Officials Say Flynn Discussed Sanctions

Home , Dina Powell, Emmet Flood, Jo Becker, Marc Kasowitz, Mika Brzezinski, Rachael Bade

Officials say Flynn discussed sanctions

The Washington Post February 10, 2017 Friday, Met 2 Edition

Distribution: Every Zone Section: A-SECTION; Pg. A08 Length: 1971 words Byline: Greg Miller;Adam Entous;Ellen Nakashima

Body

Talks with Russia envoy said to have occurred before Trump took office

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country's ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn's communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.

Flynn on Wednesday denied that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Asked in an interview whether he had ever done so, he twice said, "No."

On Thursday, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn "indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn't be certain that the topic never came up."

Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn's communications with Kislyak. Several officials emphasized that while sanctions were discussed, they did not see evidence that Flynn had an intent to convey an explicit promise to take action after the inauguration.

Flynn's contacts with the ambassador attracted attention within the Obama administration because of the timing. U.S. intelligence agencies were then concluding that Russia had waged a cyber campaign designed in part to help elect Trump; his senior adviser on national security matters was discussing the potential consequences for Moscow, officials said. Page 2 of 5 Officials say Flynn discussed sanctions

The talks were part of a series of contacts between Flynn and Kislyak that began before the Nov. 8 election and continued during the transition, officials said. In a recent interview, Kislyak confirmed that he had communicated with Flynn by text message, by phone and in person, but declined to say whether they had discussed sanctions.

The emerging details contradict public statements by incoming senior administration officials including Mike Pence, then the vice president-elect. They acknowledged only a handful of text messages and calls exchanged between Flynn and Kislyak late last year and denied that either ever raised the subject of sanctions.

"They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia," Pence said in an interview with CBS News last month, noting that he had spoken with Flynn about the matter. Pence also made a more sweeping assertion, saying there had been no contact between members of Trump's team and Russia during the campaign. To suggest otherwise, he said, "is to give credence to some of these bizarre rumors that have swirled around the candidacy."

Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn's contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

All of those officials said Flynn's references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

"Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time," said a former official.

A third official put it more bluntly, saying that either Flynn had misled Pence or that Pence misspoke. An administration official stressed that Pence made his comments based on his conversation with Flynn.. The sanctions in question have so far remained in place.

The nature of Flynn's pre-inauguration message to Kislyak triggered debate among officials in the Obama administration and intelligence agencies over whether Flynn had violated a law against unauthorized citizens interfering in U.S. disputes with foreign governments, according to officials familiar with that debate. Those officials were already alarmed by what they saw as a Russian assault on the U.S. election.

U.S. officials said that seeking to build such a case against Flynn would be daunting. The law against U.S. citizens interfering in foreign diplomacy, known as the Logan Act, stems from a 1799 statute that has never been prosecuted. As a result, there is no case history to help guide authorities on when to proceed or how to secure a conviction.

Officials also cited political sensitivities. Prominent Americans in and out of government are so frequently in communication with foreign officials that singling out one individual - particularly one poised for a top White House job - would invite charges of political persecution. Page 3 of 5 Officials say Flynn discussed sanctions

Former U.S. officials also said aggressive enforcement would probably discourage appropriate contact. Michael McFaul, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration, said that he was in Moscow meeting with officials in the weeks leading up to Obama's 2008 election win.

"As a former diplomat and U.S. government official, one needs to be able to have contact with foreigners to do one's job," McFaul said. McFaul, a Russia scholar, said he was careful never to signal pending policy changes before Obama took office.

On Wednesday, Flynn said that he first met Kislyak in 2013 when Flynn was director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and made a trip to Moscow. Kislyak helped coordinate that trip, Flynn said.

Flynn said that he spoke to Kislyak on a range of subjects in late December, including arranging a call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump after the inauguration and expressing his condolences after Russia's ambassador to Turkey was assassinated. "I called to say I couldn't believe the murder of their ambassador," Flynn said. Asked whether there was any mention of sanctions in his communications with Kislyak, Flynn said, "No."

Kislyak characterized his conversations with Flynn as benign during a brief interview at a conference this month. "It's something all diplomats do," he said.

Kislyak said that he had been in contact with Flynn since before the election, but declined to answer questions about the subjects they discussed. Kislyak is known for his assiduous cultivation of high-level officials in Washington and was seated in the front row of then-GOP candidate Trump's first major foreign policy speech in April of last year. The ambassador would not discuss the origin of his relationship with Flynn.

In his CBS interview, Pence said that Flynn had "been in touch with diplomatic leaders, security leaders in some 30 countries. That's exactly what the incoming national security adviser should do."

Official concern about Flynn's interactions with Kislyak was heightened when Putin declared on Dec. 30 that Moscow would not retaliate after the Obama administration announced a day earlier the expulsion of 35 suspected Russian spies and the forced closure of Russian-owned compounds in Maryland and New York.

Instead, Putin said he would focus on "the restoration of Russia-United States relations" after Obama left office, and put off considering any retaliatory measures until Moscow had a chance to evaluate Trump's policies.

Trump responded with effusive praise for Putin. "Great move on the delay," he said in a posting to his Twitter account. "I always knew he was very smart."

Putin's reaction cut against a long practice of reciprocation on diplomatic expulsions, and came after his foreign minister had vowed that there would be reprisals against the United States.

Putin's muted response - which took White House officials by surprise - raised some officials' suspicions that Moscow may have been promised a reprieve, and triggered a search by U.S. spy agencies for clues.

"Something happened in those 24 hours" between Obama's announcement and Putin's response, a former senior U.S. official said. Officials began poring over intelligence reports, intercepted communications and Page 4 of 5 Officials say Flynn discussed sanctions diplomatic cables, and saw evidence that Flynn and Kislyak had communicated by text and telephone around the time of the announcement.

Trump transition officials acknowledged those contacts weeks later after they were reported in The Washington Post but denied that sanctions were discussed. Trump press secretary Sean Spicer said Jan. 13 that Flynn had "reached out to" the Russian ambassador on Christmas Day to extend holiday greetings. On Dec. 28, as word of the Obama sanctions spread, Kislyak sent a message to Flynn requesting a call. "Flynn took that call," Spicer said, adding that it "centered on the logistics of setting up a call with the president of Russia and [Trump] after the election."

Other officials were categorical. "I can tell you that during his call, sanctions were not discussed whatsoever," a senior transition official told The Post at the time. When Pence faced questions on television that weekend, he said "those conversations that happened to occur around the time that the United States took action to expel diplomats had nothing whatsoever to do with those sanctions."

Current and former U.S. officials said that assertion was not true.

Like Trump, Flynn has shown an affinity for Russia that is at odds with the views of most of his military and intelligence peers. Flynn raised eyebrows in 2015 when he appeared in photographs seated next to Putin at a lavish party in Moscow for the Kremlin-controlled RT television network.

In an earlier interview with The Post, Flynn acknowledged that he had been paid through his speakers bureau to give a speech at the event and defended his attendance by saying he saw no distinction between RT and U.S. news channels, including CNN.

A retired U.S. Army lieutenant general, Flynn served multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks - tours in which he held a series of high-level intelligence assignments working with U.S. Special Operations forces hunting al-Qaeda operatives and Islamist militants.

Former colleagues said that narrow focus led Flynn to see the threat posed by Islamist groups as overwhelming other security concerns, including Russia's renewed aggression. Instead, Flynn came to see America's long-standing adversary as a potential ally against terrorist groups, and himself as being in a unique position to forge closer ties after traveling to Moscow in 2013 while serving as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Flynn has frequently boasted that he was the first DIA director to be invited into the headquarters of Russia's military intelligence directorate, known as the GRU, although at least one of his predecessors was granted similar access. "Flynn thought he developed some rapport with the GRU chief," a former senior U.S. military official said.

U.S. intelligence agencies say they have tied the GRU to Russia's theft of troves of email messages from Democratic Party computer networks and accuse Moscow of then delivering those materials to the anti- secrecy group WikiLeaks, which published them in phases during the campaign to hurt Hillary Clinton, Trump's Democratic rival.

Flynn was pushed out of the DIA job in 2014 amid concerns about his management of the sprawling agency. He became a fierce critic of the Obama administration before joining the Trump campaign last year. Page 5 of 5 Officials say Flynn discussed sanctions [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Karen DeYoung, Tom Hamburger, Julie Tate and Philip Rucker contributed to this report.

Load-Date: February 10, 2017

End of Document

White House received warning about Flynn

The Washington Post February 14, 2017 Tuesday, Met 2 Edition

Distribution: Every Zone Section: A-SECTION; Pg. A01 Length: 1471 words Byline: Adam Entous;Ellen Nakashima;Philip Rucker

Body

Fears about possible Russian blackmail

Officials voiced concerns that Pence had been misled

The acting attorney general informed the Trump White House late last month that she believed Michael Flynn had misled senior administration officials about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States, and warned that the national security adviser was potentially vulnerable to Russian blackmail, current and former U.S. officials said.

The message, delivered by Sally Q. Yates and a senior career national security official to the White House counsel, was prompted by concerns that Flynn, when asked about his calls and texts with the Russian diplomat, had told Vice President-elect Mike Pence and others that he had not discussed the Obama administration sanctions on Russia for its interference in the 2016 election, the officials said. It is unclear what the White House counsel, Donald McGahn, did with the information.

Flynn resigned Monday night in the wake of revelations about his contacts with the Russian ambassador.

In the waning days of the Obama administration, James R. Clapper Jr., who was the director of national intelligence, and John Brennan, the CIA director at the time, shared Yates's concerns and concurred with her recommendation to inform the Trump White House. They feared that "Flynn had put himself in a compromising position" and thought that Pence had a right to know that he had been misled, according to one of the officials, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

A senior Trump administration official said before Flynn's resignation that the White House was aware of the matter, adding that "we've been working on this for weeks." Page 2 of 4 White House received warning about Flynn

The current and former officials said that although they believed that Pence was misled about the contents of Flynn's communications with the Russian ambassador, they couldn't rule out that Flynn was acting with the knowledge of others in the transition.

The FBI, Yates, Clapper and Brennan declined to comment on the matter.

In a Feb. 8 interview with The Washington Post, Flynn categorically denied discussing sanctions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, repeating public assertions made in January by top Trump officials. One day after the interview, Flynn revised his account, telling The Post through a spokesman that he "couldn't be certain that the topic never came up."

Two officials said a main topic of the relevant call was the sanctions. Officials also said there was no evidence that Russia had attempted to exploit the discrepancy between public statements by Trump officials and what Flynn had discussed.

Flynn told The Post earlier this month that he first met Kislyak in 2013, when Flynn was director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and made a trip to Moscow.

U.S. intelligence reports during the 2016 presidential campaign showed that Kislyak was in touch with Flynn, officials said. Communications between the two continued after Trump's victory on Nov. 8, according to officials with access to intelligence reports on the matter.

Kislyak, in a brief interview with The Post, confirmed having contacts with Flynn before and after the election, but he declined to say what was discussed.

For Yates and other officials, concerns about the communications peaked in the days after the Obama administration on Dec. 29 announced measures to punish Russia for what it said was the Kremlin's interference in the election in an attempt to help Trump.

After the sanctions were rolled out, the Obama administration braced itself for the Russian retaliation. To the surprise of many U.S. officials, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on Dec. 30 that there would be no response. Trump praised the decision on Twitter.

Intelligence analysts began to search for clues that could help explain Putin's move. The search turned up Kislyak's communications, which the FBI routinely monitors, and the phone call in question with Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general with years of intelligence experience.

From that call and subsequent intercepts, FBI agents wrote a secret report summarizing Flynn's discussions with Kislyak.

Yates, then the deputy attorney general, considered Flynn's comments in the intercepted call to be "highly significant" and "potentially illegal," according to an official familiar with her thinking.

Yates and other intelligence officials suspected that Flynn could be in violation of an obscure U.S. statute known as the Logan Act, which bars U.S. citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes with another country.

At the same time, Yates and other law enforcement officials knew there was little chance of bringing against Flynn a case related to the Logan Act, a statute that has never been used in a prosecution. In addition to the legal and political hurdles, Yates and other officials were aware of an FBI investigation Page 3 of 4 White House received warning about Flynn looking at possible contacts between Trump associates and Russia, which now included the Flynn-Kislyak communications.

Word of the calls leaked out on Jan. 12 in an op-ed by Post columnist David Ignatius. "What did Flynn say, and did it undercut U.S. sanctions?" Ignatius wrote, citing the Logan Act.

The next day, a Trump transition official told The Post, "I can tell you that during his call, sanctions were not discussed whatsoever."

White House press secretary Sean Spicer, in a conference call with reporters on Jan. 13, said that the conversation between Flynn and Kislyak had "centered on the logistics" of a post-inauguration call between Trump and Putin. "That was it, plain and simple," Spicer added.

On Jan. 15, Pence was asked about the phone call during an appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation." Citing a conversation he had with Flynn, Pence said the incoming national security adviser and Kislyak "did not discuss anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia."

Before the Pence statement on Jan. 15, top Justice Department and intelligence officials had discussed whether the incoming Trump White House should be notified about the contents of the Flynn-Kislyak communications.

Pence's statement on CBS made the issue more urgent, current and former officials said, because U.S. intelligence agencies had reason to believe that Russia was aware that Flynn and Kislyak had discussed sanctions in their December call, contrary to public statements.

The internal debate over how to handle the intelligence on Flynn and Kislyak came to a head on Jan. 19, Obama's last full day in office.

Yates, Clapper and Brennan argued for briefing the incoming administration so the new president could decide how to deal with the matter. The officials discussed options, including telling Pence, the incoming White House counsel, the incoming chief of staff or Trump himself.

FBI Director James B. Comey initially opposed notification, citing concerns that it could complicate the agency's investigation.

Clapper and Brennan left their positions when Trump was sworn in, but Yates stayed on as acting attorney general until Jan. 30, when Trump fired her for refusing to defend his executive order temporarily barring refugees and people from seven majority-Muslim countries - an action that had been challenged in court.

A turning point came after Jan. 23, when Spicer, in his first official media briefing, again was asked about Flynn's communications with Kislyak. Spicer said that he had talked to Flynn about the issue "again last night." There was just "one call," Spicer said. And it covered four subjects: a plane crash that claimed the lives of a Russian military choir; Christmas greetings; Russian-led talks over the Syrian civil war; and the logistics of setting up a call between Putin and Trump. Spicer said that was the extent of the conversation.

Yates again raised the issue with Comey, who now backed away from his opposition to informing the White House. Yates and the senior career national security official spoke to McGahn, the White House counsel, who didn't respond Monday to a request for comment. Page 4 of 4 White House received warning about Flynn

Trump declined to publicly back his national security adviser after the news broke.

On Monday afternoon, Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president, said Trump had "full confidence" in Flynn. Minutes later, however, Spicer delivered a contradictory statement to reporters.

"The president is evaluating the situation," Spicer's statement read. "He's speaking to Vice President Pence relative to the conversation the vice president had with Gen. Flynn and also speaking to various other people about what he considers the single most important subject there is: Our national security."

And then late Monday, Flynn resigned. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Karen DeYoung and Greg Miller contributed to this report.

Load-Date: February 14, 2017

End of Document

FBI was to pay author of Trump dossier

The Washington Post March 1, 2017 Wednesday, Met 2 Edition

Distribution: Every Zone Section: A-SECTION; Pg. A01 Length: 1296 words Byline: Tom Hamburger;Rosalind S. Helderman

Body

Arrangement fell apart but shows bureau found his inquiry credible

The former British spy who authored a controversial dossier on behalf of Donald Trump's political opponents alleging ties between Trump and Russia reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work, according to several people familiar with the arrangement.

The agreement to compensate former MI6 agent Christopher Steele came as U.S. intelligence agencies reached a consensus that the Russians had interfered in the presidential election by orchestrating hacks of Democratic Party email accounts.

While Trump has derided the dossier as "fake news" compiled by his political opponents, the FBI's arrangement with Steele shows that the bureau considered him credible and found his information, while unproven, to be worthy of further investigation.

Ultimately, the FBI did not pay Steele. Communications between the bureau and the former spy were interrupted as Steele's now-famous dossier became the subject of news stories, congressional inquiries and presidential denials, according to the people familiar with the arrangement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

At the time of the October agreement, FBI officials probing Russian activities, including possible contacts between Trump associates and Russian entities, were aware of the information that Steele had been gathering while working for a Washington research firm hired by supporters of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to the people familiar with the agreement. The firm was due to stop paying Steele as Election Day approached, but Steele felt his work was not done, these people said. Page 2 of 4 FBI was to pay author of Trump dossier

Steele was familiar to the FBI, in part because the bureau had previously hired him to help a U.S. inquiry into alleged corruption in the world soccer organization FIFA. The FBI sometimes pays informants, sources and outside investigators to assist in its work. Steele was known for the quality of his past work and for the knowledge he had developed over nearly 20 years working on Russia-related issues for British intelligence. The Washington Post was not able to determine how much the FBI intended to pay Steele had their relationship remained intact.

The dossier he produced last year alleged, among other things, that associates of Trump colluded with the Kremlin on cyberattacks on Democrats and that the Russians held compromising material about the Republican nominee.

These and other explosive claims have not been verified, and they have been vigorously denied by Trump and his allies.

The FBI, as well as the Senate Intelligence Committee, is investigating Russian interference in the election and alleged contacts between Trump's associates and the Kremlin.

On Tuesday, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters that he had seen "no evidence so far" of Trump campaign contacts with Russia but said a bipartisan House inquiry would proceed so that "no stone is unturned."

The revelation that the FBI agreed to pay Steele at the same time he was being paid by Clinton supporters to dig into Trump's background could further strain relations between the law enforcement agency and the White House.

A spokesman for the FBI declined to comment. Steele's London-based attorney did not respond to questions about the agreement.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer declined to comment.

Steele, 53, began his Trump investigation in June 2016 after working for another client preparing a report on Russian efforts to interfere with politics in Europe.

U.S. intelligence had been independently tracking Russian efforts to influence electoral outcomes in Europe.

Steele was hired to work for a Washington research firm, Fusion GPS, that was providing information to a Democratic client. Fusion GPS began doing Trump research in early 2016, before it hired Steele, on behalf of a Republican opposed to the businessman's candidacy. The firm declined to identify its clients.

Steele's early reports alleged a plan directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin to help Trump in 2016.

"Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years," Steele wrote in June.

Steele's information was provided by an intermediary to the FBI and U.S. intelligence officials after the Democratic National Convention in July, when hacked Democratic emails were first released by WikiLeaks, according to a source familiar with the events. After the convention, Steele contacted a friend in the FBI to personally explain what he had found. Page 3 of 4 FBI was to pay author of Trump dossier

As summer turned to fall, Steele became concerned that the U.S. government was not taking the information he had uncovered seriously enough, according to two people familiar with the situation.

In October, anticipating that funding supplied through the original client would dry up, Steele and the FBI reached a spoken understanding: He would continue his work looking at the Kremlin's ties to Trump and receive compensation for his efforts.

But Steele's frustration deepened when FBI Director James B. Comey, who had been silent on the Russia inquiry, announced publicly 11 days before the election that the bureau was investigating a newly discovered cache of emails Clinton had exchanged using her private server, according to people familiar with Steele's thinking.

Those people say Steele's frustration with the FBI peaked after an Oct. 31 New York Times story that cited law enforcement sources drawing conclusions that he considered premature. The article said that the FBI had not yet found any "conclusive or direct link" between Trump and the Russian government and that the Russian hacking was not intended to help Trump.

After the election, the intelligence community concluded that Russia's interference had been intended to assist Trump.

In January, top intelligence and law enforcement officials briefed Trump and President Barack Obama on those findings. In addition, they provided a summary of the core allegations of Steele's dossier.

News of that briefing soon became public. Then BuzzFeed posted a copy of Steele's salacious but unproven dossier online, sparking outrage from Trump.

"It's all fake news. It's phony stuff. It didn't happen," Trump told reporters in January. "It was a group of opponents that got together - sick people - and they put that crap together."

He later tweeted that Steele was a "failed spy."

The development marked the end of the FBI's relationship with Steele.

After he was publicly identified by the Wall Street Journal as the dossier's author, Steele went into hiding. U.S. officials took pains to stress that his report was not a U.S. government product and that it had not influenced their broader conclusions that the Russian government had hacked the emails of Democratic officials and released those emails with the intention of helping Trump win the presidency.

"The [intelligence community] has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions," then-Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said in a statement in January.

The owner of a technology company identified in Steele's dossier as a participant in the hacks is now suing Steele and BuzzFeed for defamation. BuzzFeed apologized to the executive and blocked out his name in the published document.

Comey spent almost two hours this month briefing the Senate Intelligence Committee. Democrats in the House have informally reached out to Steele in recent weeks to ask about his willingness to testify or cooperate, according to people familiar with the requests. Steele has so far not responded, they said. Page 4 of 4 FBI was to pay author of Trump dossier [email protected] [email protected]

Load-Date: March 1, 2017

End of Document

Sessions spoke twice to Russian envoy

The Washington Post March 2, 2017 Thursday, Met 2 Edition

Distribution: Every Zone Section: A-SECTION; Pg. A08 Length: 1645 words Byline: Adam Entous;Ellen Nakashima;Greg Miller

Body

Revelation contradicts his testimony at confirmation hearing

Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia's ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump's campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions's confirmation hearing to become attorney general.

One of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place in September in the senator's office, at the height of what U.S. intelligence officials say was a Russian cyber campaign to upend the U.S. presidential race.

The previously undisclosed discussions could fuel new congressional calls for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Russia's alleged role in the 2016 presidential election. As attorney general, Sessions oversees the Justice Department and the FBI, which have been leading investigations into Russian meddling and any links to Trump's associates. He has so far resisted calls to recuse himself.

When Sessions spoke with Kislyak in July and September, the senator was a senior member of the influential Armed Services Committee as well as one of Trump's top foreign policy advisers. Sessions played a prominent role supporting Trump on the stump after formally joining the campaign in February 2016.

At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken (D- Minn.) what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign. Page 2 of 4 Sessions spoke twice to Russian envoy

"I'm not aware of any of those activities," he responded. He added: "I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

Officials said Sessions did not consider the conversations relevant to the lawmakers' questions and did not remember in detail what he discussed with Kislyak.

"There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer," said Sarah Isgur Flores, Sessions's spokeswoman.

In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. "Several of the President-elect's nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?" Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: "No."

In a statement issued Wednesday night, Session said he "never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false."

Justice officials said Sessions met with Kislyak on Sept. 8 in his capacity as a member of the armed services panel rather than in his role as a Trump campaign surrogate.

"He was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign - not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee," Flores said.

She added that Sessions last year had more than 25 conversations with foreign ambassadors as a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, including the British, Korean, Japanese, Polish, Indian, Chinese, Canadian, Australian and German ambassadors, in addition to Kislyak.

In the case of the September meeting, one department official who came to the defense of the attorney general said, "There's just not strong recollection of what was said."

The Russian ambassador did not respond to requests for comment about his contacts with Sessions.

The Washington Post contacted all 26 members of the 2016 Senate Armed Services Committee to see whether any lawmakers besides Sessions met with Kislyak in 2016. Of the 20 lawmakers who responded, every senator, including Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), said they did not meet with the Russian ambassador last year. The other lawmakers on the panel did not respond as of Wednesday evening.

"Members of the committee have not been beating a path to Kislyak's door," a senior Senate Armed Services Committee staffer said, citing tensions in relations with Moscow. Besides Sessions, the staffer added, "There haven't been a ton of members who are looking to meet with Kislyak for their committee duties."

Last month, The Post reported that Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn had discussed U.S. sanctions with Kislyak during the month before Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Mike Pence, the vice president-elect, and other top Trump officials. Flynn was forced to resign the following week. Page 3 of 4 Sessions spoke twice to Russian envoy

When asked to comment on Sessions's contacts with Kislyak, Franken said in a statement to The Post on Wednesday: "If it's true that Attorney General Sessions met with the Russian ambassador in the midst of the campaign, then I am very troubled that his response to my questioning during his confirmation hearing was, at best, misleading."

Franken added: "It is now clearer than ever that the attorney general cannot, in good faith, oversee an investigation at the Department of Justice and the FBI of the Trump-Russia connection, and he must recuse himself immediately."

Several Democratic members of the House on Wednesday night called on Sessions to resign from his post.

"After lying under oath to Congress about his own communications with the Russians, the Attorney General must resign," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement, adding that "Sessions is not fit to serve as the top law enforcement officer of our country."

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on Twitter late Wednesday that "we need a special counsel to investigate Trump associates' ties to Russia."

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said at a CNN town hall Wednesday night that if the substance of Sessions's conversations with the Russian ambassador proved to be improper or suspect, he too would join the call for Sessions to go.

"If there is something there and it goes up the chain of investigation, it is clear to me that Jeff Sessions, who is my dear friend, cannot make that decision about Trump," Graham said - although he stressed he Sessions's contacts with the Russian ambassador could have been "innocent."

"But if there's something there that the FBI thinks is criminal in nature, then for sure you need a special prosecutor. If that day ever comes, I'll be the first one to say it needs to be somebody other than Jeff."

Current and former U.S. officials say they see Kislyak as a diplomat, not an intelligence operative. But they were not sure to what extent, if any, Kislyak was aware of or involved in the covert Russian election campaign.

Steven Hall, former head of Russia operations at the CIA, said that Russia would have been keenly interested in cultivating a relationship with Sessions because of his role on key congressional committees and as an early adviser to Trump.

Sessions's membership on the Armed Services Committee would have made him a priority for the Russian ambassador. "The fact that he had already placed himself at least ideologically behind Trump would have been an added bonus for Kislyak," Hall said.

Michael McFaul, a Stanford University professor who until 2014 served as U.S. ambassador to Russia, said he was not surprised that Kislyak would seek a meeting with Sessions. "The weird part is to conceal it," he said. "That was at the height of all the discussions of what Russia was doing during the election."

Two months before the September meeting, Sessions attended a Heritage Foundation event in July on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention that was attended by about 50 ambassadors. When the event was over, a small group of ambassadors approached Sessions as he was leaving the podium, and Kislyak was among them, the Justice Department official said. Page 4 of 4 Sessions spoke twice to Russian envoy

Sessions then spoke individually to some of the ambassadors, including Kislyak, the official said. In the informal exchanges, the ambassadors expressed appreciation for his remarks and some of them invited him to events they were sponsoring, said the official, citing a former Sessions staffer who was at the event.

Democratic lawmakers, including senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have demanded in recent weeks that Sessions recuse himself from the government's inquiry into possible ties between Trump associates and Russia.

Last week, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, became one of the few Republican representatives to state publicly the need for an independent investigation.

Sessions's public position on Russia has evolved over time.

In an interview with RealClear World on the sidelines of the German Marshall Fund's Brussels Forum in March 2015, Sessions said the United States and Europe "have to unify" against Russia.

More than a year later, he spoke about fostering a stronger relationship with the Kremlin. In a July 2016 interview with CNN's "State of the Union," Sessions praised Trump's plan to build better relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"Donald Trump is right. We need to figure out a way to end this cycle of hostility that's putting this country at risk, costing us billions of dollars in defense, and creating hostilities," Sessions told CNN.

Asked whether he viewed Putin as a good or bad leader, Sessions told CNN: "We have a lot of bad leaders around the world that operate in ways we would never tolerate in the United States. But the question is, can we have a more peaceful, effective relationship with Russia? Utilizing interests that are similar in a realistic way to make this world a safer place and get off this dangerous hostility with Russia? I think it's possible." [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Julie Tate, Robert Costa and Karoun Demirjian contributed to this report.

Load-Date: March 2, 2017

End of Document

Undisclosed on Forms, Kushner Met 2 Russians

The New York Times April 7, 2017 Friday, Late Edition - Final

Body

When Jared Kushner, President Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, sought the top-secret security clearance that would give him access to some of the nation's most closely guarded secrets, he was required to disclose all encounters with foreign government officials over the last seven years.

But Mr. Kushner did not mention dozens of contacts with foreign leaders or officials in recent months. They include a December meeting with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak, and one with the head of a Russian state-owned bank, Vnesheconombank, arranged at Mr. Kislyak's behest.

The omissions, which Mr. Kushner's lawyer called an error, are particularly sensitive given the congressional and F.B.I. investigations into contacts between Russian officials and Trump associates. The Senate Intelligence Committee informed the White House weeks ago that, as part of its inquiry, it planned to question Mr. Kushner about the meetings he arranged with Mr. Kislyak, including the one with Sergey N. Gorkov, a graduate of Russia's spy school who now heads Vnesheconombank.

Mr. Kushner's omissions were described by people with direct knowledge of them who asked for anonymity because the questionnaire is not a public document.

While officials can lose access to intelligence, or worse, for failing to disclose foreign contacts, the forms are often amended to address lapses. Jamie Gorelick, Mr. Kushner's lawyer, said that the questionnaire was submitted prematurely on Jan. 18, and that the next day, Mr. Kushner's office told the F.B.I. that he would provide supplemental information.

Mr. Kushner's aides said he was compiling that material and would share it when the F.B.I. interviewed him. For now, they said, he has an interim security clearance.

In a statement, Ms. Gorelick said that after learning of the error, Mr. Kushner told the F.B.I.: ''During the presidential campaign and transition period, I served as a point-of-contact for foreign officials trying to reach the president-elect. I had numerous contacts with foreign officials in this capacity. ... I would be happy to provide additional information about these contacts.'' No names were disclosed in that correspondence. Page 2 of 2 Undisclosed on Forms, Kushner Met 2 Russians

Applicants for major national security positions must submit a lengthy F.B.I. questionnaire as part of a background check. They are asked to list the dates and details of all contacts with representatives of foreign governments.

This is not just bureaucratic paperwork. The form warns that ''withholding, misrepresenting, or falsifying information'' could result in loss of access to classified information, denial of eligibility for a sensitive job and even prosecution; knowingly falsifying or concealing material facts is a federal felony that may result in fines or up to five years imprisonment.

Clearance holders are often allowed to amend disclosure forms and avoid punishment if omissions are deemed oversights rather than deliberate falsifications, and prosecutions are rare.

Mr. Kushner is the second top White House official to have problems concerning his dealings with foreign officials. Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump's first national security adviser, had his security clearance suspended and was fired for misleading Vice President Mike Pence about the content of phone calls with the Russian ambassador during the transition.

Last month, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, confirmed to Congress that his agency was investigating Russia's interference in the election and the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Vnesheconombank is a target of American sanctions imposed in response to Moscow's annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine. It is controlled by members of President Vladimir V. Putin's government, including Prime Minister Dmitri A. Medvedev, and has been used to bail out oligarchs favored by Mr. Putin and to fund pet projects like the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.

Mr. Kushner has said he did not discuss sanctions with Mr. Gorkov, the Russian banker. Mr. Gorkov declined to comment on the subject of whether sanctions were discussed. http://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/jared-kushner-russians-security-clearance.html

Load-Date: April 7, 2017

End of Document

In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

The New York Times April 23, 2017 Sunday, Late Edition - Final

Copyright 2017 The New York Times Company Section: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1 Length: 7801 words Byline: By MATT APUZZO, MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, ADAM GOLDMAN and ERIC LICHTBLAU; Emily Baumgaertner and Mark Landler contributed reporting. Kitty Bennett contributed research.

Body

WASHINGTON -- The day before he upended the 2016 election, James B. Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, summoned agents and lawyers to his conference room. They had been debating all day, and it was time for a decision.

Mr. Comey's plan was to tell Congress that the F.B.I. had received new evidence and was reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton, the presidential front-runner. The move would violate the policies of an agency that does not reveal its investigations or do anything that may influence an election. But Mr. Comey had declared the case closed, and he believed he was obligated to tell Congress that had changed.

