Tuesday Reads: “I really believe I’d run in there, even if I didn’t have a weapon”

Good Morning!!

If anyone had any doubts about Trump’s mental health they should be put to rest today. You probably saw his ridiculous speech to governors yesterday in which he bragged that he would have run in and confronted the school shooter in Parkland–even if he were unarmed.

After that Governor Jay Inslee of Washington explained why Trump’s plan to arm teachers is incredibly stupid. Trump didn’t like that.

Poor baby Donnie. Some press reactions:

The New York Times: Trump Says He Would Have Rushed in Unarmed to Stop School Shooting.

President Trump asserted Monday that he would have rushed in to save the students and teachers of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School from a gunman with an assault weapon, even if he was unarmed at the time of the massacre.

Speaking to a meeting of the country’s governors at the White House, Mr. Trump conceded that “you don’t know until you test it.” But he said he believed he would have exhibited bravery “even if I didn’t have a weapon, and I think most of the people in this room would have done that, too.”

The president’s remarks came during an hourlong televised conversation with the governors in the State Dining Room, during which Mr. Trump continued to grapple publicly with how best to respond to the mass shooting in Parkland, Fla., discussing such things as arming teachers and reopening mental institutions.

As Mr. Trump skipped from one possible solution to another, he mused about the “old days,” when potential criminals could be locked in mental hospitals, and he vowed to ban “bump stocks,” an accessory that can make a semiautomatic weapon fire rapidly, more like an automatic rifle. But he dropped any mention of raising the age required to purchase a rifle to 21 from 18, something he said last week he supported, despite opposition from the National Rifle Association.

Yes, Trump “dropped any mention of raising the age to purchase a rifle” because he found out the NRA doesn’t want that, and he’s scared of the NRA. But he’d run unarmed into a building where a gunman is fired an AR-15. Suuuuuurrre he would.

Humorist Alexandra Petri at The Washington Post: Donald Trump possesses rare powers. Didn’t you know?

Donald Trump would have run in there, unarmed. He would have done that. And it would have worked.

Donald Trump is the greatest hero of our time.

He did not get involved in Vietnam because it would have been unfair to the other combatants, and he wanted to give them a sporting chance. Donald Trump would have been literally unstoppable, especially when angry. The whole country would have been flattened in an instant. Donald Trump was being merciful.

That eagle that seemed to frighten him so much at that photo shoot? Trump could not raise a hand against it, or the beautiful creature would surely have died. Those were his only options. He knows his own strength.

This is a world of cardboard, and it is all Trump can do to contain himself. This is why his handshakes are so formidable. This is as gentle as it is possible for him to be, and he is trying, so hard, to be gentle.

He could end all terrorism, not just domestic, if he ever chose to parachute in there in his signature tie and jacket, but he hasn’t. He has had other things on his mind.

He could end sexism with a swift kick to the teeth, but, again, he has been busy. The same with racism, but he has gotten attached to it, over the years.

Click on the link to read the rest. You won’t be sorry.

Eli Rosenberg at The Washington Post: Trump said he would charge a gunman. Here’s what he’s actually done in the face of danger.

The most frightened that Trump has ever seemed in public was perhaps a moment during a campaign rally in Dayton, Ohio, in March 2016.

The then-candidate was in the midst of speaking about manufacturing, when a man hopped the barrier behind him and rushed the stage. Trump stopped speaking, looked nervously behind him and grabbed and started to duck behind his lectern.

He was then swarmed by Secret Service agents, who steadied him.

Trump continued his speech after the disruption, and gave the audience a thumbs-up, claiming that he could have handled the attacker himself, despite his first reaction.

“I was ready for him,” Trump said, “but it’s much easier if the cops do it.”

Later that year at another rally, Trump was hustled off a stage in Nevada, after the someone in the audience yelled “gun.” No weapon was found.

There are several more examples of Trump’s “courage” at the link. Remember Sam the eagle?

And that time Trump was so afraid of rain on his hair that he left Barron and Melania in the lurch?

More examples at the WaPo link.

