidate and improv comedian Mike Huckabee had thoughts of his own, way back when: TV news devotes 4x more time to Trump controversies than Hillary’s. Gee, you’d think the guy was under an FBI investigation!— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 20, 2016 Hopefully the coverage ratio is now more to his liking. Meanwhile, you just know that the people in Donald Trump’s inner circle had some thoughts on the matter! Running for #POTUS with an FBI investigation. Who else could run for #POTUS w/ such a scandal? Nobody. https://t.co/p1Vh9cQezs— Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) October 14, 2015 @AriMelber not if @HillaryClinton becomes nominee - probably tough to get excited aboutt someone under FBI investigation— Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) February 20, 2016 #Hillary made history today:we've not nominated someone under FBI investigation whom a majority of Americans says not trustworthy not honest— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) June 7, 2016 Most honest people I know are not under FBI investigation, let alone two. https://t.co/UcSmSA5aTj— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) October 29, 2016 Dem voters forced to make an impossible choice between 1 candidate facing FBI investigation & another that’s a self-proclaimed socialist— Reince Priebus (@Reince) February 28, 2016 That last tweet jogs a memory loose. When the FBI announced, late in the campaign, that it was “reopening” the investigation into Clinton’s email server, then-RNC Chair Reince Priebus was very precise: “This alone should be disqualifying for anyone seeking the presidency, a job that is supposed to begin each morning with a top secret intelligence briefing.” As Trump’s White House chief of staff, he must be thinking back over all the intelligence briefings that have transpired, and feeling kind of queasy about them. Welly well, what’s Paul Ryan going to do about this? If history is any guide, he is going to immediately send a letter to the director of national intelligence, asking for Trump’s access to classified information to be shut down until we figure out what’s going on. BREAKING: I formally asked the Director of National Intelligence to deny Sec. Clinton access to classified info. pic.twitter.com/Kk8t00cdJn— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) July 7, 2016 He can just copy and paste from the letter he sent to DNI James Clapper: “It would send the wrong signal to all those charged with safeguarding our nation’s secrets if you choose to provide her access to this information despite the FBI’s findings ... I firmly believe this is necessary to reassure the public that our nation’s secrets are secure.” Better safe than sorry! Unless nobody cited above actually meant any of this, that is. ~~~~~ Jason Linkins edits “Eat The Press” for The Huffington Post and co-hosts the HuffPost Politics podcast “So, That Happened.” Subscribe here, and listen to the latest episode below.   Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bring you the best original reporting, long form writing and breaking news from The Huffington Post and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how it’s all made. Click here to sign up! -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