''Should you consider what you're about to do may help elect Donald Trump president?'' an adviser asked him, Mr. Comey recalled recently at a closed meeting with F.B.I. agents.

He could not let politics affect his decision, he replied. ''If we ever start considering who might be affected, and in what way, by what we do, we're done,'' he told the agents.

But with polls showing Mrs. Clinton holding a comfortable lead, Mr. Comey ended up plunging the F.B.I. into the molten center of a bitter election. Fearing the backlash that would come if it were revealed after the election that the F.B.I. had been investigating the next president and had kept it a secret, Mr. Comey sent a letter informing Congress that the case was reopened.

What he did not say was that the F.B.I. was also investigating the campaign of Donald J. Trump. Just weeks before, Mr. Comey had declined to answer a question from Congress about whether there was such an investigation. Only in March, long after the election, did Mr. Comey confirm that there was one.

For Mr. Comey, keeping the F.B.I. out of politics is such a preoccupation that he once said he would never play basketball with President Barack Obama because of the appearance of being chummy with the man who appointed him. But in the final months of the presidential campaign, the leader of the nation's pre-eminent law enforcement agency shaped the contours, if not the outcome, of the presidential race by his handling of the Clinton and Trump-related investigations.

An examination by The New York Times, based on interviews with more than 30 current and former law enforcement, congressional and other government officials, found that while partisanship was not a factor Page 2 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election in Mr. Comey's approach to the two investigations, he handled them in starkly different ways. In the case of Mrs. Clinton, he rewrote the script, partly based on the F.B.I.'s expectation that she would win and fearing the bureau would be accused of helping her. In the case of Mr. Trump, he conducted the investigation by the book, with the F.B.I.'s traditional secrecy. Many of the officials discussed the investigations on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to reporters.

Mr. Comey made those decisions with the supreme self-confidence of a former prosecutor who, in a distinguished career, has cultivated a reputation for what supporters see as fierce independence, and detractors view as media-savvy arrogance.

The Times found that this go-it-alone strategy was shaped by his distrust of senior officials at the Justice Department, who he and other F.B.I. officials felt had provided Mrs. Clinton with political cover. The distrust extended to his boss, Loretta E. Lynch, the attorney general, who Mr. Comey believed had subtly helped play down the Clinton investigation.

His misgivings were only fueled by the discovery last year of a document written by a Democratic operative that seemed -- at least in the eyes of Mr. Comey and his aides -- to raise questions about her independence. In a bizarre example of how tangled the F.B.I. investigations had become, the document had been stolen by Russian hackers.

The examination also showed that at one point, President Obama himself was reluctant to disclose the suspected Russian influence in the election last summer, for fear his administration would be accused of meddling.

Mr. Comey, the highest-profile F.B.I. director since J. Edgar Hoover, has not squarely addressed his decisions last year. He has touched on them only obliquely, asserting that the F.B.I. is blind to partisan considerations. ''We're not considering whose ox will be gored by this action or that action, whose fortune will be helped,'' he said at a public event recently. ''We just don't care. We can't care. We only ask: 'What are the facts? What is the law?'''

But circumstances and choices landed him in uncharted and perhaps unwanted territory, as he made what he thought were the least damaging choices from even less desirable alternatives.

''This was unique in the history of the F.B.I.,'' said Michael B. Steinbach, the former senior national security official at the F.B.I., who worked closely with Mr. Comey, describing the circumstances the agency faced last year while investigating both the Republican and Democratic candidates for president. ''People say, 'This has never been done before.' Well, there never was a before. Or 'That's not normally how you do it.' There wasn't anything normal about this.''

'Federal Bureau of Matters'

Mr. Comey owes his job and his reputation to the night in 2004 when he rushed to the Washington hospital room of John Ashcroft, the attorney general, and prevented Bush administration officials from persuading him to reauthorize a classified program that had been ruled unconstitutional. At the time, Mr. Comey, a Republican, was the deputy attorney general.

Years later, when Mr. Obama was looking for a new F.B.I. director, Mr. Comey seemed an inspired bipartisan choice. But his style eventually grated on his bosses at the Justice Department. Page 3 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

In 2015, as prosecutors pushed for greater accountability for police misconduct, Mr. Comey embraced the controversial theory that scrutiny of police officers led to increases in crime -- the so-called Ferguson effect. ''We were really caught off guard,'' said Vanita Gupta, the Justice Department's top civil rights prosecutor at the time. ''He lobbed a fairly inflammatory statement, without data to back it up, and walked away.''

On other issues, Mr. Comey bucked the administration but won praise from his agents, who saw him as someone who did what he believed was right, regardless of the political ramifications.

''Jim sees his role as apolitical and independent,'' said Daniel C. Richman, a longtime confidant and friend of Mr. Comey's. ''The F.B.I. director, even as he reports to the attorney general, often has to stand apart from his boss.''

The F.B.I.'s involvement with Mrs. Clinton's emails began in July 2015 when it received a letter from the inspector general for the intelligence community.

The letter said that classified information had been found on Mrs. Clinton's home email server, which she had used as secretary of state. The secret email setup was already proving to be a damaging issue in her presidential campaign.

Mr. Comey's deputies quickly concluded that there was reasonable evidence that a crime may have occurred in the way classified materials were handled, and that the F.B.I. had to investigate. ''We knew as an organization that we didn't have a choice,'' said John Giacalone, a former mob investigator who had risen to become the F.B.I.'s top national security official.

On July 10, 2015, the F.B.I. opened a criminal investigation, code-named ''Midyear,'' into Mrs. Clinton's handling of classified information. The Midyear team included two dozen investigators led by a senior analyst and by an experienced F.B.I. supervisor, Peter Strzok, a former Army officer who had worked on some of the most secretive investigations in recent years involving Russian and Chinese espionage.

There was controversy almost immediately.

Responding to questions from The Times, the Justice Department confirmed that it had received a criminal referral -- the first step toward a criminal investigation -- over Mrs. Clinton's handling of classified information.

But the next morning, the department revised its statement.

''The department has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information,'' the new statement read. ''It is not a criminal referral.''

At the F.B.I., this was a distinction without a difference: Despite what officials said in public, agents had been alerted to mishandled classified information and in response, records show, had opened a full criminal investigation.

The Justice Department knew a criminal investigation was underway, but officials said they were being technically accurate about the nature of the referral. Some at the F.B.I. suspected that Democratic appointees were playing semantic games to help Mrs. Clinton, who immediately seized on the statement to play down the issue. ''It is not a criminal investigation,'' she said, incorrectly. ''It is a security review.'' Page 4 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

In September of that year, as Mr. Comey prepared for his first public questions about the case at congressional hearings and press briefings, he went across the street to the Justice Department to meet with Ms. Lynch and her staff.

Both had been federal prosecutors in New York -- Mr. Comey in the Manhattan limelight, Ms. Lynch in the lower-wattage Brooklyn office. The 6-foot-8 Mr. Comey commanded a room and the spotlight. Ms. Lynch, 5 feet tall, was known for being cautious and relentlessly on message. In her five months as attorney general, she had shown no sign of changing her style.

At the meeting, everyone agreed that Mr. Comey should not reveal details about the Clinton investigation. But Ms. Lynch told him to be even more circumspect: Do not even call it an investigation, she said, according to three people who attended the meeting. Call it a ''matter.''

Ms. Lynch reasoned that the word ''investigation'' would raise other questions: What charges were being investigated? Who was the target? But most important, she believed that the department should stick by its policy of not confirming investigations.

It was a by-the-book decision. But Mr. Comey and other F.B.I. officials regarded it as disingenuous in an investigation that was so widely known. And Mr. Comey was concerned that a Democratic attorney general was asking him to be misleading and line up his talking points with Mrs. Clinton's campaign, according to people who spoke with him afterward.

As the meeting broke up, George Z. Toscas, a national security prosecutor, ribbed Mr. Comey. ''I guess you're the Federal Bureau of Matters now,'' Mr. Toscas said, according to two people who were there.

Despite his concerns, Mr. Comey avoided calling it an investigation. ''I am confident we have the resources and the personnel assigned to the matter,'' Mr. Comey told reporters days after the meeting.

The F.B.I. investigation into Mrs. Clinton's email server was the biggest political story in the country in the fall of 2015. But something much bigger was happening in Washington. And nobody recognized it.

While agents were investigating Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic National Committee's computer system was compromised. It appeared to have been the work of Russian hackers.

The significance of this moment is obvious now, but it did not immediately cause alarm at the F.B.I. or the Justice Department.

Over the previous year, dozens of think tanks, universities and political organizations associated with both parties had fallen prey to Russian spear phishing -- emails that tricked victims into clicking on malicious links. The D.N.C. intrusion was a concern, but no more than the others.

Months passed before the D.N.C. and the F.B.I. met to address the hacks. And it would take more than a year for the government to conclude that the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, had an audacious plan to steer the outcome of an American election.

Missing Emails

Despite moments of tension between leaders of the F.B.I. and the Justice Department, agents and prosecutors working on the case made progress. ''The investigative team did a thorough job,'' Mr. Giacalone said. ''They left no stone unturned.'' Page 5 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

They knew it would not be enough to prove that Mrs. Clinton was sloppy or careless. To bring charges, they needed evidence that she knowingly received classified information or set up her server for that purpose.

That was especially important after a deal the Justice Department had made with David H. Petraeus, the retired general and former director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Petraeus had passed classified information to his biographer, with whom he was having an affair, and the evidence was damning: He revealed the names of covert agents and other secrets, he was recorded saying that he knew it was wrong, and he lied to the F.B.I.

But over Mr. Comey's objections, the Justice Department let Mr. Petraeus plead guilty in April 2015 to a misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information. Charging Mrs. Clinton with the same crime, without evidence of intent, would be difficult.

One nagging issue was that Mrs. Clinton had deleted an unknown number of emails from her early months at the State Department -- before she installed the home server. Agents believed that those emails, sent from a BlackBerry account, might be their best hope of assessing Mrs. Clinton's intentions when she moved to the server. If only they could find them.

In spring last year, Mr. Strzok, the counterintelligence supervisor, reported to Mr. Comey that Mrs. Clinton had clearly been careless, but agents and prosecutors agreed that they had no proof of intent. Agents had not yet interviewed Mrs. Clinton or her aides, but the outcome was coming into focus.

Nine months into the investigation, it became clear to Mr. Comey that Mrs. Clinton was almost certainly not going to face charges. He quietly began work on talking points, toying with the notion that in the midst of a bitter presidential campaign, a Justice Department led by Democrats may not have the credibility to close the case, and that he alone should explain that decision to the public.

A Suspicious Document

A document obtained by the F.B.I. reinforced that idea.

During Russia's hacking campaign against the United States, intelligence agencies could peer, at times, into Russian networks and see what had been taken. Early last year, F.B.I. agents received a batch of hacked documents, and one caught their attention.

The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document.

Read one way, it was standard Washington political chatter. Read another way, it suggested that a political operative might have insight into Ms. Lynch's thinking.

Normally, when the F.B.I. recommends closing a case, the Justice Department agrees and nobody says anything. The consensus in both places was that the typical procedure would not suffice in this instance, but who would be the spokesman?

The document complicated that calculation, according to officials. If Ms. Lynch announced that the case was closed, and Russia leaked the document, Mr. Comey believed it would raise doubts about the independence of the investigation. Page 6 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

Mr. Comey sought advice from someone he has trusted for many years. He dispatched his deputy to meet with David Margolis, who had served at the Justice Department since the Johnson administration and who, at 76, was dubbed the Yoda of the department.

What exactly was said is not known. Mr. Margolis died of heart problems a few months later. But some time after that meeting, Mr. Comey began talking to his advisers about announcing the end of the Clinton investigation himself, according to a former official.

''When you looked at the totality of the situation, we were leaning toward: This is something that makes sense to be done alone,'' said Mr. Steinbach, who would not confirm the existence of the Russian document.

Former Justice Department officials are deeply skeptical of this account. If Mr. Comey believed that Ms. Lynch were compromised, they say, why did he not seek her recusal? Mr. Comey never raised this issue with Ms. Lynch or the deputy attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, former officials said.

Mr. Comey's defenders regard this as one of the untold stories of the Clinton investigation, one they say helps explain his decision-making. But former Justice Department officials say the F.B.I. never uncovered evidence tying Ms. Lynch to the document's author, and are convinced that Mr. Comey wanted an excuse to put himself in the spotlight.

As the Clinton investigation headed into its final months, there were two very different ideas about how the case would end. Ms. Lynch and her advisers thought a short statement would suffice, probably on behalf of both the Justice Department and the F.B.I.

Mr. Comey was making his own plans.

A Hot Tarmac

A chance encounter set those plans in motion.

In late June, Ms. Lynch's plane touched down at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport as part of her nationwide tour of police departments. Former President Bill Clinton was also in Phoenix that day, leaving from the same tarmac.

Ms. Lynch's staff loaded into vans, leaving the attorney general and her husband on board. Mr. Clinton's Secret Service agents mingled with her security team. When the former president learned who was on the plane, his aides say, he asked to say hello.

Mr. Clinton's aides say he intended only to greet Ms. Lynch as she disembarked. But Ms. Lynch later told colleagues that the message she received -- relayed from one security team to another -- was that Mr. Clinton wanted to come aboard, and she agreed.

When Ms. Lynch's staff members noticed Mr. Clinton boarding the plane, a press aide hurriedly called the Justice Department's communications director, Melanie Newman, who said to break up the meeting immediately. A staff member rushed to stop it, but by the time the conversation ended, Mr. Clinton had been on the plane for about 20 minutes. Page 7 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

The meeting made the local news the next day and was soon the talk of Washington. Ms. Lynch said they had only exchanged pleasantries about golf and grandchildren, but Republicans called for her to recuse herself and appoint a special prosecutor.

Ms. Lynch said she would not step aside but would accept whatever career prosecutors and the F.B.I. recommended on the Clinton case -- something she had planned to do all along.

Mr. Comey never suggested that she recuse herself. But at that moment, he knew for sure that when there was something to say about the case, he alone would say it.

Calling a Conference

Agents interviewed Mrs. Clinton for more than three and a half hours in Washington the next day, and the interview did not change the unanimous conclusion among agents and prosecutors that she should not be charged.

Two days later, on the morning of July 5, Mr. Comey called Ms. Lynch to say that he was about to hold a news conference. He did not tell her what he planned to say, and Ms. Lynch did not demand to know.

On short notice, the F.B.I. summoned reporters to its headquarters for the briefing.

A few blocks away, Mrs. Clinton was about to give a speech. At her campaign offices in Brooklyn, staff members hurried in front of televisions. And at the Justice Department and the F.B.I., prosecutors and agents watched anxiously.

''We were very much aware what was about to happen,'' said Mr. Steinbach, who had taken over as the F.B.I.'s top national security official earlier that year. ''This was going to be hotly contested.''

With a black binder in hand, Mr. Comey walked into a large room on the ground floor of the F.B.I.'s headquarters. Standing in front of two American flags and two royal-blue F.B.I. flags, he read from a script.

He said the F.B.I. had reviewed 30,000 emails and discovered 110 that contained classified information. He said computer hackers may have compromised Mrs. Clinton's emails. And he criticized the State Department's lax security culture and Mrs. Clinton directly.

''Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position'' should have known better, Mr. Comey said. He called her ''extremely careless.''

The criticism was so blistering that it sounded as if he were recommending criminal charges. Only in the final two minutes did Mr. Comey say that ''no charges are appropriate in this case.''

The script had been edited and revised several times, former officials said. Mr. Strzok, Mr. Steinbach, lawyers and others debated every phrase. Speaking so openly about a closed case is rare, and the decision to do so was not unanimous, officials said. But the team ultimately agreed that there was an obligation to inform American voters.

''We didn't want anyone to say, 'If I just knew that, I wouldn't have voted that way,''' Mr. Steinbach said. ''You can argue that's not the F.B.I.'s job, but there was no playbook for this. This is somebody who's going to be president of the United States.'' Page 8 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

Mr. Comey's criticism -- his description of her carelessness -- was the most controversial part of the speech. Agents and prosecutors have been reprimanded for injecting their legal conclusions with personal opinions. But those close to Mr. Comey say he has no regrets.

By scolding Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Comey was speaking not only to voters but to his own agents. While they agreed that Mrs. Clinton should not face charges, many viewed her conduct as inexcusable. Mr. Comey's remarks made clear that the F.B.I. did not approve.

Former agents and others close to Mr. Comey acknowledge that his reproach was also intended to insulate the F.B.I. from Republican criticism that it was too lenient toward a Democrat.

At the Justice Department, frustrated prosecutors said Mr. Comey should have consulted with them first. Mrs. Clinton's supporters said that Mr. Comey's condemnations seemed to make an oblique case for charging her, undermining the effect of his decision.

''He came up with a Rube Goldberg-type solution that caused him more problems than if he had just played it straight,'' said Brian Fallon, the Clinton campaign press secretary and a former Justice Department spokesman.

Furious Republicans saw the legal cloud over Mrs. Clinton lifting and tore into Mr. Comey.

In the days after the announcement, Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch each testified before Congress, with different results. Neither the F.B.I. nor the Justice Department normally gives Congress a fact-by-fact recounting of its investigations, and Ms. Lynch spent five hours avoiding doing so.

''I know that this is a frustrating exercise for you,'' she told the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Comey discussed his decision to close the investigation and renewed his criticism of Mrs. Clinton.

By midsummer, as Mrs. Clinton was about to accept her party's nomination for president, the F.B.I. director had seemingly succeeded in everything he had set out to do. The investigation was over well before the election. He had explained his decision to the public.

And with both parties angry at him, he had proved yet again that he was willing to speak his mind, regardless of the blowback. He seemed to have safely piloted the F.B.I. through the storm of a presidential election.

But as Mr. Comey moved past one tumultuous investigation, another was about to heat up.

Russia Rising

Days after Mr. Comey's news conference, Carter Page, an American businessman, gave a speech in Moscow criticizing American foreign policy. Such a trip would typically be unremarkable, but Mr. Page had previously been under F.B.I. scrutiny years earlier, as he was believed to have been marked for recruitment by Russian spies. And he was now a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Trump.

Mr. Page has not said whom he met during his July visit to Moscow, describing them as ''mostly scholars.'' But the F.B.I. took notice. Mr. Page later traveled to Moscow again, raising new concerns among counterintelligence agents. A former senior American intelligence official said that Mr. Page met Page 9 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election with a suspected intelligence officer on one of those trips and there was information that the Russians were still very interested in recruiting him.

Later that month, the website WikiLeaks began releasing hacked emails from the D.N.C. Roger J. Stone Jr., another Trump adviser, boasted publicly about his contact with WikiLeaks and suggested he had inside knowledge about forthcoming leaks. And Mr. Trump himself fueled the F.B.I.'s suspicions, showering Mr. Putin with praise and calling for more hacking of Mrs. Clinton's emails.

''Russia, if you're listening,'' he said, ''I hope you'll be able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.''

In late July, the F.B.I. opened an investigation into possible collusion between members of Mr. Trump's campaign and Russian operatives. Besides Mr. Comey and a small team of agents, officials said, only a dozen or so people at the F.B.I. knew about the investigation. Mr. Strzok, just days removed from the Clinton case, was selected to supervise it.

It was a worrisome time at the F.B.I. Agents saw increased activity by Russian intelligence officers in the United States, and a former senior American intelligence official said there were attempts by Russian intelligence officers to talk to people involved in the campaign. Russian hackers had also been detected trying to break into voter registration systems, and intelligence intercepts indicated some sort of plan to interfere with the election.

In late August, Mr. Comey and his deputies were briefed on a provocative set of documents about purported dealings between shadowy Russian figures and Mr. Trump's campaign. One report, filled with references to secret meetings, spoke ominously of Mr. Trump's ''compromising relationship with the Kremlin'' and threats of ''blackmail.''

The reports came from a former British intelligence agent named Christopher Steele, who was working as a private investigator hired by a firm working for a Trump opponent. He provided the documents to an F.B.I. contact in Europe on the same day as Mr. Comey's news conference about Mrs. Clinton. It took weeks for this information to land with Mr. Strzok and his team.

Mr. Steele had been a covert agent for MI6 in Moscow, maintained deep ties with Russians and worked with the F.B.I., but his claims were largely unverified. It was increasingly clear at the F.B.I. that Russia was trying to interfere with the election.

As the F.B.I. plunged deeper into that investigation, Mr. Comey became convinced that the American public needed to understand the scope of the foreign interference and be ''inoculated'' against it.

He proposed writing an op-ed piece to appear in The Times or The Washington Post, and showed the White House a draft his staff had prepared, according to two former officials. (After the Times story was published online on Saturday, a former White House official said the text of the op-ed had not been given to the White House.) The op-ed did not mention the investigation of the Trump campaign, but it laid out how Russia was trying to undermine the vote.

The president replied that going public would play right into Russia's hands by sowing doubts about the election's legitimacy. Mr. Trump was already saying the system was ''rigged,'' and if the Obama administration accused Russia of interference, Republicans could accuse the White House of stoking national security fears to help Mrs. Clinton. Page 10 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

Mr. Comey argued that he had unique credibility to call out the Russians and avoid that criticism. After all, he said, he had just chastised Mrs. Clinton at his news conference.

The White House decided it would be odd for Mr. Comey to make such an accusation on his own, in a newspaper, before American security agencies had produced a formal intelligence assessment. The op-ed idea was quashed. When the administration had something to say about Russia, it would do so in one voice, through the proper channels.

But John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, was so concerned about the Russian threat that he gave an unusual private briefing in the late summer to Harry Reid, then the Senate Democratic leader.

Top congressional officials had already received briefings on Russia's meddling, but the one for Mr. Reid appears to have gone further. In a public letter to Mr. Comey several weeks later, Mr. Reid said that ''it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government -- a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States.''

Mr. Comey knew the investigation of the Trump campaign was just underway, and keeping with policy, he said nothing about it.

'Exceptional Circumstances'

Mr. Reid's letter sparked frenzied speculation about what the F.B.I. was doing. At a congressional hearing in September, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, pressed Mr. Comey for an explanation, citing his willingness to give details about his investigation of Mrs. Clinton.

''After you investigated Secretary Clinton, you made a decision to explain publicly who you interviewed and why,'' Mr. Nadler said. ''You also disclosed documents, including those from those interviews. Why shouldn't the American people have the same level of information about your investigation with those associated with Mr. Trump?''

But Mr. Comey never considered disclosing the case. Doing so, he believed, would have undermined an active investigation and cast public suspicion on people the F.B.I. could not be sure were implicated.

''I'm not confirming that we're investigating people associated with Mr. Trump,'' Mr. Comey said to Mr. Nadler. ''In the matter of the email investigation, it was our judgment -- my judgment and the rest of the F.B.I.'s judgment -- that those were exceptional circumstances.''

Even in classified briefings with House and Senate intelligence committee members, Mr. Comey repeatedly declined to answer questions about whether there was an investigation of the Trump campaign.

To Mr. Comey's allies, the two investigations were totally different. One was closed when he spoke about it. The other was continuing, highly classified and in its earliest stages. Much of the debate over Mr. Comey's actions over the last seven months can be distilled into whether people make that same distinction.

Just a few weeks later, in late September, Mr. Steele, the former British agent, finally heard back from his contact at the F.B.I. It had been months, but the agency wanted to see the material he had collected ''right away,'' according to a person with knowledge of the conversation. What prompted this message remains unclear. Page 11 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

Mr. Steele met his F.B.I. contact in Rome in early October, bringing a stack of new intelligence reports. One, dated Sept. 14, said that Mr. Putin was facing ''fallout'' over his apparent involvement in the D.N.C. hack and was receiving ''conflicting advice'' on what to do.

The agent said that if Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 for his efforts, according to two people familiar with the offer. Ultimately, he was not paid.

Around the same time, the F.B.I. began examining a mysterious data connection between Alfa Bank, one of Russia's biggest, and a Trump Organization email server. Some private computer scientists said it could represent a secret link between the Trump Organization and Moscow.

Agents concluded that the computer activity, while odd, probably did not represent a covert channel.

But by fall, the gravity of the Russian effort to affect the presidential election had become clear.

The D.N.C. hack and others like it had once appeared to be standard Russian tactics to tarnish a Western democracy. After the WikiLeaks disclosures and subsequent leaks by a Russian group using the name DCLeaks, agents and analysts began to realize that Moscow was not just meddling. It was trying to tip the election away from Mrs. Clinton and toward Mr. Trump.

Mr. Comey and other senior administration officials met twice in the White House Situation Room in early October to again discuss a public statement about Russian meddling. But the roles were reversed: Susan Rice, the national security adviser, wanted to move ahead. Mr. Comey was less interested in being involved.

At their second meeting, Mr. Comey argued that it would look too political for the F.B.I. to comment so close to the election, according to several people in attendance. Officials in the room felt whiplashed. Two months earlier, Mr. Comey had been willing to put his name on a newspaper article; now he was refusing to sign on to an official assessment of the intelligence community.

Mr. Comey said that in the intervening time, Russian meddling had become the subject of news stories and a topic of national discussion. He felt it was no longer necessary for him to speak publicly about it. So when Jeh Johnson, the Homeland Security secretary, and James R. Clapper Jr., the national intelligence director, accused ''Russia's senior-most officials'' on Oct. 7 of a cyber operation to disrupt the election, the F.B.I. was conspicuously silent.

That night, WikiLeaks began posting thousands of hacked emails from another source: the private email account of John D. Podesta, chairman of the Clinton campaign.

The emails included embarrassing messages between campaign staff members and excerpts from Mrs. Clinton's speeches to Wall Street. The disclosure further convinced the F.B.I. that it had initially misread Russia's intentions.

Two days later, Mr. Podesta heard from the F.B.I. for the first time, he said in an interview.

''You may be aware that your emails have been hacked,'' an agent told him.

Mr. Podesta laughed. The same agency that had so thoroughly investigated Mrs. Clinton, he said, seemed painfully slow at responding to Russian hacking. Page 12 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

''Yes,'' he answered. ''I'm aware.''

Supplementing the Record

The Daily Mail, a British tabloid, was first with the salacious story: Anthony D. Weiner, the former New York congressman, had exchanged sexually charged messages with a 15-year-old girl.

The article, appearing in late September, raised the possibility that Mr. Weiner had violated child pornography laws. Within days, prosecutors in Manhattan sought a search warrant for Mr. Weiner's computer.

Even with his notoriety, this would have had little impact on national politics but for one coincidence. Mr. Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin, was one of Mrs. Clinton's closest confidantes, and had used an email account on her server.

F.B.I. agents in New York seized Mr. Weiner's laptop in early October. The investigation was just one of many in the New York office and was not treated with great urgency, officials said. Further slowing the investigation, the F.B.I. software used to catalog the computer files kept crashing.

Eventually, investigators realized that they had hundreds of thousands of emails, many of which belonged to Ms. Abedin and had been backed up to her husband's computer.

Neither Mr. Comey nor Ms. Lynch was concerned. Agents had discovered devices before in the Clinton investigation (old cellphones, for example) that turned up no new evidence.

Then, agents in New York who were searching image files on Mr. Weiner's computer discovered a State Department document containing the initials H.R.C. -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. They found messages linked to Mrs. Clinton's home server.

And they made another surprising discovery: evidence that some of the emails had moved through Mrs. Clinton's old BlackBerry server, the one she used before moving to her home server. If Mrs. Clinton had intended to conceal something, agents had always believed, the evidence might be in those emails. But reading them would require another search warrant, essentially reopening the Clinton investigation.

The election was two weeks away.

Mr. Comey learned of the Clinton emails on the evening of Oct. 26 and gathered his team the next morning to discuss the development.

Seeking a new warrant was an easy decision. He had a thornier issue on his mind.

Back in July, he told Congress that the Clinton investigation was closed. What was his obligation, he asked, to acknowledge that this was no longer true?

It was a perilous idea. It would push the F.B.I. back into the political arena, weeks after refusing to confirm the active investigation of the Trump campaign and declining to accuse Russia of hacking.

The question consumed hours of conference calls and meetings. Agents felt they had two options: Tell Congress about the search, which everyone acknowledged would create a political furor, or keep it quiet, which followed policy and tradition but carried its own risk, especially if the F.B.I. found new evidence in the emails. Page 13 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

''In my mind at the time, Clinton is likely to win,'' Mr. Steinbach said. ''It's pretty apparent. So what happens after the election, in November or December? How do we say to the American public: 'Hey, we found some things that might be problematic. But we didn't tell you about it before you voted'? The damage to our organization would have been irreparable.''

Conservative news outlets had already branded Mr. Comey a Clinton toady. That same week, the cover of National Review featured a story on ''James Comey's Dereliction,'' and a cartoon of a hapless Mr. Comey shrugging as Mrs. Clinton smashed her laptop with a sledgehammer.

Congressional Republicans were preparing for years of hearings during a Clinton presidency. If Mr. Comey became the subject of those hearings, F.B.I. officials feared, it would hobble the agency and harm its reputation. ''I don't think the organization would have survived that,'' Mr. Steinbach said.

The assumption was that the email review would take many weeks or months. ''If we thought we could be done in a week,'' Mr. Steinbach said, ''we wouldn't say anything.''

The spirited debate continued when Mr. Comey reassembled his team later that day. F.B.I. lawyers raised concerns, former officials said. But in the end, Mr. Comey said he felt obligated to tell Congress.

''I went back and forth, changing my mind several times,'' Mr. Steinbach recalled. ''Ultimately, it was the right call.''

That afternoon, Mr. Comey's chief of staff called the office of Ms. Yates, the deputy attorney general, and revealed the plan.

When Ms. Lynch was told, she was both stunned and confused. While the Justice Department's rules on ''election year sensitivities'' do not expressly forbid making comments close to an election, administrations of both parties have interpreted them as a broad prohibition against anything that may influence a political outcome.

Ms. Lynch understood Mr. Comey's predicament, but not his hurry. In a series of phone calls, her aides told Mr. Comey's deputies that there was no need to tell Congress anything until agents knew what the emails contained.

Either Ms. Lynch or Ms. Yates could have ordered Mr. Comey not to send the letter, but their aides argued against it. If Ms. Lynch issued the order and Mr. Comey obeyed, she risked the same fate that Mr. Comey feared: accusations of political interference and favoritism by a Democratic attorney general.

If Mr. Comey disregarded her order and sent the letter -- a real possibility, her aides thought -- it would be an act of insubordination that would force her to consider firing him, aggravating the situation.

So the debate ended at the staff level, with the Justice Department imploring the F.B.I. to follow protocol and stay out of the campaign's final days. Ms. Lynch never called Mr. Comey herself.

The next morning, Friday, Oct. 28, Mr. Comey wrote to Congress, ''In connection with an unrelated case, the F.B.I. has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.''

His letter became public within minutes. Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, a Republican and a leading antagonist of Mrs. Clinton's, jubilantly announced on Twitter, ''Case reopened.'' Page 14 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

'This Changes Everything'

The Clinton team was outraged. Even at the F.B.I., agents who supported their high-profile director were stunned. They knew the letter would call into question the F.B.I.'s political independence.

Mr. Trump immediately mentioned it on the campaign trail. ''As you might have heard,'' Mr. Trump told supporters in Maine, ''earlier today, the F.B.I. ... '' The crowd interrupted with a roar. Everyone had heard.

Polls almost immediately showed Mrs. Clinton's support declining. Presidential races nearly always tighten in the final days, but some political scientists reported a measurable ''Comey effect.''

''This changes everything,'' Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Comey explained in an email to his agents that Congress needed to be notified. ''It would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record,'' he wrote.

But many agents were not satisfied.