One more on Trump’s idiotic boast: Tevor Noah Mocks Trump’s Absurd Claim That He’d Run Into a School Shooting Unarmed.

“You don’t know until you test it, but I think, I really believe I’d run in there, even if I didn’t have a weapon,” the president declared. “And I think most of the people in this room would have done that too.”

That statement stopped Noah in his tracks. “I like that he’s honest enough to say, ‘Look, I haven’t tested this, but I think would run in, without a weapon, yeah, I think I would,’” the host joked.

“To be fair, if Donald Trump ran into a school during a shooting, I do believe he would actually stop the shooting,” he continued, imagining the scenario in which a school shooter all of sudden sees the president walking toward him in the hallway. “How distracting would that be?” he asked.

“‘That’s right, it’s me, Donald Trump,’” he said, imitating the president. “‘I don’t have a gun, but what I do have is an amazing Electoral College victory.’”

“Eight minutes later, the police show up and Trump is still talking,” Noah said. “And the kid is like, ‘What is happening here?’”

Watch the video at The Daily Beast.

Trump Hotel and Tower, Panama

I’ve been following another strange Trump story. It’s about the Trump hotel in the Panama. You may recall that last year a major investigative story about the Trump’s business was published at Global Witness: Narco-Lago: Money Laundering at the Trump Ocean Club Panama. Here’s a Newsweek article that discusses the investigation: Trump Made Millions of Dollars from Drug Money Laundering in Panama.

President Donald Trump made tens of millions of dollars in profits by allowing Colombian drug cartels and other groups to launder money through a Trump-affiliated hotel in Panama, according to a new investigation by the organization Global Witness.

In the early 2000s, Trump was having financial difficulties and began selling his high-profile name to real estate developers around the world, the report said. One of these developed Panama’s Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower.

The report said the drug cartels purchased hotel units to hide the origins of money earned through drug trafficking and other criminal activity, and Trump is estimated to have earned tens of millions of dollars from the deals….

The report said the Panama project is a textbook case of money laundering.

“Investing in luxury properties is a tried and trusted way for criminals to move tainted cash into the legitimate financial system, where they can spend it freely,” the report noted. “Once scrubbed clean in this way, vast profits from criminal activities like trafficking people and drugs, organized crime, and terrorism can find their way into the U.S. and elsewhere.”

“In the case of the Trump Ocean Club, accepting easy – and possibly dirty – money early on would have been in Trump’s interest; a certain volume of pre-construction sales was necessary to secure financing for the project, which stood to net him $75.4 million by the end of 2010.”

A few days ago the Associated Press reported: Trump officials fight eviction from Panama hotel they manage.

One of President Donald Trump’s family businesses is battling an effort to physically evict its team of executives from a luxury hotel in Panama where they manage operations, and police have been called to keep the peace, The Associated Press has learned. Witnesses told the AP they saw Trump’s executives carrying files to a room for shredding.

Representatives of the hotel owners’ association formally sought to fire Trump’s management team Thursday by hand-delivering termination notices to them at the Trump International Hotel and Tower, according to a Panamanian legal complaint filed by Orestes Fintiklis, who controls 202 of the property’s 369 hotel units. Trump’s managers retreated behind the glass walls of an office where they were seen carrying files to an area where the sounds of a shredding machine could be heard, according to two witnesses aligned with the owners. The legal complaint also accused Trump’s team of improperly destroying documents.

The Trump people are still in the hotel refusing to leave and and the new owner is still trying to evict them. The Washington Post: Bizarre legal brawl intensifies at Trump hotel in Panama.

Since that first confrontation, police have been called multiple times to referee disputes between owner Orestes Fintiklis — who blames the company’s poor management and damaged brand for the hotel’s declining revenue — and the Trump Organization, which says it still has a valid contract to manage the place.

Offices have been barricaded. Several yelling matches have broken out. The power was briefly turned off, in a dispute over the building’s electronic equipment. At one point, Fintiklis — denied a chance to fire the hotel staff or even check into a room — played a tune on the hotel’s lobby piano as an apparent show of defiance.

