What's new

US Politics

How do you think the present stalemate will end in DC?

Honestly no idea on the specifics. I don't see Trump backing down on this. Its literally a small pittance of an amount hes asking for....even some dem celebs/hosts like Cher and trevor noah are like...just give him the darn money and get the govt open again (coz they do love their big govt).

Longer this goes, the longer more US people see...hey govt shutdowns are kinda fine lol....and get even more desensitized to it. So I see this only with dems working wall/barrier (call it whatever they want) into the spending bill. Otherwise Trump is gonna go the national emergency route...and dems simply lose a bargaining chip (given the opponent just bypasses them) and pretty much squander their control of the house... which is interesting stuff for 2020 (given the whole higher level idea of many voters voting for the dems in swingey areas...was to give them some balance/bargaining power with Trump...but not to squander it).

I have a gut feeling Trump's giving them a bit more time till the SOTU comes up....which they are forced to attend and listen to him....and he might just announce something to their faces (just to show the american people their reaction...live) during it heh.

A high level Trump 2020 campaign aide recently hinted that a good number of swing/suburb voters in the rust belt (And swing states more generally)... as much as they may be disliking Trump on various other things, are pretty strong in their support for the wall and for Trump not to back down on it. TIFWIW of course.

LOL:


 
Honestly no idea on the specifics. I don't see Trump backing down on this. Its literally a small pittance of an amount hes asking for....even some dem celebs/hosts like Cher and trevor noah are like...just give him the darn money and get the govt open again (coz they do love their big govt).

Longer this goes, the longer more US people see...hey govt shutdowns are kinda fine lol....and get even more desensitized to it. So I see this only with dems working wall/barrier (call it whatever they want) into the spending bill. Otherwise Trump is gonna go the national emergency route...and dems simply lose a bargaining chip (given the opponent just bypasses them) and pretty much squander their control of the house... which is interesting stuff for 2020 (given the whole higher level idea of many voters voting for the dems in swingey areas...was to give them some balance/bargaining power with Trump...but not to squander it).

I have a gut feeling Trump's giving them a bit more time till the SOTU comes up....which they are forced to attend and listen to him....and he might just announce something to their faces (just to show the american people their reaction...live) during it heh.

A high level Trump 2020 campaign aide recently hinted that a good number of swing/suburb voters in the rust belt (And swing states more generally)... as much as they may be disliking Trump on various other things, are pretty strong in their support for the wall and for Trump not to back down on it. TIFWIW of course.

LOL:



Mueller's report to come out soon may suddenly change everything.
 
Mueller's report to come out soon may suddenly change everything.

Anything of game changing importance (i.e an actual crime) would have "leaked" a long time ago :D

It, like all else, will just be added to the pile of political gamesmanship/bickering in the end. The "undecideds/neutrals" are very rare set of ppl...everything is basically on turnout/satisfying the base now in the end.
 
Anything of game changing importance (i.e an actual crime) would have "leaked" a long time ago :D

It, like all else, will just be added to the pile of political gamesmanship/bickering in the end. The "undecideds/neutrals" are very rare set of ppl...everything is basically on turnout/satisfying the base now in the end.

You are probably correct in that endless bickering will last until the next elections.
 
You are probably correct in that endless bickering will last until the next elections.

Nah far beyond that...certain nasty stuff has been set into motion for a much longer timeframe (because its populist + people sourced in the end)...after building up a long time.

Political correctness may have acted as temporary lubricant under bush 2 and obama...but now gears are starting to grind and mash. A lesser country would have ruptured in some big way quite some time back....its a real testament to the resilience + design of the American system in the end. I stand in awe, always.
 
Nah far beyond that...certain nasty stuff has been set into motion for a much longer timeframe (because its populist + people sourced in the end)...after building up a long time.

Political correctness may have acted as temporary lubricant under bush 2 and obama...but now gears are starting to grind and mash. A lesser country would have ruptured in some big way quite some time back....its a real testament to the resilience + design of the American system in the end. I stand in awe, always.