At the Justice Department, career prosecutors and political appointees privately criticized not only Mr. Comey for sending the letter but also Ms. Lynch and Ms. Yates for not stopping him. Many saw the letter as the logical result of years of not reining him in.

Mr. Comey told Congress that he had no idea how long the email review would take, but Ms. Lynch promised every resource needed to complete it before Election Day.

At the F.B.I., the Clinton investigative team was reassembled, and the Justice Department obtained a warrant to read emails to or from Mrs. Clinton during her time at the State Department. As it turned out, only about 50,000 emails met those criteria, far fewer than anticipated, officials said, and the F.B.I. had already seen many of them.

Mr. Comey was again under fire. Former Justice Department officials from both parties wrote a Washington Post op-ed piece titled ''James Comey Is Damaging Our Democracy.''

At a Justice Department memorial for Mr. Margolis, organizers removed all the chairs from the stage, avoiding the awkward scene of Mr. Comey sitting beside some of his sharpest critics.

Jamie S. Gorelick, a deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, eulogized Mr. Margolis for unfailingly following the rules, even when facing unpopular options. Audience members heard it as a veiled critique of both Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch.

On Nov. 5, three days before Election Day, Mr. Strzok and his team had 3,000 emails left to review. That night, they ordered pizza and dug in. At about 2 a.m., Mr. Strzok wrote an email to Mr. Comey and scheduled it to send at 6 a.m. They were finished.

A few hours later, Mr. Strzok and his team were back in Mr. Comey's conference room for a final briefing: Only about 3,000 emails had been potentially work-related. A dozen or so email chains contained classified information, but the F.B.I. had already seen it.

And agents had found no emails from the BlackBerry server during the crucial period when Mrs. Clinton was at the State Department. Page 15 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

Nothing had changed what Mr. Comey had said in July.

That conclusion was met with a mixture of relief and angst. Everyone at the meeting knew that the question would quickly turn to whether Mr. Comey's letter had been necessary.

That afternoon, Mr. Comey sent a second letter to Congress. ''Based on our review,'' he wrote, ''we have not changed our conclusions.''

Political Consequences

Mr. Comey did not vote on Election Day, records show, the first time he skipped a national election, according to friends. But the director of the F.B.I. was a central story line on every television station as Mr. Trump swept to an upset victory.

Many factors explained Mr. Trump's success, but Mrs. Clinton blamed just one. ''Our analysis is that Comey's letter -- raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be -- stopped our momentum,'' she told donors a few days after the election. She pointed to polling data showing that late-deciding voters chose Mr. Trump in unusually large numbers.

Even many Democrats believe that this analysis ignores other factors, but at the F.B.I., the accusation stung. Agents are used to criticism and second-guessing. Rarely has the agency been accused of political favoritism or, worse, tipping an election.

For all the attention on Mrs. Clinton's emails, history is likely to see Russian influence as the more significant story of the 2016 election. Questions about Russian meddling and possible collusion have marred Mr. Trump's first 100 days in the White House, cost him his national security adviser and triggered two congressional investigations. Despite Mr. Trump's assertions that ''Russia is fake news,'' the White House has been unable to escape its shadow.

Mr. Comey has told friends that he has no regrets, about either the July news conference or the October letter or his handling of the Russia investigation. Confidants like Mr. Richman say he was constrained by circumstance while ''navigating waters in which every move has political consequences.''

But officials and others close to him also acknowledge that Mr. Comey has been changed by the tumultuous year.

Early on Saturday, March 4, the president accused Mr. Obama on Twitter of illegally wiretapping Trump Tower in Manhattan. Mr. Comey believed the government should forcefully denounce that claim. But this time he took a different approach. He asked the Justice Department to correct the record. When officials there refused, Mr. Comey followed orders and said nothing publicly.

''Comey should say this on the record,'' said Tommy Vietor, a National Security Council spokesman in the Obama administration. ''He's already shattered all norms about commenting on ongoing investigations.''

Mr. Richman sees no conflict, but rather ''a consistent pattern of someone trying to act with independence and integrity, but within established channels.''

''His approach to the Russia investigation fits this pattern,'' he added. Page 16 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

But perhaps the most telling sign that Mr. Comey may have had enough of being Washington's Lone Ranger occurred last month before the House Intelligence Committee.

Early in the hearing, Mr. Comey acknowledged for the first time what had been widely reported: The F.B.I. was investigating members of the Trump campaign for possible collusion with Russia.

Yet the independent-minded F.B.I. director struck a collaborative tone. ''I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm,'' he began, ushering in the next phase of his extraordinary moment in national politics.

Mr. Comey was still in the spotlight, but no longer alone.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/us/politics/james-comey-election.html

Graphic

PHOTOS: James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, testifying in July. (PHOTOGRAPH BY AL DRAGO/THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A1)

ONLY THE LAW: Attorney General John Ashcroft with Mr. Comey in 2002. Mr. Comey later served as the deputy attorney general and earned a reputation for independence. (PHOTOGRAPH BY MIKE SEGAR/REUTERS) (A20)

THE KREMLIN: The F.B.I. took note of a July trip to Moscow, right, by the Trump adviser Carter Page, above left. The agency is investigating whether the Trump campaign had ties to the government of Vladimir V. Putin, above right. (PHOTOGRAPH BY VASILY MAXIMOV/AGENCE FRANCE- PRESSE -- GETTY IMAGES)

ON HIS OWN: James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, had a go-it-alone strategy during the presidential race that was fueled by distrust of Justice Department officials like Loretta E. Lynch, then the attorney general, pictured far left. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY CLIFF OWEN/ASSOCIATED PRESS

ZACH GIBSON/THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A20-A21)

RUNWAY MEETING: Ms. Lynch and former President Bill Clinton had a chance encounter at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, left, in June. Days later, Mr. Comey held his own news conference on the Hillary Clinton investigation. (PHOTOGRAPH BY SPENCER PLATT/GETTY IMAGES) (A21)

MORE HACKING: Emails from John D. Podesta, second from top, campaign manager for Hillary Clinton, above, were posted in October by WikiLeaks, which had previously released emails from the D.N.C. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY DOUG MILLS/THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A22) Page 17 of 17 In Trying to Avoid Politics, Comey Shaped an Election

CONTINUED SCRUTINY: James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, appearing on March 20 at a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian interference in the presidential election. Voters, pictured far left, had cast their ballots on Nov. 8. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY ZACH GIBSON/GETTY IMAGES

ZACH GIBSON/GETTY IMAGES) (A22-A23)

THE OUTCOME: The belief that Mr. Comey's actions were a factor in the election of President Trump, above, has stung at the F.B.I. (PHOTOGRAPH BY ERIC THAYER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A23)

Load-Date: April 23, 2017

End of Document

President Shifts Rationale For Firing F.B.I. Director, Calling Him a 'Showboat'

The New York Times May 12, 2017 Friday, Late Edition - Final

Body

WASHINGTON -- President Trump offered a new version of his decision to fire James B. Comey, saying on Thursday that he would have dismissed the F.B.I. director regardless of whether the attorney general and his deputy recommended it.

It was just the latest in a series of statements, some of them contradictory, to whiplash Washington over 48 hours that began with Mr. Comey's firing on Tuesday evening. And it was unusually harsh: Mr. Trump castigated Mr. Comey as ''a showboat'' and ''a grandstander,'' suggesting that his issues with the F.B.I. director went beyond any previously stated concerns.

Mr. Trump said on Thursday that he had not relied solely on the advice from the Justice Department's top two leaders in making his decision. And, for the first time, he explicitly referenced the F.B.I.'s investigation into his administration's ties to Russia in defending Mr. Comey's firing.

''And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, 'You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story,''' Mr. Trump told Lester Holt of NBC News. ''It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.''

Earlier, the White House had said that Mr. Trump acted only after Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, came to him and recommended that Mr. Comey be dismissed because of his handling of last year's investigation into Hillary Clinton's email. In his Tuesday letter terminating Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump said he had ''accepted their recommendation.'' And Vice President Mike Pence, talking to reporters, echoed his boss.

But by the next day, that story had begun to unravel.

Mr. Rosenstein and Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, spoke by telephone on Wednesday to review details that precipitated the firing, seeking to agree on a version of events that could be released to the public.

That conversation led to a new timeline that the White House shared with reporters hours later. It said that Mr. Trump had in recent weeks been ''strongly inclined to remove'' Mr. Comey, but that he had made his final decision only after receiving written recommendations on Tuesday from Mr. Rosenstein and Mr. Sessions. Page 2 of 4 President Shifts Rationale For Firing F.B.I. Director, Calling Him a 'Showboat'

And then on Thursday, the president himself brushed away that narrative, reversing his own aides' version of events.

In fact, the president asserted, he had decided to fire Mr. Comey well before he received the advice from the Justice Department officials. He said he was frustrated by Mr. Comey's public testimony regarding the F.B.I. investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 campaign and its possible contacts with Mr. Trump's advisers.

''I was going to fire Comey -- my decision,'' Mr. Trump told NBC. ''I was going to fire regardless of recommendation.''

The president's comments appeared aimed at reassuring Mr. Rosenstein, who was reportedly upset at the White House's original narrative that seemed to suggest he had instigated Mr. Comey's firing. The White House has cited Mr. Rosenstein's reputation as a straight shooter in justifying Mr. Trump's move.

But the president's story line left the White House struggling to explain his motivation for firing his F.B.I. director a day after calling the Russia investigation nothing more than a ''taxpayer funded charade'' that should end.

Critics said the credibility of the White House had been badly damaged and renewed calls for a special prosecutor to take over the Russia investigation, independent of the administration.

The White House's explanation was challenged on Thursday in other ways as well. The president's spokeswoman said on Wednesday that Mr. Comey was fired in part because he had lost the support of rank-and-file F.B.I. employees. But on Thursday, Andrew G. McCabe, the new acting director of the agency, told the Senate that Mr. Comey enjoyed ''broad support within the F.B.I. and still does to this day.''

And while the White House said on Wednesday that the Russia inquiry was only a small part of the bureau's activities, Mr. McCabe called it ''a highly significant investigation.''

Throughout the rapidly shifting 48 hours, Mr. Rosenstein appeared to be caught in the middle.

Confirmed just last month, he made a trip to Capitol Hill on Thursday for a previously unannounced meeting with the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee. In a brief hallway conversation with a reporter, Mr. Rosenstein denied reports that he had threatened to quit.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, has agreed to invite Mr. Rosenstein to brief the entire Senate next week, said the minority leader, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York.

In his Wednesday deliberations, Mr. Rosenstein made clear that the timeline needed to be accurate, and that he did not want to ''massage'' the version of events. His discussions included Mr. McGahn, Mr. Sessions and other senior administration officials, according to a person familiar with the conversation who was not authorized to discuss it. It concluded with a four-sentence statement that was released by the White House on Wednesday evening.

That statement noted that Mr. Trump had met with both Mr. Rosenstein and Mr. Sessions on Monday to discuss reasons to remove Mr. Comey. It said that Mr. Rosenstein had submitted his written recommendation to Mr. Sessions on Tuesday, who sent his own recommendation to Mr. Trump soon afterward. Page 3 of 4 President Shifts Rationale For Firing F.B.I. Director, Calling Him a 'Showboat'

Mr. Rosenstein's memo, while highly critical of Mr. Comey's actions over the past year, stopped short of explicitly recommending his ouster. ''Although the president has the power to remove an F.B.I. director,'' he wrote, ''the decision should not be taken lightly.''

In the NBC interview, Mr. Trump elaborated on his claim that Mr. Comey had told him on three occasions that the president himself was not under investigation. The F.B.I. has been looking into whether associates of Mr. Trump and his campaign coordinated with Russia as Moscow orchestrated an effort to intervene in the American election and tilt the election to Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump said Mr. Comey had reassured him first at a private dinner, and then during two phone conversations. He acknowledged that he had directly asked if he was being investigated.

''I said, 'If it's possible, would you let me know if I'm under investigation?''' Mr. Trump said. ''He said, 'You are not under investigation.'''

The admission raised questions on Thursday among reporters, who asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the deputy White House press secretary, whether it was inappropriate for the president to ask the F.B.I. director whether he was under investigation. ''No, I don't believe it is,'' Ms. Sanders said.

The president said Mr. Comey requested the dinner early in his administration to ask to keep his job. That would be an unusual -- and perhaps unnecessary -- step for an F.B.I. director, who by law is appointed for a 10-year term. Mr. Comey was four years into his term when Mr. Trump was inaugurated.

''He wanted to stay on as the F.B.I. head,'' Mr. Trump said. ''I said: 'I'll consider. We'll see what happens.' But we had a very nice dinner and at that time, he told me I wasn't under investigation, which I knew anyway.''

In explaining his decision to fire Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump said that ''the F.B.I. has been in turmoil'' since last year, an apparent reference to the controversy over how the Clinton investigation was managed, and ''it hasn't recovered from that.''

Mr. Trump also insisted, as he has before, that there was ''no collusion between my campaign and Russia.''

The interview underscored what has been a continuing challenge for the Trump administration to provide the public with accurate information about the president's actions and motivations.

On Tuesday evening, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said in an interview on Fox Business Network that it was Mr. Rosenstein who had ''made a determination'' about Mr. Comey and the president had followed it. At the time, Mr. Spicer was merely dutifully relaying the White House's position.

Mr. Pence did the same in his comments to reporters the next day. And at the daily White House briefing on Wednesday, Ms. Sanders was asked whether the advice from Mr. Rosenstein and Mr. Sessions was only a pretext for a decision the president had already made. ''No,'' she said.

On Thursday, after the president's NBC interview, she changed gears.

''I hadn't had a chance to have the conversation directly with the president,'' she said. ''I'd had several conversations with him, but I didn't ask that question directly -- 'had you already made that decision.' I went off of the information that I had when I answered your question.'' Page 4 of 4 President Shifts Rationale For Firing F.B.I. Director, Calling Him a 'Showboat'

But she stuck by her contention that Mr. Comey had lost the faith of his employees -- even though the agency's acting director had contradicted it. ''I've certainly heard from a large number of individuals, and that's just myself,'' Ms. Sanders said, ''and I don't even know that many people in the F.B.I.'' https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/politics/trump-comey-showboat-fbi.html

Graphic

PHOTOS: Rod J. Rosenstein (PHOTOGRAPH BY AL DRAGO/THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A1)

The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, above, was reportedly upset at the White House's initial narrative explaining the firing of James. B. Comey. Left, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the deputy White House press secretary, briefed reporters on Thursday. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY AL DRAGO/THE NEW YORK TIMES

DOUG MILLS/THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A19)

Load-Date: May 12, 2017

End of Document

Trump reveals secret intelligence to Russians

The Washington Post May 16, 2017 Tuesday, Suburban Edition

Distribution: Every Zone Section: A-SECTION; Pg. A01 Length: 1925 words Byline: Greg Miller;Greg Jaffe

Body

HIGHLY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ON ISIS

Disclosure came at White House meeting, officials say

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump's disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump's decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump's meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.

"This is code-word information," said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump "revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies."

The revelation comes as the president faces rising legal and political pressure on multiple Russia-related fronts. Last week, he fired FBI Director James B. Comey in the midst of a bureau investigation into possible links between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Trump's subsequent admission that his decision was driven by "this Russia thing" was seen by critics as attempted obstruction of justice. Page 2 of 5 Trump reveals secret intelligence to Russians

One day after dismissing Comey, Trump welcomed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak - a key figure in earlier Russia controversies - into the Oval Office. It was during that meeting, officials said, that Trump went off script and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

For almost anyone in government, discussing such matters with an adversary would be illegal. As president, Trump has broad authority to declassify government secrets, making it unlikely that his disclosures broke the law.

White House officials involved in the meeting said Trump discussed only shared concerns about terrorism.

"The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation," said H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, who participated in the meeting. "At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed, and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly."

McMaster reiterated his statement in a subsequent appearance at the White House on Monday and described the Washington Post story as "false," but did not take any questions.

In their statements, White House officials emphasized that Trump had not discussed specific intelligence sources and methods, rather than addressing whether he had disclosed information drawn from sensitive sources.

The CIA declined to comment, and the NSA did not respond to requests for comment.

But officials expressed concern about Trump's handling of sensitive information as well as his grasp of the potential consequences. Exposure of an intelligence stream that has provided critical insight into the Islamic State, they said, could hinder the United States' and its allies' ability to detect future threats.

"It is all kind of shocking," said a former senior U.S. official who is close to current administration officials. "Trump seems to be very reckless and doesn't grasp the gravity of the things he's dealing with, especially when it comes to intelligence and national security. And it's all clouded because of this problem he has with Russia."

In his meeting with Lavrov, Trump seemed to be boasting about his inside knowledge of the looming threat. "I get great intel. I have people brief me on great intel every day," the president said, according to an official with knowledge of the exchange.

Trump went on to discuss aspects of the threat that the United States learned only through the espionage capabilities of a key partner. He did not reveal the specific intelligence-gathering method, but he described how the Islamic State was pursuing elements of a specific plot and how much harm such an attack could cause under varying circumstances. Most alarmingly, officials said, Trump revealed the city in the Islamic State's territory where the U.S. intelligence partner detected the threat.

The Post is withholding most plot details, including the name of the city, at the urging of officials who warned that revealing them would jeopardize important intelligence capabilities.

"Everyone knows this stream is very sensitive, and the idea of sharing it at this level of granularity with the Russians is troubling," said a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official who also worked closely Page 3 of 5 Trump reveals secret intelligence to Russians with members of the Trump national security team. He and others spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.

The identification of the location was seen as particularly problematic, officials said, because Russia could use that detail to help identify the U.S. ally or intelligence capability involved. Officials said the capability could be useful for other purposes, possibly providing intelligence on Russia's presence in Syria. Moscow would be keenly interested in identifying that source and perhaps disrupting it.

Russia and the United States both regard the Islamic State as an enemy and share limited information about terrorist threats. But the two nations have competing agendas in Syria, where Moscow has deployed military assets and personnel to support President Bashar al-Assad.

"Russia could identify our sources or techniques," the senior U.S. official said.

A former intelligence official who handled high-level intelligence on Russia said that given the clues Trump provided, "I don't think that it would be that hard [for Russian spy services] to figure this out."

At a more fundamental level, the information wasn't the United States' to provide to others. Under the rules of espionage, governments - and even individual agencies - are given significant control over whether and how the information they gather is disseminated, even after it has been shared. Violating that practice undercuts trust considered essential to sharing secrets.

The officials declined to identify the ally but said it has previously voiced frustration with Washington's inability to safeguard sensitive information related to Iraq and Syria.

"If that partner learned we'd given this to Russia without their knowledge or asking first, that is a blow to that relationship," the U.S. official said.

Trump also described measures the United States has taken or is contemplating to counter the threat, including military operations in Iraq and Syria, as well as other steps to tighten security, officials said.

The officials would not discuss details of those measures, but the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed that it is considering banning laptops and other large electronic devices from carry-on bags on flights between Europe and the United States. The United States and Britain imposed a similar ban in March affecting travelers passing through airports in 10 Muslim-majority countries.

Trump cast the countermeasures in wistful terms. "Can you believe the world we live in today?" he said, according to one official. "Isn't it crazy?"

Lavrov and Kislyak were also accompanied by aides.

A Russian photographer took photos of part of the session that were released by the Russian state-owned Tass news agency. No U.S. news organization was allowed to attend any part of the meeting.

Senior White House officials appeared to recognize quickly that Trump had overstepped and moved to contain the potential fallout. Thomas P. Bossert, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, placed calls to the directors of the CIA and the NSA, the services most directly involved in the intelligence-sharing arrangement with the partner. Page 4 of 5 Trump reveals secret intelligence to Russians

One of Bossert's subordinates also called for the problematic portion of Trump's discussion to be stricken from internal memos and for the full transcript to be limited to a small circle of recipients, efforts to prevent sensitive details from being disseminated further or leaked.

White House officials defended Trump. "This story is false," said Dina Powell, deputy national security adviser for strategy. "The president only discussed the common threats that both countries faced."

But officials could not explain why staff members nevertheless felt it necessary to alert the CIA and the NSA.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said he would rather comment on the revelations in the Post story after "I know a little bit more about it," but added: "Obviously, they are in a downward spiral right now and have got to figure out a way to come to grips with all that's happening. And the shame of it is, there's a really good national security team in place."

Corker also said, "The chaos that is being created by the lack of discipline is creating an environment that I think makes - it creates a worrisome environment."

Trump has repeatedly gone off-script in his dealings with high-ranking foreign officials, most notably in his contentious introductory conversation with the Australian prime minister earlier this year. He has also faced criticism for seemingly lax attention to security at his Florida retreat, Mar-a-Lago, where he appeared to field preliminary reports of a North Korea missile launch in full view of casual diners.

U.S. officials said that the National Security Council continues to prepare multi-page briefings for Trump to guide him through conversations with foreign leaders, but that he has insisted that the guidance be distilled to a single page of bullet points - and often ignores those.

"He seems to get in the room or on the phone and just goes with it, and that has big downsides," the second former official said. "Does he understand what's classified and what's not? That's what worries me."

Lavrov's reaction to the Trump disclosures was muted, officials said, calling for the United States to work more closely with Moscow on fighting terrorism.

Kislyak has figured prominently in damaging stories about the Trump administration's ties to Russia. Trump's first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, was forced to resign just 24 days into the job over his contacts with Kislyak and his misleading statements about them. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was forced to recuse himself from matters related to the FBI's Russia investigation after it was revealed that he had met and spoke with Kislyak, despite denying any contact with Russian officials during his confirmation hearing.

"I'm sure Kislyak was able to fire off a good cable back to the Kremlin with all the details" he gleaned from Trump, said the former U.S. official who handled intelligence on Russia.

The White House readout of the meeting with Lavrov and Kislyak made no mention of the discussion of a terrorist threat.

"Trump emphasized the need to work together to end the conflict in Syria," the summary said. The president also "raised Ukraine" and "emphasized his desire to build a better relationship between the United States and Russia." Page 5 of 5 Trump reveals secret intelligence to Russians [email protected] [email protected]

Julie Tate and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

Load-Date: May 16, 2017

End of Document

Trump Transition Said to Know Of Flynn Inquiry Before Hiring

The New York Times May 18, 2017 Thursday, Late Edition - Final

Body

WASHINGTON -- Michael T. Flynn told President Trump's transition team weeks before the inauguration that he was under federal investigation for secretly working as a paid lobbyist for Turkey during the campaign, according to two people familiar with the case.

Despite this warning, which came about a month after the Justice Department notified Mr. Flynn of the inquiry, Mr. Trump made Mr. Flynn his national security adviser. The job gave Mr. Flynn access to the president and nearly every secret held by American intelligence agencies.

Mr. Flynn's disclosure, on Jan. 4, was first made to the transition team's chief lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, who is now the White House counsel. That conversation, and another one two days later between Mr. Flynn's lawyer and transition lawyers, shows that the Trump team knew about the investigation of Mr. Flynn far earlier than has been previously reported.

His legal issues have been a problem for the White House from the beginning and are at the center of a growing political crisis for Mr. Trump. Mr. Flynn, who was fired after 24 days in the job, was initially kept on even after the acting attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, warned the White House that he might be subject to blackmail by the Russians for misleading Vice President Mike Pence about the nature of conversations he had with the Russian ambassador to Washington.

After Mr. Flynn's dismissal, Mr. Trump tried to get James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, to drop the investigation -- an act that some legal experts say is grounds for an investigation of Mr. Trump for possible obstruction of justice. He fired Mr. Comey on May 9.

The White House declined to comment on whether officials there had known about Mr. Flynn's legal troubles before the inauguration.

Mr. Flynn, a retired general, is one of a handful of Trump associates under scrutiny in intertwined federal investigations into their financial links to foreign governments and whether any of them helped Russia interfere in the presidential election.

In congressional testimony, the acting F.B.I. director, Andrew G. McCabe, has confirmed the existence of a ''highly significant'' investigation into possible collusion between Mr. Trump's associates and Russian operatives to sway the presidential election. The pace of the investigations has intensified in recent weeks, Page 2 of 4 Trump Transition Said to Know Of Flynn Inquiry Before Hiring with a veteran espionage prosecutor, Brandon Van Grack, now leading a grand jury inquiry in Northern Virginia that is scrutinizing Mr. Flynn's foreign lobbying and has begun issuing subpoenas to businesses that worked with Mr. Flynn and his associates.

The New York Times has reviewed one of the subpoenas. It demands all ''records, research, contracts, bank records, communications'' and other documents related to work with Mr. Flynn and the Flynn Intel Group, the business he set up after he was forced out as chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014.

The subpoena also asks for similar records about Ekim Alptekin, a Turkish businessman who is close to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and is chairman of the Turkish-American Business Council. There is no indication that Mr. Alptekin is under investigation.

Signed by Dana J. Boente, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, the subpoena instructs the recipient to direct any questions about its contents to Mr. Van Grack.

Mr. Van Grack, a national security prosecutor based at the Justice Department headquarters in Washington, has experience conducting espionage investigations. He prosecuted a businessman for illegally exporting thousands of sensitive electronics components to Iran and a suspected hacker in the Syrian Electronic Army. In 2015, he prosecuted a Virginia man for acting as an unregistered agent of Syria's intelligence services.

According to people who have talked to Mr. Flynn about the case, he sees the Justice Department's investigation as part of an effort by the Obama administration and its holdovers in the government to keep him out of the White House. In his view, this effort began immediately after the election, when President Barack Obama, who had fired Mr. Flynn as the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Mr. Trump that he would have profound concerns about Mr. Flynn's becoming a top national security aide.

The people close to Mr. Flynn said he believed that when that warning did not dissuade Mr. Trump from making him national security adviser, the Justice Department opened its investigation into his lobbying work. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering Justice Department or White House officials.

The investigation stems from the work Mr. Flynn did for Inovo BV, a Dutch company owned by Mr. Alptekin, the Turkish businessman. On Aug. 9, Mr. Flynn and the Flynn Intel Group signed a contract with Inovo for $600,000 over 90 days to run an influence campaign aimed at discrediting Fethullah Gulen, an reclusive cleric who lives in Pennsylvania and whom Mr. Erdogan has accused of orchestrating a failed coup in Turkey last summer.

When he was hired by Mr. Alptekin, Mr. Flynn did not register as a foreign agent, as required by law when an American represents the interests of a foreign government. Only in March did he file a retroactive registration with the Justice Department because his lawyer, Robert K. Kelner, said that ''the engagement could be construed to have principally benefited the Republic of Turkey.''

Trump campaign officials first became aware of a problem with Mr. Flynn's business dealings in early November. On Nov. 8, the day of the election, Mr. Flynn wrote an op-ed in The Hill that advocated improved relations between Turkey and the United States and called Mr. Gulen ''a shady Islamic mullah.''

''If he were in reality a moderate, he would not be in exile, nor would he excite the animus of Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government,'' the op-ed said. Page 3 of 4 Trump Transition Said to Know Of Flynn Inquiry Before Hiring

Days later, after an article in The Daily Caller revealed that the Flynn Intel Group had a contract with Inovo, a Trump campaign lawyer held a conference call with members of the Flynn Intel Group, according to one person with knowledge of the call. The lawyer, William McGinley, was seeking more information about the nature of the group's foreign work and wanted to know whether Mr. Flynn had been paid for the op-ed.

Mr. McGinley now works in the White House as cabinet secretary and deputy assistant to the president.

The Justice Department also took notice. The op-ed in The Hill raised suspicions that Mr. Flynn was working as a foreign agent, and in a letter dated Nov. 30, the Justice Department notified Mr. Flynn that it was scrutinizing his lobbying work.

Mr. Flynn hired a lawyer a few weeks later. By Jan. 4, the day Mr. Flynn informed Mr. McGahn of the inquiry, the Justice Department was investigating the matter.

Mr. Kelner then followed up with another call to the Trump transition's legal team. He ended up leaving a message, identifying himself as Mr. Flynn's lawyer. According to a person familiar with the case, Mr. Kelner did not get a call back until two days later, on Jan. 6.

Around the time of Mr. Flynn's call with Mr. McGahn, the F.B.I. began investigating Mr. Flynn on a separate matter: phone conversations he had in late December with Sergey I. Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the United States. Current and former American officials said that, on the calls, Mr. Flynn discussed sanctions that the Obama administration had imposed on Russia for disrupting the November election.

After news of the calls became public, Mr. Flynn misled Mr. Pence about what he had discussed with Mr. Kislyak, telling him that the two had only exchanged holiday pleasantries.

Days after the inauguration, Ms. Yates, the acting attorney general, spoke with Mr. McGahn at the White House, telling him Justice Department lawyers believed that Mr. Flynn might be vulnerable to Russian blackmail. Since the Russians knew that Mr. Flynn had lied to the vice president, she said, they might have leverage over him.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/michael-flynn-donald-trump-national-security- adviser.html

Graphic

PHOTO: Michael T. Flynn at Trump Tower in December. His lawyer told President Trump's transition team that he was under federal investigation for secretly working as a paid lobbyist for Turkey, but Mr. Trump made him national security adviser anyway. (PHOTOGRAPH BY SAM HODGSON FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) (A16) Page 4 of 4 Trump Transition Said to Know Of Flynn Inquiry Before Hiring

Load-Date: May 18, 2017

End of Document

Trump Admitted Dismissal at F.B.I. Eased Pressure

The New York Times May 20, 2017 Saturday, Late Edition - Final

Follow Maggie Haberman and Matthew Rosenberg on Twitter @MaggieNYT and @AllMattNYT.

Body

WASHINGTON -- President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved ''great pressure'' on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting.

''I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,'' Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. ''I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off.''

Mr. Trump added, ''I'm not under investigation.''

The conversation, during a May 10 meeting -- the day after he fired Mr. Comey -- reinforces the notion that the president dismissed him primarily because of the bureau's investigation into possible collusion between Mr. Trump's campaign and Russian operatives. Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.

The comments represented an extraordinary moment in the investigation, which centers in part on the administration's contacts with Russian officials: A day after firing the man leading that inquiry, Mr. Trump disparaged him -- to Russian officials.

The White House document that contained Mr. Trump's comments was based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and has been circulated as the official account of the meeting. One official read quotations to The Times, and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion.

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, did not dispute the account.

In a statement, he said that Mr. Comey had behaved politically and put unnecessary pressure on the president's ability to conduct diplomacy with Russia on matters such as Syria, Ukraine and the Islamic State.

''By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia's actions, James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia,'' Mr. Spicer said. ''The Page 2 of 4 Trump Admitted Dismissal at F.B.I. Eased Pressure investigation would have always continued, and obviously, the termination of Comey would not have ended it. Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations.''

The day after firing Mr. Comey, Mr. Trump hosted Russia's foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, in the Oval Office, along with the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey I. Kislyak. The meeting ignited controversy this week when it was revealed that Mr. Trump had disclosed intelligence from an Israeli counterterrorism operation.

A third government official briefed on the meeting defended the president, saying that Mr. Trump, whose discursive speaking style has hindered him in office, was using a negotiating tactic when he told Mr. Lavrov about the ''pressure'' he was under. The idea, the official suggested, was to create a sense of obligation with Russian officials and to coax concessions out of Mr. Lavrov -- on Syria, Ukraine and other issues -- by saying that Russian meddling in last year's election had created enormous political problems for Mr. Trump.

The president has been adamant that the meddling did not alter the outcome of the presidential race, but it has become a political cudgel for his opponents.

Many Democrats, and some Republicans, have said that the president may have tried to obstruct justice by firing Mr. Comey. The Justice Department's newly appointed special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, was given the authority to investigate not only potential collusion, but also related allegations, which would include obstruction of justice.

Representative Elijah E. Cummings, a Maryland Democrat and a member of the House Oversight Committee, called on Republicans to subpoena White House documents related to the meeting.