On Monday, Panama’s federal prosecutors said they had opened an investigation into the Trump Organization, after Fintiklis complained that he had been unlawfully blocked from his own property.

With that, this bizarre standoff turned a theoretical concern about the Trump administration — that, someday, the president’s private business might be investigated by a foreign government — into a reality.

Republicans in Congress should have been investigating this situation long ago, but they couldn’t be bothered. Now Panama is doing it. The Week: Panama is investigating Trump’s business, vindicating ethics watchdogs.

Panama’s federal prosecutors opened an investigation into the Trump Organization on Monday following the escalation of a dispute over the management of Panama City’s Trump International Hotel, The Washington Postreports. The probe has sparked concerns because President Trump still technically owns the organization that shares his name, although his sons oversee the day-to-day operations. “The fear has always been that there would be an international incident involving the finances of the president, and the president would have his loyalties questioned,” explained Jordan Libowitz of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)….

The local investigators made clear that they are willing to request information from foreign entities as needed. CREW’s Libowitz has wondered “what kind of pressure would [Trump] be willing to place” on the Panamanian government as president.

“Panama’s government receives financial support for counter-narcotics work from the United States,” notes the Los Angeles Times, and “Panama is currently seeking to extradite its former president, Ricardo Martinelli, from the United States to face espionage and embezzlement charges.”

How much more of this shit will happen before the Republicans get off their asses and do something?

What stories are you following today? Please share!

Tuesday Reads: Nonstop Russia News and Trump Freakouts

Good Afternoon!!

Robert Mueller certainly has been busy lately. Rick Gates hasn’t even pleaded guilty yet, and we’re already learning about crimes he must have talked about in his “queen for a day” interview with his ftc defense lawyers by his side. (By the way, I had to force myself to write “pleaded” in the previous sentence; my reflex is to use “pled,” but apparently that past-tense verb has been discarded by the powers that be.)

Does anyone else remember the old quiz show “Queen for a Day?” As a kid I loved to watch those housewives tell their sob stories. Afterwards the “applause meter” would be used to decide which woman would win new washing machines and other prizes.

But I digress. I’m really a mess this morning–either I have the flu or some other nasty virus, and my brain doesn’t seem to be working properly; plus my eyes hurt and my joints are a lot achier than usual.

Anyway, Mueller has been very busy and Trump seems to be in the midst of a major meltdown. I just hope someone is keeping an eye on the nuclear football.

Here’s what’s happening, or at least the stories that will fit into 2,000 words or so.

Bloomberg: Mueller Charges Lawyer With Lying in Russia Probe.

Alex Van Der Zwaan was charged Feb. 16 with lying to the FBI and Mueller’s office about conversations related to his work on a report prepared by his law firm on the legitimacy of the criminal prosecution of a former Ukrainian prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko.

Prosecutors charged Van Der Zwaan by criminal information, which typically precedes a guilty plea. He is scheduled to appear Tuesday afternoon in federal court in Washington. He didn’t immediately respond to calls and emails seeking comment.

Van Der Zwaan was an associate in the London office of Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom. “The firm terminated its employment of Alex Van Der Zwaan in 2017 and has been cooperating with authorities in connection with this matter,” the firm said in a statement.

Alex Van Der Zwaan

Last year, Van Der Zwaan married the daughter of Russian oligarch German Khan, according to the London Tatler. Khan is a shareholder of Alfa Group, a Russian banking and investment concern, and a board member at LetterOne Holdings, the investment vehicle set up by the founders of Alfa Group.

The false statements have to do with a phone conversation that Van Der Zwaan had with Rick Gates.

Van Der Zwaan was questioned by U.S. authorities regarding his firm’s work in 2012 on behalf of the Ukraine Ministry of Justice.

Van Der Zwaan told investigators that his last contact with Gates was an innocuous text message in mid-August 2016, when they actually spoke the following month about the Tymoshenko report in a call the lawyer secretly recorded, the information says.

Prosecutors also accused Van Der Zwaan of lying about his talks with someone else, identified by the government as Person A. The lawyer told investigators he last spoke with Person A in 2014, when in fact they spoke in September 2016 during the secretly recorded call with Gates.

