Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper gave inconsistent testimony to a House panel about his contacts with CNN’s Jake Tapper regarding the infamous Steele dossier, according to a report released by congressional Republicans on Friday.
The report, published by the GOP side of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, shows that Clapper acknowledged speaking with Tapper about the dossier while he was still serving as director of national intelligence.
“I didn’t have any contact with media until after I left the government on the 20th of January, so I don’t quite understand, at least what I’ve read, that somehow I leaked about the dossier,” Clapper told Lemon in the interview.
“So you didn’t leak anything about the dossier to any media?” Lemon asked.
CNN, where Clapper is now a national security analyst, played a crucial role in the dossier saga.
On Jan. 10, 2017, the network published a story written by Tapper and three other CNN journalists revealing that on Jan. 6, then-President-elect Donald Trump was briefed on the salacious allegations laid out in the dossier, which was written by former British spy Christopher Steele and funded by Democrats.
CNN used that briefing as a hook to publish its story about the existence of the dossier, which included allegations that Trump was being blackmailed. BuzzFeed News used CNN’s report as a news hook of its own, publishing the dossier in full later on Jan. 10, 2017.
CNN’s report cited “multiple U.S. officials” as sources. The sources remain unidentified.
It has since been revealed that then-FBI Director James Comey conducted Trump’s private briefing on the dossier’s unverified allegations. Memos that Comey wrote following his meetings with Trump showed that CNN was looking for a “news hook” to release information about the dossier.
Comey wrote in a memo following that briefing that he explained to Trump that “media like CNN had [the dossier] and were looking for a news hook.”
“I also explained that one of the reasons we told him was that the media, CNN in particular, was telling us they were about to run with it,” Comey wrote in a Jan. 28, 2017 memo following a dinner meeting with Trump.
In their report, House Intel Republicans assert that when Clapper was initially asked about leaks during his July 17, 2017 committee interview, he “flatly denied” discussing the Steele dossier “or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists.”
But Clapper “subsequently acknowledged discussing” the dossier with Tapper. He also admitted he might have spoken with other journalists.
Committee Republicans note that Clapper’s interaction with Tapper took place in early January 2017, “around the time [Intelligence Community] leaders briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump, on ‘the Christopher Steele information.’”
In a report of their own released on Friday, Democrats claimed that Republicans had an “intent to smear Clapper” with their allegations about his media contacts.
“Despite this dark insinuation, the report neither cites evidence, nor even alleges, that Clapper disclosed information – classified or unclassified – illegally or improperly,” Democrats write, noting that Clapper was authorized to engage with the media.
Democrats pointed to an exchange that Clapper had with Florida Rep. Tom Rooney, a Republican.
“Did you discuss the dossier or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists?” Rooney asked.
“No,” said Clapper.
“Did you confirm or corroborate the contents of the dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper?” Rooney asked.
“Well, by the time of that, they already knew about it. By the time it was — it was after — I don’t know exactly the sequence there, but it was pretty close to when we briefed it and when it was out ail over the place. The media had it by the way,” said Clapper.
Clapper said later that he discussed the dossier with Tapper after the document was made public. He said he did not remember specifics of his conversation with the CNN anchor.
“Did you discuss the dossier with any other journalists besides Mr. Tapper?” Clapper was asked.
“I could have. I don’t remember specifically talking about the dossier,” he replied.
What Idiot Would Think That This Idiot Is Smart? Yes Feel The Bern You Morons.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is set to unveil a plan that would give American workers who want or need jobs guaranteed government jobs that pay at least $15 per hour and have health benefits.
The progressive Vermont senator’s guaranteed jobs plan would entitle any American a job or job training in U.S.-funded projects in infrastructure, the environment, caregiving, and education, but he did not provide a cost-estimate or plan to fund the proposal, the Washington Postreported.
A representative from Sanders’ office said no funding estimate was available for the project because staffers were still crafting the proposal.
Two other potential 2020 presidential candidates—Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY)—have expressed interest in crafting similar proposals.
If You Voted For Or Supported Bernie Sanders You Are A Jackass.
“The goal is to eliminate working poverty and involuntary unemployment altogether,” said Darrick Hamilton, an economist at The New School who expressed support for a guaranteed jobs program. “This is an opportunity for something transformative, beyond the tinkering we’ve been doing for the last 40 years, where all the productivity gains have gone to the elite of society.”
Critics of the plan have said guaranteed jobs proposals would not be sustainable or affordable, and would cause massive job losses in the private sector.
Studies have shown that states and cities which choose to enact a $15 per hour minimum wage trigger job losses. A December 2017 study found that once California’s minimum wage hike takes effect in 2022, the state would lose 400,000 jobs.