The F.B.I.'s investigation has bedeviled the Trump administration, and the president personally. Mr. Comey publicly confirmed the existence of the inquiry in March, telling Congress that his agents were investigating Russian attempts to influence the outcome of the presidential election and whether anyone in the Trump campaign had assisted in the Russian efforts. Mr. Trump has denied any collusion and called the case a waste of money and time. Former officials have testified that they have so far seen no evidence of collusion.

The acting F.B.I. director, Andrew G. McCabe, has called the case ''highly significant'' but said there had been no effort by the White House to impede the inquiry.

At first, the White House said Mr. Trump had fired Mr. Comey based on the recommendation of the Justice Department, and because of Mr. Comey's handling of the F.B.I. investigation into Hillary Clinton last year. Officials said the move had nothing to do with the Russia investigation.

But the president undercut that argument a day later, telling NBC News, ''When I decided to just do it, I said to myself -- I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.''

The Oval Office comment about Mr. Comey's sanity echoed what Mr. Trump has said privately at other times. The Times reported the day after Mr. Comey was fired that the president had told aides there was ''something wrong with'' Mr. Comey. Page 3 of 4 Trump Admitted Dismissal at F.B.I. Eased Pressure

American intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia engaged in widespread computer hacking and propaganda intended to tip the election toward Mr. Trump. Against that backdrop, the president has faced repeated questions about his links to Russia. During his candidacy, Mr. Trump's spokeswoman declared that ''there was no communication'' with foreign entities during the campaign.

Journalists have since revealed several instances of undisclosed meetings between Mr. Trump's associates and Russians, or contacts that the White House initially mischaracterized. Mr. Trump's first national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, was forced to resign over misstatements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

In the Oval Office on May 10, Mr. Trump joked that he seemed to be the only person who had not met Mr. Kislyak, according to the American official reading the document. And while Mr. Trump played down his personal concern about the fighting in Ukraine, according to the official, the president said Americans critics cared about the issue and asked the Russians to help resolve the dispute. Russian- backed separatists in Ukraine are clashing with the country's military.

The meeting, Mr. Trump's first face-to-face encounter with Russian officials since becoming president, has been a distraction from the beginning. While American reporters were prohibited from attending, the Russian news agency Tass distributed photographs of the meeting.

After the meeting, Mr. Lavrov dismissed questions about the investigation into Russian meddling in the election and said the matter had not come up in the Oval Office. ''We spoke with President Trump about concrete things and did not touch on this bacchanalia,'' he said.

Behind closed doors, according to the document read by the official, Mr. Trump said that news stories about possible Russian collusion were fake, a comment he has repeatedly made in public. He told the Russians that his poll numbers remained strong and that Americans wanted the government to have a healthy relationship with Russia.

At one point, Mr. Trump jokingly asked whether there were reporters in the room.

''No,'' Mr. Lavrov said. ''No fake media.''

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html

Graphic

PHOTO: President Trump met with Russian officials at the White House, including the foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, second from left. (PHOTOGRAPH BY RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY) (A14)

Load-Date: May 20, 2017 Page 4 of 4 Trump Admitted Dismissal at F.B.I. Eased Pressure

End of Document

Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation

The New York Times May 16, 2017 Tuesday 00:29 EST

Copyright 2017 The New York Times Company All Rights Reserved Section: US; politics Length: 1389 words Byline: Michael S. Schmidt Highlight: “I hope you can let this go,” the president told the F.B.I. director in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo James B. Comey wrote.

Body

WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.

“I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo.

The documentation of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia. Late Tuesday, Representative Jason Chaffetz, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, demanded that the F.B.I. turn over all “memoranda, notes, summaries and recordings” of discussions between Mr. Trump and Mr. Comey.

Such documents, Mr. Chaffetz wrote, would “raise questions as to whether the president attempted to influence or impede” the F.B.I.

Mr. Comey wrote the memo detailing his conversation with the president immediately after the meeting, which took place the day after Mr. Flynn resigned, according to two people who read the memo. It was part of a paper trail Mr. Comey created documenting what he perceived as the president’s improper efforts to influence a continuing investigation. An F.B.I. agent’s contemporaneous notes are widely held up in court as credible evidence of conversations.

Mr. Comey shared the existence of the memo with senior F.B.I. officials and close associates. The New York Times has not viewed a copy of the memo, which is unclassified, but one of Mr. Comey’s associates read parts of it to a Times reporter.

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Mr. Trump told Mr. Comey that Mr. Flynn had done nothing wrong, according to the memo. Page 2 of 4 Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation

Mr. Comey did not say anything to Mr. Trump about curtailing the investigation, replying only: “I agree he is a good guy.”

In a statement, the White House denied the version of events in the memo.

“While the president has repeatedly expressed his view that General Flynn is a decent man who served and protected our country, the president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn,” the statement said. “The president has the utmost respect for our law enforcement agencies, and all investigations. This is not a truthful or accurate portrayal of the conversation between the president and Mr. Comey.”

Mr. Chaffetz’s letter, sent to the acting F.B.I. director, Andrew G. McCabe, set a May 24 deadline for the internal documents to be delivered to the House committee. The congressman, a Republican, was criticized in recent months for showing little of the appetite he demonstrated in pursuing Hillary Clinton to pursue investigations into Mr. Trump’s associates.

But since announcing in April that he will not seek re-election in 2018, Mr. Chaffetz has shown more interest in the Russia investigation, and held out the potential for a subpoena on Tuesday, a notably aggressive move as most Republicans have tried to stay out of the fray.

In testimony to the Senate last week, Mr. McCabe said, “There has been no effort to impede our investigation to date.” Mr. McCabe was referring to the broad investigation into possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. The investigation into Mr. Flynn is separate.

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment.

Mr. Comey created similar memos — including some that are classified — about every phone call and meeting he had with the president, the two people said. It is unclear whether Mr. Comey told the Justice Department about the conversation or his memos.

Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey last week. Trump administration officials have provided multiple, conflicting accounts of the reasoning behind Mr. Comey’s dismissal. Mr. Trump said in a television interview that one of the reasons was because he believed “this Russia thing” was a “made-up story.”

The Feb. 14 meeting took place just a day after Mr. Flynn was forced out of his job after it was revealed he had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the nature of phone conversations he had had with the Russian ambassador to the United States.

Despite the conversation between Mr. Trump and Mr. Comey, the investigation of Mr. Flynn has proceeded. In Virginia, a federal grand jury has issued subpoenas in recent weeks for records related to Mr. Flynn. Part of the Flynn investigation is centered on his financial links to Russia and Turkey.

Mr. Comey had been in the Oval Office that day with other senior national security officials for a terrorism threat briefing. When the meeting ended, Mr. Trump told those present — including Mr. Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions — to leave the room except for Mr. Comey.

Alone in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump began the discussion by condemning leaks to the news media, saying that Mr. Comey should consider putting reporters in prison for publishing classified information, according to one of Mr. Comey’s associates. Page 3 of 4 Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation

Mr. Trump then turned the discussion to Mr. Flynn.

After writing up a memo that outlined the meeting, Mr. Comey shared it with senior F.B.I. officials. Mr. Comey and his aides perceived Mr. Trump’s comments as an effort to influence the investigation, but they decided that they would try to keep the conversation secret — even from the F.B.I. agents working on the Russia investigation — so the details of the conversation would not affect the investigation.

Mr. Comey was known among his closest advisers to document conversations that he believed would later be called into question, according to two former confidants, who said Mr. Comey was uncomfortable at times with his relationship with Mr. Trump.

Mr. Comey’s recollection has been bolstered in the past by F.B.I. notes. In 2007, he told Congress about a now-famous showdown with senior White House officials over the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. The White House disputed Mr. Comey’s account, but the F.B.I. director at the time, Robert S. Mueller III, kept notes that backed up Mr. Comey’s story.

The White House has repeatedly crossed lines that other administrations have been reluctant to cross when discussing politically charged criminal investigations. Mr. Trump has disparaged the continuing F.B.I. investigation as a hoax and called for an inquiry into his political rivals. His representatives have taken the unusual step of declaring no need for a special prosecutor to investigate the president’s associates.

The Oval Office meeting occurred a little over two weeks after Mr. Trump summoned Mr. Comey to the White House for a lengthy, one-on-one dinner at the residence. At that dinner, on Jan. 27, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Comey at least two times for a pledge of loyalty — which Mr. Comey declined, according to one of Mr. Comey’s associates.

In a Twitter post on Friday, Mr. Trump said that “James Comey better hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”

After the meeting, Mr. Comey’s associates did not believe there was any way to corroborate Mr. Trump’s statements. But Mr. Trump’s suggestion last week that he was keeping tapes has made them wonder whether there are tapes that back up Mr. Comey’s account.

The Jan. 27 dinner came a day after White House officials learned that Mr. Flynn had been interviewed by F.B.I. agents about his phone calls with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak. On Jan. 26, the acting attorney general, Sally Q. Yates, told the White House counsel about the interview, and said Mr. Flynn could be subject to blackmail by the Russians because they knew he had lied about the content of the calls.

Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman contributed reporting.

PHOTO: James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing this month. (PHOTOGRAPH BY Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES)

• In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred. Page 4 of 4 Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation

• Latest Developments on Comey: Acting F.B.I. Chief Contradicts White House

• The Criminal President?

• Did Mr. Trump Obstruct Justice?

• Can Donald Trump Be Trusted With State Secrets?

Load-Date: April 21, 2018

End of Document

President asked intelligence chiefs to deny collusion

The Washington Post May 23, 2017 Tuesday, Met 2 Edition

Distribution: Every Zone Section: A-SECTION; Pg. A01 Length: 1273 words Byline: Adam Entous;Ellen Nakashima

Body

SOUGHT REBUTTALS OF FBI'S RUSSIA PROBE

Coats, Rogers did not agree to Trump's requests

President Trump asked two of the nation's top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

Trump sought the assistance of Coats and Rogers after FBI Director James B. Comey told the House Intelligence Committee on March 20 that the FBI was investigating "the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts."

Trump's conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump's conversation with Coats. Officials said such memos could be made available to both the special counsel now overseeing the Russia investigation and congressional investigators, who might explore whether Trump sought to impede the FBI's work. Page 2 of 4 President asked intelligence chiefs to deny collusion

White House officials say Comey's testimony about the scope of the FBI investigation upset Trump, who has dismissed the FBI and congressional investigations as a "witch hunt." The president has repeatedly said there was no collusion.

Current and former senior intelligence officials viewed Trump's requests as an attempt by the president to tarnish the credibility of the agency leading the Russia investigation.

A senior intelligence official said Trump's goal was to "muddy the waters" about the scope of the FBI probe at a time when Democrats were ramping up their calls for the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel, a step announced last week.

Senior intelligence officials also saw the March requests as a threat to the independence of U.S. spy agencies, which are supposed to remain insulated from partisan issues.

"The problem wasn't so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation," a former senior intelligence official said of the request to Coats.

The NSA and Brian Hale, a spokesman for Coats, declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation.

"The White House does not confirm or deny unsubstantiated claims based on illegal leaks from anonymous individuals," a White House spokesman said. "The president will continue to focus on his agenda that he was elected to pursue by the American people."

In addition to the requests to Coats and Rogers, senior White House officials sounded out top intelligence officials about the possibility of intervening directly with Comey to encourage the FBI to drop its probe of Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, according to people familiar with the matter. The officials said the White House appeared uncertain about its power to influence the FBI.

"Can we ask him to shut down the investigation? Are you able to assist in this matter?" one official said of the line of questioning from the White House.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said the report is "yet another disturbing allegation that the President was interfering in the FBI probe." Schiff said in a statement that Congress "will need to bring the relevant officials back to testify on these matters, and obtain any memoranda that reflect such conversations."

The new revelations add to a growing body of evidence that Trump sought to co-opt and then undermine Comey before he fired him May 9. According to notes kept by Comey, Trump first asked for his loyalty at a dinner in January and then, at a meeting the next month, asked him to drop the probe into Flynn. Trump disputes those accounts.

Current and former officials said that Trump either lacks an understanding of the FBI's role as an independent law enforcement agency or does not care about maintaining such boundaries.

Trump's effort to use the director of national intelligence and the NSA director to dispute Comey's statement and to say there was no evidence of collusion echoes President Richard Nixon's "unsuccessful efforts to use the CIA to shut down the FBI's investigation of the Watergate break-in on national security grounds," said Jeffrey H. Smith, a former general counsel at the CIA. Smith called Trump's actions "an appalling abuse of power." Page 3 of 4 President asked intelligence chiefs to deny collusion

Trump made his appeal to Coats days after Comey's testimony, according to officials.

That same week, Trump telephoned Rogers to make a similar appeal.

In his call with Rogers, Trump urged the NSA director to speak out publicly if there was no evidence of collusion, according to officials briefed on the exchange.

Rogers was taken aback but tried to respectfully explain why he could not do so, the officials said. For one thing, he could not comment on an ongoing investigation. Rogers added that he would not talk about classified matters in public.

While relations between Trump and Comey were strained by the Russia probe, ties between the president and the other intelligence chiefs, including Rogers, Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo, appear to be less contentious, according to officials.

Rogers met with Trump in New York shortly after the election, and Trump's advisers at the time held him out as the leading candidate to be the next director of national intelligence.

The Washington Post subsequently reported that President Barack Obama's defense secretary and director of national intelligence had recommended that Rogers be removed as head of the NSA.

Ultimately, Trump decided to nominate Coats, rather than Rogers. Coats was sworn in just days before the president made his request.

In February, the Trump White House also sought to enlist senior members of the intelligence community and Congress to push back against suggestions that Trump associates were in frequent contact with Russian officials. But in that case, the White House effort was designed to refute news accounts, not the testimony of a sitting FBI director who was leading an open investigation.

Trump and his allies in Congress have similarly sought to deflect scrutiny over Russia by attempting to pit U.S. intelligence agencies against one another.

In December, Trump's congressional allies falsely claimed that the FBI did not concur with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Trump win the White House. Comey and then-CIA Director John Brennan later said that the bureau and the agency were in full agreement on Moscow's intentions.

As the director of national intelligence, Coats leads the vast U.S. intelligence community, which includes the FBI. But that does not mean he has full visibility into the FBI probe. Coats's predecessor in the job, James R. Clapper Jr., recently acknowledged that Comey did not brief him on the scope of the Russia investigation. Similarly, it is unclear to what extent the FBI has brought Coats up to speed on the probe's most sensitive findings. [email protected] [email protected]

Load-Date: May 23, 2017 Page 4 of 4 President asked intelligence chiefs to deny collusion

End of Document

Trump's actions now a focus of Mueller inquiry

The Washington Post June 15, 2017 Thursday, Suburban Edition

Distribution: Every Zone Section: A-SECTION; Pg. A01 Length: 1408 words Byline: Devlin Barrett;Adam Entous;Ellen Nakashima;Sari Horwitz

Body

Officials: Counsel looking at whether president tried to obstruct justice

The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.

The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump's conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.

Trump had received private assurances from then-FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say that changed shortly after Comey's firing.

Five people briefed on the interview requests, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said that Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers's recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller's investigators as early as this week. The investigation has been cloaked in secrecy, and it is unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI.

The NSA said in a statement that it will "fully cooperate with the special counsel" and declined to comment further. The office of the director of national intelligence and Ledgett declined to comment. Page 2 of 4 Trump's actions now a focus of Mueller inquiry

The White House now refers all questions about the Russia investigation to Trump's personal attorney, Marc Kasowitz.

"The FBI leak of information regarding the president is outrageous, inexcusable and illegal," said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Kasowitz.

The officials said Coats, Rogers and Ledgett would appear voluntarily, though it remains unclear whether they will describe in full their conversations with Trump and other top officials or will be directed by the White House to invoke executive privilege. It is doubtful that the White House could ultimately use executive privilege to try to block them from speaking to Mueller's investigators. Experts point out that the Supreme Court ruled during the Watergate scandal that officials cannot use privilege to withhold evidence in criminal prosecutions.

The obstruction-of-justice investigation of the president began days after Comey was fired on May 9, according to people familiar with the matter. Mueller's office has taken up that work, and the preliminary interviews scheduled with intelligence officials indicate that his team is actively pursuing potential witnesses inside and outside the government.

The interviews suggest that Mueller sees the question of attempted obstruction of justice as more than just a "he said, he said" dispute between the president and the fired FBI director, an official said.

Investigating Trump for possible crimes is a complicated affair, even if convincing evidence of a crime were found. The Justice Department has long held that it would not be appropriate to indict a sitting president. Instead, experts say, the onus would be on Congress to review any findings of criminal misconduct and then decide whether to initiate impeachment proceedings.

Comey confirmed publicly in congressional testimony on March 20 that the bureau was investigating possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

Comey's statement before the House Intelligence Committee upset Trump, who has repeatedly denied that any coordination with the Russians took place. Trump had wanted Comey to disclose publicly that he was not personally under investigation, but the FBI director refused to do so.

Soon after, Trump spoke to Coats and Rogers about the Russia investigation.

Officials said one of the exchanges of potential interest to Mueller took place on March 22, less than a week after Coats was confirmed by the Senate to serve as the nation's top intelligence official.

Coats was attending a briefing at the White House with officials from several other government agencies. When the briefing ended, as The Washington Post previously reported, Trump asked everyone to leave the room except for Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo.

Coats told associates that Trump had asked him whether Coats could intervene with Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe, according to officials. Coats later told lawmakers that he never felt pressured to intervene.

A day or two after the March 22 meeting, Trump telephoned Coats and Rogers to separately ask them to issue public statements denying the existence of any evidence of coordination between his campaign and the Russian government. Page 3 of 4 Trump's actions now a focus of Mueller inquiry

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the president's requests, officials said.

It is unclear whether Ledgett had direct contact with Trump or other top officials about the Russia probe, but he wrote an internal NSA memo documenting the president's phone call with Rogers, according to officials.

As part of the probe, the special counsel has also gathered Comey's written accounts of his conversations with Trump. The president has accused Comey of lying about those encounters.

Mueller is overseeing a host of investigations involving people who are or were in Trump's orbit, people familiar with the probe said. The investigation is examining possible contacts with Russian operatives as well as any suspicious financial activity related to those individuals.

Last week, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he had informed Trump that there was no investigation of the president's personal conduct, at least while he was leading the FBI.

Comey's carefully worded comments, and those of Andrew McCabe, who took over as acting FBI director, suggested to some officials that an investigation of Trump for attempted obstruction may have been launched after Comey's departure, particularly in light of Trump's alleged statements regarding Flynn.

"I took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that's a conclusion I'm sure the special counsel will work towards, to try and understand what the intention was there, and whether that's an offense," Comey testified last week.

Mueller has not publicly discussed his work, and a spokesman for the special counsel declined to comment.

Accounts by Comey and other officials of their conversations with the president could become central pieces of evidence if Mueller decides to pursue an obstruction case.

Investigators will also look for any statements the president may have made publicly and privately to people outside the government about his reasons for firing Comey and his concerns about the Russia probe and other related investigations, people familiar with the matter said.

Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week that he was certain his firing was due to the president's concerns about the Russia probe, rather than over his handling of a now-closed FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state, as the White House had initially asserted. "It's my judgment that I was fired because of the Russia investigation," Comey said. "I was fired, in some way, to change - or the endeavor was to change the way the Russia investigation was being conducted."

The fired FBI director said ultimately it was up to Mueller to make a determination whether the president crossed a legal line.

In addition to describing his interactions with the president, Comey told the Intelligence Committee that while he was FBI director he told Trump on three occasions that he was not under investigation as part of a counterintelligence probe looking at Russian meddling in the election. Page 4 of 4 Trump's actions now a focus of Mueller inquiry

Republican lawmakers seized on Comey's testimony to point out that Trump was not in the FBI's crosshairs when Comey led the bureau.

After Comey's testimony, in which he acknowledged telling Trump that he was not under investigation, Trump tweeted that he felt "total and complete vindication." It is unclear whether McCabe, Comey's successor, has informed Trump of the change in the scope of the probe. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Load-Date: June 15, 2017

End of Document

11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post

(Photo by Alexei Druzhinin/AFP/Getty Images; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post)

EXCLUSIVE: HACKING DEMOCRACY Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-banne… 1/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post

By Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, and Adam Entous June 23, 2017

   

arly last August, an envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from E the CIA, it carried “eyes only” instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides.

Inside was an intelligence bombshell, a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race.

But it went further. The intelligence captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation’s audacious objectives — defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.

At that point, the outlines of the Russian assault on the U.S. election were increasingly apparent. Hackers with ties to Russian intelligence services had been rummaging through Democratic Party computer networks, as well as some Republican systems, for more than a year. In July, the FBI had

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-banne… 2/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post opened an investigation of contacts between Russian officials and Trump associates. And on July 22, nearly 20,000 emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee were dumped online by WikiLeaks.

[Graphic: The main findings, highlighted]

But at the highest levels of government, among those responsible for managing the crisis, the first moment of true foreboding about Russia’s intentions arrived with that CIA intelligence.

The material was so sensitive that CIA Director John O. Brennan kept it out of the President’s Daily Brief, concerned that even that restricted report’s distribution was too broad. The CIA package came with instructions that it be returned immediately after it was read. To guard against leaks, subsequent meetings in the Situation Room followed the same protocols as planning sessions for the Osama bin Laden raid.

It took time for other parts of the intelligence community to endorse the CIA’s view. Only in the administration’s final weeks in office did it tell the public, in a declassified report, what officials had learned from Brennan in August — that Putin was working to elect Trump.

[Putin ‘ordered’ effort to undermine faith in U.S. election and help Trump, report says]

Over that five-month interval, the Obama administration secretly debated dozens of options for deterring or punishing Russia, including cyberattacks on Russian infrastructure, the release of CIA-gathered material that might embarrass Putin and sanctions that officials said could “crater” the Russian economy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-banne… 3/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post Inside Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s attack on American democracy

 10:43

Inside Obama's secret struggle to retaliate against Putin's election interference. (Whitney Leaming, Osman Malik/The Washington Post) But in the end, in late December, Obama approved a modest package combining measures that had been drawn up to punish Russia for other issues — expulsions of 35 diplomats and the closure of two Russian compounds — with economic sanctions so narrowly targeted that even those who helped design them describe their impact as largely symbolic.

Obama also approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyberweapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow. The project, which Obama approved in a covert-action finding, was still in its planning stages when Obama left office. It would be up to President Trump to decide whether to use the capability.

In political terms, Russia’s interference was the crime of the century, an unprecedented and largely successful destabilizing attack on American democracy. It was a case that took almost no time to solve, traced to the Kremlin through cyber-forensics and intelligence on Putin’s involvement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-banne… 4/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post And yet, because of the divergent ways Obama and Trump have handled the matter, Moscow appears unlikely to face proportionate consequences.

Those closest to Obama defend the administration’s response to Russia’s meddling. They note that by August it was too late to prevent the transfer to WikiLeaks and other groups of the troves of emails that would spill out in the ensuing months. They believe that a series of warnings — including one that Obama delivered to Putin in September — prompted Moscow to abandon any plans of further aggression, such as sabotage of U.S. voting systems.

Denis McDonough , who served as Obama’s chief of staff, said that the administration regarded Russia’s interference as an attack on the “heart of our system.”

“We set out from a first-order principle that required us to defend the integrity of the vote,” McDonough said in an interview. “Importantly, we did that. It’s also important to establish what happened and what they attempted to do so as to ensure that we take the steps necessary to stop it from happening again.”

But other administration officials look back on the Russia period with remorse.

“It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend,” said a former senior Obama administration official involved in White House deliberations on Russia. “I feel like we sort of choked.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-banne… 5/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post

Come try Sprint and get our

Restrictions apply Switch Now

The post-election period has been dominated by the overlapping investigations into whether Trump associates colluded with Russia before the election and whether the president sought to obstruct the FBI probe afterward. That spectacle has obscured the magnitude of Moscow’s attempt to hijack a precious and now vulnerable-seeming American democratic process.

Beset by allegations of hidden ties between his campaign and Russia, Trump has shown no inclination to revisit the matter and has denied any collusion or obstruction on his part. As a result, the expulsions and modest sanctions announced by Obama on Dec. 29 continue to stand as the United States’ most forceful response.

“The punishment did not fit the crime,” said Michael McFaul, who served as U.S. ambassador to Russia for the Obama administration from 2012 to 2014. “Russia violated our sovereignty, meddling in one of our most sacred acts as a democracy — electing our president. The Kremlin should have paid a much higher price for that attack. And U.S. policymakers now — both in the White House and Congress — should consider new actions to deter future Russian interventions.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-banne… 6/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post The Senate this month passed a bill that would impose additional election- and Ukraine-related sanctions on Moscow and limit Trump’s ability to lift them. The measure requires House approval, however, and Trump’s signature.

This account of the Obama administration’s response to Russia’s interference is based on interviews with more than three dozen current and former U.S. officials in senior positions in government, including at the White House, the State, Defense and Homeland Security departments, and U.S. intelligence services. Most agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the issue.

The White House, the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.

‘Deeply concerned’

The CIA breakthrough came at a stage of the presidential campaign when Trump had secured the GOP nomination but was still regarded as a distant long shot. Clinton held comfortable leads in major polls, and Obama expected that he would be transferring power to someone who had served in his Cabinet.

The intelligence on Putin was extraordinary on multiple levels, including as a feat of espionage.

For spy agencies, gaining insights into the intentions of foreign leaders is among the highest priorities. But Putin is a remarkably elusive target. A former KGB officer, he takes extreme precautions to guard against

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-banne… 7/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post surveillance, rarely communicating by phone or computer, always running sensitive state business from deep within the confines of the Kremlin.

[Vladimir Putin: From the KGB to president of Russia]

The Washington Post is withholding some details of the intelligence at the request of the U.S. government.

In early August, Brennan alerted senior White House officials to the Putin intelligence, making a call to deputy national security adviser Avril Haines and pulling national security adviser Susan E. Rice aside after a meeting before briefing Obama along with Rice, Haines and McDonough in the Oval Office.

Officials described the president’s reaction as grave. Obama “was deeply concerned and wanted as much information as fast as possible,” a former official said. “He wanted the entire intelligence community all over this.”

Concerns about Russian interference had gathered throughout the summer.

Russia experts had begun to see a troubling pattern of propaganda in which fictitious news stories, assumed to be generated by Moscow, proliferated across social-media platforms.

Officials at the State Department and FBI became alarmed by an unusual spike in requests from Russia for temporary visas for officials with technical skills seeking permission to enter the United States for short-term assignments at Russian facilities. At the FBI’s behest, the State Department delayed approving the visas until after the election.

Meanwhile, the FBI was tracking a flurry of hacking activity against https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-banne… 8/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post

Then-CIA Director John Brennan testiﬁes before the Senate Intelligence Committee in June 2016. (Photo by J. Scott Applewhite/AP; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post)

U.S. political parties, think tanks and other targets. Russia had gained entry to DNC systems in the summer of 2015 and spring of 2016, but the breaches did not become public until they were disclosed in a June 2016 report by The Post.

[Russian government hackers penetrated DNC]

Even after the late-July WikiLeaks dump, which came on the eve of the Democratic convention and led to the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) as the DNC’s chairwoman, U.S. intelligence officials continued to express uncertainty about who was behind the hacks or why they were carried out.

At a public security conference in Aspen, Colo., in late July, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. noted that Russia had a long history of meddling in American elections but that U.S. spy agencies were not ready to “make the call on attribution” for what was happening in 2016.

“We don’t know enough . . . to ascribe motivation,” Clapper said. “Was this just to stir up trouble or was this ultimately to try to influence an election?”

[Graphic: The main findings, highlighted]

Brennan convened a secret task force at CIA headquarters composed of several dozen analysts and officers from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI.

The unit functioned as a sealed compartment, its work hidden from the rest of the intelligence community. Those brought in signed new non-disclosure

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-banne… 9/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post agreements to be granted access to intelligence from all three participating agencies.

They worked exclusively for two groups of “customers,” officials said. The first was Obama and fewer than 14 senior officials in government. The second was a team of operations specialists at the CIA, NSA and FBI who took direction from the task force on where to aim their subsequent efforts to collect more intelligence on Russia.

Don’t make things worse

The secrecy extended into the White House.

Rice , Haines and White House homeland-security adviser Lisa Monaco convened meetings in the Situation Room to weigh the mounting evidence of Russian interference and generate options for how to respond. At first, only four senior security officials were allowed to attend: Brennan , Clapper , Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and FBI Director James B. Comey. Aides ordinarily allowed entry as “plus-ones” were barred.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 10/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post

LEGO Star Wars Death Star 75159 … (97) Shop now $499.95

Gradually, the circle widened to include Vice President Biden and others. Agendas sent to Cabinet secretaries — including John F. Kerry at the State Department and Ashton B. Carter at the Pentagon — arrived in envelopes that subordinates were not supposed to open. Sometimes the agendas were withheld until participants had taken their seats in the Situation Room.

Throughout his presidency, Obama’s approach to national security challenges was deliberate and cautious. He came into office seeking to end wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was loath to act without support from allies overseas and firm political footing at home. He was drawn only reluctantly into foreign crises, such as the civil war in Syria, that presented no clear exit for the United States.

Obama’s approach often seemed reducible to a single imperative: Don’t make things worse. As brazen as the Russian attacks on the election seemed, Obama and his top advisers feared that things could get far worse.

They were concerned that any pre-election response could provoke an escalation from Putin. Moscow’s meddling to that point was seen as deeply concerning but unlikely to materially affect the outcome of the election. Far

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 11/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post more worrisome to the Obama team was the prospect of a cyber-assault on voting systems before and on Election Day.

They also worried that any action they took would be perceived as political interference in an already volatile campaign. By August, Trump was predicting that the election would be rigged. Obama officials feared providing fuel to such claims, playing into Russia’s efforts to discredit the outcome and potentially contaminating the expected Clinton triumph.

Before departing for an August vacation to Martha’s Vineyard, Obama instructed aides to pursue ways to deter Moscow and proceed along three main paths: Get a high-confidence assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies on Russia’s role and intent; shore up any vulnerabilities in state- run election systems; and seek bipartisan support from congressional leaders for a statement condemning Moscow and urging states to accept federal help.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 12/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post

President Barack Obama speaks during a news conference at the White House in December. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/AP; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post)

The administration encountered obstacles at every turn.

Despite the intelligence the CIA had produced, other agencies were slower to endorse a conclusion that Putin was personally directing the operation and wanted to help Trump. “It was definitely compelling, but it was not definitive,” said one senior administration official. “We needed more.”

Some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia came from another country, officials said. Because of the source of the material, the NSA was reluctant to view it with high confidence.

Brennan moved swiftly to schedule private briefings with congressional leaders. But getting appointments with certain Republicans proved difficult, officials said, and it was not until after Labor Day that Brennan https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 13/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post had reached all members of the “Gang of Eight” — the majority and minority leaders of both houses and the chairmen and ranking Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence committees.

Jeh Johnson, the homeland-security secretary, was responsible for finding out whether the government could quickly shore up the security of the nation’s archaic patchwork of voting systems. He floated the idea of designating state mechanisms “critical infrastructure,” a label that would have entitled states to receive priority in federal cybersecurity assistance, putting them on a par with U.S. defense contractors and financial networks.

On Aug. 15, Johnson arranged a conference call with dozens of state officials, hoping to enlist their support. He ran into a wall of resistance.

The reaction “ranged from neutral to negative,” Johnson said in congressional testimony Wednesday.

Brian Kemp, the Republican secretary of state of Georgia, used the call to denounce Johnson’s proposal as an assault on state rights. “I think it was a politically calculated move by the previous administration,” Kemp said in a recent interview, adding that he remains unconvinced that Russia waged a campaign to disrupt the 2016 race. “I don’t necessarily believe that,” he said.

