America Needs to Know What Went Wrong

With the latest "good news" projections indicating between 100,000 and 240,000 Americans will die of COVID-19 before the pandemic is over - which assumes strict social distancing even as some states have imposed no lock down orders - Americans need to know what went so terribly wrong.  One will not get this answer listening to Donald Trump's statements during his daily news conferences which are all aimed at political spin.  Nor is his panel of experts inclined to provide the real story either as the members try to deal with a largely out of control situation.  As a consequence, some in Congress want a commission established to review how this disaster happened and, in the process, make sure the USA never again finds itself so unprepared.  Any investigation will likely find that much of the blame traces to the top of the Trump/Pence regime which tried to bury inconvenient facts and spin matters to assist Trump's re-election effort first and foremost.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at the first stages of this effort.  Here are highlights:

When America has recovered from the coronavirus crisis and people are back to work, Rep. Adam B. Schiff thinks Congress should consider a 9/11-style independent commission to examine why the nation was so unprepared for the pandemic.

Schiff, a California Democrat, told me in an interview Monday that his staff has already started working on a discussion draft modeled after the 9/11 Commission, and that he would be talking about the possibility with others in Congress. And he said the House Intelligence Committee, which he chairs, has begun reviewing the committee’s intelligence materials on the pandemic.

“We will need to delay the work of the commission until the crisis has abated to ensure that it does not interfere with the agencies that are leading the response,” Schiff explained in an email. “But that should not prevent us from beginning to identify where we got it wrong and how we can be prepared for the next pandemic.”

A review of the Trump administration’s performance would find many negatives but also some pluses. President Trump’s public statements appeared to minimize the virus and its impact until recently. But the National Security Council staff, led by deputy Matthew Pottinger, a Chinese-speaking former Wall Street Journal correspondent in Beijing, was aggressive.

What accounts for the failure to translate this concern into action? One explosive issue in any inquiry would be whether Trump discounted intelligence warnings because of concerns about the impact of the virus on his reelection campaign. Indeed, the question implicates a broader set of concerns among Schiff and other critics about what they see as the politicization of intelligence, in particular Trump’s firing in February of Joseph Maguire and Andrew P. Hallman, the acting director of national intelligence and his deputy, respectively, and then the replacement of the top two officials at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).

Career officials fear that Richard Grenell, the acting DNI, is trying to shape intelligence that might challenge or embarrass Trump. “Grenell is a professional press spokesman,” said one senior retired intelligence officer, referring to Grenell’s stint as U.S. press spokesman at the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration. “Over the next six months, Trump wants someone [as DNI] who has his back.”

On March 19, just after the NCTC shake-up, Grenell received a previously undisclosed cautionary letter from Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), the chairman and ranking minority member, respectively, of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The letter, as described by a Senate source, urged Grenell to consult with the committee before making further changes in the DNI’s office; to keep Congress fully informed about intelligence activities, as required by law; and to refrain from further personnel changes until Trump’s nominee for a permanent DNI had been confirmed or rejected by the Senate. Grenell responded briefly, the Senate source said.

Schiff fears that, as intelligence is politicized, career officers are becoming gun-shy. “I don’t think that there’s any question it’s affecting the work product of the intelligence community,” he told me. There’s less reporting to Congress, with fewer details, on issues that might embarrass Trump, such as election security, Schiff noted.

The coronavirus pandemic has some eerie similarities to 9/11. Trump certainly didn’t cause the virus, any more than President George W. Bush plotted Osama bin Laden’s attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. And Trump’s NSC laudably tried to ring the alarm. But did the White House “connect the dots” and take action that could have reduced the coronavirus damage?

The last thing America needs right now is more partisan squabbling. But when we’re back on our feet, the country needs to know what went wrong. The challenge, now as in 2001, is to prevent the next attack.

Mark Warner: "Enormous Amounts of Evidence’ of Possible Russia Collusion

While Donald Trump continues to lie to the delight of his foul base and today tweeted “I am an innocent man being persecuted by some very bad, conflicted & corrupt people in a Witch Hunt that is illegal & should never have been allowed to start" two leading Congressional Democrats stated very different tales on TV news shows this morning. One was Virginia Senator Mark Warner and the other was Congressman Adam Schiff, each of whom stated that evidence of collusion has been revealed.  Warner backed off from a formal declaration but Schiff felt no such reluctance.  A piece in Politico looks at the development.  Here are highlights:

The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday lawmakers have found "enormous amounts of evidence" into potential collusion between the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and the Russians during the 2016 election.

Mark Warner of Virginia made his remarks in response to an assertion that there is "no factual evidence of collusion" from the Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who is chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

As evidence, Warner cited on NBC's "Meet the Press" ongoing negotiations about Trump Tower and the dump of WikiLeaks material.

"Where that evidence leads, in terms of a conclusion ... I'm going to reserve judgment, until I'm finished," Warner said.

But he added: "There's no one that could factually say there's not plenty of evidence of collaboration or communications between Trump Organization and Russians."

Warner's House Intelligence Committee counterpart, Adam Schiff, said Sunday on CBS‘ "Face the Nation" that there's both "direct evidence" and "abundant circumstantial evidence" of collusion with Russia. Asked Sunday by NBC host Chuck Todd whether a Russia conspiracy without any actual evidence of a crime being committed could lead to impeachment of the president, Warner again said he would wait to reach his conclusion but qualified his statement by looking at history.

"I have never, in my lifetime, seen a presidential campaign, from a person of either party, have this much outreach to a foreign country and a foreign country that the intelligence community, and our committee has validated, intervened, massively, in our election and intervened with an attempt to help one candidate, Donald Trump, and to hurt another candidate, Hillary Clinton," he said.