“It completely undercuts a lot of industries and companies,” Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who opposes the program, told the Post. “There will be pressure to introduce a higher wage or certain benefits that the private sector doesn’t offer.”
The proposal is unlikely to gain favor with Republicans in control of Congress, and even most Democrats have slammed similar plans as unrealistic.
“It would be extremely expensive, and I wonder if this is the best, most targeted use of the amount of money it would cost,” said Ernie Tedeschi, an economist who worked for the Treasury during the Obama administration.
The Vermont senator’s proposal comes days after he declared President Trump’s agenda “dead” if the Democratic Party wins the majority in the House or Senate.
Where is the collusion investigation on Christopher Steele a spy from Britain?
The former British spy who wrote the infamous dossier has been ordered to appear for a deposition in a lawsuit over the salacious document filed in the U.S.
A British court ordered Christopher Steele to testify about his role in compiling the dossier, which alleges that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Steele’s report was funded by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee. BuzzFeed News published the 35-page document in Jan. 2017.
Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian businessman named in the dossier, is suing BuzzFeed in Florida and Steele in London. The dossier claims that Gubarev was recruited as a Russian spy and that his web hosting companies were used to infiltrate the DNC’s computer systems.
Gubarev’s lawyers have tried for months to force the London-based Steele to provide a deposition for the lawsuit against BuzzFeed, which is being heard in federal court in Florida.
Steele has resisted the efforts to provide a deposition, arguing that Gubarev’s lawyers are attempting to use his deposition in the BuzzFeed case in order to collect information for use in the lawsuit pending against him in the U.K.
But a British judge sided against that argument.
A judge on the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court in London ruled, “it is obvious that the author of the paragraph complained of in the Florida proceedings would be a relevant witness in defamation proceedings which are entirely based on the allegations in that paragraph, in a jurisdiction where the plaintiffs have to prove that the allegations are false,” Fox News reported.
Evan Fray-Witzer, a lawyer for Gubarev, praised the decision.
“We’re thrilled that the English Court has ordered Mr. Steele to sit for his deposition,” Fray-Witzer said. “It was always amazing to us that he could talk as freely as he has to reporters around the world about the dossier, yet refuse to sit for a deposition about the same topics.”
Fray-Witzer told The Daily Caller News Foundation a date has not been set for the deposition, but will likely be held within the next 4-6 weeks.
Fray-Witzer says that his team recently narrowed the scope of the information it sought from Steele. The former MI6 officer has asserted that his deposition could put dossier sources in danger.
Fray-Witzer says that his team has agreed not to ask Steele about his sources. He also says that Steele has chosen not to appeal the decision. “Buzzfeed published information about Mr. Gubarev and his companies that was unverified and untrue and they seem to be hoping to scuttle the deposition of the person most positioned to testify to those facts,” he told TheDCNF.
Idiots wasting taxpayer money on fake Climate Change.
Los Angeles officials are going forward with a $40,000-a-mile program to coat public streets to fight climate change, despite the city’s many financial challenges — including a $73 million budget shortfall for dealing with the ever-expanding homeless population.
The program uses a light-colored sealant to cover the streets, which decreases the pavement temperature of so-called “heat-islands,” according to media reports.
The LA Street Services began rolling out the project last May, which preliminary testing shows has reduced the temperature of roadways by up to 10 degrees.
The project involves applying a light gray coating of the product CoolSeal, made by the company GuardTop.
Los Angeles painting city streets white in bid to combat climate change
California officials are hoping their latest attempt to stem the rising tides of climate change leads to a more socially conscious — and cooler — summer.
“CoolSeal is applied like conventional sealcoats to asphalt surfaces to protect and maintain the quality and longevity of the surface,” according to the company website. “While most cool pavements on the market are polymer based, CoolSeal is a water-based, asphalt emulsion.”
advertisement
Last year, the L.A. Daily Newsreported on the high cost of the project — and that local officials approved it nonetheless.
The morning temperature of the black asphalt in the middle of a nearby intersection read 93 degrees. The new light gray surface on Jordan Avenue read a cool 70 — on what would turn out to be the first heat wave of the year.
“It’s awesome. It’s very cool — both literally and figuratively,” exclaimed Councilman Bob Blumenfield, whose Los Angeles district includes Canoga Park, squinting into the laser handheld thermometer. “We are trying to control ‘the heat island effect’ ” — or hotter temperatures caused by urban sprawl.
“The downside: we won’t be able to fry eggs on the streets,” Blumenfield said.
