Sunday, August 6, 2017

Something to Know - 6 August




As our deal leader left for his 17-day vacation away from the dump, some of his parting drama centered on his threatening to fire a general by the name of John Nicholson for his lack of producing a victory in Afghanistan.  Our 16-year "war", with over 150,000 casualties,  and basically $500 Billion dollars down the drain, has little to show.   Russia got involved back last century, and thought we were stupid to get into it.   Guess we were because there does not seem to be a plan on how to pull out a "WIN".  We have not "won" any in a long time.  $500 Billion could have been used to build a lot of schools, roads, and bridges.   So, as Trump dines on his nachos and steaks in New Jersey, let's read up on the Afghanistan as we find it today.   Here we have a situation where the interests of Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and India meet on the Silk Road that passes through Kabul.   The mission that General Nicholson has is impossible.  Many of us doubt that Trump even knows the topography of the Middle East, or the exact location of Afghanistan.  We need to know about this area of the world, and what is at stake, and why so many countries are claiming vested interests.   It does not help that our emasculated and demoralized State Department is unable to step up to the plate at this particular time in our history.  There is clearly no military answer to our involvement any longer.  (sorry, the format today is not suitable for smart phones)

Photo
An Afghan police officer at his unit's outpost overlooking the districts north of Farah, the capital of the province that goes by the same name. In October, the Taliban overran posts like this one in a siege.CreditBryan Denton for The New York Times

FARAH, Afghanistan — A police officer guarding the outskirts of this city remembers the call from his commander, warning that hundreds of Talibanfighters were headed his way.

"Within half an hour, they attacked," recalled Officer Najibullah Amiri, 35. The Taliban swarmed the farmlands surrounding his post and seized the western riverbank here in Farah, the capital of the province by the same name.

It was the start of a three-week siege in October, and only after American air support was called in to end it and the smoke cleared did Afghan security officials realize who was behind the lightning strike: Iran.

Tehran's Turn

Articles in this series examine Iran's growing regional influence.

Four senior Iranian commandos were among the scores of dead, Afghan intelligence officials said, noting their funerals in Iran. Many of the Taliban dead and wounded were also taken back across the nearby border with Iran, where the insurgents had been recruited and trained, village elders told Afghan provincial officials.

Continue reading the main story

The assault, coordinated with attacks on several other cities, was part of the Taliban's most ambitious attempt since 2001 to retake power. But it was also a piece of an accelerating Iranian campaign to step into a vacuum left by departing American forces — Iran's biggest push into Afghanistan in decades.

President Trump recently lamented that the United States was losing its 16-year war in Afghanistan, and threatened to fire the American generals in charge.

There is no doubt that as the United States winds down the Afghan war — the longest in American history, and one that has cost half a trillion dollars and more than 150,000 lives on all sides — regional adversaries are muscling in.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan remain the dominant players. But Iran is also making a bold gambit to shape Afghanistan in its favor.

Over the past decade and a half, the United States has taken out Iran's chief enemies on two of its borders, the Taliban government in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Iran has used that to its advantage, working quietly and relentlessly to spread its influence.

In Iraq, it has exploited a chaotic civil war and the American withdrawal to create a virtual satellite state. In Afghanistan, Iran aims to make sure that foreign forces leave eventually, and that any government that prevails will at least not threaten its interests, and at best be friendly or aligned with them.

One way to do that, Afghans said, is for Iran to aid its onetime enemies, the Taliban, to ensure a loyal proxy and also to keep the country destabilized, without tipping it over. That is especially true along their shared border of more than 500 miles.

But fielding an insurgent force to seize control of a province shows a significant — and risky — escalation in Iran's effort.

"Iran does not want stability here," Naser Herati, one of the police officers guarding the post outside Farah, said angrily. "People here hate the Iranian flag. They would burn it."


Photo
A carpet market in Herat that deals in machine-made Iranian textiles and rugs. Herat is sometimes called "Little Iran." CreditBryan Denton for The New York Times

Iran has conducted an intensifying covert intervention, much of which is only now coming to light. It is providing local Taliban insurgents with weapons, money and training. It has offered Taliban commanders sanctuary and fuel for their trucks. It has padded Taliban ranks by recruiting among Afghan Sunni refugees in Iran, according to Afghan and Western officials.

"The regional politics have changed," said Mohammed Arif Shah Jehan, a senior intelligence official who recently took over as the governor of Farah Province. "The strongest Taliban here are Iranian Taliban."

Iran and the Taliban — longtime rivals, one Shiite and the other Sunni — would seem to be unlikely bedfellows.

Iran nearly went to war with the Taliban when their militias notoriously killed 11 Iranian diplomats and an Iranian government journalist in fighting in 1998.

After that, Iran supported the anti-Taliban opposition — and it initially cooperated with the American intervention in Afghanistan that drove the Taliban from power.

But as the NATO mission in Afghanistan expanded, the Iranians quietly began supporting the Taliban to bleed the Americans and their allies by raising the cost of the intervention so that they would leave.

Iran has come to see the Taliban not only as the lesser of its enemies but also as a useful proxy force. The more recent introduction of the Islamic State, which carried out a terrorist attack on Iran's parliament this year, into Afghanistan has only added to the Taliban's appeal.

In the empty marble halls of the Iranian Embassy in Kabul, Mohammad Reza Bahrami, the ambassador, denied that Iran was supporting the Taliban, and emphasized the more than $400 million Iran has invested to help Afghanistan access ports on the Persian Gulf.

"We are responsible," he said in an interview last year. "A strong accountable government in Afghanistan has more advantages for strengthening our relations than anything."

But Iran's Foreign Ministry and its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps act as complementary arms of policy — the first openly sowing economic and cultural influence, and the second aggressively exerting subversive force behind the scenes.

Photo
Gen. Sir David Richards of Britain, right, then NATO's top commander in Afghanistan, and his interpreter, Cpl. Daniel James in 2006.CreditRodrigo Abd/Associated Press

Iran has sent squads of assassins, secretly nurtured spies and infiltrated police ranks and government departments, especially in western provinces, Afghan officials say.

Even NATO's top commander in Afghanistan at the time, Gen. Sir David Richards of Britain, discovered that Iran had recruited his interpreter, Cpl. Daniel James, a British-Iranian citizen. Corporal James was sentenced to 10 years in prison for sending coded messages to the Iranian military attaché in Kabul during a tour of duty in 2006.