20 марта, 22:14

Following Trump’s Lead, GOP Shifts From Russia Revelations To Attack On Leaks

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― When the top Republican and Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee announced earlier this month that it would investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, the parameters of their probe clearly represented a compromise. The committee would investigate links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns. But it would also dig into the leaks of classified information that informed months of news stories about a separate FBI-led probe of Russian intelligence officials and people affiliated with President Donald Trump. The House panel held the first public hearing related to its probe on Monday, during which lawmakers had the opportunity to question FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency head Adm. Michael Rogers. It was the committee’s first test of its ability to conduct an investigation that will satisfy both its Republican and Democratic members. But on Monday at least, most Republicans on the panel appeared to be more interested in discussing leaks of classified information to reporters than potential ties between the White House and Moscow. Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) asked Rogers if The Washington Post’s bombshell report last month that former national security adviser Michael Flynn had discussed sanctions with the Russian ambassador before Trump’s inauguration could damage national security. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said he had “never seen such a sustained period of leaks” and referenced reports in the Post and The New York Times. Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) questioned whether the Times might have misrepresented sources for an article and mused about a “so-called source” actually being a Russian surrogate. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) even raised the specter of prosecuting journalists for publishing classified information, which would be an enormous escalation in the crackdown on leaks. Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) asked the FBI last month to investigate leaks to reporters, suggesting those leaks came from government officials loyal to former President Barack Obama. The Obama administration charged nine individuals with disclosing classified information to journalists under the Espionage Act, more than all previous administrations combined, but it did not prosecute the journalists themselves. Some lawmakers, like King, have called for such prosecutions. But it has been generally agreed across partisan lines that journalists shouldn’t be charged with crimes for disclosing information in the public interest. Gowdy, however, noted on Monday that there isn’t a legal exception that allows reporters to divulge classified information. Comey responded that he couldn’t recall a reporter being prosecuted in his lifetime. Gowdy also suggested that leaks are a larger concern than a foreign power attempting to disrupt a U.S. election. Though he said it was “incredibly important” to investigate whether Russia tried to influence the democratic process and “incredibly important” to look into Russia’s motive and the U.S. response to it, he said such matters may not “rise to the level of a crime.” But “the felonious dissemination of classified material most definitely is a crime,” the congressman told Comey. Such arguments are especially troubling given that Attorney General Jeff Sessions declined during his confirmation hearing to rule out prosecuting journalists for doing their jobs. The Republican lawmakers’ focus on leaks echoes the Trump administration’s tactic of repeatedly attempting to shift attention from the revelations in news reports ― such as the claim that Flynn misled Vice President Mike Pence and, by extension, the American public ― to the fact that information was leaked to the news media. “The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by ‘intelligence’ like candy,” Trump tweeted on Feb. 15 after The New York Times reported that members of his campaign team had repeated communication with Russian intelligence officials. “Very un-American!” Just ahead of Monday’s hearing, the president similarly tweeted: The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017 White House press secretary Sean Spicer similarly brought up the leaks during his Monday afternoon press briefing, arguing that the issue of disclosures to the news media should be “one of the big headlines” coming out of the congressional hearing.  The GOP’s approach to Monday’s hearing sends a chilling message to journalists. It is also an early indication that the House Intelligence Committee is unlikely to fulfill a growing demand from lawmakers for a serious probe into Russian interference in last year’s election. Comey made two surprising revelations early in the hours-long hearing: that the FBI is investigating links between the Trump team and Moscow and that there is no evidence that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, as Trump alleged in a series of tweets. But few Republicans pressed the FBI director to elaborate on those disclosures ― unless it was in an attempt to discredit the conclusions. Democrats on the committee went into the investigation skeptical that a body headed by Nunes, a member of Trump’s transition team, was capable of conducting a probe that could produce damning findings against the president. They have already threatened to pull support from the investigation if they feel their Republican counterparts are obstructing the process. Ranking member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said in his opening statement on Monday that he didn’t know if the committee was capable of conducting its investigation “in the kind of thorough and nonpartisan manner that the seriousness of the issues merit, or whether the enormous political consequences of our work will make that impossible.” So far, Republican leadership in the House and Senate have managed to relegate congressional probes of the Trump-Russia scandal to their respective Intelligence Committees. If the House committee’s effort were to unravel, however, it would likely prompt calls for creation of a special select committee to handle the investigation. Five hours into Monday’s hearing, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) accused Republicans of focusing “on the false issue of leaks rather than asking serious questions about Russia’s assault on our democracy.”  “This further demonstrates that it is past time to establish a bipartisan, independent commission,” Hoyer said in a statement. “Our national security and the foundations of our system are at stake. The House panel is set to hold another hearing on Russian election interference on March 28, when members will have the chance to question former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates. The story has been updated with a comment from Rep. Adam Schiff. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

20 марта, 21:55

The White House Is Still Standing by Trump’s Wiretap Accusation

Just before the administration’s daily press briefing, the FBI director told Congress he has “no information” to support the president’s claims.

