FBI Director Comey confirms the bureau is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election

By Ellen Nakashima and Karoun Demirjian March 20 at 10:50 AM

FBI Director James B. Comey acknowledged on Monday the existence of a counterintelligence investigation into the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, and said that probe extends to the nature of any links between Trump campaign associates and the Russian government.

Testifying before the House Intelligence Committee, Comey said the investigation is also exploring whether there was any coordination between the campaign and the Kremlin, and “whether any crimes were committed.”

The acknowledgment was an unusual move, given that the FBI’s practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations. “But in unusual circumstances, where it is in the public interest,” Comey said, “it may be appropriate to do so.”

Comey said he had been authorized by the Justice Department to confirm the wide-ranging probe’s existence.

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-to-testify-on-russian-interference-in-the-presidential-election/2017/03/20/cdea86ca-0ce2-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.948f29dd1c25

Comey Confirms F.B.I. Investigation of Russian Election Interference, Links to Trump Campaign

■ James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, confirmed an F.B.I. investigation into Russia’s meddling in the election.

■ The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence convened on Monday for the first public hearing on Russia’s efforts to influence the election.

■ The hearing’s featured witnesses: the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, and Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/us/politics/intelligence-committee-russia-donald-trump.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

...snip

Although it would appear that both groups were seeking much the same information, from the two radically different responses it is evident that the content of those briefings were not the same. What may have made the difference is who Comey was addressing in each briefing. He trusted those in the Senate briefing with highly confidential information but the same cannot be said for the briefing given to Nunes and Schiff.

If there was someone in that House briefing that Comey didn’t trust, it was Devin Nunes. The circumstantial evidence against Nunes is certainly piling up:

*He was on Trump’s transition team which was chockablock with Russiaphiles

*As chairman of the House Intel Committee, he initially refused to investigate Trump-Russia but focussed instead on White House and agency leakers

*As directed by the White House, he told media contacts (as provided for him by Sean Spicer) there was nothing to any of the Kremlingate stories

*His apparent agreement to investigate Trump-Russia after all came shortly after his total denial of the Kremlingate stories; he should have recused himself but refused to do so

*Having agreed to investigate Trump campaign ties to Russia, he has since spent his time avoiding such an investigation and diverted his committee down the garden path of non-existent wiretaps

*Comey has given two briefings to Nunes’ committee and both times the briefings were very general, whereas Comey’s briefings to Upper Chamber have resulted in tight-lipped and very worried senators.

Thus far Nunes remains on my list of GOP congressmen who are likely to be involved to some extent in Kremlingate while Chuck Grassley is in the clear.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2017/03/16/1643906/-Wednesday-15-2017-Director-Comey-gave-Two-Briefings-on-Capitol-Hill

When The New York Times Helped Trump By Putting The Brakes On The Russian Hacking Story

Talk about strange bedfellows joining forces to produce an unlikely media alliance.

That’s what happened when The New York Times reported on October 31, 2016, that FBI officials had not been able to uncover any evidence that Russian operatives, through allegedly hacking Democratic emails, were trying to help elect Donald Trump.

“Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia,” read the October 31 Times headline which relied on unnamed “law enforcement officials.”

Acting as an almost unofficial time-out, and one that came with the Times’ seal of approval, the article helped put the media brakes on the unfolding Russian hacking story; the same Russian hacking story that has now morphed into a full-scale Trump scandal.

The message on October 31 from the Times’ sources was unmistakable: There’s no conclusive connection between Trump and the Russians, and the Russians’ efforts were “aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.” (Question: How do you not pick sides in a two-person election if you only undermine one of the candidates, the way Russian hackers only undermined the Democrat?)

Lots more here.

Rep. Schiff Defends Committee Examining Russia-Trump Connections

by Kailani Koenig

WASHINGTON — Despite denials from some top intelligence officials that there was any evidence of collusion between associates of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russian operatives while Moscow tried to interfere with the 2016 election, Rep. Adam Schiff on Sunday defended the House Intelligence Committee continuing to look into the matter.

Two weeks ago on Meet The Press, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, denied that any evidence of such collusion existed while he oversaw the work of U.S. intelligence agencies. The Trump administration has also reiterated those denials.

But this Sunday on "Meet The Press," Schiff, D-Calif., told host Chuck Todd, "I was surprised to see Director Clapper say that because I don't think you can make that claim categorically as he did. I would characterize it this way at the outset of the investigation: there is circumstantial evidence of collusion. There is direct evidence I think of deception and that's where we begin the investigation."

Schiff is the ranking Democratic member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Link: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/schiff-defends-committee-examining-russia-trump-connections-n735391

Russia is ‘behind’ the White House’s wild claim that GCHQ tapped Donald Trump’s office, say top spies

Mr Trump's press secretary made the accusation at a briefing but the spy agency has blasted the claims as untrue

THE Kremlin was behind the White House’s wild claim that GCHQ spied on Donald Trump, spymasters believe.

An investigation by the Cheltenham-based eavesdropping agency has discovered the accusation was initially made by a Russian fake news blog.

Link: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3118868/russia-behind-gchq-lie-say-top-spies/

What to Ask About Russian Hacking
By LOUISE MENSCHMARCH 17, 2017

...snip

It should be relatively easy to get at the truth of whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia over the hacking. I have some relevant experience. When I was a member of Parliament in Britain, I took part in a select committee investigating allegations of phone hacking by the News Corporation. Today, as a New York-based journalist (who, in fact, now works at News Corp.), I have followed the Russian hacking story closely. In November, I broke the story that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court had issued a warrant that enabled the F.B.I. to examine communications between “U.S. persons” in the Trump campaign relating to Russia-linked banks.

So, I have some ideas for how the House committee members should proceed. If I were Adam Schiff, the leading Democrat on the committee, I would demand to see the following witnesses: Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Richard Burt, Erik Prince, Dan Scavino, Brad Parscale, Roger Stone, Corey Lewandowski, Boris Epshteyn, Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Flynn, Michael Flynn Jr., Felix Sater, Dmitry Rybolovlev, Michael Cohen, Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, Robert and Rebekah Mercer, Stephen Bannon, Sebastian Gorka, Michael Anton, Julia Hahn and Stephen Miller, along with executives from Cambridge Analytica, Alfa Bank, Silicon Valley Bank and Spectrum Health.

...snip

The framing of the committee’s questions matters immensely. Legally, witnesses cannot confirm or deny even the existence of a current national security investigation. The very mention of a “FISA warrant” would allow Mr. Sessions to avoid the substance by excusing himself from commenting. Committee members must therefore word their questions without reference to any case. I would simply ask Mr. Sessions this:

“Was the president’s tweet about a wiretap at Trump Tower, to your knowledge, illegal? If so, to whom have you reported this offense?

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/opinion/what-to-ask-about-russian-hacking.html