More recently, Iran has moved so aggressively in bulking up the Taliban insurgency that American forces rushed to Farah Province a second time in January to stave off a Taliban attack.

"The Iranian game is very complicated," said Javed Kohistani, a military analyst based in Kabul.

Having American forces fight long and costly wars that unseated Iran's primary enemies has served Tehran's interests just fine. But by now, the Americans and their allies have outlasted their usefulness, and Iran is pursuing a strategy of death by a thousand cuts "to drain them and cost them a lot."


Photo
The vehicle that was carrying Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, the Taliban leader, when it was destroyed by a drone strike last year in the remote town of Ahmad Wal in Pakistan. CreditAgence France-Presse — Getty Images

An Ambitious Expansion

The depth of Iran's ties to the Taliban burst unexpectedly into view last year. An American drone struck a taxi on a desert road in southwestern Pakistan, killing the driver and his single customer.

The passenger was none other than the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour. A wanted terrorist with an American bounty on his head who had been on the United Nations sanctions list since before 2001, Mullah Mansour was traveling without guards or weapons, confident and quite at home in Pakistan.

The strike exposed for the second time since the discovery of Osama bin Laden in the Pakistani hill town of Abbottabad the level of Pakistan's complicity with wanted terrorists. It was the first time the United States had conducted a drone attack in Pakistan's Baluchistan Province, a longtime sanctuary for the Taliban but until then off limits for American drones because of Pakistani protests.

Yet even more momentous was that Mullah Mansour was returning from a trip to Iran, where he had been meeting Iranian security officials and, through Iran, with Russian officials.

Afghan officials, Western diplomats and security analysts, and a former Taliban commander familiar with Mullah Mansour's inner circle confirmed details of the meetings.

Both Russia and Iran have acknowledged that they have held meetings with the Taliban but maintain that they are only for information purposes.

That the Taliban leader was personally developing ties with both Iran and Russia signaled a stunning shift in alliance for the fundamentalist Taliban movement, which had always been supported by the Sunni powers among the Arab gulf states and Pakistan.

But times were changing with the American drawdown in Afghanistan, and Mullah Mansour had been seeking to diversify his sources of money and weapons since taking over the Taliban leadership in 2013. He had made 13 trips to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and one to Bahrain, his passport showed, but also at least two visits to Iran.

Set on expanding the Taliban's sway in Afghanistan, he was also preparing to negotiate an end to the war, playing all sides on his terms, according to both Afghan officials with close knowledge of the Taliban and the former Taliban commander close to Mullah Mansour's inner circle.

It was that ambitious expansionism that probably got him killed, they said.

"Mansour was a shrewd politician and businessman and had a broader ambition to widen his appeal to other countries," said Timor Sharan, a former senior analyst of the International Crisis Group in Afghanistan who has since joined the Afghan government.

Mullah Mansour had been tight with the Iranians since his time in the Taliban government in the 1990s, according to Mr. Kohistani, the military analyst. Their interests, he and other analysts and Afghan officials say, overlapped in opium. Afghanistan is the world's largest source of the drug, and Iran the main conduit to get it out.

Iran's border guards have long fought drug traffickers crossing from Afghanistan, but Iran's Revolutionary Guards and the Taliban have both benefited from the illicit trade, exacting dues from traffickers.

The main purpose of Mullah Mansour's trips to Iran was tactical coordination, according to Bruce Riedel, a former C.I.A. analyst and fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. At the time, in 2016, the Taliban were gearing up for offensives across eight Afghan provinces. Farah was seen as particularly ripe fruit.

Iran facilitated a meeting between Mullah Mansour and Russian officials, Afghan officials said, securing funds and weapons from Moscow for the insurgents.

Mullah Mansour's cultivation of Iran for weapons was done with the full knowledge of Pakistan, said the former Taliban commander, who did not want to be identified since he had recently defected from the Taliban.

"He convinced the Pakistanis that he wanted to go there and get weapons, but he convinced the Pakistanis that he would not come under their influence and accept their orders," he said.

Pakistan had also been eager to spread the political and financial burden of supporting the Taliban and had encouraged the Taliban's ties with Iran, said Haji Agha Lalai, a presidential adviser and the deputy governor of Kandahar Province.

On his last visit, Mullah Mansour traveled to the Iranian capital, Tehran, to meet someone very important — possibly Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the former Taliban commander, who said he had gleaned the information from members of Mullah Mansour's inner circle.

Mullah Mansour stayed for a week, also meeting with a senior Russian official in the town of Zahedan, said Mr. Lalai, who spoke with relatives of the Taliban leader.

He was almost certainly negotiating an escalation in Iranian and Russian assistance before his death, Mr. Lalai and other Afghan officials said, pointing to the increase in Iranian support for the Taliban during his leadership and since.

But the meeting with the Russians was apparently a step too far, Afghan officials say. His relations with Iran and Russia had expanded to the point that they threatened Pakistan's control over the insurgency.

The United States had been aware of Mullah Mansour's movements, including his ventures into Iran, for some time before the strike and had been sharing information with Pakistan, said Seth G. Jones, associate director at the RAND Corporation. Pakistan had also provided helpful information, he added. "They were partly supportive of targeting Mansour."

Gen. John Nicholson, the United States commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, said President Barack Obama had approved the strike after Mullah Mansour failed to join peace talks being organized in Pakistan.

Col. Ahmad Muslem Hayat, a former Afghan military attaché in London, said he believed that the American military had been making a point by striking Mullah Mansour on his return from Iran.

"When they target people like this, they follow them for months," he said. "It was smart to do it to cast suspicions on Iran. They were trying to create a gap between Iran and the Taliban."

But if that was the intention, Mr. Lalai said, it has not succeeded, judging by the way the new Taliban leader, Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, has picked up his predecessor's work.

"I don't think the contact is broken," he said. "Haibatullah is still reaching out to Iran. They are desperately looking for more money if they want to extend the fight."

Continue reading the main story
Photo
Afghan laborers and merchants moved goods through a bazaar in Herat known for Iranian dry foodstuffs and other sundries. CreditBryan Denton for The New York Times

Intrigue in 'Little Iran'

There is no place in Afghanistan where Iran's influence is more deeply felt than the western city of Herat, nearly in sight of the Iranian border.

