Intelligence Community Concludes Putin Helped Trump

From the Office of the Director of National Intelligence:

Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

•  We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

•  Moscow’s approach evolved over the course of the campaign based on Russia’s understanding of the electoral prospects of the two main candidates. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign began to focus more on undermining her future presidency.

•  Further information has come to light since Election Day that, when combined with Russian behavior since early November 2016, increases our confidence in our assessments of Russian motivations and goals.

Moscow’s influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations—such as cyber activity—with overt efforts by Russian Government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or “trolls.” Russia, like its Soviet predecessor, has a history of conducting covert influence campaigns focused on US presidential elections that have used intelligence officers and agents and press placements to disparage candidates perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.

•  Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.

•  We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.

• Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards. DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.

• Russia’s state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign by serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences. 

We assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the US presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against US allies and their election processes.

Regretting the Nuclear Option

Eugene Scott reports at CNN:

Sen. Chuck Schumer lamented Tuesday the Democrats' move to diminish the number of senators needed to confirm Cabinet picks from 60 votes to 51, because the new rule now hurts his party.

"I argued against it at the time. I said both for Supreme Court and in Cabinet should be 60 because on such important positions there should be some degree of bipartisanship," Schumer, a New York Democrat and the incoming Senate minority leader, told CNN's Dana Bash. "I won on Supreme Court, lost on Cabinet. But it's what we have to live with now."

In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other top Democrats became convinced GOP delaying tactics were crippling Washington. They triggered the so-called "nuclear option" which -- over the objections of Republicans -- lowered the threshold to overcome a filibuster from 60 to 51 votes.

"Wish it hadn't happened," Schumer said.

Now he tells us.

Trump Rings in the New Year ... With the Mafia

Miguel Marquez and Daniella Diaz report at CNN:

A new video raises questions about President-elect Donald Trump's relationship with Joseph "Joey No Socks" Cinque, who once reportedly survived a mob hit and was associated with the infamous mob boss John Gotti.

The video shows Trump ringing in the new year on stage with Cinque at his Mar-a-Lago hotel in Palm Beach, Florida. The Secret Service told CNN everyone who attended the party was subject to screening via a metal detector.

Cinque was convicted in 1989 of criminal possession of stolen art, a felony. He was sentenced to "conditional discharge" in 1990, according to records provided by a New York Supreme Court clerk. CNN was told the actual indictment was destroyed in a fire.

Cinque did not serve jail time. While there is no record of how long the conditional discharge sentence lasted, a lack of further court records in the case indicates that he did not violate the discharge, the clerk told CNN.

In a 1995 profile in New York magazine, Cinque noted his former friendship with Gotti. The article also reported Cinque was "shot three times and left for dead" in a 1980 incident he called a "robbery," while "officials" described as "more likely a hit." The article also detailed Gotti's criminal record.

Cinque is the president and CEO of the American Academy of Hospitality Services, an organization that over the years has listed Trump as "ambassador extraordinaire." His children also served as honorary trustees on the board, which is made up of several Trump friends and business associates.

Trump has many, many Mafia ties.

 

The Return of F Troop

The ethics flap was one sign that the House GOP  is still F. Troop.

Dana Milbank writes at The Washington Post:

Those worried that President Trump and congressional Republicans are about to enact a sweeping agenda may have an unexpected ally: legislative incompetence. As Carl Hulse points out in the New York Times, nearly two-thirds of House Republicans have never served with a GOP president. McCarthy, elected in 2006, has never experienced unified Republican control. Now Republicans have to switch from reflexive opposition to passing their own laws and being held responsible for the consequences. Turns out they haven’t developed those muscles.

Take Obamacare. For six years, Republicans have talked of replacing it, and dozens of times they voted to repeal it. But now they’re in no hurry. At Tuesday’s session, McCarthy said repeatedly that Republicans hadn’t yet decided what to do about Obamacare. “We’re being sworn in today,” he pleaded.

 What are some possible alternatives?

“No decision has been made yet. There’s nothing right out there.”

Would the GOP alternative cover as many as Obamacare?

“There’s a lot of areas that you want to look at.”

When will repeal happen?

“I only do week by week.”