20 марта, 20:00

Donald Trump Exposed As A Hopeless Conspiracy Theorist By Basically Everyone Who Matters

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s March 4 tweetstorm was a stunning occurrence, even for someone who regularly spews controversial thoughts on social media. On that day, Trump lobbed the explosive allegation that his predecessor wiretapped his phone during the campaign season.  I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 Beyond some murmurings on right-wing websites, Trump was the first to make this accusation against Barack Obama. And coming from the sitting president, it immediately created a firestorm, with even his close allies unable to back up his claims. White House counselor Kellyanne Conway, however, offered a very simple explanation for this phenomenon two days later: “He’s the president of the United States. He has information and intelligence that the rest of us do not.”  "He's the President of the United States. He has information and intelligence that the rest of us do not." [email protected] pic.twitter.com/r0cSE7IkSL— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) March 6, 2017 On his allegations of wiretapping, none of the people who might have provided him with such secret intelligence have supported him. In fact, many have issued statements refuting those allegations: * FBI Director James Comey: “I have no information that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the FBI,” Comey told the House Intelligence Committee Monday. * House Intelligence Committee: Congress took up an investigation of the substance of Trump’s tweets at the request of the White House. But instead of vindicating him, the investigation exposed Trump’s claims as nothing more than a conspiracy theory.  Last week, the House Intelligence Committee received information from the Justice Department related to the wiretapping claims. Both the chair of the committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), and the ranking member, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), said the evidence showed nothing to back up the president. “Was there a physical wiretap of Trump Tower? No, there never was,” Nunes said Sunday. “The information we got on Friday continues to lead us in that direction.” “I got a classified briefing on [the DOJ] response. They delivered it after most of us had left town. But once again, no evidence to support the president’s claim that he was wiretapped by his predecessor,” Schiff added. * Senate Intelligence Committee: In a joint statement last week, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee ― Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) ― said they saw nothing to support Trump’s theory: “Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016.” * Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper: Clapper served as the director of national intelligence under Obama, during the time Trump claimed the president wiretapped him. Clapper said that none of the agencies he oversaw engaged in such activity: “For the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the President-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign.”  * Former President Barack Obama: “As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen,” Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for Obama, said in a statement. “Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.” * The British Government: Although Conway said that Trump knew more than the rest of us and therefore would be in a position to know about secret wiretapping, the White House has pointed to media reports ― which are available to everyone ― as evidence for the March 4 tweets. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, for example, recently cited Fox News legal pundit Andrew Napolitano’s claim that Obama circumvented U.S. intelligence agencies and instead worked with British officials to spy on Trump. Napolitano specifically named the Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, which is the equivalent of the National Security Agency. In response, GCHQ took the unusual step of publicly commenting, calling the claim “utterly ridiculous” and saying it “should be ignored.” Want more updates from Amanda Terkel? Sign up for her newsletter, Piping Hot Truth, here. Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bring you the best original reporting, long form writing and breaking news from The Huffington Post and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how it’s all made. Click here to sign up! -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

20 марта, 18:07

It's Official: The FBI Is Investigating Trump's Links to Russia

Director James Comey told Congress on Monday that the 2016 probe includes possible contacts between the campaign and the Kremlin.

20 марта, 18:07

It's Official: The FBI Is Investigating Trump's Links to Russia

Director James Comey told Congress on Monday that the 2016 probe includes possible contacts between the campaign and the Kremlin.

20 марта, 15:13

Трамп обвинил Демократов в создании "фейковой" истории про его связи с Россией

Президент утверждает, что таким образом Демократы хотят оправдать свою провальную избирательную кампанию.

20 марта, 15:05

Today in Trumpworld -- March 20

Trump meets with Bill Gates in the Oval Office.

20 марта, 14:27

Trump: Everyone knows Russia allegations are 'fake news'

Hours before FBI Director James Comey is set to testify before Congress on Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential elections, President Donald Trump renewed his attacks against those who have accused him of having ties to the Russian government. “James Clapper and others stated that there is no evidence Potus colluded with Russia,” the president wrote on Twitter Monday morning, referring to statements made earlier this month by the former director of national intelligence on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “This story is FAKE NEWS and everyone knows it!”“The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. Big advantage in Electoral College & lost!” Trump wrote in a second post, adding in a third that "the real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!"Committees in both houses of Congress are currently investigating reported ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, connections that both the president and other White House officials have strenuously denied. The House Intelligence Committee, responsible for one of the investigations into Russian interference in last year’s presidential campaign, will hear testimony Monday Comey.While no direct proof has yet emerged publicly to tie Trump or his campaign to the Russian government, circumstantial evidence swirling around the president and those close to him have raised significant alarm, especially among Democrats but also a members of the GOP. Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was forced to resign last August after reports uncovered handwritten ledgers earmarking secret cash payments designated for him from a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine, where Manafort worked as a lobbyist.And already, misleading statements from Trump administration officials about interactions with the Kremlin have proven costly. National security adviser Michael Flynn resigned last month after reports emerged that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and others about the nature of his conversation with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had not had any interaction with any Russian government official, was forced to recuse himself from any Justice Department investigation involving the 2016 election when reporters uncovered multiple meetings with Sessions and the Russian ambassador.