Two million Afghans took refuge in Iran during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s. Three million live and work in Iran today. Herat, sometimes called "Little Iran," is their main gateway between the countries.

People in Herat speak with Iranian accents. Iranian schools, colleges and bookshops line the streets. Women wear the head-to-foot black chador favored in Iran. Shops are full of Iranian sweets and produce.

But even as the city is one of Afghanistan's most decorous and peaceful, an air of intrigue infuses Herat.

The city is filled with Iranian spies, secret agents and hit squads, local officials say, and it has been plagued by multiple assassinations and kidnappings in recent years. The police say Iran is funding militant groups and criminal gangs. A former mayor says it is sponsoring terrorism.

Iran is constantly working in the shadows. The goal, Afghan officials say, is to stoke and tip local power struggles in its favor, whether through bribery, infiltration or violence.

One day in January, Herat's counterterrorism police deployed undercover officers to stake out the house of one of their own men. Two strangers on a motorbike seemed to be spying on the house, so secret agents were sent out to spy on the spies.

Within hours, the police had detained the men and blown their cover: They were Iranian assassins, according to the Afghans. The passenger was armed with two pistols.

Continue reading the main story
Photo
Residents of Herat walking over a bridge in the city where, in January, the police stopped two Iranian men who were armed and carrying false documents. CreditBryan Denton for The New York Times

Forensics tests later found that one of the guns had been used in the murder of an Iranian citizen in Herat 10 months earlier, police officials said.

The two Iranians are still in Afghan custody and have yet to be charged. They have become a source of contention between Iran and Afghanistan.

Iran disowned them, pointing to their Afghan identity cards, but Afghan officials paraded them on television, saying they were carrying false papers and had admitted to being sent by Iran as a hit squad.

The Afghan police say they have arrested 2,000 people in counterterrorism operations in Herat over the last three years. Many of them, they say, are armed insurgents and criminals who reside with their families in Iran and enter Afghanistan to conduct dozens of attacks on police or government officials.

Iran is set on undermining the Afghan government and its security forces, and the entire United States mission, and maintaining leverage over Afghanistan by making it weak and dependent, Afghan officials say.

"We caught a terrorist who killed five people with an I.E.D.," a senior police officer said, referring to a roadside bomb. "We released a boy who was kidnapped. We defused an I.E.D. in the city."

Flicking through photographs on his phone, he pointed to one of a man in a mauve shirt. "He was convicted of kidnapping five people." Much of the kidnapping is criminal, for ransom, but at least some of it is politically motivated, he added.

The 33-year-old, English-speaking Farhad Niayesh, a former mayor of Herat, is even more blunt, and exasperated. He says the Iranians use their consulate in the city as a base for propaganda and "devising terrorist activities."

"Iran has an important role in terrorist attacks in Herat," Mr. Niayesh said. "Three or four Iranians were captured. They had a plan against government officials who were not working in their interest."

Members of Parliament and security officials say Iran bribes local and central government officials to work for it, offering them 10 to 15 Iranian visas per week to give to friends and associates. Afghans visit to conduct business, receive medical care and see family.

Continue reading the main story
Photo
A former member of the Afghan police service who is now in the Pul-e-Charki prison. She was accused of being a secret Iranian agent after shooting an American trainer to death in the Kabul Police Headquarters in 2012, and was sentenced to death. CreditBryan Denton for The New York Times

The Afghan police have uncovered cases of even deeper infiltration, too. A female member of the Afghan police service was sentenced to death, accused of being a secret Iranian agent, after fatally shooting an American trainer in the Kabul Police Headquarters in 2012.

"Our western neighbor is working very seriously," said the senior Afghan police official in Herat who requested anonymity because of the nature of his work. " We have even found heavy artillery to be used against the city."

Iran is supporting multiple anti-government militant groups in half a dozen western provinces, he said. The Afghan police, despite a lack of resources, are working to dismantle them.

"The same sort of people are still in the city," he added. "They are doing their work, and we are doing our work."

Continue reading the main story
Photo
Members of the Afghan security forces walked through a set of riverside gardens that were the scene of running gun battles between the Taliban and Afghan security forces last fall.CreditBryan Denton for The New York Times

Double-Edged Soft Power

Afghans dream of restoring their landlocked, war-torn country to the rich trading center it was in days of old, when caravans carried goods along the Silk Road from China to Europe, and people and ideas traveled along the same route.

If Tehran has its way, the modern Silk Road will once again run across Afghanistan's western border, and proceed through Iran. At least that is the ambition.

On one side of the Afghan border, India has been building a road through southwestern Afghanistan to allow traders to bypass Pakistan, which has long restricted the transit of Afghan goods.

Tehran's goal is to join that route on the Iranian side of the border with road and rail links ending at the port of Chabahar on the Persian Gulf.

"We said that Afghanistan would not be landlocked anymore and we would be at Afghanistan's disposal," said Mr. Bahrami, the Iranian ambassador in Kabul, stressing that Iran's contribution to the Afghan road was not stalled even by its economic difficulties under sanctions.

But Iran's economic leverage comes at a price.

Afghan officials say Iran's support of the Taliban is aimed in part at disrupting development projects that might threaten its dominance. The Iranian goal, they contend, is to keep Afghanistan supplicant.

The biggest competition is for water, and Afghans have every suspicion that Iran is working to subvert plans in Afghanistan for upstream dams that could threaten its water supply.

Continue reading the main story
Photo
Mohammed Amin, a farmer, with his greenhouse-grown tomatoes in the city of Farah. He said the proposed Bakhshabad dam project, which would irrigate Farah Province, would help him compete with Iranian produce prices. CreditBryan Denton for The New York Times

Iran has raised the issue of the dams in bilateral meetings, and President Hassan Rouhani recently criticized the projects as damaging to the environment.

With the upheaval of 40 years of coups and wars in Afghanistan, large-scale development plans, like hydroelectric projects, have largely been stalled since the 1970s. Even after international assistance poured into Afghanistan after 2001, internal and external politics often got in the way.

But President Ashraf Ghani, determined to generate economic growth, made a priority of completing the Salma dam in Herat Province, and has ordered work on another dam at Bakhshabad, to irrigate the vast western province of Farah.

In Farah, despite the two calamitous Taliban offensives on the provincial capital in October and January, the Bakhshabad dam is the first thing everyone mentions.