Los Angeles painting city streets white in bid to combat climate change
California officials are hoping their latest attempt to stem the rising tides of climate change leads to a more socially conscious — and cooler — summer.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who is eyeing a run for the White House in 2020, has embraced the program “as part of an overall plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the city by 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2025,” according to Fox News.
And environmental activists are praising L.A.’s street-sealing project.
“Advocates are confident that advances in asphalt technology will drive down the cost,” Mother Nature Network reported on Sunday.
“There’s also the related economic benefits to consider: in once-sweltering neighborhoods where streets are now painted white, residents will be less likely to crank the air conditioning on full blast, leading to significant savings on energy bills and decreased emissions,” the website reported.
“What’s more, the highly reflective nature of white-coated asphalt means that street lighting doesn’t have to kick in quite as early in the evening, saving additional energy.”
Supreme Court Rules To Protect Illegal Immigrants That Commit Felonies.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision of federal law Tuesday that allows the deportation of foreign nationals convicted of certain felonies.
Justice Neil Gorsuch joined with the court’s four liberals to strike down the law, in keeping with longstanding conservative anxieties about sweeping and imprecise grants of power to bureaucrats and regulators.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for a five-member majority.
At issue in the case was a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that permits the deportation of any alien convicted of an aggravated felony. The law lists a number of convictions that qualify as “aggravated felonies,” then includes a catchall provision for “any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”
James Dimaya, a lawful permanent resident, was slated for deportation to the Philippines following two convictions for first-degree burglaries. An immigration judge ordered his removal under the INA’s catchall provision, as first-degree burglary does not appear on the list of qualifying offenses. In turn, Dimaya challenged the provision, arguing it is unconstitutionally vague.
In a 2015 decision called Johnson v. U.S., the high court struck down as unlawfully vague a section of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) that defined a “violent felony” as, among other things, “conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” Since then, litigants have brought a number of vagueness challenges to similar provisions of federal law.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the Johnson decision.
Dimaya argued the catchall section of the INA was substantially similar to the statute the court overturned in Johnson. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, prompting the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) appeal to the Supreme Court. The DOJ argued the 9th Circuit’s review of the statute was excessive, since civil laws are only considered vague if they are “unintelligible.” Deportation proceedings are civil, not criminal matters.
In her opinion for the court, Kagan rejected that argument, finding the grave nature of deportation warrants heavy judicial scrutiny. She then explained the INA’s catchall provision has precisely the same elements as the unconstitutionally vague section of the ACCA, minor linguistic differences notwithstanding.
“Johnson is a straightforward decision, with equally straightforward application here,” she wrote, elsewhere noting the statute “invited arbitrary enforcement, and failed to provide fair notice.”
Gorsuch wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment, in which he argued vagueness challenges to civil laws should be treated as seriously as challenges to criminal laws. Many civil penalties — and not just deportation — are in his view so sweeping that courts should police aggressively for vagueness, and abandon the “unintelligible” standard currently in use.
“Grave as that penalty may be, I cannot see why we would single it out for special treatment when (again) so many civil laws today impose so many similarly severe sanctions,” he wrote. Such sanctions include “confiscatory rather than compensatory fines, forfeiture provisions that allow homes to be taken, remedies that strip persons of their professional licenses and livelihoods, and the power to commit persons against their will indefinitely.”
His opinion largely tracks the growing distrust in conservative legal circles of draconian penalties assessed through administrative processes, and is part of a growing campaign to challenge economic regulations on vagueness grounds.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the primary dissent, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.
The Justice Department said Congress should quickly amend the INA to ensure a wider range of criminal convictions qualify for deportation.
“We call on Congress to close criminal alien loopholes to ensure that criminal aliens who commit those crimes—for example, burglary in many states, drug trafficking in Florida, and even sexual abuse of a minor in New Jersey—are not able to avoid the consequences that should come with breaking our nation’s laws,” Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley said after the ruling.
In an interview that aired Sunday night, former FBI Director James Comey sat down with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and offered an ominous assessment of the country under President Donald Trump’s leadership.
Stephanopoulos brought up Comey’s remarks that right now is a “dangerous” time in America.
“I think it is [dangerous],” Comey told Stephanopoulos. “And I chose those words carefully. I was worried when I chose the word “dangerous” first. I thought, is that an overstatement? And I don’t think it is.”
Indict That Bastard.
He expounded, “I worry that the norms at the center of this country — we can fight as Americans about guns, or taxes or immigration, and we always have, but what we have in common is a set of norms — most importantly, the truth. And if we lose that, if we lose tethering of our leaders to that truth, what are we?”