20 марта, 14:10

Экс-глава разведки США опроверг вмешательство России в президентские выборы, - Трамп

Бывший глава разведки США Джеймс Клэппер заявил об отсутствии доказательств того, что президент США Дональд Трамп вступил в сговор с Россией. Об этом Трамп написал на своем аккаунте в Twitter. "Джеймс Клэппер и другие заявили, что нет никаких доказательств, что президент Соединенных Штатов вступил в сговор с Россией. Эта история - фейковая новость, и все это знают!", - написал Трамп...

20 марта, 07:05

Rep. Adam Schiff: 'Circumstantial Evidence' Indicates Trump Camp, Russia Collusion

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); “Circumstantial evidence” indicates collusion between members of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign team and Russian interference in the election, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said on Sunday.  Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told NBC’s “Meet The Press” that there was also “direct evidence” of deception. “There is circumstantial evidence of collusion,” Schiff said. “There is direct evidence, I think, of deception, and that’s where we begin the investigation.” He added: “There is certainly enough for us to conduct an investigation. The American people have a right to know and in order to defend ourselves, we need to know whether the circumstantial evidence of collusion and direct evidence of deception is indicative of more.”  When James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, appeared on the same program earlier this month, he said that intelligence investigators had found no evidence of such collusion.  “We did not include anything in our report … that had any reflect of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians,” Clapper said. “We had no evidence of such collusion.” Schiff was “surprised” by Clapper’s assessment. “I don’t think you can make that claim categorically as he did,” Schiff said. However, he offered no details about the alleged circumstantial evidence. When asked on “Fox News Sunday” if he had seen any evidence of collusion between the Russians and Trump associates, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) appeared to contradict Schiff’s assessment. “I’ll give you a very simple answer: No. Up to speed on everything I have up to this morning, there’s no evidence of collusion,” Nunes said. Both Nunes and Schiff agreed that there was no evidence supporting Trump’s claim that former President Barack Obama had wiretapped his phones. “Was there a physical wiretap of Trump Tower? No, there never was,” Nunes said. “Once again, no evidence to support the president’s claim that he was wiretapped by his predecessor,” Schiff concurred. “I hope that we can put an end to this wild goose chase because what the president said was just patently false.” U.S. intelligence officials revealed in a report late last year that hackers organized by the Kremlin had leaked emails by the Democratic National Committee in an attempt to sway the election for Trump. Trump frequently praised Russian President Vladimir Putin during the campaign, and at one point appeared to urge Russia to hack into Hillary Clinton’s emails.  “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said during a campaign rally. The House Intelligence Committee will hold a hearing on Monday about Russian attempts to interfere in the presidential election and on Trump’s wiretapping claims. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=58cc361ae4b0528a3d0b6f42,58cb26e5e4b0be71dcf3325f,58cc0618e4b00705db4f10b2,58caf2bee4b0be71dcf2dff0 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

20 марта, 00:03

Comey confronts an angry Congress

The FBI director testifies Monday as members of both parties accuse him of being less than forthcoming about Russia-related probes.