Warner also said that some of the "key people" the Senate committee wants to talk to are "caught up" in the Mueller criminal investigations.

Democrats Prepared to Force Mueller Report Release

With the Russiagate investigation seemingly closing in on Der Trumpenführer, many fear that Trump's unconstitutionally appointed acting Attorney General will be pressure to try to kill the release of the report as a last ditch effort to hide the criminality Trump and his circle of sycophants - and perhaps even their acts of treason - from the American Public. Now, Democrats who are about to take control of the House of Representatives a mere eleven (11) days from now are signalling that that effort to protect Trump and his co-conspirators will not be allowed and that the House will force the release of Robert Mueller's report. A piece at CNN looks at the Democrat vow to make the report public and to expose the wrongdoing expected to be revealed in the report.  With Trump's announcement that he will force James Mattis from the office of Secretary of Defense, some Republicans may be ready to see Trump taken down. Here are article excerpts:

California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said if President Donald Trump's attorneys try to assert executive privilege to stop the public release of special counsel Robert Mueller's eventual report, he would likely compel publication in some form.

"I'm prepared to make sure we do everything possible so that the public has the advantage of as much of the information as it can," Schiff said on CNN's "State of the Union." Schiff is expected to chair the House Intelligence Committee when Democrats take the chamber next month, and he said he would likely use his subpoena power to obtain and release Mueller's eventual report if he needed to. "Now, there may be parts of the report that have to be redacted because they involved classified information or they involve grand jury material," Schiff said, adding, "This case is just too important to keep from the American people what it's really about."
 Schiff also stressed his concern repeatedly about acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker. CNN reported previously that Whitaker disregarded the advice of a Justice Department ethics official to step aside from overseeing the Mueller probe and that Trump lashed out at Whitaker regarding the federal case against his former attorney Michael Cohen.   "This is exactly what we feared about Whitaker's appointment," Schiff said. He also vowed to conduct oversight of Whitaker and inform the public about the man leading the Justice Department following the ouster of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had recused himself from oversight of the Russia investigation.  "We are going to scrutinize every single action by Matt Whitaker to make sure that the public knows just what he does," Schiff said.

Democratic Memo Discredits Nunes, GOP

Lost somewhat in the noise surrounding CPAC, the battle against the NRA and the constant lies flowing from the Trump/Pence regime is the release of the Democrat memo that responded to Devin Nunes' fictional and disingenuous memorandum that sought to discredit the FBI and CIA to undermine the serious issues surrounding the investigation into Trump campaign collaboration with Russian intelligence operatives to throw the 2016 presidential campaign to Trump and also undermine American democracy in general.  As expected, the Democrat memo debunks the fictions pressed in the Nunes memo, a memo many believe was drafted with input from the White House.  A column in the Washington Post looks at  the quiet release of an important document.  Here are highlights:

The House Intelligence Committee released on Saturday a redacted version of a Democrat-authored memo rebutting GOP allegations that federal law enforcement agencies used politically-biased information to conduct surveillance on one of the president’s former campaign aides.” The memo, as Democrats promised, does debunk and undermine many of the allegations made in the memo released by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.).

[T]he memo from committee ranking member Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) states there was ample evidence to conduct surveillance of Carter Page entirely apart from the dossier compiled by Christopher Steele, including “contemporaneous evidence of Russia’s election interference; concerning Russian links and outreach to Trump campaign officials; Page’s history with Russian intelligence; and … Page’s suspicious activities in 2016, including in Moscow.”

 

Notice that the memo says the suspicious activities included not merely the trip itself but activities in Moscow. If the FBI had detailed knowledge of Page’s activities beyond his bizarre pro-Russia speech, that could provide insight into the interaction between the Trump campaign and the Russian campaign for then-candidate Donald Trump. Those activities reportedly include meeting with Igor Sechin, a close associate of Russian president Vladimir Putin, to discuss energy deals if sanctions were lifted and meeting with a senior Kremlin official who disclosed that the Russians had compromising information on Hillary Clinton and that such information might be released to the Trump campaign. 

 

In short, not only did the dossier play a minor role in obtaining the surveillance of Page, but Page’s own actions provide an extraordinary window into communications from and to the Russians about dirt on Clinton. Do we think Page kept all this to himself when he returned?

The memo confirms that the FBI investigation began on July 31, 2016, well before the receipt of the dossier, and that it was based not only on information about George Papadopoulos’s  efforts to reach out to Russians but also on information about “Russia’s aggressive covert operations to influence our elections, which the FBI was already monitoring.” Schiff goes on to explain that by the time it received the dossier there were “sub-inquiries” into multiple people linked to the campaign. (The exact number of these is redacted.)

While the memo is heavily redacted, it does state that the Justice Department provided additional information in FISA renewals obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting. What is intriguing here is that nearly the entire section supporting that conclusion is blacked out. What parts were confirmed? How were they confirmed? We still don’t know, but the prospect of ample corroboration of the dossier’s allegations (salacious or not) should be extremely troubling to the Trump team.

The memo also states that “Russian agents previewed their hack and dissemination of stolen emails.” Was this a heads-up to Roger Stone? If they were previewing the email release to anyone associated with the Trump campaign, that surely constitutes collusion by anyone’s definition.

In sum, the memo seems to undercut the gravamen of Nunes’s conspiracy theory, namely that the entire investigation was premised on a partisan dossier financed by the Clinton campaign. Even more important, it also hints at a wealth of information not yet revealed that may substantiate ties between the Russians and the Trump campaign. The more of these ties, the more people involved and the more detailed these interactions were, the more likely, of course, is that someone, at some point told Trump or his inner circle about them. If Schiff intended to whet our appetite for more details and confirm the extent of the Trump campaign-Russia ties, he succeeded.