"We don't want help from nongovernmental organizations or from the government," said Mohammed Amin, who owns a flourishing vegetable farm, growing cucumbers and tomatoes under rows of plastic greenhouses. "We in Farah don't want anything. Just Bakhshabad."

Afghanistan's lack of irrigation makes it impossible to compete with Iranian produce prices, something Bakhshabad could solve, he said.

The project is still only in the planning stage. But the dam, with its promise of irrigation and hydroelectricity for a population lacking both, is a powerful dream — if Iran does not thwart it.

"The most important issue is water," Mr. Lalai, the presidential adviser, said of relations with Iran. "Most of our water goes to our neighbors. If we are prosperous, we might give them less."


Photo
Taliban fighters in Herat Province last year. CreditAllauddin Khan/Associated Press

Peace or Proxy War?

The death of Mullah Mansour removed Iran's crucial link to the Taliban. But it has also fractured the Taliban, spurring a number of high-level defections and opening opportunities for others, including Iran, to meddle.

An overwhelming majority of Taliban blame Pakistan for Mullah Mansour's death. The strike deepened disillusionment with their longtime Pakistani sponsors.

About two dozen Taliban commanders, among them senior leaders who had been close to Mullah Mansour, have since left their former bases in Pakistan.

They have moved quietly into southern Afghanistan, settling back in their home villages, under protection of local Afghan security officials who hope to encourage a larger shift by insurgents to reconcile with the government.

Those with family still in Pakistan live under close surveillance and control by Pakistani intelligence, said the former Taliban commander, who recently abandoned the fight and moved his family into Afghanistan to escape reprisals.

He said he had become increasingly disaffected by Pakistan's highhanded direction of the war. "We all know this is Pakistan's war, not Afghanistan's war," he said. "Pakistan never wanted Afghanistan to be at peace."

The question now: Does Iran?

Citing the threat from the Islamic State as an excuse, Iran may choose, with Russian help, to deepen a proxy war in Afghanistan that could undermine an already struggling unity government.

Or it could encourage peace, as it did in the first years after 2001, for the sake of stability on at least one of its borders, prospering with Afghanistan.

For now, Iran and Russia have found common cause similar to their partnership in Syria, senior Afghan officials and others warn.

Emboldened by their experience in Syria, they seem to be building on their partnership to hurt America in Afghanistan, cautioned the political analyst Mr. Sharan.

As American forces draw down in Afghanistan, jockeying for influence over the Taliban is only intensifying.

"Pakistan is helping the Taliban straightforwardly," said Mr. Jehan, the former Afghan intelligence official who is now governor of Farah. "Russia and Iran are indirectly helping the Taliban. We might come to the point that they interfere overtly.

"I think we should not give them this chance," he added. "Otherwise, Afghanistan will be given up to the open rivalry of these countries."

The former Afghan foreign minister, Rangin Dadfar Spanta, warned that the country risked being pulled into the larger struggle between Sunni powers from the Persian Gulf and Shiite Iran.

"Afghanistan should keep out the rivalry of the regional powers," he said. "We are vulnerable."

Some officials are optimistic that Iran is not an enemy of Afghanistan, but the outlook is mixed.

"There is a good level of understanding," Abdullah Abdullah, the Afghan government's chief executive, said of relations with Iran.

"What we hear is that contacts with the Taliban are to encourage them to pursue peace rather than military activities," he said.

Mohammad Asif Rahimi, the governor of Herat, warned that if Farah had fallen to the Taliban, the entire western region would have been laid open for the insurgents.

Iran's meddling has now grown to the extent that it puts the whole country at risk of a Taliban takeover, not just his province, he said.

But it could have been prevented, in the view of Mr. Sharan.

"The fact is that America created this void," he said. "This vacuum encouraged countries to get involved. The Syria issue gave confidence to Iran and Russia, and now that confidence is playing out in Afghanistan."

Continue reading the main story
Photo
A bridge in Farah that was nearly captured in October in fierce fighting as Iranian-backed Taliban forces carried out a major assault on the city. CreditBryan Denton for The New York Times

--
****
Juan
 
Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.
- Adlai Stevenson





Saturday, August 5, 2017

Something to Know - 5 August



The following story, from The Guardian, condenses the main points of the trump train as it whizzed through the White House (aka "A Dump") the past few months.   

The White House, Washington, seen at night.
There is a grand jury in Washington DC. The special counsel's team is full of experts in financial crime. On Russia, the president can feel the net closing
 
Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday 5 August 2017 
The legal net around Donald Trump's beleaguered presidency tightened dramatically this week with news that a grand jury has been established a few hundred yards from the White House, to pursue evidence of collusion with the Kremlin.

It is a troubling development for the president, for several reasons. In the US legal system, a grand jury has broad powers to issue subpoenas, and ultimately indictments, at the request of prosecutors.

The special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 US election, former FBI chief Robert Mueller, had been using a sitting grand jury in Virginia to authorise his team's demands for documents and witnesses. The convening of a separate grand jury in Washington suggests the Mueller team – working in a suite of offices a few blocks' walk from where the 20-odd jurors sit – is going to be making extensive use of it. It will not be hospitable terrain for the president. Trump won only 4% of the vote in the District of Columbia.

"This sets the scene of action for criminal trials, where charges will be laid, in the worst possible jurisdiction for Trump," said Scott Horton, a lecturer at Columbia Law School. "Compared to Virginia, Republicans in DC are few and far between."

The grand jury is also clear evidence that the inquiry is widening, not tapering off. It suggests that the special counsel is exploring possible crimes committed inside the District of Columbia.

Mueller's investigators are reported by the New York Times to have asked the White House for documents related to the administration's first, short-lived national security advisor, Michael Flynn, who resigned after being found to have concealed the full nature of his contacts with the Russian ambassador to Washington, and who is also under scrutiny for his lobbying work for Turkey during the campaign.

Meanwhile, a report from Vox that senior FBI officials have been told to consider themselves potential witnesses in an investigation of Trump for obstruction of justice. The former FBI director James Comey, Mueller's successor in the post, has testified that Trump tried to put pressure on him to drop the Flynn investigation.

After Comey rebuffed the pressure and refused to swear personal loyalty to Trump, he was fired, on May 9. Trump denies trying to coerce Comey into dropping the case but this is not simply one man's word against another's. Comey made extensive notes and kept an inner circle of top FBI aides informed of daily developments.