How would they avoid upsetting insurance markets?

“Nothing has been decided yet.”

McCarthy was equally unprepared to talk about another longtime GOP priority: the repeal of regulations. “We’re just being sworn in,” he demurred, again, when asked.

A Bad Start

At Buzzfeed, Alexis Levinson and Sarah Mimms report:

The 115th congress had not yet been sworn in when House Republicans had their first screw up.

In a hastily called meeting Tuesday morning, House Republicans opted to get rid of a rule that would have effectively defanged the Office of Congressional Ethics.

The rule was passed in another closed-door meeting on Monday night and quickly devolved into a giant messaging problem for House Republicans. Just three weeks before swearing in a Republican president who had campaigned on “draining the swamp,” House Republicans appeared to have done exactly the opposite.

The move left House Republicans flailing even as their party prepares to take control of all the levers of power in Washington. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy was peppered with questions about the rule during a meeting with reporters Tuesday morning, and at times seemed to express uncertainty over the exact details of what the rule would do. The majority leader even found himself fending off questions about whether or not House leadership was “weak,” as the rule had passed over the objections of both him and Speaker Paul Ryan.

...
“Offices were getting flooded with calls” from constituents angry about the rule, according to one House Republican staffer. President-elect Donald Trump tweeted criticizing Republicans for making the move “their number one act and priority,” over other much-hyped GOP agenda items. Many members leaving the meeting said that Trump’s tweets had little to do with the move to kill the provision. McCarthy said he had spoken against the rule for exactly the reason Trump mentioned, telling reporters Tuesday morning, “I didn’t think this was the best timing.”

Grizzly Steppe: How Russia Helped Trump

The Russians wanted Trump to win.

A report from DHS and the FBI:

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE.

Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors. However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities. This determination expands upon the Joint Statement released October 7, 2016, from the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security.

Without using the D-word, it discusses the hacking of the Democrats:

The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party. The first actor group, known as Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) 29, entered into the party’s systems in summer 2015, while the second, known as APT28, entered in spring 2016.

Josh Marshall writes at TPM:

Say you're Trump.

You have nothing to do with this. You know nothing about it. But think about all the crooks and gamers and sleazeballs around your campaign. There's Manafort, Stone, Page ... all their associates, not to mention your business associates with ties to Russian organized crime. (Stone publicly said he had some sort of a backchannel to Wikileaks.)

If you're Trump, how confident are you that a real investigation wouldn't turn up anything weird? Probably not very.

In July, Josh Rogin reported at the Washington Post:

The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.

Throughout the campaign, Trump has been dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade.

Still, Republican delegates at last week’s national security committee platform meeting in Cleveland were surprised when the Trump campaign orchestrated a set of events to make sure that the GOP would not pledge to give Ukraine the weapons it has been asking for from the United States.

Common Vendors

Ashley Balcerzak writes at Open Secrets:

Common use of staff and services skyrocketed this year: There were at least 632 instances where a super PAC and the candidate it supported both hired the same person or company at some point during this cycle, compared to 86 in 2014 and 161 in 2012.

Combined, the campaigns and outside groups paid these at least 393 overlapping merchants and employees more than $32 million through Nov. 28.Common use of staff and services skyrocketed this year: There were at least 632 instances where a super PAC and the candidate it supported both hired the same person or company at some point during this cycle, compared to 86 in 2014 and 161 in 2012.

Combined, the campaigns and outside groups paid these at least 393 overlapping merchants and employees more than $32 million through Nov. 28.

...

To ensure the two aren’t in cahoots (also known as coordination), there are certain rules they have to follow. A candidate can’t jointly pay for an ad with a super PAC, or give the outside group crucial info about advertising content or placement.

There’s also the “common vendor rule”: A super PAC can’t hire a company or staffer from a campaign until a four month cooling-off period passes.

Sharing vendors “presents an easy way to undermine the independence of super PACs,” said Brendan Fischer, associate counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. “The common vendor could operate as a conduit for information between the two, such as where the campaign needs ads bought, what they want them to say or what voters to target.”

However, there is a way around this rule: The vendor can establish a firewall, and write contracts with the campaign and the super PAC explaining how the two accounts, and the work done on them, will be kept separate.