Who is “person A?” Is it Manafort? The call took place while Gates was working on the Trump transition.

Buzzfeed: Manafort Under Scrutiny For $40 Million In “Suspicious” Transactions.

Federal law enforcement officials have identified more than $40 million in “suspicious” financial transactions to and from companies controlled by President Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort — a much larger sum than was cited in his October indictment on money laundering charges. Go to a casino and play Five Reel and Three Real Slot machines and learn the reasons exaplining the differences between the two. Have fun betting and playing.

Rick Gates and Paul Manafort at the 2016 Republican Convention

The vast web of transactions was unraveled mainly in 2014 and 2015 during an FBI operation to fight international kleptocracy that ultimately fizzled. The story of that failed effort — and its resurrection by special counsel Robert Mueller as he investigated whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election — has never been fully told.

But it explains how the special counsel was able to swiftly bring charges against Manafort for complex financial crimes dating as far back as 2008 — and it shows that Mueller could still wield immense leverage as he seeks to compel Manafort to cooperate in the ongoing investigation.

Last week, Mueller’s team told a judge that it had evidence Manafort committed bank fraud, and news organizations have reported that the special counsel may be preparing additional charges.

Go to Buzzfeed to read all the gory details. How long before Manfort gives in and flips on Trump?

CNN Exclusive: Mueller’s interest in Kushner grows to include foreign financing efforts.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s interest in Jared Kushner has expanded beyond his contacts with Russia and now includes his efforts to secure financing for his company from foreign investors during the presidential transition, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

This is the first indication that Mueller is exploring Kushner’s discussions with potential non-Russian foreign investors, including in China.

US officials briefed on the probe had told CNN in May that points of focus related to Kushner, the White House senior adviser and son-in-law of President Donald Trump, included the Trump campaign’s 2016 data analytics operation, his relationship with former national security adviser Michael Flynn, and Kushner’s own contacts with Russians.

China’s first lady Peng Liyuan, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump at Mar-a-Lago dinner

Mueller’s investigators have been asking questions, including during interviews in January and February, about Kushner’s conversations during the transition to shore up financing for 666 Fifth Avenue, a Kushner Companies-backed New York City office building reeling from financial troubles, according to people familiar with the special counsel investigation.

It’s not clear what’s behind Mueller’s specific interest in the financing discussions. Mueller’s team has not contacted Kushner Companies for information or requested interviews with its executives, according to a person familiar with the matter.

One clue might be Kushner’s private meetings with the Chinese ambassador. From NY Magazine on January 21, 2018: Report: Kushner’s Meetings With Chinese Officials Raised Red Flags.

The New Yorker reports that China has been courting Jared Kushner aggressively since President Trump’s election, and that the real-estate scion’s intimate meetings with top Chinese officials have made some U.S. officials uncomfortable.

Kushner met with Cui Tiankai, the Chinese ambassador to the U.S., in New York after Trump’s victory, and then multiple times at the White House after the president’s term began.

Some of those encounters included disgraced ex–national security adviser Michael Flynn; on at least one occasion, Kushner and Cui met alone. This was a major departure from previous administrations’ protocol, which consisted of large gatherings that included China experts on the U.S. side.

Chinese Ambassador Cui Tiankai

Kushner’s encounters with Cui, the article reports, “made some people in the U.S. government uncomfortable.” They feared that China might have been using Kushner’s access to Trump to sway U.S. policy. (Kushner was instrumental in convincing Trump to stick with America’s “One China” policy near the beginning of his term.)

Others feared that Kushner’s total lack of relevant experience made him likely to accede to Chinese demands without pushing back.

One official said, “He went in utterly unflanked by anyone who could find Beijing on a map. It was a dream come true. They couldn’t believe he was so compliant.”

If you haven’t read the New Yorker article, you should check it out.

Naturally, Trump is freaking out. Here’s Greg Sargent on the Twitter meltdown: Trump’s unhinged Russia tweetstorm boomerangs back on Republicans.