Stung by the reaction, the White House turned to Congress for help, hoping that a bipartisan appeal to states would be more effective.

In early September, Johnson , Comey and Monaco arrived on Capitol Hill in a caravan of black SUVs for a meeting with 12 key members of Congress, including the leadership of both parties.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 14/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post The meeting devolved into a partisan squabble.

“The Dems were, ‘Hey, we have to tell the public,’ ” recalled one participant. But Republicans resisted, arguing that to warn the public that the election was under attack would further Russia’s aim of sapping confidence in the system.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went further, officials said, voicing skepticism that the underlying intelligence truly supported the White House’s claims. Through a spokeswoman, McConnell declined to comment, citing the secrecy of that meeting.

Key Democrats were stunned by the GOP response and exasperated that the White House seemed willing to let Republican opposition block any pre-election move.

On Sept. 22, two California Democrats — Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam B. Schiff — did what they couldn’t get the White House to do. They issued a statement making clear that they had learned from intelligence briefings that Russia was directing a campaign to undermine the election, but they stopped short of saying to what end.

A week later, McConnell and other congressional leaders issued a cautious statement that encouraged state election officials to ensure their networks were “secure from attack.” The release made no mention of Russia and emphasized that the lawmakers “would oppose any effort by the federal government” to encroach on the states’ authorities.

When U.S. spy agencies reached unanimous agreement in late September that the interference was a Russian operation directed by Putin, Obama directed spy chiefs to prepare a public statement summarizing the intelligence in broad strokes. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 15/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post

Build and develop apps with Azure. Free until you say otherwise.

Try Azure free

With Obama still determined to avoid any appearance of politics, the statement would not carry his signature.

On Oct. 7, the administration offered its first public comment on Russia’s “active measures,” in a three-paragraph statement issued by Johnson and Clapper . Comey had initially agreed to attach his name, as well, officials said, but changed his mind at the last minute, saying that it was too close to the election for the bureau to be involved.

“The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations,” the statement said. “We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”

Early drafts accused Putin by name, but the reference was removed out of concern that it might endanger intelligence sources and methods.

The statement was issued around 3:30 p.m., timed for maximum media coverage. Instead, it was quickly drowned out. At 4 p.m., The Post published a story about crude comments Trump had made about women https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 16/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post that were captured on an “Access Hollywood” tape. Half an hour later, WikiLeaks published its first batch of emails stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

To some, Obama’s determination to avoid politicizing the Russia issue had the opposite effect: It meant that he allowed politics to shape his administration’s response to what some believed should have been treated purely as a national security threat.

Schiff said that the administration’s justifications for inaction often left him with a sense of “cognitive dissonance.”

“The administration doesn’t need congressional support to issue a statement of attribution or impose sanctions,” Schiff said in a recent interview. He said many groups inadvertently abetted Russia’s campaign, including Republicans who refused to confront Moscow and media organizations that eagerly mined the troves of hacked emails.

“Where Democrats need to take responsibility,” Schiff said, “is that we failed to persuade the country why they should care that a foreign power is meddling in our affairs.”

‘Ample time’ aer election

The Situation Room is actually a complex of secure spaces in the basement level of the West Wing. A video feed from the main room courses through some National Security Council offices, allowing senior aides sitting at their desks to see — but not hear — when meetings are underway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 17/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post As the Russia-related sessions with Cabinet members began in August, the video feed was shut off. The last time that had happened on a sustained basis, officials said, was in the spring of 2011 during the run-up to the U.S. Special Operations raid on bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan.

The blacked-out screens were seen as an ominous sign among lower-level White House officials who were largely kept in the dark about the Russia deliberations even as they were tasked with generating options for retaliation against Moscow.

Much of that work was led by the Cyber Response Group, an NSC unit with representatives from the CIA, NSA, State Department and Pentagon.

The early options they discussed were ambitious. They looked at sectorwide economic sanctions and cyberattacks that would take Russian networks temporarily offline. One official informally suggested — though never formally proposed — moving a U.S. naval carrier group into the Baltic Sea as a symbol of resolve.

What those lower-level officials did not know was that the principals and their deputies had by late September all but ruled out any pre-election retaliation against Moscow. They feared that any action would be seen as political and that Putin, motivated by a seething resentment of Clinton, was prepared to go beyond fake news and email dumps.

[The roots of the hostility between Putin and Clinton]

The FBI had detected suspected Russian attempts to penetrate election systems in 21 states, and at least one senior White House official assumed that Moscow would try all 50, officials said. Some officials believed the attempts were meant to be detected to unnerve the Americans. The patchwork nature of the United States’ 3,000 or so voting jurisdictions https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 18/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post would make it hard for Russia to swing the outcome, but Moscow could still sow chaos.

“We turned to other scenarios” the Russians might attempt, said Michael Daniel, who was cybersecurity coordinator at the White House, “such as disrupting the voter rolls, deleting every 10th voter [from registries] or flipping two digits in everybody’s address.”

The Moscow International Business Center in Moscow. (Photo by Andrey Rudakov/Bloomberg News; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post)

The White House also worried that they had not yet seen the worst of Russia’s campaign. WikiLeaks and DCLeaks, a website set up in June 2016 by hackers believed to be Russian operatives, already had troves of emails. But U.S. officials feared that Russia had more explosive material or was willing to fabricate it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 19/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post “Our primary interest in August, September and October was to prevent them from doing the max they could do,” said a senior administration official. “We made the judgment that we had ample time after the election, regardless of outcome, for punitive measures.”

The assumption that Clinton would win contributed to the lack of urgency.

Instead, the administration issued a series of warnings.

Brennan delivered the first on Aug. 4 in a blunt phone call with Alexander Bortnikov , the director of the FSB, Russia’s powerful security service.

A month later, Obama confronted Putin directly during a meeting of world leaders in Hangzhou, China. Accompanied only by interpreters, Obama told Putin that “we knew what he was doing and [he] better stop or else,” according to a senior aide who subsequently spoke with Obama. Putin responded by demanding proof and accusing the United States of interfering in Russia’s internal affairs.

In a subsequent news conference, Obama alluded to the exchange and issued a veiled threat. “We’re moving into a new era here where a number of countries have significant capacities,” he said. “Frankly, we’ve got more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively.”

There were at least two other warnings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 20/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post

On Oct. 7, the day that the Clapper-Johnson statement was released, Rice summoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to the White House and handed him a message to relay to Putin.

Then, on Oct. 31, the administration delivered a final pre-election message via a secure channel to Moscow originally created to avert a nuclear exchange. The message noted that the United States had detected malicious activity, originating from servers in Russia, targeting U.S. election systems and warned that meddling would be regarded as unacceptable interference. Russia confirmed the next day that it had received the message but replied only after the election through the same channel, denying the accusation.

As Election Day approached, proponents of taking action against Russia made final, futile appeals to Obama’s top aides: McDonough , Rice and Haines . Because their offices were part of a suite of spaces in the West Wing, securing their support on any national security issue came to be known as “moving the suite.”

One of the last to try before the election was Kerry. Often perceived as reluctant to confront Russia, in part to preserve his attempts to negotiate a

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 21/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post Syria peace deal, Kerry was at critical moments one of the leading hawks.

In October, Kerry’s top aides had produced an “action memo” that included a package of retaliatory measures including economic sanctions. Knowing the White House was not willing to act before the election, the plan called for the measures to be announced almost immediately after votes had been securely cast and counted.

Kerry signed the memo and urged the White House to convene a principals meeting to discuss the plan, officials said. “The response was basically, ‘Not now,’ ” one official said.

Election Day arrived without penalty for Moscow.

White House Chief of Staﬀ Denis McDonough in 2014. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 22/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post

The ‘tabledrop’

Despite the dire warnings, there were no meltdowns in the United States’ voting infrastructure on Nov. 8, no evidence of hacking-related fraud, crashing of electronic ballots or ma nipu la tion of vote counts.

The outcome itself, however, was a shock.

Suddenly, Obama faced a successor who had praised WikiLeaks and prodded Moscow to steal even more Clinton emails, while dismissing the idea that Russia was any more responsible for the election assault than “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.”

“The White House was mortified and shocked,” said a former administration official. “From national security people there was a sense of immediate introspection, of, ‘Wow, did we mishandle this.’ ”

At first, there was no outward sign of new resolve.

After his failed pre-election bid, Kerry returned with a fallback proposal, calling for the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference and make recommendations on how to protect future elections.

The panel would be modeled on the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, producing a definitive report and making recommendations that led to the overhaul of U.S. intelligence agencies.

“The idea was that if you think doing something aggressive is too inflammatory, then we shouldn’t have a problem getting to the truth about https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 23/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post what happened,” said an administration official familiar with the Kerry plan. Trump was expected to oppose such a plan, but setting it in motion before he was sworn in would make it “harder and uglier politically” for him to block.

Supporters’ confidence was buoyed when McDonough signaled that he planned to “tabledrop” the proposal at the next NSC meeting, one that would be chaired by Obama. Kerry was overseas and participated by videoconference.

To some, the “tabledrop” term has a tactical connotation beyond the obvious. It is sometimes used as a means of securing approval of an idea by introducing it before opponents have a chance to form counterarguments.

“We thought this was a good sign,” a former State Department official said.

But as soon as McDonough introduced the proposal for a commission, he began criticizing it, arguing that it would be perceived as partisan and almost certainly blocked by Congress.

Obama then echoed McDonough’s critique, effectively killing any chance that a Russia commission would be formed.

McDonough declined to comment on the principals’ committee meeting on the commission or any other sensitive matters but acknowledged that he opposed the idea, in part because he believed it would be premature to do so before U.S. intelligence agencies and Congress had conducted their investigations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 24/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post

White House staﬀers listen as President Barack Obama speaks about the election results on Nov. 9, 2016, in the Rose Garden. (Photo by Susan Walsh/AP; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post)

‘Demoralized’

Several officials described the post-election atmosphere at the White House as somber. “It was like a funeral parlor,” according to one official who said that work on Russia and other subjects slowed as officials began to anticipate the damage to Obama’s policies and legacy.

Others disputed that characterization, saying that the NSC carried on with no interruption or diminution of focus. “Nobody got paralyzed by grief,” a high-ranking official said. “We all did our jobs.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 25/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post Rice declined to comment on White House deliberations or other sensitive matters but said that the administration always planned to respond to Russia, regardless of the outcome of the election. “We felt it was on our watch and that we had to do something about it. It was our responsibility,” Rice said.

Whatever the case, work on Russia did not resume in earnest until after Thanksgiving, in part because Obama made his last foreign trip.

Rice again ordered NSC staffers to finalize a “menu” of punitive measures to use against Moscow. The list that took shape was a distillation of ideas that had been circulating for months across three main categories: cyber, economic and diplomatic.

Again, the discussion ran into roadblocks.

Spy agencies wanted to maintain their penetrations of Russian networks, not expose them in a cyber-fusillade.

Treasury Department officials devised plans that would hit entire sectors of Russia’s economy. One preliminary suggestion called for targeting technology companies including Kaspersky Lab, the Moscow-based cybersecurity firm. But skeptics worried that the harm could spill into Europe and pointed out that U.S. companies used Kaspersky systems and software.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 26/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post

LEGO Star Wars Death Star 75159 … (97) Shop now $499.95

Several senior administration officials called for imposing sanctions on Putin personally or releasing financial records or other information that would embarrass him. Some objected that the latter proposal would send the wrong message — the United States would be engaging in the same behavior it was condemning. In any case, it was not clear how long it would take U.S. spy agencies to assemble such a Putin dossier.

“By December, those of us working on this for a long time were demoralized,” said an administration official involved in the developing punitive options.

Then the tenor began to shift.

On Dec. 9, Obama ordered a comprehensive review by U.S. intelligence agencies of Russian interference in U.S. elections going back to 2008, with a plan to make some of the findings public.

A week later, in one of Obama’s final news briefings, he expressed irritation that such a consequential election “came to be dominated by a bunch of these leaks.” He scolded news organizations for an “obsession” with titillating material about the Democrats that had dominated coverage. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 27/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post Then he unloaded on Moscow. “The Russians can’t change us or significantly weaken us,” he said. “They are a smaller country. They are a weaker country. Their economy doesn’t produce anything that anybody wants to buy, except oil and gas and arms.”

It was a rare outburst for Obama, one that came amid a wave of internal second-guessing, finger-pointing from members of the defeated Clinton campaign, and the post-election posturing of Putin and Trump.

There was another factor at work, however.

Obama’s decision to order a comprehensive report on Moscow’s interference from U.S. spy agencies had prompted analysts to go back through their agencies’ files, scouring for previously overlooked clues.

The effort led to a flurry of new, disturbing reports — many of them presented in the President’s Daily Brief — about Russia’s subversion of the 2016 race. The emerging picture enabled policymakers to begin seeing the Russian campaign in broader terms, as a comprehensive plot sweeping in its scope.

Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security adviser, said that the DNC email penetrations were initially thought to be in the same vein as previous Russian hacking efforts against targets including the State Department and White House.

“In many ways . . . we dealt with this as a cyberthreat and focused on protecting our cyber infrastructure,” Rhodes said in an interview. “Meanwhile, the Russians were playing this much bigger game, which included elements like released hacked materials, political propaganda and propagating fake news, which they’d pursued in other countries.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 28/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post “We weren’t able to put all of those pieces together in real time,” Rhodes said, “and in many ways that complete picture is still being filled in.” Rhodes declined to discuss any sensitive information.

National security adviser Susan E. Rice looks over documents in the Oval Oﬃce in October. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post)

Obama’s darkened mood, the intelligence findings and the approaching transfer of power gave new urgency to NSC deliberations. In mid- December, as Cabinet members took turns citing drawbacks to various proposals for retaliating against Russia, Rice grew impatient and began cutting them off.

“We’re not talking anymore. We’re acting,” she said, according to one participant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 29/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post Rice moved swiftly through a list of proposals that had survived months of debate, a menu that allowed principals to vote for what one participant described as “heavy, medium and light” options.

Among those in the Situation Room were Clapper , Brennan , Kerry and Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Rice challenged them go to the “max of their comfort zones,” a second participant said.

Economic sanctions, originally aimed only at Russia’s military intelligence service, were expanded to include the FSB, a domestic successor to the KGB. Four Russian intelligence officials and three companies with links to those services were also named as targets.

The FBI had long lobbied to close two Russian compounds in the United States — one in Maryland and another in New York — on the grounds that both were used for espionage and placed an enormous surveillance burden on the bureau.

[On the Eastern Shore, a 45-acre Russian compound kept its secrets close]

The FBI was also responsible for generating the list of Russian operatives working under diplomatic cover to expel, drawn from a roster the bureau maintains of suspected Russian intelligence agents in the United States.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 30/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post

Never Have A Low BreakAgain

Learn More

Cabinet officials were prompted to vote on whether to close one Russian compound or two, whether to kick out around 10 suspected Russian agents, 20 or 35.

Kerry laid out his department’s concerns. The U.S. ambassador to Russia, John Tefft, had sent a cable warning that Moscow would inevitably expel the same number of Americans from Moscow and that departures of that magnitude would impair the embassy’s ability to function.

The objections were dismissed, and Rice submitted a plan to Obama calling for the seizure of both Russian facilities and the expulsion of 35 suspected spies. Obama signed off on the package and announced the punitive measures on Dec. 29, while on vacation in Hawaii.

By then, the still-forming Trump administration was becoming entangled by questions about contacts with Moscow. On or around that same day that Obama imposed sanctions, Trump’s designated national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, told the Russian ambassador by phone that the sanctions would soon be revisited. Flynn’s false statements about that conversation later cost him his job.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 31/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post The report that Obama had commissioned was released a week later, on Jan. 6. It was based largely on the work done by the task force Brennan had established and made public what the CIA had concluded in August, that “Putin and the Russian government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton.”

It also carried a note of warning: “We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the U.S. election to future influence efforts worldwide.”

Sanctions’ ‘minimal’ impact

The punitive measures got several days of media attention before the spotlight returned to Trump, his still-forming administration and, later, the initial rumblings of the Russia crisis that has become a consuming issue for the Trump White House.

But the package of measures approved by Obama, and the process by which they were selected and implemented, were more complex than initially understood.

The expulsions and compound seizures were originally devised as ways to retaliate against Moscow not for election interference but for an escalating campaign of harassment of American diplomats and intelligence operatives. U.S. officials often endured hostile treatment, but the episodes had become increasingly menacing and violent.

In one previously undisclosed incident on July 6, a Russian military helicopter dropped from the sky to make multiple passes just feet over the

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 32/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post hood of a vehicle being driven by the U.S. defense attache, who was accompanied by colleagues, on a stretch of road between Murmansk and Pechenga in northern Russia. The attempt at intimidation was captured on photos the Americans took through the windshield.

An even more harrowing encounter took place the prior month, when a CIA operative returning by taxi to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow was tackled and thrown to the ground by a uniformed FSB guard. In a video aired on Russian television, the U.S. operative can be seen struggling to drag himself across the embassy threshold and onto U.S. sovereign territory. He sustained a broken shoulder in the attack.

Though conceived as retaliation for those incidents, the expulsions were adapted and included in the election-related package. The roster of expelled spies included several operatives who were suspected of playing a role in Russia’s election interference from within the United States, officials said. They declined to elaborate.

More broadly, the list of 35 names focused heavily on Russians known to have technical skills. Their names and bios were laid out on a dossier delivered to senior White House officials and Cabinet secretaries, although the list was modified at the last minute to reduce the number of expulsions from Russia’s U.N. mission in New York and add more names from its facilities in Washington and San Francisco.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 33/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post

A compound near Centreville, Md., that was being used by Russian diplomats is seen in a 2015 satellite photo. The compound was closed in December as part of a U.S. sanctions package. (Photo obtained by The Washington Post; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post)

The compounds were even higher on the FBI’s wish list.

At one point in the White House deliberations, intelligence analysts used aerial images of the facilities to show how they had been modified to enhance their espionage capabilities. Slides displayed in the Situation Room showed new chimneys and other features, all presumed to allow for the installation of more-sophisticated eavesdropping equipment aimed at U.S. naval facilities and the NSA headquarters at Fort Meade in Maryland.

Rice pointed to the FBI’s McCabe and said: “You guys have been begging to do this for years. Now is your chance.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 34/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post The administration gave Russia 24 hours to evacuate the sites, and FBI agents watched as fleets of trucks loaded with cargo passed through the compounds’ gates.

When FBI agents entered the sites, they found them stripped of antennas, electronics, computers, file cabinets and other gear, officials said, their hasty removal leaving visible markings on floors, tables and walls.

Economic sanctions are widely seen as the United States’ most potent lever, short of military force. Russia’s economy is dwarfed by that of the United States, and nearly every major Russian institution and oligarch depends to some degree on access to U.S. and Western financial institutions, networks and credit.

Sanctions that the United States and Europe imposed on Russia in 2014 for its actions in Ukraine were damaging. Coinciding with a sharp drop in oil prices, those measures contributed to a 4 percent contraction in the Russian economy and sent its reserves plunging.

The election-related sanctions, by contrast, have had no such impact.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 35/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post Officials involved in designing them said that the main targets — Russia’s foreign and military intelligence services, the GRU and FSB, and senior officials at those agencies — have few known holdings abroad or vulnerable assets to freeze.

“I don’t think any of us thought of sanctions as being a primary way of expressing our disapproval” for the election interference, said a senior administration official involved in the decision. “Going after their intelligence services was not about economic impact. It was symbolic.”

More than any other measure, that decision has become a source of regret to senior administration officials directly involved in the Russia debate. The outcome has left the impression that Obama saw Russia’s military meddling in Ukraine as more deserving of severe punishment than its subversion of a U.S. presidential race.

“What is the greater threat to our system of government?” said a former high-ranking administration official, noting that Obama and his advisers knew from projections formulated by the Treasury Department that the impact of the election-related economic sanctions would be “minimal.”

A U.S. cyberweapon

The most difficult measure to evaluate is one that Obama alluded to in only the most oblique fashion when announcing the U.S. response.

“We will continue to take a variety of actions at a time and place of our choosing, some of which will not be publicized,” he said in a statement released by the White House.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 36/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post He was referring, in part, to a cyber operation that was designed to be detected by Moscow but not cause significant damage, officials said. The operation, which entailed implanting computer code in sensitive computer systems that Russia was bound to find, served only as a reminder to Moscow of the United States’ cyber reach.

But Obama also signed the secret finding, officials said, authorizing a new covert program involving the NSA, CIA and U.S. Cyber Command.

Obama declined to comment for this article, but a spokesman issued a statement: “This situation was taken extremely seriously, as is evident by President Obama raising this issue directly with President Putin; 17 intelligence agencies issuing an extraordinary public statement; our homeland security officials working relentlessly to bolster the cyber defenses of voting infrastructure around the country; the President directing a comprehensive intelligence review, and ultimately issuing a robust response including shutting down two Russian compounds, sanctioning nine Russian entities and individuals, and ejecting 35 Russian diplomats from the country.”

The cyber operation is still in its early stages and involves deploying “implants” in Russian networks deemed “important to the adversary and that would cause them pain and discomfort if they were disrupted,” a former U.S. official said.

The implants were developed by the NSA and designed so that they could be triggered remotely as part of retaliatory cyber-strike in the face of Russian aggression, whether an attack on a power grid or interference in a future presidential race.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 37/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post Officials familiar with the measures said that there was concern among some in the administration that the damage caused by the implants could be difficult to contain.

As a result, the administration requested a legal review, which concluded that the devices could be controlled well enough that their deployment would be considered “proportional” in varying scenarios of Russian provocation, a requirement under international law.

The operation was described as long-term, taking months to position the implants and requiring maintenance thereafter. Under the rules of covert action, Obama’s signature was all that was necessary to set the operation in motion.

U.S. intelligence agencies do not need further approval from Trump, and officials said that he would have to issue a countermanding order to stop it. The officials said that they have seen no indication that Trump has done so. Karen DeYoung and. Julie.. Tate contributed.. to. this report...... https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 38/39 11/1/2019 Obama’s secret struggle to retaliate against Putin’s election interference - Washington Post

More stories Doubting the intelligence, Trump pursues Putin and leaves a Russian threat unchecked

President Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia supported his run for the White House as part of an unprecedented assault on a pillar of U.S. democracy.

Trump campaign's Russia ties: Who's involved

Congress and U.S. intelligence agencies are scrutinizing connections between Russia and the Trump campaign as they investigate evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Here's what we know so far about Team Trump's ties to Russian interests.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-bann… 39/39

Trump's Son Heard of Link To Moscow Before Meeting

The New York Times July 11, 2017 Tuesday, Late Edition - Final

Body

WASHINGTON -- Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father's candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.

The email to the younger Mr. Trump was sent by Rob Goldstone, a publicist and former British tabloid reporter who helped broker the June 2016 meeting. In a statement on Sunday, Mr. Trump acknowledged that he was interested in receiving damaging information about Mrs. Clinton, but gave no indication that he thought the lawyer might have been a Kremlin proxy.

Mr. Goldstone's message, as described to The New York Times by the three people, indicates that the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information. It does not elaborate on the wider effort by Moscow to help the Trump campaign.

There is no evidence to suggest that the promised damaging information was related to Russian government computer hacking that led to the release of thousands of Democratic National Committee emails. The meeting took place less than a week before it was widely reported that Russian hackers had infiltrated the committee's servers.

But the email is likely to be of keen interest to the Justice Department and congressional investigators, who are examining whether any of President Trump's associates colluded with the Russian government to disrupt last year's election. American intelligence agencies have determined that the Russian government tried to sway the election in favor of Mr. Trump.

The Times first reported on the existence of the meeting on Saturday, and a fuller picture has emerged in subsequent days.

Alan Futerfas, the lawyer for the younger Mr. Trump, said his client had done nothing wrong but pledged to work with investigators if contacted.

''In my view, this is much ado about nothing. During this busy period, Robert Goldstone contacted Don Jr. in an email and suggested that people had information concerning alleged wrongdoing by Democratic Party front-runner, Hillary Clinton, in her dealings with Russia,'' he told The Times in an email on Page 2 of 4 Trump's Son Heard of Link To Moscow Before Meeting

Monday. ''Don Jr.'s takeaway from this communication was that someone had information potentially helpful to the campaign and it was coming from someone he knew. Don Jr. had no knowledge as to what specific information, if any, would be discussed.''

It is unclear whether Mr. Goldstone had direct knowledge of the origin of the damaging material. One person who was briefed on the emails said it appeared that he was passing along information that had been passed through several others.

Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump's son-in-law, and Paul J. Manafort, the campaign chairman at the time, also attended the June 2016 meeting in New York. Representatives for Mr. Kushner referred requests for comments back to an earlier statement, which said he had voluntarily disclosed the meeting to the federal government. He has deferred questions on the content of the meeting to Donald Trump Jr.

A spokesman for Mr. Manafort declined to comment.

But at the White House, the deputy press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, was adamant from the briefing room lectern that ''the president's campaign did not collude in any way. Don Jr. did not collude with anybody to influence the election. No one within the Trump campaign colluded in order to influence the election.''

The president, a prolific Twitter user, did not address his son's controversy on Monday, and instead sought to highlight other issues throughout the morning.

In a series of tweets, the president's son insisted he had done what anyone connected to a political campaign would have done -- hear out potentially damaging information about an opponent. He maintained that his various statements about the meeting were not in conflict.

''Obviously I'm the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent... went nowhere but had to listen,'' he wrote in one tweet. In another, he added, ''No inconsistency in statements, meeting ended up being primarily about adoptions. In response to further Q's I simply provided more details.''

The younger Mr. Trump, who had a reputation during the campaign for having meetings with a wide range of people eager to speak to him, did not join his father's administration. He runs the family business, the Trump Organization, with his brother Eric.

On Monday, after news reports that he had hired a lawyer, he indicated in a tweet that he would be open to speaking to the Senate Intelligence Committee, one of the congressional panels investigating Russian meddling in the election. ''Happy to work with the committee to pass on what I know,'' the younger Mr. Trump wrote.

Mr. Goldstone represents the Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, whose father was President Trump's business partner in bringing the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow in 2013. In an interview Monday, Mr. Goldstone said he was asked by Mr. Agalarov to set up the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya.

''He said, 'I'm told she has information about illegal campaign contributions to the D.N.C.,''' Mr. Goldstone recalled, referring to the Democratic National Committee. He said he then emailed Donald Trump Jr., outlining what the lawyer purported to have. Page 3 of 4 Trump's Son Heard of Link To Moscow Before Meeting

But Mr. Goldstone, who wrote the email over a year ago, denied any knowledge of involvement by the Russian government in the matter, saying that never dawned on him. ''Never, never ever,'' he said. Later, after the email was described to The Times, efforts to reach him for further comment were unsuccessful.

In the interview, he said it was his understanding that Ms. Veselnitskaya was simply a ''private citizen'' for whom Mr. Agalarov wanted to do a favor. He also said he did not know whether Mr. Agalarov's father, Aras Agalarov, a Moscow real estate tycoon known to be close to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, was involved. The elder Mr. Agalarov and the younger Mr. Trump worked together to bring a Trump Tower to Moscow, but the project never got off the ground.

Mr. Goldstone also said his recollection of the meeting largely tracked with the account given by the president's son, as outlined in the Sunday statement Mr. Trump issued in response to a Times article on the June 2016 meeting. Mr. Goldstone said the last time he had communicated with the younger Mr. Trump was to send him a congratulatory text after the November election, but he added that he did speak to the Trump Organization over the past weekend, before giving his account to the news media.

Donald Trump Jr., who initially told The Times that Ms. Veselnitskaya wanted to talk about the resumption of adoption of Russian children by American families, acknowledged in the Sunday statement that one subject of the meeting was possibly compromising information about Mrs. Clinton. His decision to move ahead with such a meeting was unusual for a political campaign, but it was consistent with the haphazard approach the Trump operation, and the White House, have taken in vetting people they deal with ahead of time.

But he said that the Russian lawyer produced nothing of consequence, and that the meeting ended after she began talking about the Magnitsky Act -- an American law that blacklists Russians suspected of human rights abuses. The 2012 law so enraged Mr. Putin that he halted American adoptions of Russian children.

Mr. Goldstone said Ms. Veselnitskaya offered ''just a vague, generic statement about the campaign's funding and how people, including Russian people, living all over the world donate when they shouldn't donate'' before turning to her anti-Magnitsky Act arguments.

''It was the most inane nonsense I've ever heard,'' he said. ''And I was actually feeling agitated by it. Had I, you know, actually taken up what is a huge amount of their busy time with this nonsense?''

Ms. Veselnitskaya, for her part, denied that the campaign or compromising material about Mrs. Clinton ever came up. She said she had never acted on behalf of the Russian government. A spokesperson for Mr. Putin said on Monday that he did not know Ms. Veselnitskaya, and that he had no knowledge of the June 2016 meeting.

Ms. Sanders said at a news briefing that the American president had learned of the meeting recently, but she declined to discuss details.

The White House press office, however, accused Mrs. Clinton's team of hypocrisy. The office circulated a January 2017 article published in Politico, detailing how officials from the Ukranian government tried to help the Democratic candidate conduct opposition research on Mr. Trump and some of his aides. Page 4 of 4 Trump's Son Heard of Link To Moscow Before Meeting

News of the meeting involving the younger Mr. Trump, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Manafort blunted whatever good feeling the president's team had after his trip to Europe for the Group of 20 economic summit meeting.

The president learned from his aides about the 2016 meeting at the end of the trip, according to a White House official. But some people in the White House had known for several days that it had occurred, because Mr. Kushner had revised his foreign contact disclosure document to include it.

The president was frustrated by the news of the meeting, according to a person close to him -- less over the fact that it had happened, and more because it was yet another story about Russia that had swamped the news cycle.

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and in the Morning Briefing newsletter. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/us/politics/donald-trump-jr-russia-email-candidacy.html

Graphic

PHOTOS: Donald Trump Jr. in April. An email he received in 2016, according to three people, said that Russia wanted to affect the election. (PHOTOGRAPH BY SHAWN THEW/EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY) (A1)

The Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, near left, with Donald J. Trump in 2013. The publicist Rob Goldstone said Monday that Mr. Agalarov, his client, asked him to connect Donald Trump Jr., above, with a Russian lawyer in 2016. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY ETHAN MILLER/GETTY IMAGES

WILLIAM CAMPBELL/CORBIS, VIA GETTY IMAGES) (A15)

Load-Date: July 11, 2017

End of Document

Emails Disclose Trump Son's Glee at Russian Offer

The New York Times July 12, 2017 Wednesday, Late Edition - Final

Copyright 2017 The New York Times Company Section: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1 Length: 2259 words Byline: By JO BECKER, ADAM GOLDMAN and MATT APUZZO; Sophia Kishkovsky contributed reporting.

Body

The June 3, 2016, email sent to Donald Trump Jr. could hardly have been more explicit: One of his father's former Russian business partners had been contacted by a senior Russian government official and was offering to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Hillary Clinton.

The documents ''would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,'' read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, ''This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.''

If the future president's eldest son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material -- or the notion that it was part of a continuing effort by the Russian government to aid his father's campaign -- he gave no indication.

He replied within minutes: ''If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer.''

Four days later, after a flurry of emails, the intermediary wrote back, proposing a meeting in New York on Thursday with a ''Russian government attorney.''

Donald Trump Jr. agreed, adding that he would most likely bring along ''Paul Manafort (campaign boss)'' and ''my brother-in-law,'' Jared Kushner, now one of the president's closest White House advisers.

On June 9, the Russian lawyer was sitting in the younger Mr. Trump's office on the 25th floor of Trump Tower, just one level below the office of the future president.