I have always said it openly that USA will come through its present turmoil stronger than ever as a testament to the system of checks and balances in place.
 
The warnings are getting starker: Trump's government shutdown is becoming catastrophic for the economy

Callum Burroughs and Bob Bryan

  • The US government shutdown is now the longest in the country's history and has shown no signs of abating.
  • JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has suggested that US economic growth could go to zero, and one analyst said it could even go negative.
  • The US-China trade war and a looming conflict about the debt ceiling are creating a perfect storm.

We're 26 days into the record-breaking US government shutdown, and while most economists agree it will weigh on US economic growth, the chorus of warnings about doomsday scenarios is getting louder.

Government shutdowns have typically lasted a few days or a couple of weeks, but the fight between President Donald Trump and Democrats appears set to continue for much longer. According to economists, the negative effects of the shutdown will only grow as the ripple effects from the 800,000 federal employees and millions of government contractors going without pay spread throughout the economy.

Adding to the gloom is the negative effect of the US-China trade war, falling stock prices, growing worries about a slowdown in international growth, and a looming conflict about the debt ceiling.

Given all of the worries facing the US economy, warnings about the shutdown are only amplifying:

  • Bank of America Merrill Lynch on Wednesday reiterated its concern about the economic cost of the shutdown. It "definitely becomes a significant shock if it lasts for months rather than weeks," Ethan Harris, the head of global economics research, told the Financial Times. "There is a sensitivity in the markets to signs of dysfunction in Washington."
  • Standard & Poor's said the cost of the shutdown could soon equal Trump's demand for $5.7 billion to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.
  • The White House even increased its internal estimate of the hit to gross domestic product. A White House official confirmed to Business Insider that the Trump administration's model estimated that the shutdown would shave off 0.13 percentage points from GDP for every week of the shutdown — higher than the 0.08 percentage points originally assumed.
  • JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said Tuesday that the shutdown was a serious problem for the US economy and cited research that found US GDP growth could go to zero if the shutdown continued.
  • Pantheon Macroeconomics' Ian Shepherdson was even more bearish, warning that if the shutdown were to last through March, the US's first-quarter GDP growth could be negative.
  • BAML's figures actually suggest that for each week the government is shut down, US GDP growth is cut by 0.05 percentage points. This is half the economic impact of the 2013 shutdown because this one affects only part of the government. But the economists warned that the pain could get exponentially worse as the fight continues.
  • Another major concern is the possibility that the shutdown will affect the US's credit rating. During the 2013 shutdown fight over the debt ceiling, the US was downgraded to AA+ by S&P, a historic first for the country. While Fitch maintained the US's AAA rating in 2013, James McCormack, the agency's global head of sovereign ratings, warned that a downgrade was possible in 2019.
"The longer this shutdown drags on, the more collateral damage the economy will suffer," analysts at S&P said last week.

There are a variety of reasons for the shutdown slowdown. For instance, figures from 2013 suggest that federal workers spent 10% to 15% less while they went unpaid, reducing consumer spending.

The shutdown also exacerbates worried about potentially more economically damaging fights in Congress, the most pressing of which is the need to raise the debt ceiling in the coming months.

As it stands, the debt ceiling, or the statutory limit on the amount of debt the federal government can hold, kicks back in on March 1. While the US Treasury can maintain funding through special measures, the ceiling will still need to be lifted by Congress sometime over the summer.

Some analysts have said the historic dysfunction over the shutdown sets a nasty precedent for a debt-ceiling fight. Without an increase in the ceiling, the US could default on some of its debt, an unprecedented move that would send shockwaves throughout the global economy.

"Normally, the debt ceiling ends up being lifted, but with deadlock in Congress" there's added risk, said Neil MacKinnon, a global macro strategist at VTB Capital. Source

 
The 2020 marathon has started with a sprint

Analysis by Chris Cillizza and Harry Enten, CNN

January 17, 2019

(CNN)There's been lots (and lots) of action in the 2020 Democratic primary race over the past month, but few actual changes.