In the investigation into the obstruction of justice, the White House is the potential crime scene. That is where Trump contrived to be alone on two occasions with Comey and where the alleged arm-twisting took place.

In the Watergate scandal, to which the Russian influence affair is drawing inevitable comparisons, it was the cover-up that ultimately proved fatal to Richard Nixon's presidency. It is increasingly possible the same fate could befall Trump. On Tuesday, after adamant denials from Trump's lawyer, the White House admitted that Trump had "weighed in as any father would" in drafting a misleading statement about his son's June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer with strong Kremlin and intelligence links. The statement said the meeting was about adoptions of Russian children by US nationals. An email exchange released later by Donald Trump Jr showed that the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was in fact offering damaging material on Hillary Clinton.

Reuters has reported that the grand jury in Washington had already issued subpoenas connected to that meeting at Trump Tower in New York, another sign that the investigation is closing in on the Trump family. Trump Jr's rapid emailed response to the Russian offer of dirt on Clinton – "If it's what you say I love it" – suggests at least an appetite for collusion, like his father's own call a month later, in July 2016, for Russia to find thousands of Clinton's "missing" emails. The Trump campaign later denied that public appeal represented an encouragement for Moscow to hack his opponent's private server. Trump Jr has claimed nothing came of the June meeting with Veselnitskaya.

Grand jury subpoenas could oblige the president's son and other participants at the meeting, including Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to testify under oath about what really happened in Trump Tower.

Manafort, who ran the campaign for three months in the summer of 2016, has been widely reported to be a focal point of the Mueller inquiry and the FBI investigation before that. Having worked as an adviser to Moscow-backed figures in Ukraine, he represents one of the links between Trump and Moscow. CNN reported on Friday that investigators had found intercepts of Russian operatives referring to conversations with Manafort about coordinating the release of information damaging to Clinton possibly hacked from the Democratic National Committee.

A spokesman for Manafort, Jason Maloni, rejected the report. "Paul Manafort did not collude with the Russian government to undermine the 2016 election or to hack the DNC," Maloni said in an email to the Guardian. "Other than that comment, we aren't going to respond to anonymous officials illegally peddling secondhand conspiracy theories. But the Justice Department, and the courts if necessary, should hold someone to account for the flood of unlawful government leaks targeting Mr Manafort."

It is evident, however, that the scrutiny of Manafort, the now infamous Trump Tower meeting and the obstruction of justice issue are just fragments of a far bigger inquiry. Almost all the 16 lawyers now on Mueller's team are specialists in money-laundering and other financial crimes, suggesting that the investigation will spend much of its time unwinding the complexities of the Trump and Kushner real estate empires, looking for where the money has come from to keep them afloat. The latest hire, Greg Andres, is a former deputy assistant attorney general who used to run a unit that targeted foreign bribery.

Their lives are going to be subjected to scrutiny. No one is getting out unscathed. That's why Trump is so terrified
Malcolm Nance, former US intelligence officer
"The Mueller dream-team now has the top 14 financial crimes prosecutors in America," said Malcolm Nance, a former US intelligence officer and the author of a book on Moscow's role in the 2016 US election, The Plot to Hack America. Nance predicted that the Mueller investigation would look into every corner of Trump and Kushner's past business dealings.

"The wheels of justice grind finely and slow but this is a wood chipper, and all these various items and going to get fed into it – Flynn, [Jared] Kushner, Trump, Manafort and anyone who has been assigned to the White House over this period," Nance said. "Their entire lives are going to be subjected to scrutiny. No one is getting out unscathed. That's why Trump is so terrified."

In a New York Times interview last month, Trump appeared to suggest that a probe of his financial dealings beyond direct links with Russia would represent a "violation", a possible red line which Mueller should not cross. He would not be drawn on whether he would seek to have the special counsel sacked in that eventuality, "because I don't think it's going to happen".

Firing Mueller would come at a high price, triggering uproar in Washington, alienating some Republicans in Congress. Two bipartisan bills were drafted this week aimed at blocking Trump from doing just that.

Even if the president managed to rid himself of the troublesome special counsel, he would have no guarantee that he could kill off the investigation. The work of other members of the team and of the grand juries would continue.

Trump has also been reported to be exploring the possibility of issuing pardons to family members and other associates found to have broken the law, including even pardoning himself, a stretch of executive prerogative into uncharted territory.

For now, his strategy is to seek to drain the legitimacy of the special counsel and the FBI, ridiculing the investigation as a witch hunt. His supporters are counter-investigating the Mueller team, looking for weaknesses and points of leverage and portraying the investigators as operatives of an amorphous "deep state".

"They can't beat us at the voting booths, so they're trying to cheat you out of the future and the future that you want," Trump told a rally in West Virginia on Thursday, fueling the mood of paranoia among his most committed supporters.

That strategy looks ahead to an endgame in which the Mueller investigation comes into its conclusion, next year or possibly even later than that. The grand juries could issue indictments of Trump associates along the way, but when it comes to the president himself, Mueller's judgment will most likely come in the form of a report to Congress.

It will then be up to the House of Representatives whether to proceed with impeachment and then the Senate to decide his guilt. Those will be political judgements. Until now, only a few Republicans have broken ranks openly against Trump.

The president's general approval ratings have slid to the mid-30s, but they are still high among his core supporters in battleground states, who believe fervently in "deep state" conspiracies. Any Republicans voting for impeachment would have to watch their back. The unfolding investigation could topple a president, or it could just as easily divide and wound the country even more grievously that it is now.


--
****
Juan
 
Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.
- Adlai Stevenson





Friday, August 4, 2017

Something to Know - 4 August



This article is from "The Hill" - a publication that centers around the affairs of Washington DC and mostly about the political climate.   It goes beyond the breaking news bulletin issued by CNN yesterday, when it was announced that Mueller was now assembling a Grand Jury.   It appears that this will be a jury of about 23 people who will be dedicated to meet weekly to go over and listen to testimony and evidence that has been prepared by the Special Counsel.   Mueller has the authority to subpoena witnesses, place them under oath, and obtain pertinent financial records - and this means the flow of money in and out of various sources through and to the Trump Organization, PLUS Trump's tax records.   The proceedings are closed, except witnesses can comment as to what they testified, and jurors can also comment on what they heard.   This will begin a long and slow deliberate process, and those who recall the Watergate proceedings will remember the historical significance of what is about to unfold.