Over the past several days, The New York Times has disclosed the existence of the meeting, whom it involved and what it was about. The story has unfolded as The Times has been able to confirm details of the meetings.

But the email exchanges, which were reviewed by The Times, offer a detailed unspooling of how the meeting with the Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, came about -- and just how eager Donald Trump Jr. was to accept what he was explicitly told was the Russian government's help. Page 2 of 6 Emails Disclose Trump Son's Glee at Russian Offer

The Justice Department and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are examining whether any of President Trump's associates colluded with the Russian government to disrupt last year's election. American intelligence agencies have determined that the Russian government tried to sway the election in favor of Mr. Trump.

The precise nature of the promised damaging information about Mrs. Clinton is unclear, and there is no evidence to suggest that it was related to Russian-government computer hacking that led to the release of thousands of Democratic National Committee emails. But in recent days, accounts by some of the central organizers of the meeting, including Donald Trump Jr., have evolved or have been contradicted by the written email records.

After being told that The Times was about to publish the content of the emails, instead of responding to a request for comment, Donald Trump Jr. posted images of them on Tuesday on Twitter.

''To everyone, in order to be totally transparent, I am releasing the entire email chain of my emails'' about the June 9 meeting, he wrote. ''I first wanted to just have a phone call but when that didn't work out, they said the woman would be in New York and asked if I would meet.''

He added that nothing came of it. But in an interview on Tuesday with Fox News's Sean Hannity, he said that ''in retrospect, I probably would have done things a little differently.''

At a White House briefing earlier Tuesday, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the deputy press secretary, referred questions about the meeting to Donald Trump Jr.'s counsel, but read a statement from the president in which he called his son ''a high-quality person.''

The back story to the June 9 meeting involves an eclectic cast of characters the Trump family knew from its business dealings in Moscow.

The initial email outreach came from Rob Goldstone, a British-born former tabloid reporter and entertainment publicist who first met the future president when the Trump Organization was trying to do business in Russia.

In the June 3 email, Mr. Goldstone told Donald Trump Jr. that he was writing on behalf of a mutual friend, one of Russia's biggest pop music stars, Emin Agalarov. Emin, who professionally uses his first name only, is the son of Aras Agalarov, a real estate tycoon sometimes called the ''Donald Trump of Russia.''

The elder Mr. Agalarov boasts close ties to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia: His company has won several large state building contracts, and Mr. Putin awarded him the Order of Honor of the Russian Federation.

Mr. Agalarov joined with the elder Mr. Trump to bring the Miss Universe contest to Moscow in 2013, and the Trump and Agalarov families grew relatively close.

When Emin released a music video with a theme borrowed from the television show ''The Apprentice,'' Mr. Trump, then the show's star, made a cameo appearance, delivering his trademark line: ''You're fired!'' The elder Mr. Agalarov had also partnered with the Trumps to build a Trump hotel in Moscow, but the deal never came to fruition. Page 3 of 6 Emails Disclose Trump Son's Glee at Russian Offer

[Video: EMIN In Another Life Official Music Video ft. Donald Trump and Miss Universe 2013 Contestants Watch on YouTube.]

''Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting,'' Mr. Goldstone wrote in the email. ''The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.''

He added, ''What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?''

There is no such title as crown prosecutor in Russia -- the Crown Prosecution Service is a British term -- but the equivalent in Russia is the prosecutor general of Russia.

That office is held by Yury Yakovlevich Chaika, a Putin appointee who is known to be close to Ms. Veselnitskaya.

Arranging a Meeting

After sending back his reply of ''I love it especially later in the summer'' -- when voters' attention would be heightened by the approaching election -- Donald Trump Jr. arranged to speak with Emin, sending along his private cellphone number on June 6.

''Ok he's on stage in Moscow but should be off within 20 Minutes so I'm sure can call,'' Mr. Goldstone wrote at 3:43 p.m.

Within the hour, Donald Trump Jr. had responded: ''Rob thanks for the help. D.''

The next day, Mr. Goldstone followed up: ''Don Hope all is well Emin asked that I schedule a meeting with you and The Russian government attorney who is flying over from Moscow for this Thursday. I believe you are aware of this meeting -- and so wondered if 3pm or later on Thursday works for you?''

Mr. Goldstone's emails contradict statements he made in his interview with The Times on Monday, when he said that he did not know whether the elder Mr. Agalarov had any role in arranging the meeting, and that he had no knowledge of any official Russian government role in the offer to provide the Trump campaign with dirt on Mrs. Clinton. Instead, he said that Ms. Veselnitskaya had contacted Emin directly, and that Emin had asked him to reach out to the Trumps as a favor to her.

''I actually asked him at one point how he knew her, and he said, 'I can't remember but, you know, I know thousands of people,''' he said in the interview.

Subsequent efforts to reach Mr. Goldstone, who acknowledged in the interview that he had spoken with someone at the Trump Organization over the weekend in anticipation of news media attention, have been unsuccessful.

Mr. Goldstone, in a June 7 follow-up email, wrote, ''I will send the names of the two people meeting with you for security when I have them later today.''

By that time, as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mr. Trump was already under the protection of the Secret Service and access to Trump Tower in New York was strictly controlled. Ms. Page 4 of 6 Emails Disclose Trump Son's Glee at Russian Offer

Veselnitskaya told The Times that the person who accompanied her was an interpreter whom she declined to name.

After being informed that the Russian lawyer could not make the 3 p.m. time that had been proposed, and agreeing to move it by an hour, Donald Trump Jr. forwarded the entire email chain to Mr. Kushner's company work email, and to Mr. Manafort at his Trump campaign email.

''Meeting got moved to 4 tomorrow at my offices,'' he wrote on June 8. ''Best, Don.''

Mr. Kushner recently disclosed the fact of the meeting, though not the content, in a revised form on which all those seeking top secret security clearances are required to list contacts with foreign government officials and their representatives. The Times reported in April that he had failed to list his foreign contacts, including with several Russians; his lawyer has called those omissions an error.

Mr. Manafort also disclosed that a meeting had occurred, and that Donald Trump Jr. had organized it, in response to one of the Russia-related congressional investigations.

Representatives for both men did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Ms. Veselnitskaya arrived the next day and was ushered into Donald Trump Jr.'s office for a meeting with what amounted to the Trump campaign's brain trust.

Besides having politically connected clients, one of whom was under investigation by federal prosecutors at the time of the meeting, Ms. Veselnitskaya is well known for her lobbying efforts against the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 law that punishes designated Russian human rights abusers by allowing the United States to seize their assets and keep them from entering the country. The law so angered Mr. Putin that he retaliated by barring American families from adopting Russian children. Her activities and associations have brought her to the attention of the F.B.I., according to a former senior law enforcement official.

When first contacted by The Times on Saturday, Donald Trump Jr. portrayed the meeting this way: ''It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow-up.''

Responding to Queries

The next day, after The Times informed him that it was preparing an article that would say that the meeting also involved a discussion about potentially compromising material on Mrs. Clinton, he issued another statement: ''I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign. I was not told her name prior to the meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to attend, but told them nothing of the substance.''

He continued: ''After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then Page 5 of 6 Emails Disclose Trump Son's Glee at Russian Offer changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act. It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting.''

Mr. Goldstone recalled the meeting in much the same way.

Ms. Veselnitskaya offered ''just a vague, generic statement about the campaign's funding and how people, including Russian people, living all over the world donate when they shouldn't donate'' before turning to her anti-Magnitsky Act arguments, he said. ''It was the most inane nonsense I've ever heard.''

Ms. Veselnitskaya, for her part, said in an statement to The Times sent this past weekend that ''nothing at all about the presidential campaign'' had been discussed at the Trump Tower meeting, adding that she had ''never acted on behalf of the Russian government'' and that she had ''never discussed any of these matters with any representative of the Russian government.'' She has not responded to requests for comment since.

A spokesman for Mr. Putin said on Monday that he did not know Ms. Veselnitskaya and that he had no knowledge of the June 2016 meeting.

Back in Washington, both the White House and a spokesman for President Trump's lawyer have taken pains to distance the president from the meeting, saying that he did he not attend it and that he learned about it only recently, a point Donald Trump Jr. reiterated Tuesday in his interview on Fox News. He also said he would testify under oath in any of the investigations into possible collusion between Russia and his father's campaign.

Mr. Agalarov did not respond to a request for comment.

Emin, the pop star at the center of it all, will not comment on the matter, either, Mr. Goldstone, his publicist, said on Monday. ''Emin said to me that I could tell journalists that, you know, he has decided to go with just a straight no comment,'' Mr. Goldstone said. ''His reasoning for that is simply that he believes that by him commenting in any way from Russia, it once again will open this debate of Trump, Trump, Russia. Now here's another person from Russia. Now he's another person from Russia. So he wants to just not comment on the story. That's his reasoning. It's -- the story will play out however it plays out.'' https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/trump-russia-email-clinton.html

Graphic

PHOTOS: Donald Trump Jr. (A1)

Donald Trump Jr. in July 2016 at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. He met in June 2016 with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in New York. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY SAM HODGSON FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) Page 6 of 6 Emails Disclose Trump Son's Glee at Russian Offer

Emin Agalarov, left, Rob Goldstone and Sheila Agalarova in 2014 in Florida. Emin, a pop star, is the son of Aras Agalarov, a real estate tycoon sometimes called the ''Donald Trump of Russia.'' (PHOTOGRAPH BY AARON DAVIDSON/GETTY IMAGES FOR IRINA AGALAROV) (A12)

Load-Date: July 12, 2017

End of Document

Trump crafted son's statement on Russian contact

The Washington Post August 1, 2017 Tuesday, Suburban Edition

Distribution: Every Zone Section: A-SECTION; Pg. A01 Length: 2050 words Byline: Ashley Parker;Carol D. Leonnig;Philip Rucker;Tom Hamburger

Body

Some advisers fear his intervention could place him in legal jeopardy

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

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

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

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

The claims were later shown to be misleading.

Over the next three days, multiple accounts of the meeting were provided to the news media as public pressure mounted, with Trump Jr. ultimately acknowledging that he had accepted the meeting after receiving an email promising damaging information about Hillary Clinton as part of a Russian government effort to help his father's campaign. Page 2 of 5 Trump crafted son's statement on Russian contact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of Trump's attorneys, Jay Sekulow, declined to discuss the specifics of the president's actions and his role in crafting his son's statement about the Russian contact. Sekulow issued a one-sentence statement in response to a list of detailed questions from The Post. Page 3 of 5 Trump crafted son's statement on Russian contact

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advocating for transparency

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

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

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

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

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

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

In one scenario, these people said, Kushner's team talked about sharing everything, including the contents of the emails, with a mainstream news organization. Page 4 of 5 Trump crafted son's statement on Russian contact

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

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

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

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

Consensus overruled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the early afternoon, Eastern time, Trump Jr.'s team put out the statement to the Times. It was four sentences long, describing the encounter as a "short, introductory meeting." Page 5 of 5 Trump crafted son's statement on Russian contact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Load-Date: August 1, 2017

End of Document

To Sway Vote, Russia Used Army of Fake Americans

The New York Times September 8, 2017 Friday, Late Edition - Final

Body

Sometimes an international offensive begins with a few shots that draw little notice. So it was last year when Melvin Redick of Harrisburg, Pa., a friendly-looking American with a backward baseball cap and a young daughter, posted on Facebook a link to a brand-new website.

''These guys show hidden truth about Hillary Clinton, George Soros and other leaders of the US,'' he wrote on June 8, 2016. ''Visit #DCLeaks website. It's really interesting!''

Mr. Redick turned out to be a remarkably elusive character. No Melvin Redick appears in Pennsylvania records, and his photos seem to be borrowed from an unsuspecting Brazilian. But this fictional concoction has earned a small spot in history: The Redick posts that morning were among the first public signs of an unprecedented foreign intervention in American democracy.

The DCLeaks site had gone live a few days earlier, posting the first samples of material, stolen from prominent Americans by Russian hackers, that would reverberate through the presidential election campaign and into the Trump presidency. The site's phony promoters were in the vanguard of a cyberarmy of counterfeit Facebook and Twitter accounts, a legion of Russian-controlled impostors whose operations are still being unraveled.

The Russian information attack on the election did not stop with the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails or the fire hose of stories, true, false and in between, that battered Mrs. Clinton on Russian outlets like RT and Sputnik. Far less splashy, and far more difficult to trace, was Russia's experimentation on Facebook and Twitter, the American companies that essentially invented the tools of social media and, in this case, did not stop them from being turned into engines of deception and propaganda.

An investigation by The New York Times, and new research from the cybersecurity firm FireEye, reveals some of the mechanisms by which suspected Russian operators used Twitter and Facebook to spread anti-Clinton messages and promote the hacked material they had leaked. On Wednesday, Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election campaign. Page 2 of 7 To Sway Vote, Russia Used Army of Fake Americans

On Twitter, as on Facebook, Russian fingerprints are on hundreds or thousands of fake accounts that regularly posted anti-Clinton messages. Many were automated Twitter accounts, called bots, that sometimes fired off identical messages seconds apart -- and in the exact alphabetical order of their made- up names, according to the FireEye researchers. On Election Day, for instance, they found that one group of Twitter bots sent out the hashtag #WarAgainstDemocrats more than 1,700 times.

The Russian efforts were sometimes crude or off-key, with a trial-and-error feel, and many of the suspect posts were not widely shared. The fakery may have added only modestly to the din of genuine American voices in the pre-election melee, but it helped fuel a fire of anger and suspicion in a polarized country.

Given the powerful role of social media in political contests, understanding the Russian efforts will be crucial in preventing or blunting similar, or more sophisticated, attacks in the 2018 congressional races and the 2020 presidential election. Multiple government agencies have investigated the Russian attack, though it remains unclear whether any agency is focused specifically on tracking foreign intervention in social media. Both Facebook and Twitter say they are studying the 2016 experience and how to defend against such meddling.

''We know we have to stay vigilant to keep ahead of people who try to misuse our platform,'' Alex Stamos, Facebook's chief security officer, wrote on Wednesday in a post about the Russia-linked fake accounts and ads. ''We believe in protecting the integrity of civic discourse.''

Critics say that because shareholders judge the companies partly based on a crucial data point -- ''monthly active users'' -- they are reluctant to police their sites too aggressively for fear of reducing that number. The companies use technical tools and teams of analysts to detect bogus accounts, but the scale of the sites -- 328 million users on Twitter, nearly two billion on Facebook -- means they often remove impostors only in response to complaints.

Though both companies have been slow to grapple with the problem of manipulation, they have stepped up efforts to purge fake accounts. Facebook says it takes down a million accounts a day -- including some that were related to the recent French election and upcoming German voting -- but struggles to keep up with the illicit activity. Still, the company says the abuse affects only a small fraction of the social network; Facebook officials estimated that of all the ''civic content'' posted on the site in connection with the United States election, less than one-tenth of one percent resulted from ''information operations'' like the Russian campaign.

Twitter, unlike Facebook, does not require the use of a real name and does not prohibit automated accounts, arguing that it seeks to be a forum for open debate. But it constantly updates a ''trends'' list of most-discussed topics or hashtags, and it says it tries to foil attempts to use bots to create fake trends. However, FireEye found that the suspected Russian bots sometimes managed to do just that, in one case causing the hashtag #HillaryDown to be listed as a trend.

Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent who has closely tracked Russian activity online, said that Facebook and Twitter suffered from a ''bot cancer eroding trust on their platforms.'' But he added that while Facebook ''has begun cutting out the tumors by deleting false accounts and fighting fake news,'' Twitter has done little and as a result, ''bots have only spread since the election.''

Asked to comment, Twitter referred to a blog post in June in which it said it was ''doubling down'' on efforts to prevent manipulation but could not reveal details for fear of tipping off those trying to evade the Page 3 of 7 To Sway Vote, Russia Used Army of Fake Americans company's measures. But it declared that Twitter's ''open and real-time nature is a powerful antidote'' to falsehoods.

''This is important because we cannot distinguish whether every single Tweet from every person is truthful or not,'' the statement said. ''We, as a company, should not be the arbiter of truth.''

Leaks and Counterfeit Profiles

Russia has been quite open about playing its hacking card. In February last year, at a conference in Moscow, a top cyberintelligence adviser to President Vladimir V. Putin hinted that Russia was about to unleash a devastating information attack on the United States.

''We are living in 1948,'' said the adviser, Andrey Krutskikh, referring to the eve of the first Soviet atomic bomb test, in a speech reported by The Washington Post. ''I'm warning you: We are at the verge of having something in the information arena that will allow to us to talk to the Americans as equals.''

Mr. Putin's denials of Russian meddling have been coy. In June, he allowed that ''free-spirited'' hackers might have awakened in a good mood one day and spontaneously decided to contribute to ''the fight against those who say bad things about Russia.'' Speaking to NBC News, he rejected the idea that evidence pointed to Russia -- while showing a striking familiarity with how cyberattackers might cover their tracks.

''IP addresses can be simply made up,'' Mr. Putin said, referring to Internet protocol addresses, which can identify particular computers. ''There are such IT specialists in the world today, and they can arrange anything and then blame it on whomever. This is no proof.''

Mr. Putin had a point. Especially in the social media realm, attributing fake accounts -- to Russia or to any other source -- is always challenging. In January, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency concluded ''with high confidence'' that Mr. Putin had ordered an influence operation to damage Mrs. Clinton's campaign and eventually aid Donald J. Trump's. In April, Facebook published a public report on information operations using fake accounts. It shied away from naming Russia as the culprit until Wednesday, when the company said it had removed 470 ''inauthentic'' accounts and pages that were ''likely operated out of Russia.'' Facebook officials fingered a St. Petersburg company with Kremlin ties called the Internet Research Agency.

Russia deliberately blurs its role in influence operations, American intelligence officials say. Even skilled investigators often cannot be sure if a particular Facebook post or Twitter bot came from Russian intelligence employees, paid ''trolls'' in Eastern Europe or hackers from Russia's vast criminal underground. A Russian site called buyaccs.com (''Buy Bulk Accounts at Best Prices'') offers for sale a huge array of pre-existing social media accounts, including on Facebook and Twitter; like wine, the older accounts cost more, because their history makes chicanery harder to spot.

The trail that leads from the Russian operation to the bogus Melvin Redick, however, is fairly clear. United States intelligence concluded that DCLeaks.com was created in June 2016 by the Russian military intelligence agency G.R.U. The site began publishing an eclectic collection of hacked emails, notably from George Soros, the financier and Democratic donor, as well as a former NATO commander and some Democratic and Republican staffers. Some of the website's language -- calling Mrs. Clinton ''President of the Democratic Party'' and referring to her ''electional staff'' -- seemed to belie its pose as a forum run by American activists. Page 4 of 7 To Sway Vote, Russia Used Army of Fake Americans

DCLeaks would soon be followed by a blog called Guccifer 2.0, which would leave even more clues of its Russian origin. Those sites' posts, however, would then be dwarfed by those from WikiLeaks, which American officials believe got thousands of Democratic emails from Russian intelligence hackers through an intermediary. At each stage, a chorus of dubious Facebook and Twitter accounts -- alongside many legitimate ones -- would applaud the leaks.

During its first weeks online, DCLeaks drew no media attention. But The Times found that some Facebook users somehow discovered the new site quickly and began promoting it on June 8. One was the Redick account, which posted about DCLeaks to the Facebook groups ''World News Headlines'' and ''Breaking News -- World.''

The Redick profile lists Central High School in Philadelphia and Indiana University of Pennsylvania as his alma maters; neither has any record of his attendance. In one of his photos, this purported Pennsylvania lifer is sitting in a restaurant in Brazil -- and in another, his daughter's bedroom appears to have a Brazilian-style electrical outlet. His posts were never personal, just news articles reflecting a pro- Russian worldview.

The same morning, ''Katherine Fulton'' also began promoting DCLeaks in the same awkward English Mr. Redick used. ''Hey truth seekers!'' she wrote. ''Who can tell me who are #DCLeaks? Some kind of Wikileaks? You should visit their website, it contains confidential information about our leaders such as Hillary Clinton, and others http://dcleaks.com/.''

So did ''Alice Donovan,'' who pointed to documents from Mr. Soros's Open Society Foundations that she said showed its pro-American tilt and -- in rather formal language for Facebook -- ''describe eventual means and plans of supporting opposition movements, groups or individuals in various countries.''

Might Mr. Redick, Ms. Fulton, Ms. Donovan and others be real Americans who just happened to notice DCLeaks the same day? No. The Times asked Facebook about these and a half-dozen other accounts that appeared to be Russian creations. The company carried out its standard challenge procedure by asking the users to establish their bona fides. All the suspect accounts failed and were removed from Facebook.

Mobilizing a 'Bot' Army

On Twitter, meanwhile, hundreds of accounts were busy posting anti-Clinton messages and promoting the leaked material obtained by Russian hackers. Investigators for FireEye spent months reviewing Twitter accounts associated with certain online personas, posing as activists, that seemed to show the Russian hand: DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, Anonymous Poland and several others. FireEye concluded that they were associated with one another and with Russian hacking groups, including APT28 or Fancy Bear, which American intelligence blames for the hacking and leaking of Democratic emails.

Some accounts, the researchers found, showed clear signs of intermittent human control. But most displayed the rote behavior of automated Twitter bots, which send out tweets according to built-in instructions.

The researchers discovered long lists of bot accounts that sent out identical messages within seconds or minutes of one another, firing in alphabetical order. The researchers coined the term ''warlist'' for them. On Election Day, one such list cited leaks from Anonymous Poland in more than 1,700 tweets. Snippets of them provide a sample of the sequence: Page 5 of 7 To Sway Vote, Russia Used Army of Fake Americans

@edanur01 #WarAgainstDemocrats 17:54

@efekinoks #WarAgainstDemocrats 17:54

@elyashayk #WarAgainstDemocrats 17:54

@emrecanbalc #WarAgainstDemocrats 17:55

@emrullahtac #WarAgainstDemocrats 17:55

Lee Foster, who leads the FireEye team examining information operations, said some of the warlist Twitter accounts had previously been used for illicit marketing, suggesting that they may have been purchased on the black market. Some were genuine accounts that had been hijacked. Rachel Usedom, a young American engineer in California, tweeted mostly about her sorority before losing interest in 2014. In November 2016, her account was taken over, renamed #ClintonCurruption, and used to promote the Russian leaks.

Ms. Usedom had no idea that her account had been commandeered by anti-Clinton propagandists. ''I was shocked and slightly confused when I found out,'' she said.

Notably, the warlist tweets often included the Twitter handles of users whose attention the senders wanted to catch -- news organizations, journalists, government agencies and politicians, including @realDonaldTrump. By targeting such opinion-shapers, Mr. Foster said, the creators of the warlists clearly wanted to stir up conversation about the leaked material.

J. M. Berger, a researcher in Cambridge, Mass., helped build a public web ''dashboard'' for the Washington-based Alliance for Securing Democracy to track hundreds of Twitter accounts that were suspected of links to Russia or that spread Russian propaganda. During the campaign, he said, he often saw the accounts post replies to Mr. Trump's tweets.

Mr. Trump ''received more direct replies than anyone else,'' Mr. Berger said. ''Clearly this was an effort to influence Donald Trump. They know he reads tweets.''

The suspected Russian operators at times lacked sophistication. ''They are not always Americanophiles who know every nuance of U.S. politics,'' said Mr. Foster, the FireEye researcher.

For instance, last October, hundreds of Anonymous Poland Twitter accounts posted a forged letter on the stationery of the conservative Bradley Foundation, based in Milwaukee, purporting to show that it had donated $150 million to the Clinton campaign. The foundation denied any such contribution, which would have been illegal and, given its political leaning, highly unlikely.

'A Battle of Information'

Only a small fraction of all the suspect social media accounts active during the election have been studied by investigators. But there is ample reason to suspect that the Russian meddling may have been far more widespread.

Several activists who ran Facebook pages for Bernie Sanders, for instance, noticed a suspicious flood of hostile comments about Mrs. Clinton after Mr. Sanders had already ended his campaign and endorsed her. Page 6 of 7 To Sway Vote, Russia Used Army of Fake Americans

John Mattes, who ran the ''San Diego for Bernie Sanders'' page, said he saw a shift from familiar local commenters to newcomers, some with Eastern European names -- including four different accounts using the name ''Oliver Mitov.''

''Those who voted for Bernie, will not vote for corrupt Hillary!'' one of the Mitovs wrote on Oct. 7. ''The Revolution must continue! #NeverHillary''

While he was concerned about being seen as a ''crazy cold warrior,'' Mr. Mattes said he came to believe that Russia was the likely source of the anti-Clinton comments. ''The magnitude and viciousness of it -- I would suggest that their fingerprints were on it and no one else had that agenda,'' he said.

Both on the left and the pro-Trump right, though, some skeptics complain that Moscow has become the automatic boogeyman, accused of misdeeds with little proof. Even those who track Russian online activity admit that in the election it was not always easy to sort out who was who.

''Yes, the Russians were involved. Yes, there's a lot of organic support for Trump,'' said Andrew Weisburd, an Illinois online researcher who has written frequently about Russian influence on social media. ''Trying to disaggregate the two was difficult, to put it mildly.''

Mr. Weisburd said he had labeled some Twitter accounts ''Kremlin trolls'' based simply on their pro- Russia tweets and with no proof of Russian government ties. The Times contacted several such users, who insisted that they had come by their anti-American, pro-Russian views honestly, without payment or instructions from Moscow.

''Hillary's a warmonger,'' said Marilyn Justice, 66, who lives in Nova Scotia and tweets as @mkj1951. Of Mr. Putin, she said in an interview, ''I think he's very patient in the face of provocations.''

Ms. Justice said she had first taken an interest in Russia during the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, while looking for hockey coverage and finding what she considered a snide anti-Russia bias in the Western media. She said she did get a lot of news from Sputnik and RT but laughed at the notion that she could have Kremlin connections.

Another of the so-called Kremlin trolls, Marcel Sardo, 48, a web producer in Zurich, describes himself bluntly on his Twitter bio as a ''Pro-Russia Media-Sniper.'' He said he shared notes daily via Skype and Twitter with online acquaintances, including Ms. Justice, on disputes between Russia and the West over who shot down the Malaysian airliner hit by a missile over Ukraine and who used sarin gas in Syria.

''It's a battle of information, and I and my peers have decided to take sides,'' said Mr. Sardo, who constantly cites Russian sources and bashed Mrs. Clinton daily during the campaign. But he denied he had any links to the Russian government.

If that's so, his prolific posts are a victory for Russia's information war -- that admirers of the Kremlin spread what American officials consider to be Russian disinformation on election hacking, Syria, Ukraine and more.

But if Russian officials are gleeful at their success, in last year's election and beyond, they rarely let the mask slip. In an interview with Bloomberg before the election, Mr. Putin suggested that reporters were worrying too much about who exactly stole the material. Page 7 of 7 To Sway Vote, Russia Used Army of Fake Americans

''Listen, does it even matter who hacked this data?'' he said, in a point that Mr. Trump has sometimes echoed. ''The important thing is the content that was given to the public.'' https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html

Graphic

PHOTOS: A Facebook post by the apparently fictional Melvin Redick. (A1)

PRESIDENT VLADIMIR V. PUTIN OF RUSSIA (PHOTOGRAPH BY SPUTNIK, VIA REUTERS)

Melvin Redick's Facebook Profile: Inconsistencies in the contents of Mr. Redick's Facebook profile suggest that the identity was fabricated. (A10)

Facebook's European headquarters in Dublin. On Facebook and Twitter, Russian fingerprints are on hundreds or thousands of fake accounts that posted anti-Hillary Clinton messages. (PHOTOGRAPH BY CHRIS RATCLIFFE/BLOOMBERG) (A10-A11) CHART: Hijacked Account: Rachel Usedom, a young American engineer in California, tweeted mostly about her sorority before losing interest in 2014. In November 2016, her account was taken over and used to accuse Hillary Clinton of corruption and to promote Russian leaks. (A10)

Load-Date: September 8, 2017

End of Document

11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post

Photo by Evan Vucci/AP; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post

EXCLUSIVE: HACKING DEMOCRACY Doubting the intelligence, Trump pursues Putin and leaves a Russian threat unchecked

By Greg Miller, Greg Jaﬀe and Philip Rucker Dec. 14, 2017

   

n the final days before Donald Trump was sworn in as president, I members of his inner circle pleaded with him to acknowledge publicly what U.S. intelligence agencies had already concluded — that Russia’s interference in the 2016 election was real. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 1/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post Holding impromptu interventions in Trump’s 26th-floor corner office at Trump Tower, advisers — including Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and designated chief of staff, Reince Priebus — prodded the president-elect to accept the findings that the nation’s spy chiefs had personally presented to him on Jan. 6.

They sought to convince Trump that he could affirm the validity of the intelligence without diminishing his electoral win, according to three officials involved in the sessions. More important, they said that doing so was the only way to put the matter behind him politically and free him to pursue his goal of closer ties with Russian President Vladi mir Putin.

“This was part of the normalization process,” one participant said. “There was a big effort to get him to be a standard president.”

But as aides persisted, Trump became agitated. He railed that the intelligence couldn’t be trusted and scoffed at the suggestion that his candidacy had been propelled by forces other than his own strategy, message and charisma.

How Trump fought the intelligence on Russia and left an election threat unchecked

 12:09 https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 2/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post

The Washington Post examines how, more than a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject evidence that Russia supported his run for the White House. (Dalton Bennett, Thomas LeGro, John Parks, Jesse Mesner- Hage/The Washington Post)

Told that members of his incoming Cabinet had already publicly backed the intelligence report on Russia, Trump shot back, “So what?” Admitting that the Kremlin had hacked Democratic Party emails, he said, was a “trap.”

As Trump addressed journalists on Jan. 11 in the lobby of Trump Tower, he came as close as he ever would to grudging acceptance. “As far as hacking, I think it was Russia,” he said, adding that “we also get hacked by other countries and other people.”

As hedged as those words were, Trump regretted them almost immediately. “It’s not me,” he said to aides afterward. “It wasn’t right.”

Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House.

The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the personal insecurities of the president — and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality — have impaired the government’s response to a national security threat. The repercussions radiate across the government.

Rather than search for ways to deter Kremlin attacks or safeguard U.S. elections, Trump has waged his own campaign to discredit the case that Russia poses any threat and he has resisted or attempted to roll back efforts to hold Moscow to account.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 3/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post His administration has moved to undo at least some of the sanctions the previous administration imposed on Russia for its election interference, exploring the return of two Russian compounds in the United States that President Barack Obama had seized — the measure that had most galled Moscow. Months later, when Congress moved to impose additional penalties on Moscow, Trump opposed the measures fiercely.

President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Trump Tower in New York on Jan. 11. (Photo by Jabin Botsford; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post)

Trump has never convened a Cabinet-level meeting on Russian interference or what to do about it, administration officials said. Although the issue has been discussed at lower levels at the National Security Council, one former high-ranking Trump administration official said there is an unspoken understanding within the NSC that to raise the matter is to acknowledge its validity, which the president would see as an affront. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 4/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post Trump’s stance on the election is part of a broader entanglement with Moscow that has defined the first year of his presidency. He continues to pursue an elusive bond with Putin, which he sees as critical to dealing with North Korea, Iran and other issues. “Having Russia in a friendly posture,” he said last month, “is an asset to the world and an asset to our country.”

His position has alienated close American allies and often undercut members of his Cabinet — all against the backdrop of a criminal probe into possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

This account of the Trump administration’s reaction to Russia’s interference and policies toward Moscow is based on interviews with more than 50 current and former U.S. officials, many of whom had senior roles in the Trump campaign and transition team or have been in high-level positions at the White House or at national security agencies. Most agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.