A handful of candidates have either announced exploratory committees (Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand) or have outright announced that they are running (Julian Castro).

But aside from Warren (potentially), the candidates who comprise the top tier -- at least at this early stage of the race -- are still on the sidelines. Former Vice President Joe Biden seems to be moving toward a candidacy, but has given no indication of when he might make a decision. California Sen. Kamala Harris is an all-but-announced candidate but continues to play somewhat coy about when she will officially enter. Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke is in soul-searching mode at the moment.

Those decisions -- we'd be surprised if any of the three didn't run -- have the potential to shake up the race in a meaningful way. At the moment, however, the movement in the 2020 field is all in the second tier.

Speaking of which, here's our latest look at the 10 men and women most likely to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, ranked.

ai2html-graphic-desktop.jpg


10. Julian Castro: To the credit of the former San Antonio mayor, he didn't fiddle around much -- he just got in, announcing his candidacy last weekend. "I am not a frontrunner in this race, but I have not been a frontrunner at any time in my life," he said in making his candidacy official. The question now for Castro is how he stands out in the race -- especially if fellow Texan O'Rourke gets in. (Previous ranking: 9)

9. Amy Klobuchar: The pitch from the senior senator from Minnesota to voters will come down to electability and pragmatism. Klobuchar's wide 2018 reelection margin in a state Trump nearly won may sell with voters who desperately want to beat Trump. That, combined with a prosecutorial streak and a fairly moderate record (which may be rare among 2020 contenders), could give her a unique lane to the nomination. (Previous ranking: 7)

8. Kirsten Gillibrand: The New York Senator got into the race earlier this week -- casting herself as a leading voice for women in national politics. In the announcement of her exploratory committee, Gillibrand put her young family front and center -- and noted that she was running to fight for them. Speaking of fighting, her pledge that she is not afraid of Trump could win her some support among Democrats looking for a scrapper. The problem? She has a long voting record in the House that is considerably more conservative than her Senate votes. (She's already trying to clean up that record; she told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Wednesday night that her past positions on guns and immigration were wrong.) (Previous ranking: 10)

7. Bernie Sanders: The 2016 runner-up continues to place a (distant) second in 2020 primary polls behind Biden. That, along with the growing liberalness of the Democratic base, is enough for him to still be a contender. Make no mistake though: his stock has fallen. Despite universal name recognition, he cannot break out of the teens in primary polling. There will also be candidates like O'Rourke who can eat into Sanders' base of young voters. And the last few months have been especially harsh for the Vermont senator. For example, he had to apologize to women who were "harassed or mistreated" during his 2016 campaign by male campaign workers. (Previous ranking: 6)

6. Sherrod Brown: If you're looking for a credible dark horse, the Ohio senator is it. Now Brown isn't in the race yet, but his announcement this week that he is embarking on an early state listening tour suggests he is likely to be a candidate. Brown has a proven record of winning votes in a swing state in the Midwest, a long record of liberal advocacy and an authentic populist streak. But can he raise the money to compete with the big girls and boys? (Previous ranking: 8)

5. Cory Booker: Iowa and New Hampshire will play a big role in the 2020 nomination process. That's good news for the junior senator from New Jersey, who's been working his butt off to build relationships in the two early states. Booker, like others in the field, can point to a progressive Senate record. He's also one of only two black candidates in the field. (Black voters make up around 20% of the Democratic primary electorate.) Booker has two obvious potential flaws. First, many Sanders supporters regard him as a "neoliberal" for his ties to Wall Street. Second, Booker can be very energetic, but sometimes that may come across as insincere. You may recall his "Spartacus moment." (Previous ranking: 4)

4. Elizabeth Warren: After a very rocky run-up to her announcement, the Massachusetts senator had a nice rollout of her exploratory committee -- which she announced somewhat surprisingly on December 31. While Warren flubbed her attempt to put questions of her Native American heritage behind her, she remains a potent figure in the party. She's a liberal's liberal with anti-corporatist cred and an ability to raise tens of millions of dollars. (Previous ranking: 5)