Mueller's grand jury: What it means
BY JONATHAN EASLEY - 08/04/17 06:00 AM EDT  1,948
\
The news that special counsel Robert Mueller has impaneled a grand jury has shaken Washington, fueling speculation that the investigation into Russian election meddling is growing in scope and seriousness.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that Mueller, whose team of prosecutors has swelled to 16 in recent weeks, now has a dedicated pool of 23 grand jurors charged with examining subpoenaed documents, listening to witness testimony and ultimately deciding whether criminal charges are warranted.

A spokesman for the special counsel declined to confirm or deny the existence of the grand jury.

Legal experts say the development is not in itself surprising — a special investigator given broad authority by the Justice Department to probe allegations with proximity to the White House would be expected to convene a select grand jury.

Yet the Washington, D.C.-based grand jury is significant because Mueller reportedly already had a grand jury in Alexandria, Va., for an investigation into the business dealings and campaign contacts of Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn. 

If Mueller felt the investigation did not extend beyond Flynn, he would not have needed to impanel a new grand jury in the nation's capital, some say.

The existence of a grand jury also indicates Mueller will be pursuing criminal charges, even if the target of his investigation and the channels he might take remain a mystery.

Mueller has subpoena powers and can compel witnesses to testify before his grand jury, which would also vote on whether to indict any of the subjects of his investigations.

The top-level legal talent that Mueller continues to accumulate — most recently Greg Andres of the New York law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, who left his partnership to join the team — is a sign to some that the special counsel is digging in for a monthslong or even yearslong slog.

"This is going well into 2018 and whether it lasts beyond that is anyone's guess," Robert Ray, the special counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton's Whitewater dealings, told The Hill. "This is an indication that it will not be wrapped up in 30, 60 or 90 days."

Still, experts cautioned not to read too much into the formation of a grand jury, which is an expected step for a seasoned prosecutor like Mueller.

Plus, grand juries do not always return indictments. Ray's Whitewater grand jury did not result in criminal charges against the president.

"If I'm in Trump World, I don't know that this rattles me because it's not a surprise, but it's certainly not good news for the president," said John Wood, a former U.S. attorney. 

"It's newsworthy because there was always the possibility the investigation would wrap up soon and this is an indication it won't. Still, it doesn't mean for certain that charges are coming. Grand juries are used for the investigation portion as well as for charges, so there may be no charges. It only tells us that Mueller is looking into more than Michael Flynn."

The pool of 23 ordinary citizens is expected to be called on weekly to examine Mueller's findings and hear from witnesses who will be compelled to testify under penalty of contempt.

Grand juries typically last for 12 to 18 months but can last for years. It would require a majority of jurors — 12 — to issue an indictment. Most grand juries are shared by multiple prosecutors, but it is expected that Mueller's will be his alone.

The investigation could go in any number of directions.

CNN reported Thursday that subpoenas had been issued in relation to a meeting Donald Trump Jr. had with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower last year. A representative for the lawyer had claimed the lawyer had damaging information on then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, but all of the parties that attended the meeting claim the lawyer instead pushed for changes to a U.S. law that sanctioned Russia for human rights violations.

Several media outlets have reported that Mueller's investigation could extend to Trump's business empire, which would be a controversial line of inquiry.

"If they're truly looking into potential financial crimes unrelated to Russia and the 2016 election, I'd say they're stepping outside of their delegated authority, and that would be very concerning," said former U.S. Attorney Matthew Whitaker. "This shouldn't be a fishing expedition. Eventually, it starts looking political and like you're abusing the instruments of your investigation to go after the president."

Barring leaks, which have become commonplace in the Trump era, the grand jury and special counsel will operate largely in secrecy. It will likely not be known for some time who the targets of the investigation are or what paths the investigation takes.

Former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired, has testified that the president was never the target of an investigation when he was in charge of the bureau, in contrast to media reports that suggested otherwise.

"Comey said three times the president is not under investigation, and we have no reason to believe that has changed," said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Meanwhile, Trump has ratcheted up his attacks against Mueller in recent weeks. He has called the investigation a "witch hunt" and drawn attention to alleged conflicts of interest with members of Mueller's team. 

Trump's allies have described Mueller and Comey as close friends and have drawn attention to Democratic donations from some of the lawyers on the special counsel.

There has long been speculation that the president would fire Mueller or seek to have him removed, but Trump attorney Jay Sekulow swatted away that speculation in an interview on Fox News's "Your World with Neil Cavuto" on Thursday.

"The president is not thinking about firing Robert Mueller, so the speculation that's out there is just incorrect," he said.

Sekulow also downplayed the impaneling of the grand jury, saying it was expected.

"This is not a surprise because the impaneling of a grand jury in situations like this, when you've got an investigation, is typically how you move forward," Sekulow said. "It is really much a standard operating procedure when you've got a situation like this but with respect to the impaneling of the grand jury, we have no reason to believe that the president is under investigation here."

White House special counsel Ty Cobb said he only learned of the grand jury through media reports.

"Grand jury matters are typically secret," Cobb said in a statement. "The White House favors anything that accelerates the conclusion of his work fairly. The White House is committed to fully cooperating with Mr. Mueller."


--
****
Juan
 
Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.
- Adlai Stevenson





Thursday, August 3, 2017

Andy borowitz


Satire from The Borowitz Report
Trump Says Mueller Just Called Him and Said He's the Most Innocent Person Ever

By Andy Borowitz

Photograph by Nicholas Kamm / AFP / Getty

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The special counsel, Robert Mueller, just called Donald Trump to tell the President that he was "the most innocent person ever," Trump told reporters on Thursday.

"It was the middle of the afternoon, and he just picked up the phone to say how innocent I was," Trump said. "He said I was the most innocent person he'd ever come across, and maybe in history."

"He said he had been over all of the evidence and that he and his staff would spend hours just looking at each other in amazement at about how unbelievably innocent I was," he said.
Trump said that he asked Mueller why, in his opinion, the media had reported so many stories about his campaign colluding with Russians. "Bob said to me, 'Are you talking about the failing New York Times and CNN?' " Trump reported. " 'They have been very unfair to you. They are bad (or sick) people. Sad!' That's what Bob said to me."
The conversation wound down with a series of "pleasantries," Trump said, with Mueller complimenting him on the size of his 2016 victory, including his enormous win in New Hampshire.