Trump administration officials defended the approach with Russia, insisting that their policies and actions have been tougher than those pursued by Obama but without unnecessarily combative language or posture. “Our approach is that we don’t irritate Russia, we deter Russia,” a senior administration official said. “The last administration had it exactly backwards.”

White House officials cast the president’s refusal to acknowledge Russian interference in the election as an understandably human reaction. “The president obviously feels . . . that the idea that he’s been put into office by Vladimir Putin is pretty insulting,” said a second senior administration official. But his views are “not a constraint” on the government’s ability to respond to future election threats, the official said. “Our first order in https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 5/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post dealing with Russia is trying to counter a lot of the destabilizing activity that Russia engages in.”

Others questioned how such an effort could succeed when the rationale for that objective is routinely rejected by the president. Michael V. Hayden, who served as CIA director under President George W. Bush, has described the Russian interference as the political equivalent of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, an event that exposed a previously unimagined vulnerability and required a unified American response.

“What the president has to say is, ‘We know the Russians did it, they know they did it, I know they did it, and we will not rest until we learn everything there is to know about how and do everything possible to prevent it from happening again,’ ” Hayden said in an interview. Trump “has never said anything close to that and will never say anything close to that.”

‘More than worth the eﬀort’

The feeble American response has registered with the Kremlin.

U.S. officials said that a stream of intelligence from sources inside the Russian government indicates that Putin and his lieutenants regard the 2016 “active measures” campaign — as the Russians describe such covert propaganda operations — as a resounding, if incomplete, success.

Moscow has not achieved some its most narrow and immediate goals. The annexation of Crimea from Ukraine has not been recognized. Sanctions imposed for Russian intervention in Ukraine remain in place. Additional penalties have been mandated by Congress. And a wave of diplomatic https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 6/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post retaliation has cost Russia access to additional diplomatic facilities, including its San Francisco consulate.

But overall, U.S. officials said, the Kremlin believes it got a staggering return on an operation that by some estimates cost less than $500,000 to execute and was organized around two main objectives — destabilizing U.S. democracy and preventing Hillary Clinton, who is despised by Putin, from reaching the White House.

The bottom line for Putin, said one U.S. official briefed on the stream of post-election intelligence, is that the operation was “more than worth the effort.”

The Kremlin’s Building One. U.S. oﬃcials say the Kremlin sees its 2016 election interference campaign as a success, if an incomplete one. (Photo by Alexander Nemenov/AFP/Getty Images; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 7/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post

The Russian operation seemed intended to aggravate political polarization and racial tensions and to diminish U.S. influence abroad. The United States’ closest alliances are frayed, and the Oval Office is occupied by a disruptive politician who frequently praises his counterpart in Russia.

“Putin has to believe this was the most successful intelligence operation in the history of Russian or Soviet intelligence,” said Andrew Weiss, a former adviser on Russia in the George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations who is now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “It has driven the American political system into a crisis that will last years.”

U.S. officials declined to discuss whether the stream of recent intelligence on Russia has been shared with Trump. Current and former officials said that his daily intelligence update — known as the president’s daily brief, or PDB — is often structured to avoid upsetting him.

Russia-related intelligence that might draw Trump’s ire is in some cases included only in the written assessment and not raised orally, said a former senior intelligence official familiar with the matter. In other cases, Trump’s main briefer — a veteran CIA analyst — adjusts the order of his presentation and text, aiming to soften the impact.

“If you talk about Russia, meddling, interference — that takes the PDB off the rails,” said a second former senior U.S. intelligence official.

Brian Hale, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, said that the briefing is “written by senior-level, career intelligence officers” and that the intelligence community “always provides objective intelligence — including on Russia — to the president and his staff.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 8/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post Trump’s aversion to the intelligence, and the dilemma that poses for top spies, has created a confusing dissonance on issues related to Russia. The CIA continues to stand by its conclusions about the election, for example, even as the agency’s director, Mike Pompeo, frequently makes comments that seem to diminish or distort those findings.

In October, Pompeo declared the intelligence community had concluded that Russia’s meddling “did not affect the outcome of the election.” In fact, spy agencies intentionally steered clear of addressing that question.

Presenting the intelligence

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 9/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post

JAN. 6 Obama administration intelligence chiefs brief president-elect and transition-team members

James John Michael James Clapper Brennan Rogers Comey Director of CIA NSA FBI national director director director intelligence

Donald Trump President- elect

Reince Mike Michael Mike Priebus Pompeo Flynn Pence Incoming Incoming National Vice Chief CIA security president- of staﬀ director adviser elect

JAN. 6 Comey briefs Trump privately on the salacious allegations in the dossier

James Donald Comey Trump FBI President- director elect

JAN. 7 TO 11 Trump aides try to persuade him to accept the intelligence community’s consensus

Donald Reince Jared https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 10/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post Trump Priebus Kushner Trump’s son-in-law

On Jan. 6, two weeks before Trump was sworn in as president, the nation’s top intelligence officials boarded an aircraft at Joint Base Andrews on the outskirts of Washington to travel to New York for one of the most delicate briefings they would deliver in their decades-long careers.

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., CIA Director John Brennan and National Security Agency chief Michael S. Rogers flew together aboard an Air Force 737. FBI Director James B. Comey traveled separately on an FBI Gulfstream aircraft, planning to extend his stay for meetings with bureau officials.

The mood was heavy. The four men had convened a virtual meeting the previous evening, speaking by secure videoconference to plan their presentation to the incoming president of a classified report on Russia’s election interference and its pro-Trump objective.

During the campaign, Trump had alternately dismissed the idea of Russian involvement — saying a hack of the Democratic National Committee was just as likely carried out by “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds” — and prodded the Kremlin to double down on its operation and unearth additional Clinton emails.

The officials had already briefed Obama and members of Congress. As they made their way across Manhattan in separate convoys of black SUVs, they braced for a blowup.

“We were prepared to be thrown out,” Clapper said in an interview.

Instead, the session was oddly serene.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 11/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post The officials were escorted into a spacious conference room on the 14th floor of Trump Tower. Trump took a seat at one end of a large table, with Vice President-elect Mike Pence at the other. Among the others present were Priebus, Pompeo and designated national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Following a rehearsed plan, Clapper functioned as moderator, yielding to Brennan and others on key points in the briefing, which covered the most highly classified information U.S. spy agencies had assembled, including an extraordinary CIA stream of intelligence that had captured Putin’s specific instructions on the operation.

Trump seemed, at least for the moment, to acquiesce.

“He was affable, courteous, complimentary,” Clapper said. “He didn’t bring up the 400-pound guy.”

A copy of the report was left with Trump’s designated intelligence briefer. But there was another, more sensitive matter left to cover.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 12/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post

President Trump with then-FBI Director James B. Comey at a White House gathering on Jan. 22. (Pool photo by Andrew Harrer/Getty Images; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post)

Clapper and Comey had initially planned to remain together with Trump while discussing an infamous dossier that included salacious allegations about the incoming president.

It had been commissioned by an opposition research firm in Washington that had enlisted a former British intelligence officer to gather material. As The Washington Post reported in October, the research was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

But in the end, Comey felt he should handle the matter with Trump alone, saying that the dossier was being scrutinized exclusively by the FBI. After the room emptied, Comey explained that the dossier had not been corroborated and that its contents had not influenced the intelligence

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 13/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post community’s findings — but that the president needed to know it was in wide circulation in Washington.

Senior officials would subsequently wonder whether the decision to leave that conversation to Comey helped poison his relationship with the incoming president. When the dossier was posted online four days later by the news site BuzzFeed, Trump lashed out the next morning in a 4:48 a.m. Twitter blast.

“Intelligence agencies never should have allowed this fake news to ‘leak’ into the public,” Trump said. “One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?” The Post was one of several news organizations that had been briefed on key allegations included in the dossier months earlier and had been attempting to verify them.

After leaving the Jan. 6 meeting at Trump Tower, Comey had climbed into his car and began composing a memo.

“I knew there might come a day when I would need a record of what happened, not just to defend myself but to defend the FBI and our integrity as an institution,” he testified to Congress in June. It was the first of multiple memos he would write documenting his interactions with Trump.

Clapper’s office released an abbreviated public version of the intelligence report later that day. Trump issued a statement saying that “Russia, China” and “other countries” had sought to penetrate the cyberdefenses of U.S. institutions, including the DNC.

In their Trump Tower interventions, senior aides had sought to cement his seeming acceptance of the intelligence. But as the first year of his

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 14/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post presidency progressed, Trump became only more adamant in his rejections of it.

In November, during a 12-day trip to Asia, Trump signaled that he believed Putin’s word over that of U.S. intelligence.

“He said he didn’t meddle,” Trump said to reporters aboard Air Force One after he and Putin spoke on the sidelines of a summit in Vietnam. “Every time he sees me, he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ and I believe, I really believe, that when he tells me that, he means it.”

As those remarks roiled Washington, Trump sought to calm the controversy without fully conceding the accuracy of the intelligence on Russia. He also aimed a parting shot at the spy chiefs who had visited him in January in New York.

“As to whether I believe it or not,” he said the next day, “I’m with our agencies, especially as currently constituted with their leadership.”

‘Don’t walk that last 5½ feet’

In the early days of his presidency, Trump surrounded himself with aides and advisers who reinforced his affinity for Russia and Putin, though for disparate reasons not always connected to the views of the president.

Flynn, the national security adviser, saw Russia as an unfairly maligned world power and believed that the United States should set aside its differences with Moscow so the two could focus on higher priorities, including battling Islamist terrorism. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 15/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post Some on the NSC, including Middle East adviser Derek Harvey, urged pursuing a “grand bargain” with Russia in Syria as part of an effort to drive a wedge into Moscow’s relationship with Iran. Harvey is no longer in the administration.

Others had more idiosyncratic impulses. Kevin Harrington, a former associate of Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel brought in to shape national security strategy, saw close ties with oil- and gas-rich Russia as critical to surviving an energy apocalypse — a fate that officials who worked with him said he discussed frequently and depicted as inevitable.

The tilt of the staff began to change when Flynn was forced to resign after just 24 days on the job for falsehoods about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. His replacement, Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, had more conventional foreign policy views that included significant skepticism of Moscow.

National security adviser H.R. McMaster at the White House in September. (Photo by Jahi Chikwendiu, photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 16/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post

The change helped ease the turmoil that had characterized the NSC but set up internal conflicts on Russia-related issues that seemed to interfere with Trump’s pursuit of a friendship with Putin. Among them was the administration’s position on NATO.

The alliance, built around a pledge of mutual defense against Soviet or Russian aggression among the United States and its European allies, became a flash point in internal White House battles. McMaster, an ardent NATO supporter, struggled to fend off attacks on the alliance and its members by Trump’s political advisers.

The president’s chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, moved to undermine support for NATO within weeks of arriving at the White House. After securing a position on the NSC, Bannon ordered officials to compile a table of arrears — alleged deficits on defense spending by every NATO member going back 67 years. Officials protested that such a calculation was impractical, and they persuaded Bannon to accept a partial list documenting underspending dating from 2007.

Bannon and McMaster clashed in front of Trump during an Oval Office discussion about NATO in the spring, officials said. Trump, sitting behind his desk, was voicing frustration that NATO member states were not meeting their defense spending obligations under the treaty. Bannon went further, describing Europe as “nothing more than a glorified protectorate.”

McMaster snapped at Bannon. “Why are you such an apologist for Russia?” he asked, according to two officials with knowledge of the exchange. Bannon shot back that his position had “nothing to do with Russians” and later told colleagues how much he relished such confrontations with McMaster, saying, “I love living rent-free in his head.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 17/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post Bannon and his allies also maneuvered to sabotage displays of unity with the alliance. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg arrived for an April visit at the White House, McMaster’s team prepared remarks for Trump that included an endorsement of Article 5 — the core NATO provision calling for members to come to one another’s defense.

But the language was stripped out at the last minute by NATO critics inside the administration who argued that “it didn’t sound presidential enough,” one senior U.S. official said. A month later, Stephen Miller, a White House adviser close to Bannon, carried out a similar editing operation in Brussels where Trump spoke at a dedication ceremony for NATO’s gleaming new headquarters.

Standing before twisted steel wreckage from the World Trade Center that memorialized NATO’s commitment to defend the United States after the 9/11 attacks, Trump made no mention of any U.S. commitment to mutual defense.

Trump finally did so in June during a meeting with the president of Romania. Officials said that in that case, McMaster clung to the president’s side until a joint news conference was underway, blocking Miller from Trump and the text. A senior White House official said that Trump has developed a good relationship with Stoltenberg and often praises him in private.

On sensitive matters related to Russia, senior advisers have at times adopted what one official described as a policy of “don’t walk that last 5½ feet” — meaning to avoid entering the Oval Office and giving Trump a chance to erupt or overrule on issues that can be resolved by subordinates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 18/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post Another former U.S. official described being enlisted to contact the German government before Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit at the White House in March. The outreach had two aims, the official said — to warn Merkel that her encounter with Trump would probably be acrimonious because of their diverging views on refugees, trade and other issues, but also to urge her to press Trump on U.S. support for NATO.

The signature moment of the trip came during a brief photo appearance in which Trump wore a dour expression and appeared to spurn Merkel’s effort to shake his hand, though Trump later said he had not noticed the gesture.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Trump at a joint White House news conference in March. (Photo by Jabin Botsford, photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post)

His demeanor with the German leader was in striking contrast with his encounters with Putin and other authoritarian figures. “Who are the three https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 19/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post guys in the world he most admires? President Xi [Jinping] of China, [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan and Putin,” one Trump adviser said. “They’re all the same guy.”

Merkel has never fit into that Trump pantheon. Before her arrival, senior White House aides witnessed an odd scene that some saw as an omen for the visit. As McMaster and a dozen other top aides met with Trump in the Oval Office to outline issues Merkel was likely to raise, the president grew impatient, stood up and walked into an adjoining bathroom.

Trump left the bathroom door open, according to officials familiar with the incident, instructing McMaster to raise his voice and keep talking. A senior White House official said the president entered the restroom and merely “took a glance in the mirror, as this was before a public event.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 20/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post TRUMP’S RELATIONSHIP WITH NATO KEY EVENTS

JAN. 15 President-elect Trump calls NATO “obsolete,” alarming European allies. Trump repeats the claim that NATO is not focused on terrorism, an assertion disputed by U.S. partners. NATO has sent troops to Afghanistan and has an established counterterrorism agenda.

Stoltenberg

APRIL 12 President Trump says NATO is “no longer obsolete” during a joint news conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. NATO critics in the administration remove language that endorses Article 5 of the alliance’s founding treaty, which states an attack on one country is an attack on all.

McMaster Miller

Iohannis

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 21/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post

JUNE 9 Trump, standing alongside Romanian President Klaus Iohannis at the White House, publicly endorses Article 5. National security adviser H.R. McMaster blocked Trump adviser Stephen Miller from Trump and the speech until the news conference began.

Open full timeline 

McMaster gained an internal ally on Russia in March with the hiring of Fiona Hill as the top Russia adviser on the NSC. A frequent critic of the Kremlin, Hill was best known as the author of a respected biography of Putin and was seen as a reassuring selection among Russia hard-liners.

Her relationship with Trump, however, was strained from the start.

In one of her first encounters with the president, an Oval Office meeting in preparation for a call with Putin on Syria, Trump appeared to mistake Hill for a member of the clerical staff, handing her a memo he had marked up and instructing her to rewrite it.

When Hill responded with a perplexed look, Trump became irritated with what he interpreted as insubordination, according to officials who witnessed the exchange. As she walked away in confusion, Trump exploded and motioned for McMaster to intervene.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 22/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post McMaster followed Hill out the door and scolded her, officials said. Later, he and a few close staffers met to explore ways to repair Hill’s damaged relationship with the president.

Hill’s standing was further damaged when she was forced to defend members of her staff suspected of disloyalty after details about Trump’s Oval Office meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak — in which the president revealed highly classified information to his Russian guests — were leaked to The Post.

The White House subsequently tightened the circle of aides involved in meetings with Russian officials. Trump was accompanied only by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson during a meeting with Putin at a July summit of Group of 20 nations in Hamburg. In prior administrations, the president’s top aide on Russia was typically present for such encounters, but Hill has frequently been excluded.

A senior administration official said that the NSC “was not sidelined as a result” of Hill’s difficult encounters with Trump, that Hill is regularly included in briefings with the president and that she and her staff “continue to play an important role on Russia policy.”

An insult to Moscow

White House officials insist that the Trump administration has adopted a tougher stance toward Moscow than the Obama administration on important fronts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 23/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post They point to Trump’s decision, after a chemical weapons attack in Syria, to approve a U.S. military strike on a base where Russian personnel and equipment were present. They cite Trump’s decision in early August to sign legislation imposing additional economic sanctions on Moscow and steps taken by the State Department at the end of that month ordering three Russian diplomatic facilities — two trade offices and the consulate in San Francisco — closed. They also said that the NSC is preparing options for the president to deal with the threat of Russian interference in American elections.

“Look at our actions,” a senior administration official said in an interview. “We’re pushing back against the Russians.”

Senior Trump officials have struggled to explain how. In congressional testimony in October, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was pressed on whether the administration had done enough to prevent Russian interference in the future. “Probably not,” Sessions said. “And the matter is so complex that for most of us we are not able to fully grasp the technical dangers that are out there.”

The administration’s accomplishments are to a large measure offset by complicating factors — Trump had little choice but to sign the sanctions — and competing examples. Among them is the administration’s persistent exploration of proposals to lift one of the most effective penalties that Obama imposed for Russia’s election interference — the seizure of two Russian compounds.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 24/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post THE ‘DACHAS’

Upper Brookville, N.Y.

N . Y .

P E N N . Russian Consulate

N . J . M D .

Russian D E L . Embassy

Centreville, Md.

Russia used those sprawling estates in Maryland and New York as retreats for its spies and diplomats but also — according to CIA and FBI officials — as platforms for espionage. The loss of those sites became a major grievance for Moscow.

Lavrov has raised the confiscation of those properties in nearly every meeting with his American counterparts, officials said, accusing the United States of having “stolen our dachas,” using the Russian word for country houses.

Putin may have had reason to expect that Russia would soon regain access to the compounds after Trump took office. In his recent guilty plea, Flynn admitted lying to the FBI about a conversation with the Russian https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 25/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post ambassador in late December. During the call, which came as Obama was announcing sanctions on Russia, Flynn urged the ambassador not to overreact, suggesting the penalties would be short-lived.

After a report in late May by The Post that the administration was considering returning the compounds, hard-liners in the administration mobilized to head off any formal offer.

Several weeks later, the FBI organized an elaborate briefing for Trump in the Oval Office, officials said. E.W. “Bill” Priestap, the assistant director of the counterintelligence division at the FBI, brought three-dimensional models of the properties, as well as maps showing their proximity to sensitive U.S. military or intelligence installations.

Appealing to Trump’s “America first” impulse, officials made the case that Russia had used the facilities to steal U.S. secrets. Trump seemed convinced, officials said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 26/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post

Smoke rises from a chimney at the Russian Consulate in San Francisco on Sept. 1, a day after the Trump administration ordered its closure. (Photo by Eric Risberg/AP; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post)

“I told Rex we’re not giving the real estate back to the Russians,” Trump said at one point, referring to Tillerson, according to participants. Later, Trump marveled at the potential of the two sites and asked, “Should we sell this off and keep the money?”

But on July 6, Tillerson sent an informal communication to the Kremlin proposing the return of the two compounds, a gesture that he hoped would help the two sides pull out of a diplomatic tailspin. Under the proposed terms, Russia would regain access to the compounds but without diplomatic status that for years had rendered them outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law enforcement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 27/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post The FBI and some White House officials, including Hill, were livid when they learned that the plan had been communicated to Russia through a “non-paper” — an informal, nonbinding format. But “Tillerson never does anything without Trump’s approval,” a senior U.S. official said, making clear that the president knew in advance.

Administration officials provided conflicting accounts of what came next. Two officials indicated that there were additional communications with the Kremlin about the plan. One senior official said that Tillerson made a last- minute change in the terms, proposing that the Maryland site be returned “status quo ante,” meaning with full diplomatic protections. It would again be off-limits to law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.

State Department officials disputed that account, however, saying that no such offer was ever contemplated and that the final proposal shared with the Kremlin was the non-paper sent on July 6 — one day before Trump met with Putin in Hamburg.

Tillerson “never directed anyone to draft” a revised proposal to the Kremlin, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a written statement. “We considered possible options for restoring Russian access for recreational purposes in a way that would meet the security concerns of the U.S. government.” By the end of July, Congress had passed a new sanctions bill that “imposed specific conditions for the return of the dachas,” she said, “and the Russians have so far not been willing to meet them.”

Moscow made clear through Lavrov and others in mid-July that it regarded the overture, and the idea that any conditions would be placed on the return of the sites, as an insult. State Department officials interpreted that response as evidence that Russia’s real purpose was the resumption of espionage. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 28/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post

‘He was raging. He was raging mad.’

With no deal on the dachas, U.S.-Russia relations plunged into diplomatic free fall.

Even before Trump was sworn in, a group of senators including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) had begun drafting legislation to impose further sanctions on Russia.

In the ensuing months, McCain’s office began getting private warnings from a White House insider. “We were told that a big announcement was coming regarding Russia sanctions,” a senior congressional aide said. “We all kind of assumed the worst.”

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had blocked the sanctions bill from moving forward at the behest of Tillerson, who kept appealing for more time to negotiate with Moscow.

But after Comey’s firing in early May, and months of damaging headlines about Trump and Russia, an alarmed Senate approved new sanctions on Russia in a 98-to-2 vote.

Trump at times seemed not to understand how his actions and behavior intensified congressional concern. After he emerged from a meeting in Hamburg with Putin, Trump said he and the Russian leader had agreed upon the outlines of a cooperative cybersecurity plan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 29/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) described the proposed pact as “pretty close” to “the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard” and introduced additional provisions to the sanctions bill that would strip Trump of much of his power to undo them — a remarkable slap at presidential prerogative.

Then, in late July, new information surfaced about the extent of Trump’s interactions with Putin in Hamburg that sent another wave of anxiety across Capitol Hill.

At the end of a lavish banquet for world leaders, Trump wandered away from his assigned seat for a private conversation with the Russian leader — without a single U.S. witness, only a Kremlin interpreter.

A Trump administration official described the reaction to the encounter as overblown, saying that Trump had merely left his seat to join the first lady, Melania Trump, who had been seated for the dinner next to Putin. Whatever the reason, little over a week later both chambers of Congress passed the sanctions measure with overwhelming margins that would withstand any Trump veto.

Trump’s frustration had been building as the measure approached a final vote. He saw the bill as validation of the case that Russia had interfered, as an encroachment on his executive authority and as a potentially fatal blow to his aspirations for friendship with Putin, according to his advisers.

In the final days before passage, Trump watched MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program and stewed as hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski declared that the bill would be a slap in the face to the president.

“He was raging,” one adviser said. “He was raging mad.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 30/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post After final passage, Trump was “apoplectic,” the adviser recalled. It took four days for aides to persuade him to sign the bill, arguing that if he vetoed it and Congress overturned that veto, his standing would be permanently weakened.

“Hey, here are the votes,” aides told the president, according to a second Trump adviser. “If you veto it, they’ll override you and then you’re f---ed and you look like you’re weak.”

Trump signed but made his displeasure known. His signing statement asserted that the measure included “clearly unconstitutional provisions.” Trump had routinely made a show of bill signings, but in this case no media was allowed to attend.

The reaction from Russia was withering. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev taunted the president in a Facebook post that echoed Trump’s style, saying that the president had shown “complete impotence, in the most humiliating manner, transferring executive power to Congress.”

Putin, who had shown such restraint in late December 2016, reacted to the new sanctions with fury, ordering the United States to close two diplomatic properties and slash 755 people from its staff — most of them Russian nationals working for the United States.

Rather than voice any support for the dozens of State Department and CIA employees being forced back to Washington, Trump expressed gratitude to Putin.

“I want to thank him because we’re trying to cut down on payroll,” Trump told reporters during an outing at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J. —

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 31/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post remarks his aides would later claim were meant as a joke. “We’ll save a lot of money.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 32/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post

U.S.-RUSSIA RELATIONS KEY EVENTS Flynn

DEC. 29, 2016 Kislyak President Barack Obama announces sanctions meant to punish Russia for its election interference. Michael Flynn, the incoming national security adviser, asks Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak to have Moscow withhold a strong diplomatic response. The next day, Putin announces he will not retaliate.

JULY 8 During the Group of 20 summit, President Trump says he “strongly pressed” Russian President Vladimir Putin twice about Russia’s election meddling. Afterward, Trump promises to “move forward in working constructively with Russia.” The two leaders have a second meeting that was not immediately disclosed by the White House.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 33/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post Graham AUG. 2

After Trump said he agreed with Putin on a cooperative cybersecurity plan, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) introduced additional provisions to a sanctions bill that would strip Trump of much of his power to undo them. The bill passes, and Trump reluctantly signs it on Aug. 2 -- setting oﬀ a diplomatic ﬁght between the United States and Russia.

Open full timeline 

‘Congress and the media will scream bloody murder’

Trump has never explained why he so frequently seems to side with Putin.

To critics, the answer is assumed to exist in the unproven allegations of coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign, or the claim that Putin has some compromising information about the American president.

Aides attribute Trump’s affection for Putin to the president’s tendency to personalize matters of foreign policy and his unshakable belief that his bond with Putin is the key to fixing world problems.

“When will all the haters and fools out there realize that having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing,” Trump tweeted last month. “There always playing politics - bad for our country. I want to solve North Korea, Syria, Ukraine, terrorism, and Russia can greatly help!” https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 34/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post White House officials present Trump as the latest in a long line of presidents who began their tenures seeking better relations with Moscow, and they argue that the persistent questions about Russia and the election only advance the Kremlin’s aims and damage the president. “This makes me pissed because we’re letting these guys win,” a senior administration official said of the Russians. Referring to the disputed Florida tallies in the 2000 presidential election, the official said: “What if the Russians had created the hanging chads? How would that have been for George Bush?”

The allegations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, which the president has denied categorically, also contribute to his resistance to endorse the intelligence, another senior White House official said. Acknowledging Russian interference, Trump believes, would give ammunition to his critics.

Still others close to Trump explain his aversion to the intelligence findings in more psychological terms. The president, who burns with resentment over perceived disrespect from the Washington establishment, sees the Russia inquiry as a conspiracy to undermine his election accomplishment — “a witch hunt,” as he often calls it.

“If you say ‘Russian interference,’ to him it’s all about him,” said a senior Republican strategist who has discussed the matter with Trump’s confidants. “He judges everything as about him.”

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

Try 1 month for $1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 35/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post

Recent months have been marked by further erosion of the U.S.-Russia relationship and troubling developments for the White House, including the indictment of Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and the guilty plea of Flynn.

Trump remains defiant about the special counsel’s probe, maintaining he will be cleared of any wrongdoing and describing the matter as a “hoax” and a “hit job.”

Some of Trump’s most senior advisers support that view. One senior official said Trump is right to portray the investigations and news reports as politically motivated attacks that have hurt the United States’ ability to work with Russia on real problems.

“We were looking to create some kind of bargain that would help us negotiate a very dangerous world,” said a senior White House official. “But if we do anything, Congress and the media will scream bloody murder.”

Putin expressed his own exasperation in early September, responding to a question about Trump with a quip that mocked the idea of a Trump-Putin bond while aiming a gender-related taunt at the American president. Trump “is not my bride,” Putin said, “and I am not his groom.”

The remark underscored the frustration and disenchantment that have taken hold on both sides amid the failure to achieve the breakthrough in U.S.-Russian relations that Trump and Putin both envisioned a year ago.

As a result, rather than shaping U.S. policy toward Russia, Trump at times appears to function as an outlier in his own administration, unable to

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 36/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post pursue the relationship with Putin he envisioned but unwilling to embrace tougher policies favored by some in his Cabinet.

A Pentagon proposal that would pose a direct challenge to Moscow — a plan to deliver lethal arms to Ukrainian forces battling Russia-backed separatists — has languished in internal debates for months.

From left, national security adviser H.R. McMaster; then-White House chief of staﬀ Reince Priebus; then-Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly; Secretary of State Rex Tillerson; and Vice President Pence at President Trump’s news conference with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos in May. (Photo by Jabin Botsford; photo illustration by Nick Kirkpatrick/The Washington Post)

The plan is backed by senior members of Trump’s Cabinet, including Tillerson and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who voiced support for arming Ukrainian forces in meetings with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in August. Mattis “believes that you should help people who are fighting

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 37/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post our potential adversaries,” said a senior U.S. official involved in the deliberations.

A decision to send arms has to be made by the president, and officials said Trump has been reluctant even to engage.

“Every conversation I’ve had with people on this subject has been logical,” the senior U.S. official said. “But there’s no logical conclusion to the process, and that tells me the bottleneck is in the White House.”

In July, the administration appointed former NATO ambassador Kurt Volker to serve as special envoy to Ukraine, putting him in charge of the delicate U.S. relationship with a former Soviet republic eager for closer ties with the West.

Want more compelling stories like this? Sign up for Must Reads. A weekly newsletter featuring ﬁve of The Post's best stories, plus a behind-the-scenes peek into how our newsroom works.

E-mail address Sign up

Putin has taken extraordinary measures to block that path, sending Russian commandos and arms into Ukraine to support pro-Russian separatists. And Putin is bitter about U.S. and European sanctions imposed on Russia for its aggression. A decision by Trump to send arms would probably rupture U.S.-Russian relations beyond immediate repair.

Trump was forced to grapple with these complexities in September, when he met with Poroshenko at the United Nations. Volker met with Trump to

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 38/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post prepare him for the encounter. Tillerson, McMaster and White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, who had replaced Priebus, were also on hand.

Trump pressed Volker on why it was in the United States’ interests to support Ukraine and why U.S. taxpayers’ money should be spent doing so, Volker said in an interview. “Why is it worth it?” Volker said Trump asked. As Volker outlined the rationale for U.S. involvement, Trump seemed satisfied.

“I believe that what he wants is to settle the issue, he wants a better, more constructive U.S.-Russia relationship,” Volker said. “I think he would like [the Ukraine conflict] to be solved . . . get this fixed so we can get to a better place.”

The conversation was about Ukraine but seemed to capture Trump’s frustration on so many Russia-related fronts — the election, the investigations, the complications that had undermined his relationship with Putin.

Volker said that the president repeated a single phrase at least five times, saying, “I want peace.”

Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Julie Tate contributed to this report.

This story has been updated to note that The Post had been briefed on the dossier, but did not receive a copy until a couple of weeks before it was first published by BuzzFeed.

     Comments

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 39/40 11/1/2019 How Trump’s skepticism of U.S. intelligence on Russia left an election threat unchecked - Washington Post

More stories Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault

The White House debated various options to punish Russia, but facing obstacles and potential risks, it ultimately failed to exact a heavy toll on the Kremlin for its election meddling..

What we know so far about Team Trump’s ties to Russian interests

Here are members of Team Trump who are known to have Russian connections and the story lines that have made those ties relevant.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/ 40/40

Unlikely Source Propelled Russian Meddling Inquiry

The New York Times December 31, 2017 Sunday, Late Edition - Final

Copyright 2017 The New York Times Company Section: Section A; Column 0; National Desk; Pg. 1 Length: 2640 words Byline: By SHARON LaFRANIERE, MARK MAZZETTI and MATT APUZZO; Adam Goldman, Eileen Sullivan and Matthew Rosenberg contributed reporting.

Body

WASHINGTON -- During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia's top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.

Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians' role.

The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia's attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump's associates conspired.