After spending some of his “executive time” this morning watching “Fox & Friends,” President Trump thanked his favorite cable channel for airing a segment that discussed President Barack Obama’s failure to block Russian interference in our election. Trump himself cited this failure over the weekend, asking: “Why didn’t he do something?”

Trump repeated that message today, flatly alleging that Obama didn’t do enough to resist Russian sabotage because he thought Hillary Clinton would win and didn’t want to “rock the boat.” Trump is right in one sense: The indictment should open the door to a reexamination of why the previous administration failed to do enough to counter Russian meddling.

The problem for Trump is that this line of inquiry also leads right back to the conduct of his fellow Republicans in the face of this Russian effort to undermine our democracy — conduct that was undertaken on his and the GOP’s behalf.

Now that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has laid out a startlingly detailed plot by Russian nationals to influence the election, which included multiple “operations” that included “supporting” Trump’s presidential candidacy and “disparaging” his opponent’s, it presents an occasion to revisit a series of episodes in 2016 that still remain poorly understood.

It is true that the Obama administration failed in key ways to safeguard the 2016 election. But it has also been established by dogged reporting that leading congressional Republicans rebuffed top Obama officials who wanted them to show a united, bipartisan public front against that Russian sabotage. As The Post has reported, when those officials made that request of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), he refused, claiming (in The Post’s words) that “he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics.”

Head over to the WaPo to read the rest. Will McConnell ever be forced to deal with what he did to help Russia?

In other news, Trump and his Russian robots–including Fox News and Rush Limbaugh–are attacking the teenage survivors of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

The New York Times: After Florida School Shooting, Russian ‘Bot’ Army Pounced.

One hour after news broke about the school shootingin Florida last week, Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia released hundreds of posts taking up the gun control debate.

The accounts addressed the news with the speed of a cable news network. Some adopted the hashtag #guncontrolnow. Others used #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting. Earlier on Wednesday, before the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., many of those accounts had been focused on the investigation by the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

“This is pretty typical for them, to hop on breaking news like this,” said Jonathon Morgan, chief executive of New Knowledge, a company that tracks online disinformation campaigns. “The bots focus on anything that is divisive for Americans. Almost systematically.”

One of the most divisive issues in the nation is how to handle guns, pitting Second Amendment advocates against proponents of gun control. And the messages from these automated accounts, or bots, were designed to widen the divide and make compromise even more difficult.

Any news event — no matter how tragic — has become fodder to spread inflammatory messages in what is believed to be a far-reaching Russian disinformation campaign. The disinformation comes in various forms: conspiracy videos on YouTube, fake interest groups on Facebook, and armies of bot accounts that can hijack a topic or discussion on Twitter.

Read the rest at the NYT if you haven’t already.

What will the rest of the day bring? Are there more surprises in store? Please share your thoughts and links in the comment thread below.

Lazy Saturday Reads

Original Expressionist Painting Peru Art, ‘Woman Reading with Peacock’

Good Afternoon!!

Most politics watchers spent yesterday laughing at Devin Nunes and his highly anticipated memo. But the moron in the White House thinks it completely vindicates him.

“Their” was no “Collusion” according to the barely literate “president.” Does anyone understand the Trump rules of spelling, capitalization, and the use of quotes? The moron probably spent the day watching Fox News and doesn’t even know that he and Devin Nunes were the butt of jokes everywhere else. Some reactions:

I know. You knew that already. But it’s an interesting piece that demolishes the Nunes memo piece by piece.

Lawfare: Thoughts on the Nunes Memo: We Need to Talk About Devin, By Quinta Jurecic, Shannon Togawa Mercer, Benjamin Wittes. You’ll need to read the whole thing to follow the complete argument, but here are some brief excerpts:

…let’s briefly put aside the reality that the memo is probably neither a complete nor a fair account of the FBI’s handling of the Page matter. For a moment, let’s assume that every fact in the memo is true and that the memo contains all relevant facts on the matter—in other words, that it is entirely accurate and not selective. What would that mean?

“Reclining Woman with Book,” by Imre Goth (1893-1982). Oil on canvas, 99 x 75cm. London art market (Bonhams), 1993.