3. Joe Biden: The case for the former vice president is what it's always been: he holds a clear lead in primary polls; his favorable ratings with Democrats are through the roof; he holds a
lead in early polls against Trump (which bolsters an electability argument); and he was second in command to the very popular President Barack Obama. Additionally, it now seems like Biden wants to run, which obviously increases his chance of winning. But Biden's problems are clear too. He's an old white moderate man in a young diversifying party keen on electing progressives and women. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. Beto O'Rourke: The former Texas congressman is the buzziest potential candidate in the field -- by a lot. He's being touted by many as the closest thing to Obama since, well, Obama. And while O'Rourke hasn't made his intentions clear, his solo road trip seems like the sort of thing someone who wants to run for president would do. While O'Rourke still has some time to fix this problem, his fuzziness on issues could come back to bite him if he doesn't get up to speed -- and quickly. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. Kamala Harris: When you're trying to think of who will win the nomination, you have a look at a checklist of attributes that play well within today's Democratic Party. The junior senator from California pretty much checks all of them. Progressive? Check. Woman? Check. Black? Check. Can take it to Trump? She's the former attorney general of California. Still, Harris is well back in the early polls, which keeps us from going all in on her. (Previous ranking: 1)



=====================================

111b.gif
 
Last edited:
As Trump’s disastrous shutdown continues, a new poll by NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist shows that only 30% registered voters will vote for him in 2020. Almost 25% of his supporters aren’t committed to voting for him and among independents, who he won in 2016, 62% plan to vote against him.

Recession warnings pile up as shutdown wraps up fourth week

The impasse is triggering alarms about an already fragile economic environment.

By BEN WHITE 01/17/2019

The partial government shutdown was supposed to be a brief non-event for the economy. Now it’s starting to look like a serious crisis that could nudge the U.S. toward recession and threaten President Donald Trump's economic message during his reelection campaign.

Across Wall Street, analysts are rushing out warnings that missed federal paychecks, dormant government contractors and shelved corporate stock offerings could push first-quarter growth close to or even below zero if the shutdown, which is wrapping up its fourth week, drags on much longer.

Their broader fear: The protracted impasse could convince consumers and businesses that the federal government will spend all of 2019 on the brink of crisis — whether on the border wall, trade with China or the debt limit. That could choke business investment and consumer spending, bringing an end to one of the longest economic expansions on record.

Recessions don’t just happen, after all. They are usually triggered by largely unforeseen shocks to the system, like the tech over-investment and dot-com crash of the late 1990s or the credit crisis of 2008. The government shutdown is not there yet. But the longer it drags on, the closer it gets.

“You can take the ruler out right now and calculate the exact impact from missed paychecks and contracts and you don’t have to go many months to get to zero growth,” said Torsten Slok, chief international economist at Deutsche Bank. “But this is not just some linear event. It can get exponentially worse in very unpredictable ways, from government workers quitting, to strikes, to companies not going public. It’s no longer just a political sideshow, it’s a real recession risk.”

Part of the reason for the increased alarm is that economists and Wall Street forecasters were already worried about the direction of the economy in 2019 as stimulus from the big tax-cut bill fades, growth slows outside the U.S. and Trump’s trade battles send shock waves through the stock market. Consensus estimates for growth this year were already down to under 3 percent before the shutdown.

Now some are slashing their estimates even further. Ian Shepherdson of Pantheon Macroeconomics this week said if the shutdown lasts through March it could push first-quarter growth below zero, a sentiment echoed by J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon on the bank’s earnings call on Tuesday in which he implored Trump and Congress to make a deal.

The White House itself, through the Council of Economic Advisers, said this week that the shutdown impact would be roughly double what it originally anticipated. That could push first-quarter growth below 2 percent.

That’s a number Trump, who promised sustained growth over 3 percent, will not like. And while the president and congressional Republicans are trying to blame Democrats’ intransigence on border wall funding, polls show voters overwhelmingly blame Trump and the GOP.


And incumbent presidents almost always take the blame if the economy goes sour on their watch.