--
****
Juan
 
Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.
- Adlai Stevenson





Fwd: CNN Exclusive

This is the beginning of putting of putting together that which the Special Counsel (Mr. Mueller) and his team have been working on.   Any attempt by Trump at this point to end the investigation would surely raise concerns and red flags (or any color of your Emergency) - the Articles of Impeachment would soon follow.   There is a wide range of issues to which one can hang a target of criminal behavior, besides Trump being just an awful shit.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: CNN Breaking News <CNNBreakingNews@mail.cnn.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 1:56 PM
Subject: CNN Exclusive
To: no-reply@siteservices.cnn.com


Federal investigators exploring whether Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russian spies have seized on Trump and his associates' financial ties to Russia as one of the most fertile avenues for moving their probe forward, according to people familiar with the investigation.

The web of financial ties could offer a more concrete path toward potential prosecution than the broader and murkier questions of collusion in the 2016 campaign, these sources said.

One year after the FBI opened an investigation, the probe is now managed by special counsel Robert Mueller. Sources described an investigation that has widened to focus on possible financial crimes, some unconnected to the 2016 elections, alongside the ongoing scrutiny of possible illegal coordination with Russian spy agencies and alleged attempts by President Donald Trump and others to obstruct the FBI investigation. Even investigative leads that have nothing to do with Russia but involve Trump associates are being referred to the special counsel to encourage subjects of the investigation to cooperate, according to two law enforcement sources.



----------------------------------------------
Get complete coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile.
Watch CNN live or On Demand from your computer or mobile device using CNNgo.
----------------------------------------------


You have opted-in to receive this e-mail from CNN.com.
To unsubscribe from Breaking News e-mail alerts, go to: http://cnn.com/EMAIL/breakingnews/unsubscribe.html?l=domestic-adh-bn
One CNN Center Atlanta, GA 30303
(c) & (r) 2017 Cable News Network



--
****
Juan
 
Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.
- Adlai Stevenson





Andy Borowitz


White House Accuses French Woman of Spreading Pro-Immigration Propaganda

By Andy Borowitz

Photograph by Drew Angerer / Getty

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The White House on Wednesday accused an elderly French woman of spreading pro-immigration propaganda that undermined "everything this country stands for."
Stephen Miller, Donald J. Trump's senior adviser for policy, made the explosive allegations, calling the French woman "the most dangerous woman in America."
"Bringing this incendiary propaganda to our shores was a subversive act on her part," Miller said. "She did not have it when she first came here."
Miller added that whether the French woman would be eligible to remain in the U.S. under the Republicans' new immigration proposal was "something we are looking into," noting that the woman did not appear to speak English and that holding a torch in the air was not a skill.

--
****
Juan
 
Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.
- Adlai Stevenson





Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Something to Know - 1 August






Late last evening, the Washington Post broke this story.   It really overshadows (trumps?) the White House buzz of earlier in the day.   In yet another, and more definitive legal way, it places the 45th president in the cross-hairs of Obstruction of Justice.   This is all in the Special Counsel's scope of the investigation of collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 election.   The matter of dark issues and money laundering of Trump's financials, well that is just another plank of stink on a stick.  The factual account of this story is exactly what Mueller will devour in his investigation:

Trump dictated son's misleading statement on meeting with Russian lawyer

 Play Video 2:00
President Trump personally intervened to write Donald Trump Jr. statement
President Trump personally dictated a statement that was issued after revelations that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 election. The Washington Post's Philip Rucker and Carol D. Leonnig explain. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)
 July 31 at 7:46 PM 

On the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Germany last month, President Trump's advisers discussed how to respond to a new revelation that Trump's oldest son had met with a Russian lawyer during the 2016 campaign — a disclosure the advisers knew carried political and potentially legal peril. 

The strategy, the advisers agreed, should be for Donald Trump Jr. to release a statement to get ahead of the story. They wanted to be truthful, so their account couldn't be repudiated later if the full details emerged.

But within hours, at the president's direction, the plan changed.

Flying home from Germany on July 8 aboard Air Force One, Trump personally dictated a statement in which Trump Jr. said that he and the Russian lawyer had "primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children" when they met in June 2016, according to multiple people with knowledge of the deliberations. The statement, issued to the New York Times as it prepared an article, emphasized that the subject of the meeting was "not a campaign issue at the time."

The claims were later shown to be misleading.

President-elect Donald Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. at a news conference at Trump Tower in New York on Jan. 11. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Over the next three days, multiple accounts of the meeting were provided to the news media as public pressure mounted, with Trump Jr. ultimately acknowledging that he had accepted the meeting after receiving an emailpromising damaging information about Hillary Clinton as part of a Russian government effort to help his father's campaign.

The extent of the president's personal intervention in his son's response, the details of which have not previously been reported, adds to a series of actions that Trump has taken that some advisers fear could place him and some members of his inner circle in legal jeopardy.

As special counsel Robert S. Mueller III looks into potential obstruction of justice as part of his broader investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, these advisers worry that the president's direct involvement leaves him needlessly vulnerable to allegations of a coverup.

"This was . . . unnecessary," said one of the president's advisers, who like most other people interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations. "Now someone can claim he's the one who attempted to mislead. Somebody can argue the president is saying he doesn't want you to say the whole truth."

Trump has already come under criticism for steps he has taken to challenge and undercut the Russia investigation.

He fired FBI Director James B. Comey on May 9 after a private meeting in which Comey said the president asked him if he could end the investigation of ousted national security adviser Michael Flynn. 

Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats told associates that Trump asked him in March if he could intervene with Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on Flynn. In addition, Trump has repeatedly criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from overseeing the FBI's Russian investigation — a decision that was one factor leading to the appointment of Mueller. And he has privately discussed his power to issue pardons, including for himself, and explored potential avenues for undercutting Mueller's work.A look at the second half, so far, of President Trump's first year in office.

Although misleading the public or the news media is not a crime, advisers to Trump and his family told The Washington Post that they fear any indication that Trump was seeking to hide information about contacts between his campaign and Russians almost inevitably would draw additional scrutiny from Mueller.

Trump, they say, is increasingly acting as his own lawyer, strategist and publicist, often disregarding the recommendations of the professionals he has hired.