Выбор редакции
19 марта, 19:21

Schiff, defending Trump-Russia probe, cites 'direct evidence' of deception

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said on Sunday there was "circumstantial evidence" of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials — and "direct evidence" of deception. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," said he was "surprised" to hear former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper say there was no evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. "I was surprised to see Director Clapper say that because I don't think you can make that claim categorically, as he did," Schiff said. "I would characterize it this way: At the outset of the investigation, there was circumstantial evidence of collusion. There was direct evidence, I think, of deception." "I don't want to prejudge where we ultimately end up and, of course, there's one thing to say there's evidence. There's another thing to say we can prove this, or prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or there's enough evidence to bring to a grand jury for purposes of criminal indictment," Schiff said. "But there was certainly enough for us to conduct an investigation."

17 марта, 22:09

Trump cracks that he and Merkel share experience of Obama spying on them

President Donald Trump on Friday again refused to back down from his unsupported claim that President Barack Obama ordered an illegal wiretap of his phone, cracking that he has “something in common, perhaps” with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.Obama’s relationship with Merkel was tested in 2013 as reports, culled from documents stolen by Edward Snowden, emerged that the National Security Agency had monitored Merkel’s cell phone activity.A German reporter confronted Trump about his explosive wiretapping allegations at a joint news conference during Merkel’s visit to Washington on Friday. “As far as wiretapping, I guess by, you know, this past administration, at least we have something in common, perhaps,” Trump said, gesturing toward Merkel. Obama and his former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, have denied Trump’s claim, and Trump has offered no evidence to support it. Leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees, meanwhile, came out this week and also said there is no evidence to suggest the allegation is true.Many Republicans are reportedly frustrated that Trump continues to advance the unproven theory.But Trump dodged when the reporter asked him about the White House's decision to reference Fox News commentator Andrew Napolitano's claim that Obama had asked the British spying agency to surveil Trump. Trump blamed the allegation on a “very talented legal mind," and then told the reporter to ask the network about it.“I didn’t make an opinion on it,” Trump said. “That was a statement made by a very talented lawyer on Fox. And so you shouldn’t be talking to me. You should be talking to Fox.”The British spy agency has strongly denied the claim.

17 марта, 18:39

GOP Rep. Tom Cole: Trump owes Obama an apology for wiretapping claim

Rep. Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, said Friday that President Donald Trump should apologize to former President Barack Obama for accusing him of ordering an illegal wiretap of his phone lines, given that there is no public evidence to support it.“I see no indication that that's true,” Cole told reporters. “And so it's not a charge I would have ever made. And frankly, unless you can produce some pretty compelling proof, then I think the president, you know, President Obama is owed an apology in that regard.”“If he didn't do it,” Cole added, “we shouldn’t be reckless in accusations that he did.”Trump accused his predecessor of wiretapping his phones in early March and demanded that the House and Republican intelligence committees investigate the claim, but he has offered no proof to back it up. The theory had circulated on right-wing websites before he made the claim on Twitter.Obama and his former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, both publicly denied the claim quickly after Trump raised it, while FBI Director James Comey, also saying it was not true, privately urged Trump’s Justice Department to refute it. This week, the leaders of both the House and Senate intelligence committees have also come out and said they have found no evidence to suggest that the allegation is true.But Trump has refused to back down. He stood by the theory in a Wednesday interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, and his press secretary, Sean Spicer, spent almost eight minutes at Thursday’s afternoon briefing reading through a series of news reports that he asserted supported the president. Those reports, however, did not actually back up the claim.

17 марта, 06:33

British Intelligence: Linking Us To Trump Wiretapping Is 'Ridiculous'