“Herbert Hoover said, ‘The president takes the credit for the sunshine and blame for the rain,’ and he should know,’” said Allan Lichtman, a political historian at American University. “One of the keys that always counts against the sitting president or the party of the sitting is an election-year recession. And in fact no president or their party has ever been re-elected in the midst of an election-year recession.”

The White House for the moment is counting on the shutdown only having a limited and short-term impact. If the government were to reopen soon — before another round of missed federal paychecks next week, for instance — then much of the lost growth could be restored. Trump on Wednesday signed legislation ensuring swift back pay for those who missed paychecks last week.

Some spending that would have happened without a shutdown will never come back. Credit damage to those who missed payments or took out high-interest loans to cover expenses will not be quickly repaired. But if it ends soon, the shutdown is not likely to be the kind of shock that pushes the U.S. toward the next recession.

The risk could rise significantly if the shutdown continues to drag on, directly impacting paychecks and spending and making businesses and consumers more concerned about the March 1 deadline to make a trade deal with China and a summer deadline to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.

In that sense, it would not be the shutdown alone that constitutes the shock to the system. Instead it would be the shutdown instilling in Americans a feeling that the government simply cannot function as currently constructed.

“One thing that we worry about is what is going to break consumer confidence, what is going to shake consumers and shake business confidence, what is going to make people worried enough that maybe they pull back a little bit,” Betsey Stevenson, a member of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama now at the University of Michigan, said on the POLITICO Money podcastthis week. “And that’s why a lot of people are a bit worried that the government shutdown could have long-lasting negative effects if it goes on long enough that it shakes both consumer and business confidence.”

The shutdown itself is limiting the amount of economic data available.

The Commerce Department on Wednesday, for instance, did not release a report on December retail sales due to the lapse in funding. A report on gross domestic product for 2018 scheduled to be released Jan. 30 will not come out if the shutdown is still in effect.


But data that are coming out are increasingly troubling. A private-sector reading on manufacturing activity in the New York region on Tuesday fell to its lowest level in over a year. That followed a reading on manufacturing nationally that fell in December to its lowest level since November 2016, suggesting the shutdown began as the economy was already losing some traction. A key reading on small-business owners’ confidence fell for a fourth straight month in December with respondents citing in part the fractured political climate.

So far, Wall Street has mostly shrugged off both the shutdown and recession warnings, preferring to focus instead on still-solid corporate earnings and signals from the Federal Reserve that it could respond to economic weakness in 2019 by stopping its plans for future rate hikes.

People close to the president say he tends to gauge economic risks by market reaction, so the lack of any big drops on Wall Street could be among the reasons he does not yet feel significant pressure to change his wall demands in ways that could end the shutdown.

A significant shutdown-related selloff on Wall Street could be one of the few things that might shift Trump’s thinking, much as it did on trade with China — pushing the president toward seeking a deal rather than engaging in bruising rhetorical attacks.

In the meantime, visible evidence of shutdown impacts from trash-strewn national parks, to longer lines at airports due to unpaid TSA agents not showing up, have not moved the president.

Less visible impacts, like a shuttered Securities and Exchange Commission being unable to move on potential big IPOs like those planned for Uber and Lyft, are also not yet changing the political conversation. These delays — like those for small businesses unable to get necessary approvals from government agencies — likely won’t show up in economic data for several months. But they are already subtracting from growth.

And concern is growing that the consensus view — that the economy is basically fine despite the Washington sideshow — could wind up being wrong.

“Markets are hanging onto the view that the economic data are just fine, there’s just something going on with politics that’s got nothing to do with the economy,” said Slok.

“Now we have policy choices being made because of the gridlock in Washington and the shutdown and the trade war that are having real consequences,” he said. “That can no longer be ignored.” Source
 
Cartoons Of The Week

NEW3.jpg


NEW5.jpg


NEW6.jpg


A recession is overdue anyway. I reckon it will hit in the election run-up.
I agree, most economists see the economy slowing down drastically this year and most probably recession in mid-2020, but the point is, the government should not recklessly be contributing to it.
 