As the document tells the story, on Oct. 21, 2016, the Justice Department and FBI successfully applied for a FISA warrant against Carter Page from the FISA court. Presumably, though the memo does not state this explicitly, it did so under Title I of FISA, as Page is a U.S. citizen and the warrant seems to have been an individualized one directed at him. The initial warrant was renewed three times, once every 90 days, each time requiring renewed showing of probable cause that Page was acting as the agent of a foreign power….

To the extent that the complaint is that Page’s civil liberties have been violated, the outraged are crying crocodile tears. For one thing, it is not at all clear that Page’s civil liberties were, in fact, violated by the surveillance; the memo does not even purport to argue that the Justice Department lacked probable cause to support its warrant application. It does not suggest that Page was not, after all, an agent of a foreign power. What’s more, the only clear violation of Page’s civil liberties apparent here lies in the disclosure of the memo itself, which named him formally as a surveillance target and announced to the world at large that probable cause had been found to support his surveillance no fewer than four times by the court. Violating Page’s civil liberties is a particularly strange way to complain about conduct that probably did not violate his civil liberties.

To the extent the complaint is that the FBI relied on a biased source in Steele, the FBI relies every day on information from far more dubious characters than former intelligence officers working for political parties. The FBI gets information from narco-traffickers, mobsters and terrorists. Surely it’s not scandalous for it to get information from a Democrat—much less from a former British intelligence officer working for Democrats, even if he expresses dislike of a presidential candidate.

To the extent the complaint is that the bureau was insufficiently candid with the tribunal, that is a potentially more serious matter. But as Orin Kerr argued on Lawfare this week, it is far from clear that the allegation—even if true—would create any kind of legal defect in the warrant. And in any event, the court itself has the power to demand accountability to the extent judges feel misled. In Friday’s Lawfare Podcast, David Kris suggests that the government is likely considering how best to officially advise the FISA court of the Nunes memo and so provide the court with an opportunity to respond to the memo’s allegations.

Much more at the link above.

There has been much GOP outrage over Nunes’ claim that the FISA judges weren’t told that the Steele dossier was the product of political opposition research. But that isn’t true according to The Washington Post: Justice Dept. told court of source’s political influence in request to wiretap ex-Trump campaign aide, officials say.

Lempicka, Tamara de; 1898-1980. “Wisdom”, 1940/41. Oil on wood.

The court that approved surveillance of a former campaign adviser to President Trump was aware that some of the information underpinning the warrantA request was paid for by a political entity, although the application did not specifically name the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

A now-declassified Republican memo alleged that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was duped into approving the wiretap request by a politicized FBI and Justice Department. The memo was written by House Intelligence Committee Republicans and alleged a “troubling breakdown of legal processes” flowing from the government’s wiretapping of former Trump aide Carter Page.

But its central allegation — that the government failed to disclose a source’s political bias — is baseless, the officials said.

The Justice Department made “ample disclosure of relevant, material facts” to the court that revealed “the research was being paid for by a political entity,” said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

A few more links to check out:

Spencer Ackerman at The Daily Beast: Sources: Devin Nunes Memo Is ‘100%’ Wrong About Andrew McCabe and Steele Dossier.

Phillip Carter at Slate: Survival at All Costs. By releasing the Nunes memo, Trump betrayed the intelligence community to save his own skin.

John Harwood at CNBC: Trump and the House GOP face an uphill battle against the FBI and the Justice Department.

Frankly, I’m much more concerned about another story that hasn’t gotten enough attention: a meeting between U.S. intelligence chiefs with the heads of Russian intelligence agencies. Keep in mind that we only learned about this meeting because it was covered by Russian news outlets.

PBS: Democrats question U.S. meeting with Russian spy chiefs.

Democrats want to know why the Trump administration allowed two Russian spy chiefs under U.S. and European sanctions to meet last week in Washington with American intelligence officials.

Russia’s U.S. ambassador said Sergei Naryshkin, head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, was in the United States to discuss counterterrorism with his American counterparts.