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); British intelligence has blasted as “nonsense” an accusation leveled by White House spokesman Sean Spicer that former President Barack Obama used U.K. spies to wiretap Donald Trump during the presidential campaign. At the White House press conference Thursday, Spicer referred to the theory, which had originally been presented on Fox News. In a TV appearance on “Fox & Friends,” Andrew Napolitano, a former judge and current Fox analyst, accused the Government Communications Headquarters — the U.K.’s version of the National Security Agency — of spying on Trump. GCHQ blasted the claim in a rare public statement Thursday. “Recent allegations made by media commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct ‘wire tapping’ against the then President Elect are nonsense,” said the statement provided to the British press and American journalists. “They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.” In an emailed statement, Britain's GCHQ says such allegations are "nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.” 3/3— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) March 16, 2017 A British government source had told Reuters earlier in the week that the Fox story was “frankly, absurd.” Spicer’s comments were surprising and risked antagonizing a key American ally. At the press conference, he quoted Napolitano as saying that “three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn’t use the NSA, he didn’t use the CIA, he didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use the Department of Justice; he used GCHQ.” Obama was able to obtain Trump’s conversations through British intelligence and “there’s no American fingerprints on this,” said Spicer, adding: “Putting the published accounts and common sense together, this leads to a lot.” .@Judgenap: Three intel sources have disclosed that Pres. Obama turned to British spies to get surveillance on Trump pic.twitter.com/IghCFm7qhO— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) March 14, 2017 Spicer’s comments were particularly striking because they occurred shortly after the Senate intelligence committee issued a statement Thursday saying members could find no evidence that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped. House intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) also said on Wednesday that he had found no evidence to substantiate Trump’s claim.  British Member of Parliament Tim Farron blasted Spicer’s comments as “shameful.” Trump is “compromising the vital UK-US security relationship to try to cover his own embarrassment,” the Liberal Democrat leader told The Telegraph. “This harms our and U.S. security.” A spokesman for Obama, as well as FBI director James Comey and former director of national intelligence James Clapper, have all denied that Obama had Trump wiretapped. Trump initially accused Obama earlier this month in a series of tweets of having had him wiretapped during the presidential campaign. Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017 Trump appeared to admit earlier this week that he had based his claims on something he read. But he also vowed that some “very interesting items” will come to the “forefront over the next two weeks” concerning the issue, without offering any details. Spicer now insists that “wiretapping” doesn’t actually mean wiretapping ― because the president put the word in quotes in his tweet — but rather any kind of surveillance. The White House has failed to offer any substantiation for that claim either. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related Coverage + articlesList=58c6e919e4b0349394b24cd4,58caf2bee4b0be71dcf2dff0,58ca8223e4b00705db4c7018,58c6fc09e4b081a56dee973c -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