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/01/why_mueller_wont_produce_an_impeachment_report.html

Why Mueller Won't Produce an Impeachment Report

January 17, 2019
By Jim Daws

This past week offered some signs that Robert Mueller is finally winding down his cover-up operation with no findings of high crimes or misdemeanors against the president. Considering the damage the political hacks in Obama's law enforcement and intelligence agencies have inflicted on the nation, let's consider the reasons we can hope so and where this sorry saga goes from here.

Last Wednesday, Rod Rosenstein announced that as soon as newly appointed attorney general William Barr takes over the reins at DOJ, he will exit stage left. Knowing what we do about Rosenstein's defense of the Spygate conspirators, his willingness to wear a wire to record Trump, and his refusal to cooperate with investigating congressional committees, we can surmise that he's not anxious to explain his actions to the un-recused incoming A.G.


On Friday, the New York Times published a Deep State-sourced article that was headlined as a bombshell implication that Trump was a Russian agent but was really just a thinly veiled apologia for Comey & Company's illicit political surveillance. The report was widely scorned by conservative media as justifying the FBI's attempted coup because Trump was insufficiently committed to a new Cold War with Russia.

Then came Jonathan Karl's Sunday revelation on This Week with (Clinton flack) George Stephanopoulos in which Karl quoted sources "interacting with the special counsel" who caution that Mueller's report will be "anti-climatic." This can be interpreted as a leak that Mueller will stop short of attempting to frame Trump for collusion or obstruction.

It shouldn't be surprising that Mueller won't "produce" a report that the Democrats and NeverTrumps can use to impeach Trump. Determining whether Trump colluded or obstructed, which was always absurd on its face, was never the purpose of this special counsel. Mueller was brought in by Rosenstein to put the new administration on the defensive and prevent Trump from uncovering the depth and the breadth of the wrongdoing by the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton. In that effort, he has largely succeeded.


No one is investigating whether the DNC was in fact hacked or if its emails were leaked internally. The hundreds of millions collected by Clinton foundations from foreign interests while Hillary was secretary of state, and presumed 45th president, is just water under the bridge. Whether Joseph Mifsud, Henry Greenberg, Felix Sader, and others were working for CIA head John Brennan and interacted with the Trump campaign peddling Russia-related pretexts may never be known. These and a hundred other Spygate questions appear destined to go unanswered.

The last thing Mueller would want now is further scrutiny of this whole sordid affair that impeachment proceedings could bring. Those proceedings might actually steel the spines of establishment Republicans to defend their party's president and maybe even go on the offense.

As a side benefit to Mueller and his band of Democrat prosecutors, they have given the president's opponents plenty of conspiracy fodder to fling against him during his 2020 re-election bid. And with guilty pleas from associates to process crimes (pleas made to avoid financial ruin) and the indictments of shadowy Russians who will never be tried, Mueller has given the opposition media plenty of grist to continue accusing Trump of being an agent of the Kremlin.

The lasting harm Obama, Clinton, and the Deep State have done to our political discourse and this president's ability to deliver on his America First agenda is incalculable. Voters sent Trump to Washington to secure our borders, rebalance our disastrous trade agreements, keep us out of foreign wars, and improve relations with nuclear-armed Russia. While putting its own interests above the nation's, the swamp has done everything in its power to sabotage those efforts, and it appears that the swamp creatures may never be held to account.

While authors such as Stephen F. Cohen, Gregg Jarrett, and Dan Bongino have published well researched books arguing that we're living through the greatest political scandal of modern times, the final word on how future generations remember this affair will be produced by Hollywood. One can imagine that those movies will take on the breathtakingly dishonest narratives of CNN and MSNBC. It will be critical for conservative film producers to set the record straight. In this case, both the facts and the fiction are strange, indeed.