"He refuses to sit still," the presidential adviser said. "He doesn't think he's in any legal jeopardy, so he really views this as a political problem he is going to solve by himself." 

Trump has said that the Russia investigation is "the greatest witch hunt in political history," calling it an elaborate hoax created by Democrats to explain why Clinton lost an election she should have won.

Because Trump believes he is innocent, some advisers explained, he therefore does not think he is at any legal risk for a coverup. In his mind, they said, there is nothing to conceal. 

The White House directed all questions for this article to the president's legal team.

One of Trump's attorneys, Jay Sekulow, declined to discuss the specifics of the president's actions and his role in crafting his son's statement about the Russian contact. Sekulow issued a one-sentence statement in response to a list of detailed questions from The Post. 

"Apart from being of no consequence, the characterizations are misinformed, inaccurate, and not pertinent," Sekulow's statement read.

Trump Jr. did not respond to requests for comment. His attorney, Alan Futerfas, told The Post that he and his client "were fully prepared and absolutely prepared to make a fulsome statement" about the meeting, what led up to it and what was discussed.

Asked about Trump intervening, Futerfas said, "I have no evidence to support that theory." He described the process of drafting a statement as "a communal situation that involved communications people and various lawyers."

Peter Zeidenberg, the deputy special prosecutor who investigated the George W. Bush administration's leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, said Mueller will have to dig into the crafting of Trump Jr.'s statement aboard Air Force One.

Prosecutors typically assume that any misleading statement is an effort to throw investigators off the track, Zeidenberg said. 

"The thing that really strikes me about this is the stupidity of involving the president," Zeidenberg said. "They are still treating this like a family-run business and they have a PR problem. . . . What they don't seem to understand is this is a criminal investigation involving all of them."

Advocating for transparency

The debate about how to deal with the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting began weeks before any news organizations began to ask questions about it.

Kushner's legal team first learned about the meeting when doing research to respond to congressional requests for information. Congressional investigators wanted to know about any contacts the president's son-in-law and senior adviser had with Russian officials or business people.

Kushner's lawyers came across what they immediately recognized would eventually become a problematic story. A string of emails showed Kushner attended a meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in the midst of the campaign — one he had failed to disclose. Trump Jr. had arranged it, and then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort had also attended. 

To compound what was, at best, a public relations fiasco, the emails, which had not yet surfaced publicly, showed Trump Jr. responding to the prospect of negative information on Clinton from Russia: "I love it." 

Lawyers and advisers for Trump, his son and son-in-law gamed out strategies for disclosing the information to try to minimize the fallout of these new links between the Trump family and Russia, according to people familiar with the deliberations.

Hope Hicks, the White House director of strategic communications and one of the president's most trusted and loyal aides, and Josh Raffel, a White House spokesman who works closely with Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, huddled with Kushner's lawyers, and they advocated for a more transparent approach, according to people with knowledge of the conversations.

In one scenario, these people said, Kushner's team talked about sharing everything, including the contents of the emails, with a mainstream news organization.

Hicks and Raffel declined to comment. Kushner attorney Abbe Lowell also declined to comment.

The president's outside legal team, led by Marc Kasowitz, had suggested that the details be given to Circa, an online news organization that the Kasowitz team thought would be friendly to Trump. Circa had inquired in previous days about the meeting, according to people familiar with the discussions. 

The president's legal team planned to cast the June 2016 meeting as a potential setup by Democratic operatives hoping to entrap Trump Jr. and, by extension, the presumptive Republican nominee, according to people familiar with discussions.

Kasowitz declined to comment for this article, as did a Circa spokesman.

Consensus overruled

Circumstances changed when the New York Times began asking about the Trump Tower meeting, though advisers believed that the newspaper knew few of the details. While the president, Kushner and Ivanka Trump were attending the G-20 summit in Germany, the Times asked for White House comment on the impetus and reason for the meeting.

During breaks away from the summit, Kushner and Ivanka Trump gathered with Hicks and Raffel to discuss Kushner's response to the inquiry, according to people with knowledge of the discussions. Kushner's legal team joined at times by phone.

Hicks also spoke by phone with Trump Jr. Again, say people familiar with the conversations, Kushner's team concluded that the best strategy would be to err on the side of transparency, because they believed the complete story would eventually emerge.

The discussions among the president's advisers consumed much of the day, and they continued as they prepared to board Air Force One that evening for the flight home.

But before everyone boarded the plane, Trump had overruled the consensus, according to people with knowledge of the events.

It remains unclear exactly how much the president knew at the time of the flight about Trump Jr.'s meeting.

The president directed that Trump Jr.'s statement to the Times describe the meeting as unimportant. He wanted the statement to say that the meeting had been initiated by the Russian lawyer and primarily was about her pet issue — the adoption of Russian children.

Air Force One took off from Germany shortly after 6 p.m. — about noon in Washington. In a forward cabin, Trump was busy working on his son's statement, according to people with knowledge of events. The president dictated the statement to Hicks, who served as a go-between with Trump Jr., who was not on the plane, sharing edits between the two men, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.

In the early afternoon, Eastern time, Trump Jr.'s team put out the statement to the Times. It was four sentences long, describing the encounter as a "short, introductory meeting."

"We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up," the statement read. 

Trump Jr. went on to say: "I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand."

Over the next hour, word spread through emails and calls to other Trump family advisers and lawyers about the statement that Trump Jr. had sent to the Times.

subscribe
The story must be told.
Your subscription supports journalism that matters.

Some lawyers for the president and for Kushner were surprised and frustrated, advisers later learned. According to people briefed on the dispute, some lawyers tried to reach Futerfas and their clients and began asking why the president had been involved.

Also on the flight, Kushner worked with his team — including one of his lawyers, who called in to the plane.

His lawyers have said that Kushner's initial omission of the meeting was an error, but that in an effort to be fully transparent, he had updated his government filing to include "this meeting with a Russian person, which he briefly attended at the request of his brother-in-law Donald Trump Jr." Kushner's legal team referred all questions about the meeting itself to Trump Jr. 

The Times' story revealing the existence of the June 2016 meeting was posted online about 4 p.m. Eastern time. Roughly four hours later, Air Force One touched down at Joint Base Andrews. Trump's family members and advisers departed the plane, and they knew the problem they had once hoped to contain would soon grow bigger. 

Alice Crites contributed to this r


--
****
Juan
 
Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.
- Adlai Stevenson