01 октября 2014, 00:30

«Исламское государство» — проект американского происхождения

Подняв флаг борьбы с «Исламским государством» (ИГ), США наносят теперь авиаудары по позициям ИГ не только в Ираке, но и в Сирии. Делается это без согласия правительства Сирии и без принятия соответствующего решения Советом Безопасности ООН. Начинают оправдываться опасения Москвы и Тегерана на тот счёт, что целью ракетно-бомбовых ударов является окончательное уничтожение сирийской инфраструктуры. По заявлению представителя Пентагона Джона Кирби, США нанесли авиаудары по 12 нефтеперерабатывающим заводам в Сирии. Якобы их контролировали боевики-экстремисты. Таких атак по позициям ИГ, говорит Джон Кирби, «будет больше». Здесь следует напомнить, что мятеж в Сирии, продолжающийся четвёртый год, стал разрастаться практически синхронно с подписанием 25 июня 2011 г. в Бушере меморандума о строительстве нового газопровода Иран – Ирак – Сирия. Борьбу американцев с правительством Башара Асада справедливо называют войной за нефть и газ. Дамаск попал в число врагов Америки в 2009 году, когда Асад отказался принять американский план строительства газопровода из Катара в Европу. Вместо этого Сирия предпочла сделку с Ираном, дав согласие на участие в строительстве газопровода через Ирак к своим портам на Средиземном море. Именно тогда всемирную известность приобрели слова бывшего госсекретаря США Генри Киссинджера: «Нефть слишком важна, чтобы оставлять ее арабам». Создание халифата на обширной территории Ирака и Сирии ведет к потере Соединенными Штатами (ExxonMobil Corporation) и Великобританией (BP и Royal Dutch Shell) позиций в нефтегазовом секторе Ирака и возможности доступа (после приближаемой американцами смены режима в Дамаске) к сирийским запасам углеводородов. Пока террористы ИГ воевали с сирийскими правительственными войсками, они американцев устраивали, но как только они вторглись в Ирак и объявили о создании собственного государства, Америка объявила им войну. Никаких двойных стандартов у США здесь нет. Налицо неизменное стремление американской элиты к мировому господству, и война с «Исламским государством» – всего лишь локальная операция. В позиции США много нестыковок и противоречий, а объясняются они тем, что Вашингтону всё труднее диктовать свои условия остальному миру. Нет сомнения в том, что Сирия остается для США главной мишенью на Ближнем Востоке, в том числе с точки зрения реализации планов по ослаблению России. «Исламское государство» — это проект американского происхождения, его цель — создание мощной дестабилизирующей волны, которая распространится вглубь Евразии. На первом этапе, переключая внимание международного сообщества на борьбу с ИГ, американцы подготавливают под шумок свержение президента Башара Асада. Именно так оценивают односторонние действия Вашингтона против «Исламского государства» многие страны мира. Поэтому не получилось у Обамы и формирование «широкой» коалиции. Американцам удалось добиться возмещения своих расходов монархиями Персидского залива (Бахрейн, Катар, Саудовская Аравия и ОАЭ), удалось склонить Иорданию предоставить свою инфраструктуру, привлечь к нанесению авиаударов некоторых союзников по НАТО - Великобританию, Францию, Бельгию и Данию. По данным Госдепартамента, 54 страны и три международные организации - ЕС, НАТО и Лига арабских государств – тоже обещали внести в эту кампанию свой вклад. Однако анонсированное Джоном Керри «всемирное» участие в коалиции не состоялось. Доверие к Америке осталось лишь у немногих. Мир еще не забыл, как в 2003 году США вторглись в Ирак без санкции ООН. Вашингтон тогда заявлял, что Ирак ведёт разработки оружия массового поражения и разоружить его нужно силой. Голосование в СБ ООН по этому вопросу так и не состоялось, поскольку Россия, Китай и Франция дали понять, что наложат вето на любой проект резолюции, подразумевающий применение военной силы против Ирака. Тогда, как и сейчас, США вызывающе пренебрегли международным общественным мнением, агрессия против Ирака началась, страна была разрушена, и последствия этого мы наблюдаем по сей день. Сегодня история повторяется. Джеймс Клеппер, глава Национальной разведки США, во время своего ежегодного выступления перед сенатской комиссией по разведке (29 января 2014) отчитался в угрозах, нависших над Америкой. Коснулся он и Сирии, сообщив ничему не соответствующие данные о составе «повстанцев». Его главный тезис состоял в том, что на 80% это «умеренные» противники режима, которые вполне могут принимать финансовую помощь США, за предоставление которой американский сенат в свое время тайно проголосовал. Теперь эти «умеренные» в одночасье превратились в непримиримых террористов, и против одной из их организаций американцы начали войну. Заметим: не против террористов вообще, а лишь против «Исламского государства». Интересно, а что думают руководители американской разведки об «умеренности» группировки «Джебхат ан-Нусра», этого сирийского отделения «Аль-Каиды»? В ответ на авиаудары по территории Сирии лидеры «Джебхат ан-Нусра» уже заявили о готовности противостоять Америке совместно с ИГ. Своими действиями американцы консолидируют терроризм. В эфире телеканала CBS Обама заявил, что в свое время американским военным удалось нанести поражение «Аль-Каиде» в Ираке, после чего организация «ушла в подполье», но «за последние два года, воспользовавшись хаосом во время гражданской войны в Сирии, боевики смогли восстановить свои силы». О том, что хаос и гражданская война в Сирии - прямое следствие действий США на Ближнем Востоке, американский президент не сказал. Председатель Объединенного комитета начальников штабов США генерал Мартин Демпси считает, что для успешной борьбы с группировкой «Исламское государство» в Ираке и Сирии необходимо провести наземную операцию. По мнению Демпси, нужно принять политическое решение и ввести войска в эти страны. Если это произойдёт, дестабилизирующая волна начнёт распространяться за пределы Сирии и Ирака, ряды террористов пополнятся новыми непримиримыми бойцами, а перед военно-промышленным комплексом США откроются захватывающие дух перспективы.