The author hosts Right Now with Jim Daws, a video podcast of news, politics, and culture from an American nationalist perspective. https://twitter.com/RightNowJimDaws

=====================================================================

https://thefederalist.com/2019/01/1...s-coordinated-with-fusion-gps-spouse-in-2016/

Top Mueller Officials Coordinated With Fusion GPS Spouse In 2016

thefederalist.com

Mollie Hemingway

A senior Department of Justice official says he repeatedly and specifically told top officials at the FBI and DOJ about dossier author Christopher Steele’s bias and his employer Fusion GPS’ conflicts of interest, information they kept hidden from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. These conversations involved high-level officials, including some who are now senior officials in the special counsel probe. And the conversations began taking place in the earliest days of August 2016, much earlier than previously revealed to congressional investigators seeking to learn the facts about the FBI’s decision to spy on the Trump campaign.

Testimony from Bruce Ohr, the demoted associate attorney general at Justice, informs a years-long partisan debate about the role he played in funneling information to the FBI from the terminated source.

Republicans on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, led by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., expressed concern in February 2018 about Ohr’s role in their memo warning about abuses of the process by which the federal government spied on Trump affiliates. They claimed the high-ranking Justice official was in contact with Steele after the foreign actor had supposedly been terminated with cause as the primary source of negative and outlandish information on Trump.

They also said Ohr, whose wife worked for the very same information operation that Steele did, had shared critical information about the source that did not appear in the applications to spy on Carter Page. Finally, they claimed that Ohr funneled to the FBI his wife’s opposition research, which had been secretly bought and paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton Campaign.

All of that is true. If anything, it understates what Ohr admitted to congressional investigators.

Meanwhile, Democrats on the committee, led by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said the Republican majority overstated Ohr’s role. They claimed Steele’s conversations with the FBI “ occurred weeks after the election and more than a month after the Court approved the initial FlSA application.”

In fact, Ohr met with Steele on July 30, 2016, and initiated discussions with top officials within days, continuing to share information from and about the supposedly terminated source, not just through the election but well into the first year of the Trump administration.

Early Meetings With Top Officials Shortly before Ohr’s testimony in August, The New York Times took part in a bizarre effort to get investigators looking elsewhere. Reporters Michael Shear, Katie Benner, and Nicholas Fandos claimed that it was a “ conspiracy theory” to view him as having a role in the Trump dossier saga.

Ohr is an interesting character in the Russia-Trump collusion investigation because his role was unknown for a long time. The former top career official at the Department of Justice was a 27-year veteran with no role in counterintelligence operations. Initially, the FBI and Department of Justice claimed he had no involvement in the probe, despite his marriage to a Fusion GPS contractor. Then they claimed his role was unique and was unknown by others in the department.

It turns out that Ohr kept top officials at both the FBI and Department of Justice apprised of his conversations with Steele, passed along electronic and written materials from multiple Fusion GPS employees, and shared key information that was excluded from the FISA application to the courts.

According to Ohr’s testimony, just days after his July 30, 2016, meeting with Steele, he sought out top FBI officials. His first meeting involved none other than Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who later lost his job for lying about some of his leaks to reporters. Shortly thereafter, Ohr met with top Justice Department officials, including two who now serve on the special counsel.

Mr. Gowdy. How did you find out who to meet with? Who did you call to find out.
Mr. Ohr. So, prior to that meeting, I had — okay. After the July 30th meeting with Chris Steele, I wanted to provide the information he had given me to the FBI. I reached out for Andrew McCabe, at that time, deputy director of the FBI and somebody who had previously led the organized crime, Russian organized crime squad in New York and who I had worked with in the past, and asked if he could meet with me.
I went to his office to provide the information, and Lisa Page was there. So I provided the information to them. And some point after that, I think, I was given Peter Strzok, or somehow put in contact with Peter Strzok.
Mr. Gowdy. And that would have been when?
Mr. Ohr. I don’t recall the exact date. I’m guessing it would have been in August since I met with Chris Steele at the end of July, and I’m pretty sure I would have reached out to Andrew McCabe soon afterwards.