By Malcolm Liepke

Naryshkin was accompanied at the meeting in Washington by Alexander Bortnikov, who directs the top KGB successor agency known as the Federal Security Service, according to two U.S. officials, who were not authorized to disclose the information and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The two Russian intelligence officials were sanctioned in 2014 in response to Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine — Naryshkin by the U.S. and Bortnikov by the European Union.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the timing of the meeting is suspicious because it came just days before the Trump administration decided not to issue new sanctions against Russian politicians and oligarchs over Russian interference in the election. He released a letter early Thursday demanding that Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats disclose details of the meeting by Feb. 9.

Schumer said sanctions against Naryshkin impose severe financial penalties and prohibit his entry into the U.S. without a waiver.

Politico: Pompeo on meetings with Russians: ‘We vigorously defend America in these encounters.’

CIA Director Mike Pompeo on Thursday pushed back Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s suggestion that Russian intelligence officials’ visit to the United States last week may have played a role in the Trump administration’s move to hold off on new sanctions against Moscow.

Pompeo told Schumer in a letter that his meetings with Russian intelligence counterparts focused on anti-terrorism cooperation and followed similar talks held by previous administrations in both parties. Three top Russian intelligence officials held U.S. meetings last week — Alexander Bortnikov, Sergey Naryshkin, and Igor Korobov — a notably high-level presence to some observers of U.S.-Russia relations.

Pompeo did not address Schumer’s question about whether sanctions against Russia were discussed at his meeting with the Russian officials, which took place days before the Trump administration opted to forestall new penalties that Congress called for in bipartisan legislation last year.

“When those meetings take place, you and the American people should rest assured that we cover very difficult subjects in which American and Russian interests do not align,” Pompeo wrote to Schumer.

Yeah, right. We need to know a lot more about this meeting and why U.S. media and why we had to learn about it from the Russians.

Finally, a new story about what Trump may have handed over to the Russians in that meeting the day after the Comey firing. NPR: Journalist Details Israel’s ‘Secret History’ Of Targeted Assassinations. During this Fresh Air interview, Israeli journalist suggested that Trump’s betrayal of Israeli intelligence sources was much worse than has been reported.

This is FRESH AIR, and we’re speaking with Ronen Bergman. He’s a veteran investigative reporter in Israel. His new book is “Rise And Kill First: The Secret History Of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations.”

Richard Edward Miller, Miss V in Green

You know, you’ve written that the United States and the Israeli intelligence services have developed a very close set of joint operations and exchange of information. And of course earlier this year, there was a huge controversy when President Trump apparently revealed information in a meeting with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador which betrayed some Israeli sourcing. Where do things stand with these relationships between American and Israeli intelligence in the Trump administration?

BERGMAN: Well, Dave, just a year ago, I published a story that created a lot of controversy. I said – and I was surprised to hear that from my sources in the beginning – that a group of American intelligence officers, in a regular meeting with the Israeli counterparts, just before Trump was elected and before the inauguration, they suggested that the Israelis stop giving sensitive material to the White House. They said we are afraid that Trump or someone of his people are under leverage from the Russians. And they might give sensitive information to the Russians who, in their turn, would give that to Iran. They said we have evidence that part of the material that Edward Snowden stole from the CIA and NSA – and was not yet published – found its way to Iran. And we believe, of course, that he gave everything he had to the Russians.

And the Israelis were shocked. They have never been in such an occasion. They have never heard Americans say something of that kind about their chief and commander – about the president. And when, just few months after that, it turned out that everything – all the predictions that the Americans have made to the Israelis as warnings – not because they knew it was going to happen but they thought it might – everything came to be true. And President Trump apparently gave secret information. And I know the nature of that information. It is indeed delicate and very, very secret.

It just instilled a sense of miscomfort (ph) inside Israeli intelligence. And I think, if I recall something that I heard just recently, they feel – Israeli intelligence feel that the American administration is in chaos – is in havoc. It’s not function properly – not intentionally, but that lead to further leaks. And they are very hesitant with sharing everything they have, as they did in the past, with their American counterparts.

What else is happening? What stories are you following today?