If Mr. Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. and is now a cooperating witness, was the improbable match that set off a blaze that has consumed the first year of the Trump administration, his saga is also a tale of the Trump campaign in miniature. He was brash, boastful and underqualified, yet he exceeded expectations. And, like the campaign itself, he proved to be a tantalizing target for a Russian influence operation.

While some of Mr. Trump's advisers have derided him as an insignificant campaign volunteer or a ''coffee boy,'' interviews and new documents show that he stayed influential throughout the campaign. Two months before the election, for instance, he helped arrange a New York meeting between Mr. Trump and President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt.

The information that Mr. Papadopoulos gave to the Australians answers one of the lingering mysteries of the past year: What so alarmed American officials to provoke the F.B.I. to open a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign months before the presidential election? Page 2 of 6 Unlikely Source Propelled Russian Meddling Inquiry

It was not, as Mr. Trump and other politicians have alleged, a dossier compiled by a former British spy hired by a rival campaign. Instead, it was firsthand information from one of America's closest intelligence allies.

Interviews and previously undisclosed documents show that Mr. Papadopoulos played a critical role in this drama and reveal a Russian operation that was more aggressive and widespread than previously known. They add to an emerging portrait, gradually filled in over the past year in revelations by federal investigators, journalists and lawmakers, of Russians with government contacts trying to establish secret channels at various levels of the Trump campaign.

The F.B.I. investigation, which was taken over seven months ago by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has cast a shadow over Mr. Trump's first year in office -- even as he and his aides repeatedly played down the Russian efforts and falsely denied campaign contacts with Russians.

They have also insisted that Mr. Papadopoulos was a low-level figure. But spies frequently target peripheral players as a way to gain insight and leverage.

F.B.I. officials disagreed in 2016 about how aggressively and publicly to pursue the Russia inquiry before the election. But there was little debate about what seemed to be afoot. John O. Brennan, who retired this year after four years as C.I.A. director, told Congress in May that he had been concerned about multiple contacts between Russian officials and Trump advisers.

Russia, he said, had tried to ''suborn'' members of the Trump campaign.

'The Signal to Meet'

Mr. Papadopoulos, then an ambitious 28-year-old from Chicago, was working as an energy consultant in London when the Trump campaign, desperate to create a foreign policy team, named him as an adviser in early March 2016. His political experience was limited to two months on Ben Carson's presidential campaign before it collapsed.

Mr. Papadopoulos had no experience on Russia issues. But during his job interview with Sam Clovis, a top early campaign aide, he saw an opening. He was told that improving relations with Russia was one of Mr. Trump's top foreign policy goals, according to court papers, an account Mr. Clovis has denied.

Traveling in Italy that March, Mr. Papadopoulos met Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor at a now- defunct London academy who had valuable contacts with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr. Mifsud showed little interest in Mr. Papadopoulos at first.

But when he found out he was a Trump campaign adviser, he latched onto him, according to court records and emails obtained by The New York Times. Their joint goal was to arrange a meeting between Mr. Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Moscow, or between their respective aides.

In response to questions, Mr. Papadopoulos's lawyers declined to provide a statement.

Before the end of the month, Mr. Mifsud had arranged a meeting at a London cafe between Mr. Papadopoulos and Olga Polonskaya, a young woman from St. Petersburg whom he falsely described as Mr. Putin's niece. Although Ms. Polonskaya told The Times in a text message that her English skills are poor, her emails to Mr. Papadopoulos were largely fluent. ''We are all very excited by the possibility of a good relationship with Mr. Trump,'' Ms. Polonskaya wrote in one message. Page 3 of 6 Unlikely Source Propelled Russian Meddling Inquiry

More important, Mr. Mifsud connected Mr. Papadopoulos to Ivan Timofeev, a program director for the prestigious Valdai Discussion Club, a gathering of academics that meets annually with Mr. Putin. The two men corresponded for months about how to connect the Russian government and the campaign. Records suggest that Mr. Timofeev, who has been described by Mr. Mueller's team as an intermediary for the Russian Foreign Ministry, discussed the matter with the ministry's former leader, Igor S. Ivanov, who is widely viewed in the United States as one of Russia's elder statesmen.

When Mr. Trump's foreign policy team gathered for the first time at the end of March in Washington, Mr. Papadopoulos said he had the contacts to set up a meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin. Mr. Trump listened intently but apparently deferred to Jeff Sessions, then a senator from Alabama and head of the campaign's foreign policy team, according to participants in the meeting.

Mr. Sessions, now the attorney general, initially did not reveal that discussion to Congress, because, he has said, he did not recall it. More recently, he said he pushed back against Mr. Papadopoulos's proposal, at least partly because he did not want someone so unqualified to represent the campaign on such a sensitive matter.

If the campaign wanted Mr. Papadopoulos to stand down, previously undisclosed emails obtained by The Times show that he either did not get the message or failed to heed it. He continued for months to try to arrange some kind of meeting with Russian representatives, keeping senior campaign advisers abreast of his efforts. Mr. Clovis ultimately encouraged him and another foreign policy adviser to travel to Moscow, but neither went because the campaign would not cover the cost.

Mr. Papadopoulos was trusted enough to edit the outline of Mr. Trump's first major foreign policy speech on April 27, an address in which the candidate said it was possible to improve relations with Russia. Mr. Papadopoulos flagged the speech to his newfound Russia contacts, telling Mr. Timofeev that it should be taken as ''the signal to meet.''

''That is a statesman speech,'' Mr. Mifsud agreed. Ms. Polonskaya wrote that she was pleased that Mr. Trump's ''position toward Russia is much softer'' than that of other candidates.

Stephen Miller, then a senior policy adviser to the campaign and now a top White House aide, was eager for Mr. Papadopoulos to serve as a surrogate, someone who could publicize Mr. Trump's foreign policy views without officially speaking for the campaign. But Mr. Papadopoulos's first public attempt to do so was a disaster.

In a May 4, 2016, interview with The Times of London, Mr. Papadopoulos called on Prime Minister David Cameron to apologize to Mr. Trump for criticizing his remarks on Muslims as ''stupid'' and divisive. ''Say sorry to Trump or risk special relationship, Cameron told,'' the headline read. Mr. Clovis, the national campaign co-chairman, severely reprimanded Mr. Papadopoulos for failing to clear his explosive comments with the campaign in advance.

From then on, Mr. Papadopoulos was more careful with the press -- though he never regained the full trust of Mr. Clovis or several other campaign officials.

Mr. Mifsud proposed to Mr. Papadopoulos that he, too, serve as a campaign surrogate. He could write op-eds under the guise of a ''neutral'' observer, he wrote in a previously undisclosed email, and follow Mr. Trump to his rallies as an accredited journalist while receiving briefings from the inside the campaign. Page 4 of 6 Unlikely Source Propelled Russian Meddling Inquiry

In late April, at a London hotel, Mr. Mifsud told Mr. Papadopoulos that he had just learned from high- level Russian officials in Moscow that the Russians had ''dirt'' on Mrs. Clinton in the form of ''thousands of emails,'' according to court documents. Although Russian hackers had been mining data from the Democratic National Committee's computers for months, that information was not yet public. Even the committee itself did not know.

Whether Mr. Papadopoulos shared that information with anyone else in the campaign is one of many unanswered questions. He was mostly in contact with the campaign over emails. The day after Mr. Mifsud's revelation about the hacked emails, he told Mr. Miller in an email only that he had ''interesting messages coming in from Moscow'' about a possible trip. The emails obtained by The Times show no evidence that Mr. Papadopoulos discussed the stolen messages with the campaign.

Not long after, however, he opened up to Mr. Downer, the Australian diplomat, about his contacts with the Russians. It is unclear whether Mr. Downer was fishing for that information that night in May 2016. The meeting at the bar came about because of a series of connections, beginning with an Israeli Embassy official who introduced Mr. Papadopoulos to another Australian diplomat in London.

It is also not clear why, after getting the information in May, the Australian government waited two months to pass it to the F.B.I. In a statement, the Australian Embassy in Washington declined to provide details about the meeting or confirm that it occurred.

''As a matter of principle and practice, the Australian government does not comment on matters relevant to active investigations,'' the statement said. The F.B.I. declined to comment.

A Secretive Investigation

Once the information Mr. Papadopoulos had disclosed to the Australian diplomat reached the F.B.I., the bureau opened an investigation that became one of its most closely guarded secrets. Senior agents did not discuss it at the daily morning briefing, a classified setting where officials normally speak freely about highly sensitive operations.

Besides the information from the Australians, the investigation was also propelled by intelligence from other friendly governments, including the British and Dutch. A trip to Moscow by another adviser, Carter Page, also raised concerns at the F.B.I.

With so many strands coming in -- about Mr. Papadopoulos, Mr. Page, the hackers and more -- F.B.I. agents debated how aggressively to investigate the campaign's Russia ties, according to current and former officials familiar with the debate. Issuing subpoenas or questioning people, for example, could cause the investigation to burst into public view in the final months of a presidential campaign.

It could also tip off the Russian government, which might try to cover its tracks. Some officials argued against taking such disruptive steps, especially since the F.B.I. would not be able to unravel the case before the election.

Others believed that the possibility of a compromised presidential campaign was so serious that it warranted the most thorough, aggressive tactics. Even if the odds against a Trump presidency were long, these agents argued, it was prudent to take every precaution. Page 5 of 6 Unlikely Source Propelled Russian Meddling Inquiry

That included questioning Christopher Steele, the former British spy who was compiling the dossier alleging a far-ranging Russian conspiracy to elect Mr. Trump. A team of F.B.I. agents traveled to Europe to interview Mr. Steele in early October 2016. Mr. Steele had shown some of his findings to an F.B.I. agent in Rome three months earlier, but that information was not part of the justification to start an counterintelligence inquiry, American officials said.

Ultimately, the F.B.I. and Justice Department decided to keep the investigation quiet, a decision that Democrats in particular have criticized. And agents did not interview Mr. Papadopoulos until late January.

Opening Doors, to the Top

He was hardly central to the daily running of the Trump campaign, yet Mr. Papadopoulos continuously found ways to make himself useful to senior Trump advisers. In September 2016, with the United Nations General Assembly approaching and stories circulating that Mrs. Clinton was going to meet with Mr. Sisi, the Egyptian president, Mr. Papadopoulos sent a message to Stephen K. Bannon, the campaign's chief executive, offering to broker a similar meeting for Mr. Trump.

After days of scheduling discussions, the meeting was set and Mr. Papadopoulos sent a list of talking points to Mr. Bannon, according to people familiar with those interactions. Asked about his contacts with Mr. Papadopoulos, Mr. Bannon declined to comment.

Mr. Trump's improbable victory raised Mr. Papadopoulos's hopes that he might ascend to a top White House job. The election win also prompted a business proposal from Sergei Millian, a naturalized American citizen born in Belarus. After he had contacted Mr. Papadopoulos out of the blue over LinkedIn during the summer of 2016, the two met repeatedly in Manhattan.

Mr. Millian has bragged of his ties to Mr. Trump -- boasts that the president's advisers have said are overstated. He headed an obscure organization called the Russian-American Chamber of Commerce, some of whose board members and clients are difficult to confirm. Congress is investigating where he fits into the swirl of contacts with the Trump campaign, although he has said he is unfairly being scrutinized only because of his support for Mr. Trump.

Mr. Millian proposed that he and Mr. Papadopoulos form an energy-related business that would be financed by Russian billionaires ''who are not under sanctions'' and would ''open all doors for us'' at ''any level all the way to the top.''

One billionaire, he said, wanted to explore the idea of opening a Trump-branded hotel in Moscow. ''I know the president will distance himself from business, but his children might be interested,'' he wrote.

Nothing came of his proposals, partly because Mr. Papadopoulos was hoping that Michael T. Flynn, then Mr. Trump's pick to be national security adviser, might give him the energy portfolio at the National Security Council.

The pair exchanged New Year's greetings in the final hours of 2016. ''Happy New Year, sir,'' Mr. Papadopoulos wrote.

''Thank you and same to you, George. Happy New Year!'' Mr. Flynn responded, ahead of a year that seemed to hold great promise. Page 6 of 6 Unlikely Source Propelled Russian Meddling Inquiry

But 2017 did not unfold that way. Within months, Mr. Flynn was fired, and both men were charged with lying to the F.B.I. And both became important witnesses in the investigation Mr. Papadopoulos had played a critical role in starting. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george- papadopoulos.html

Graphic

PHOTOS: George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. (PHOTOGRAPH BY AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE -- GETTY IMAGES) (A1)

Top, a House Judiciary Committee session last month at which Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified. Mr. Sessions led the Trump campaign's foreign policy team. Above, Sam Clovis. Right, Joseph Mifsud, at left, and Ivan Timofeev. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY AL DRAGO FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

CHARLIE NEIBERGALL/ASSOCIATED PRESS

VALDAICLUB.COM, VIA ASSOCIATED PRESS) (A18)

Load-Date: December 31, 2017

End of Document

Bannon, Priebus, McGahn: Bill Burck's White House Client Juggle

Law.com (Online) This article also appears in the following ALM publications: The National Law Journal The American Lawyer February 8, 2018 Thursday

Length: 1263 words

Body

William Burck of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

Based on the sheer number of high-profile clients he's representing, William Burck stands apart from other lawyers helping Trump administration and former campaign officials respond to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. A partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Burck represents Steve Bannon, the former chief political strategist for Trump, Reince Priebus, the former White House chief of staff, and White House counsel Don McGahn.

Burck's triple-play has raised some eyebrows, mainly on the left, over whether the arrangement raises conflict of interest concerns. Other defense attorneys have withdrawn from representing Trump campaign and administration officials on Russia probe matters after conflict questions emerged.

But white-collar criminal defense lawyers don't necessarily agree with pundits and politicians sounding alarms over Burck's trio of clients. Indeed, some argue Burck has strategically-and quite appropriately-positioned himself to serve each of his three clients much more effectively than he could if he only represented one.

It doesn't hurt that Burck has the kind of credentials that the white-collar bar respects. A former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and former federal prosecutor, Burck helped convict homemaking mogul Martha Stewart on obstruction of justice charges. In private practice, he led the successful defense of Maureen McDonnell, then the first lady of Virginia, against corruption charges. He also worked in the West Wing for President George W. Bush during his second term. Page 2 of 3 Bannon, Priebus, McGahn: Bill Burck's White House Client Juggle

Given his background, Burck could take full advantage of anything he gleans from investigators questioning Bannon, Priebus and McGahn-all of whom who have spoken to Mueller's team. With his three clients, Burck "is able to have better insight into where the investigation is going, the type of questions his clients are likely to be asked, and know more about what the government knows and doesn't know," said Peter Joy, a law professor at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis.

The arrangement offers "the not insignificant advantage of giving him first-hand knowledge of a bigger part of the picture, as opposed to relying on what other lawyers may be willing to share," according to an attorney who represents a target in the investigation and did not want his name used for this story. "It also can save on some basic costs" for the clients, he said.

"Provided none of the three are potentially adverse to each other such that one might implicate the other or have their credibility optically impaired with the prosecutor, there is no real downside," he added.

Burck declined to comment on his crop of White House clients beyond noting what he told Politico.com in January, prior to Bannon speaking to Mueller's team. "It's a general pool type of relationship where, if a conflict arises, where everyone in good faith will try to figure out what the best way to proceed is," Burck said at the time. "I can never be adverse to one of those guys."

Mueller and his team have not been shy about calling out potential conflicts. In November, they asked a judge to review whether Walter Mack of Doar Rieck Kaley & Mack could continue to represent Rick Gates, a former Trump campaign aide who was indicted on money laundering and conspiracy charges, because of a potential conflict stemming from his representation of another client. Earlier this month, Mack and two other lawyers who had represented Gates asked to withdraw from the case. In a motion to withdraw that they initially sought to file under seal, they stated as their reason for exiting: "Irreconcilable differences have developed with the client which make our effective representation of the client impossible."

Earlier this past summer, Jamie Gorelick of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr,

Mueller's former firm, stepped away from representing Trump son-in-law and West Wing official Jared Kushner in Russia probe matters. The National Law Journal reported that Gorelick faced conflict questions related to Mueller and three other former Wilmer partners' appointments to the special counsel investigation, despite Justice Department assurances.

In August, Reginald Brown, also a Wilmer partner, withdrew from representing Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman who was indicted at the same time as Gates on related charges.

So far, there's no sign that Burck is under pressure to withdraw from any of his representations. And in the meantime, according to one defense lawyer familiar with the investigation who asked not to be named, his clients' testimony could end up helping Mueller's team build a possible obstruction of justice case against President Donald Trump. The centerpiece of any such case could be the president's role on Air Force One on July 8, 2017, in crafting Don Trump Jr.'s public characterization of his June 2016 meeting Page 3 of 3 Bannon, Priebus, McGahn: Bill Burck's White House Client Juggle with Russians, according to a report in The New York Times and a criminal defense lawyer representing a witness in the investigation.

None of Burck's three clients appear to have been present for discussions about Trump Jr.'s statements to the Times about the meeting. But any testimony they offer about events such as Trump's firing of then FBI director James Comey or his reported desire to terminate Mueller-thwarted by McGahn, The New York Times reported-could help Mueller establish elements of a potential obstruction charge.

"Prosecutors often like it," when one lawyer represents multiple witnesses who are not facing any real exposure, said another white-collar criminal defense lawyer, who declined to be identified because he also represents a target in the investigation in an unrelated matter. At the same time, he said Burck's multiple representations signal an aggressive posture-"a circling of the wagons" that could cause prosecutors "heartburn." He noted that many other white-collar lawyers besides Burck were available to Bannon, Priebus and McGahn. "It's fraught with risk," he said about the trio choosing to use the same lawyer.

Ultimately, either Mueller's team or a defendant charged in the investigation-even the president-could seek a court ruling to determine if Burck has a potential conflict. "When prosecutors raise a conflict issue due to joint representation, they do so for one of two reasons, either there is an advantage, they are getting rid of a good lawyer, or to preclude it from being an issue on appeal," Joy said.

It would be a trial judge who would be called upon initially to rule whether a potential conflict exists for Burck, and if he has to withdraw from one or all of his multiple representations. "The Supreme Court has given trial judges a lot of discretion" when making such rulings, Joy said. In this instance, "a judge would be highly skeptical" of conflict claims by either the prosecutors or a defendant, Joy predicted. The situation doesn't appear as if Burck could sway one client on behalf of another, Joy said.

Burck's clients are "not stock boys at a supermarket, where the lawyer is holding a lot of influence," Joy said. "I would not be surprised if all three of them are each consulting with another attorney," he added.

In any case Burck, a seasoned defense lawyer, has likely erected safeguards to counter any conflicts claims. He most likely has kept very detailed records and advised his clients not to talk to each other, for instance, without going through Burck, so there is no chance of "tainting each other's memories," a defense lawyer close to the investigation said.

Load-Date: February 11, 2018

End of Document A Coveted Lawyer's Juggling Act May Be Good for Trump, and Bad

The New York Times September 3, 2018 Monday, Late Edition - Final

Body

WASHINGTON -- It was a typically hectic day for William A. Burck as he juggled the demands of managing one of Washington's premier white-collar law firms while he was in Paris for meetings on behalf of a corporate client facing corruption charges.

But that was not all he was trying to manage from his room in a hotel near the Champs-Élysées last Wednesday. Part of the time he was on the phone dealing with the legal and political fallout from the abrupt dismissal that day of Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, one of at least a half dozen of his clients who work for President Trump or once did.

And part of the time he was signing off on the release of a final batch of documents related to the time that Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, Mr. Trump's Supreme Court nominee, spent as a senior aide in the George W. Bush White House. Hired by the former president, Mr. Burck supervised a team of lawyers that examined thousands of documents, a process that has been bitterly criticized by Democrats, who say Mr. Burck is an administration ally and longtime Kavanaugh friend who cannot be trusted.

Democrats hope to use the fact that Mr. Burck oversaw a process that led to the withholding of more than 100,000 pages of documents to argue that they know too little about Judge Kavanaugh's record to move ahead with his confirmation hearings on Tuesday.

The whirlwind multitasking captured the intensity of Mr. Burck's behind-the-scenes role as the latest incarnation of the Washington superlawyer -- a legal gun-for-hire like Edward Bennett Williams, the powerhouse of the 1970s and '80s who liked to boast that he could represent everyone in the capital at once.

Mr. Williams had a catchphrase for his approach: He was not just a lawyer with a series of clients. He was ''counsel to the situation.'' And right now, Mr. Burck is playing a central role in two of the most volatile political ''situations'' in Washington, one involving the future of the Trump presidency and the other the future of the Supreme Court. And the situations could have very different outcomes.

In one of those roles, Mr. Burck is advancing a top priority of the Trump administration: putting another conservative on the court. But he could end up advancing the interest of Democrats in another way -- by aiding the investigation of Mr. Trump by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel. Page 2 of 5 A Coveted Lawyer's Juggling Act May Be Good for Trump, and Bad

It was Mr. Burck who devised the legal strategy behind Mr. McGahn's giving more than 30 hours of testimony to the special counsel, and that testimony may have provided investigators with a road map for an obstruction case against the president.

Mr. Burck has also counseled other current and former White House officials through their interviews with investigators, including Reince Priebus, Mr. Trump's first chief of staff, and Stephen K. Bannon, his former strategist. Some lawyers representing other defendants and witnesses in the Mueller investigation have raised questions about how Mr. Burck is being allowed to represent so many important witnesses, saying it presents a conflict.

While that work has attracted relatively little attention, his role in vetting the records related to Judge Kavanaugh, who was not only Mr. Burck's boss when he was a young lawyer in the Bush White House but is also one of his closest friends, has made him a target.

''Burck and Judge Kavanaugh share something in common -- they are both partisan warriors who have consistently been at the center of hard-right battles, and their impartiality is therefore very deeply in doubt,'' said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the chamber's top Democrat.

This article is based on interviews with a dozen current and former White House officials, lawyers involved in the Mueller investigation, friends of Mr. Burck and Democrats involved in the Kavanaugh hearings. Mr. Burck said in a short statement that he would prefer to regain some of his anonymity.

''I get the interest in my popping up in some of the big issues of the day,'' Mr. Burck said. ''But it's a mistake to believe lawyers are interesting because their clients are.''

A lifelong Republican, Mr. Burck never embraced Mr. Trump and has told friends that he would never work for him. During the 2016 campaign, he initially supported Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor. And it was Mr. Bush, not Mr. Trump, who chose Mr. Burck to go through his archives for any documents related to the work of Judge Kavanaugh.

Mr. Burck and Judge Kavanaugh have known each other for years, and their biographies are strikingly similar: Yale for their undergraduate and law degrees, clerkships with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Judge Alex Kozinski, brief stints as prosecutors, and jobs in the Bush White House.

After Mr. Bush left office, Mr. Burck began building a practice in Washington, focusing on conducting internal investigations and representing witnesses and defendants in cases brought by the Justice Department. He was also hired by the former president to be his personal lawyer, putting him in charge of access to millions of his presidential papers.

In one of his more high-profile cases, he represented Maureen McDonnell, who was indicted on corruption charges along with her husband, Bob McDonnell, the governor of Virginia, shortly after he left office. A year later, Mr. Burck began representing FIFA, the international soccer organization, as it was being investigated by the Justice Department.

Colleagues describe Mr. Burck, who runs the Washington office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, as disciplined, driven, intense and passionate -- especially about his beloved New England Patriots. (Mr. Burck flies to most Patriots games. In 2015, he spent many evenings with friends delivering a point-by- point evisceration of the ''Deflategate'' case against Tom Brady, the quarterback who was accused of purposely using a less-than-full football.) Page 3 of 5 A Coveted Lawyer's Juggling Act May Be Good for Trump, and Bad

Mr. Burck's involvement with Trump administration officials began in the spring of 2017, when he got a call from Mr. McGahn, who knew that Mr. Burck had dealt with investigations under Mr. Bush, when that administration was under siege by Democrats. Mr. McGahn hired Mr. Burck as a lawyer to represent him in the nascent Russia investigation.

Mr. McGahn had not even been called as a witness yet, but given his proximity to the presidency and the intensifying inquiry, Mr. McGahn needed his own, outside legal adviser. For months, no one -- including the president -- even knew Mr. Burck had been hired.

As the Russia inquiry mushroomed, other nervous White House staff members started looking for personal lawyers, too. Shortly after Mr. Burck began representing Mr. McGahn, Mr. Priebus, then the chief of staff, asked Mr. McGahn for a recommendation. A few months later, Mr. Bannon decided he needed a lawyer, too, and hired Mr. Burck.

''He's on everybody's short list as to who they want to get for bet-the-company cases,'' said Richard Cullen, a onetime Virginia attorney general who has worked with, and against, Mr. Burck in courtrooms.

But the potential for conflicts of interest is high, and lawyers representing others caught up in the investigation have said that because Mr. Burck represents so many clients, he has too much power over what information is given to prosecutors.

Mr. Burck would have to stop representing one or more witnesses if one implicates another in a crime or has vastly different accounts of key events. Michael B. Mukasey, who served as attorney general under Mr. Bush, said Mr. Burck was a careful, disciplined lawyer who could manage the risks.

''It's not as if something is going to come tumbling out his mouth that he wasn't supposed to say,'' Mr. Mukasey said. ''He's not that kind of guy.''

The immediate concern for Mr. Burck is the Kavanaugh documents. Before they vote on the nomination, Democrats have demanded to see more of them. But by insisting on a quick vote, Republicans have ensured that the National Archives cannot produce the documents in time.

Enter Mr. Burck, who hired a team of 50 lawyers from three firms, at Mr. Bush's expense, to review the Kavanaugh documents.

In a letter to Mr. Burck last month, the general counsel of the Archives thanked Mr. Burck for his efforts, writing that ''these documents will help us as we conduct our review.''

But publicly, officials at the Archives have described Mr. Burck's effort as ''something that has never happened before'' and are distancing themselves from it. ''This effort by former President Bush does not represent the National Archives or the George W. Bush Presidential Library,'' they wrote in a news release.

Democrats insist that the private process overseen by Mr. Burck is not governed by the same legal safeguards that the Archives has to follow. Most critically, they say they suspect that Mr. Burck is helping Judge Kavanaugh and the White House by making sure that potentially damaging documents do not emerge before the vote. Page 4 of 5 A Coveted Lawyer's Juggling Act May Be Good for Trump, and Bad

Late last week, when the White House cited executive privilege as the reason for keeping 100,000 pages secret, Democrats howled. Mr. Schumer called it a ''Friday night document massacre'' and accused Mr. Trump of orchestrating a ''cover-up.''

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday, Mr. Burck said Mr. Bush had deferred to the Trump administration on which documents to withhold. And in a separate letter to Mr. Schumer, Mr. Burck defended the process, pledging that it was not a partisan one.

''The lawyers reviewing the records have not been asked their political or party affiliation, nor have they been selected based on their support for or opposition to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination,'' Mr. Burck wrote.

In all, Mr. Burck's lawyers evaluated 663,817 pages of documents. Of that total, they identified 267,834 pages that are to be made public, and 147,250 were just given to the Senate.

Democrats said that represented a small fraction of the total documents that could have been released, including hundreds of thousands of pages from Judge Kavanaugh's time as Mr. Bush's staff secretary. But allies of Mr. Burck say he would never purposely hide documents that he knows the National Archives will eventually release.

''Why would anybody, particularly somebody who has as much riding on his reputation as Bill Burck, play games with the production of documents?'' Mr. Cullen said.

This summer has been a perfect storm for Mr. Burck, conspiring to dramatically raise his profile.

On the Senate floor earlier this summer, Mr. Schumer called Mr. Burck out by name, describing him as a ''political operative'' and a ''longtime Republican lawyer,'' and saying he was ''hardly a font of impartiality. He's a partisan.''

Mr. Burck declined to respond to Mr. Schumer. But Mr. Mukasey, who spoke to Mr. Burck in recent days, said he appeared to be shrugging off the newfound attention -- at least for now.

''He didn't seem to be weighed down by all of it,'' Mr. Mukasey said. ''He carries it lightly.''

Get politics and Washington news updates via Facebook, Twitter and the Morning Briefing newsletter. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/02/us/politics/william-burck.html

Graphic

PHOTOS: William A. Burck has represented numerous defendants against the Justice Department, and has withheld 100,000 pages of documents from Brett M. Kavanaugh's time as a government lawyer. (PHOTOGRAPHS BY TOM BRENNER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

ERIN SCHAFF FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES) Page 5 of 5 A Coveted Lawyer's Juggling Act May Be Good for Trump, and Bad

Load-Date: September 3, 2018

End of Document

White House Lawyer Emmet Flood Expected to Leave Post; Flood expected to stay in role until questions over release of Mueller report are resolved

The Wall Street Journal Online March 26, 2019

Section: POLITICS; Politics and Policy Length: 649 words Byline: By Rebecca Ballhaus

Body

WASHINGTON-Emmet Flood, who since last summer has served as the top lawyer representing the White House in the special counsel investigation, is expected to leave his post in the coming months now that the probe has been completed , according to people familiar with the matter.

Mr. Flood, a longtime Washington lawyer who represented former Democratic President Bill Clinton in the impeachment proceedings in the late 1990s, joined the White House in May, succeeding Ty Cobb . Don McGahn, the White House counsel at the time, had been grooming Mr. Flood to take over for him once he departed.

Mr. Flood didn't respond to a request for comment.

President Trump last fall considered Mr. Flood for the job of White House counsel as Mr. McGahn's departure neared, but in October said he would tap Pat Cipollone, a veteran White House lawyer, for the job instead.

The job of White House counsel is focused more broadly than that of the special counsel on protecting the interests of the presidency as a whole. In his role, Mr. Cipollone has overseen the White House response to congressional oversight efforts, which have seen a sharp uptick since Democrats took over control of the House in January.

Mr. Flood, in contrast, was focused squarely on the White House response to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into whether Trump associates colluded with Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election. In a report to the attorney general delivered on Friday, Mr. Mueller said he didn't Page 2 of 3 White House Lawyer Emmet Flood Expected to Leave Post; Flood expected to stay in role until questions over release of Mueller report are resolved establish any such collusion, but left unresolved questions about whether Mr. Trump had obstructed justice, according to a letter Attorney General William Barr sent to lawmakers on Sunday.

* Mueller Told Barr Weeks Ago He Wouldn't Reach Conclusion on Obstruction Charge

* Trump Signals Support for Report's Release as Democrats Dispute 'Exoneration'

* Mueller Doesn't Find Trump Campaign Conspired With Russia

Before Mr. Barr sent his letter , the attorney general's chief of staff called Mr. Flood-who in a rare move spent the weekend with the president at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida-and briefed him on what the letter would say, according to a senior Justice Department official.

Mr. Mueller's report has remained confidential, and Democratic lawmakers have demanded it be released to the public. Mr. Trump said Monday that it "wouldn't bother me at all" if the report were made public. The Justice Department hasn't said whether, how and when the report will be released.

Mr. Flood is expected to stay in his role until the report or parts of it are released, the people familiar with the matter said.

Mr. Flood joined the White House at a time when most of the documents Mr. Mueller had sought from the administration had already been turned over to investigators and most top White House officials whom the special counsel sought to interview had already done so. At the time Mr. Flood joined, the president's personal lawyers were involved in discussions over whether the president would sit for an interview with Mr. Mueller or agree to answer written questions. Ultimately, Mr. Trump submitted answers to questions on a narrow set of topics that included collusion but not obstruction of justice, and never sat for an in- person interview.

It isn't clear if Mr. Flood will immediately return to his former law firm, Williams & Connolly LLP. He had previously served in the White House Counsel's Office under President George W. Bush, where he handled congressional investigations that included a review of the Bush administration's controversial firings of seven U.S. attorneys.

Sadie Gurman contributed to this article.