Ohr also admitted he was talking to top DOJ officials about his chats with Steele and Fusion GPS’ Glenn Simpson. (For what it’s worth, Simpson testified under oath that he had not met with Ohr during the campaign but Ohr testified that the two did meet during the campaign.)

Mr. Gowdy. Who at the Department knew that you were talking to Chris Steele and Glenn Simpson?
Mr. Ohr. I spoke with some people in the Criminal Division, other career officials who dealt with some of these matters. So —
Mr. Gowdy. Any of them have names?
Mr. Ohr. Yes. So I was about to tell you. One of them was Bruce Swartz, who is the Counselor for International Affairs in the Criminal Division; a person who was working with him at the time, working on similar matters in the Criminal Division was Zainab Ahmad; and a third person who was working on some — some of the matters I believe was Andrew Weissman.

Bruce Swartz was deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division. Andrew Weissmann was the head of the criminal division’s fraud section. A top official on the special counsel, Weissmann is known for destroying the 85,000-employee Arthur Anderson before the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the conviction he got. Zainab Ahmad also works for the special counsel. She previously worked for none other than Attorney General Loretta Lynch, as this glowing profile of her in The New Yorker details.

That Ohr was briefing one of Lynch’s top deputies, and heads of various divisions, counters the previous narrative that Justice officials were in the dark about Ohr’s work. That it took place in late summer refutes the claims he only got involved after the election. Ohr also testified that he met with Peter Strzok and others.

Revealing Bias In conversations with various members, Ohr claimed he repeatedly made it clear to the FBI that the information was not verified, risked bias, and had been obtained under political circumstances.

He said he was open about his relationship with Steele and Simpson and about the fact his wife was on Simpson’s payroll, working on the same project Steele was. Asked if they were aware of Steele’s bias against Donald Trump, Ohr said “I provided information to the FBI when I thought Christopher Steele was, as I said, desperate that Trump not be elected. So, yes, of course, I provided that to the FBI.” He said he told the bureau that Simpson was doing opposition research against Trump.

Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, asked specifically about what the FBI had been told before their first FISA application. He said, “So, again, so the record is clear, what the Department of Justice and the FBI was aware of prior to the first FISA application was your relationship with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson, your wife’s relationship with Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson, Mr. Steele’s bias against Donald Trump, your wife’s compensation for work for Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS, correct?”

Ohr conferred with his lawyer but said, “Right,” and went on to list the things he told the FBI, including “At some point, and I don’t remember exactly when, I don’t think it was the first conversation, I told them that Chris Steele was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected. So those are all the facts that I provided to the FBI.”

He went on in other lines of questioning, such as this one from Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.:

Mr. Ohr. So when I provided it to the FBI, I tried to be clear that this is source information. I don’t know how reliable it is. You’re going to have to check it out and be aware. These guys were hired by somebody relating to — who’s related to the Clinton campaign, and be aware —
Mr. Gowdy. Did you tell the bureau that?
Mr. Ohr. Oh, yes.
Mr. Gowdy. Why did you tell the bureau that?
Mr. Ohr. I wanted them to be aware of any possible bias or, you know, as they evaluate the information, they need to know the circumstances.
Mr. Gowdy. So you specifically told the bureau that the information you were passing on came from someone who was employed by the DNC, albeit in a somewhat triangulated way?
Mr. Ohr. I don’t believe I used — I didn’t know they were employees by the DNC, but I certainly said, yes, that — that they were working for — you know, they were somehow working associated with the Clinton campaign. And I also told the FBI that my wife worked for Fusion GPS or was a contractor for GPS, Fusion GPS.
Mr. Gowdy. And, again, you thought it was important to tell the bureau that for bias —
Mr. Ohr. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. — motive, interest in the outcome, all of the reasons that you have to produce —
Mr. Ohr. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. — not complimentary information?
Mr. Ohr. Yes.

This information did not make it into the FISA applications, which asserted on the basis of an unverified dossier that Page was an agent of Russia. Carter Page, whom the U.S. government spied on for at least a year, has not been charged with any crime.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist.
 
Back
Top Bottom