First Reconciliation Candidate Information Form 2012: Fill & Download for Free

There are many reasons. I’m not Syrian, but I start research of the conflict in 2012 and I gained an understanding of the issue. Also, I don’t believe in a black and white world, in my view the truth in always in the middle.Facts about Bashar Al-AssadHe becomes president after his father died, in 2000.He wasn’t democratically elected and its popularity was built artificially through propaganda not based on his own abilities.Syria is a country made by France and the UK after World War 1. There are many communities such as Alawites, Druze, Yazidis, Sunnis, Shia, Christians, Kurds. Similar to many African countries, colonial powers used minorities to rule the state. In this case, the Sunni majority was underprivileged.Syria is a client regime. Similar to China. That means if you want to start a business or to be allowed to have a good job, you must be pro-Regime. If you are not, you will be a secondary category of citizen.One of the first actions of Assad, when the war started, was to release political prisoners for two reasons: First was to show that they are willing to start a dialogue. The second was the fact that many of the prisoners were terrorist al-Qaeda or Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated, when they were released they contacted the Islamic State of Iraq, Al-Qaeda, MB and started to do their business as usual. Assad knew that they will offer him a reason to act militarily.Why would anyone justify Bashar al-Assad’s actions in Syria against his own people?Assad’s government is the only one who can provide institutions to the peopleNo rebel faction was able to build an institutional way of life. People need economic continuity, order, and justice in order to feel safe. Assad destroyed all institutional means when the withdrew from different areas.Moderate rebels cannot communicateWe live in a world where attention is the main currency. Bashar al-Assad was interviewed few times in each year since 2011. Until 2014 he argued that there are freedom fighters but only terrorists funded by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Nobody takes him seriously until Daesh become visible. They have a very good PR, their clips are all over the world is seen by millions of people. Compared to them, Assad seems to be a well-educated ophthalmologist married with a nice British lady. A better story than Daesh or even Saudi Arabia way of life.Assad has a good PR strategyHe released terrorists from prison in order to justify its own actions. Also, he can communicate properly. In contrast with Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad speaks English fluently and he is willing to be interviewed by any newspaper of television around the globe. He repeated the same message, which is a basic branding strategy. He always said that people support him and he is fighting for peace and stability.Meanwhile, the world doesn’t know who the hell are FSA or moderate opposition, Syrian Council or whatever they call themselves. People around the world see only Daesh which is are insane savages and Assad.Pretty relaxed here.StabilityMany pro-Assad people argue that without Assad Syria will be highly unstable and a terrorist hub similar to Libya and a part of Iraq. This is true, but we have to understand that in Libya or Iraq the US, UK, and France didn’t come up with a reconciliation and reconstruction plan. To intervene is easy, the real challenge is to help that state to reconcile and govern itself.The incompetence of the US, UK and France in Iraq and Libya it is not an argument against intervention itself but against half measures. Syria will not be unstable as long as the international community will invest time, energy and money in helping the same innocent people they are trying to save from Assad or Daesh.In contrast to reconstruction failure of the western powers, Putin seems to be more efficient in Syria. In fact he is bombing all anti-Assad rebels destroying the country infrastructure.The polarization of the conflictSince 2011 the Syrian conflict transformed itself into a sectarian battle for survival. As I mentioned, Syria was always dominated by its minorities. In special Alawite minority which is associated with the Assad regime. People who belong to minorities are afraid of regime fallen because whoever will take power it is most probably to persecute them as a revenge. The same thing happened in Iraq after Saddam. Sunnis were associated to Saddam, after 2003 invasion and later after 2011 US withdrawal, Iran-backed Shia regime started to persecute Sunni population.In Syria, the situation could the same. The country is destroyed, the economy is collapsing and the people don’t trust each other. A new regime will be unable to fix those problems, so they will start punishing those who they consider being responsible. When Hitler became chancellor he was unable to fix the German weak economy, but he started to punish Jews for all the problems.In the other hand, people who are aginst Assad are afraid that if Assad will win the war he will punish them all.So, each side believes that a defeat means most probably death.People living in Latakia region.SuperficialityThe Syrian conflict, like many other conflicts, is very complicated. In order to make your own opinion, you should study it in depth and objectively. It is much easier to give credit to Assad because he seems to be an educated man.If you are against liberalism you may listen and watch only right-wing media which seems to support Assad. All right-wing candidates from the US, France, the UK are willing to forget Assad and fight against Daesh. If you are a liberal you may take your information only from left-wing media. The idea is that people choose their source of information according to their emotional preferences and are unwilling to listen and understand a different point of views.Alex Jones - A conspiracy theorist supports the Syrian regime.Saudi Arabia FM supports democracy in Syria. This seems too hypocritical to give them credit. Saudi Arabia is a nightmare related to Human Rights.Obama approach towards Syria is rational but hard to understand without a proper education.ConclusionSyrian people are deeply divided and the conflict is very polarized. They fight for their lives and support the side which is better for them whether is Assad, Daesh or Moderate rebels.The conflict is not only about military but winning minds and hearts. Who has a good PR is going to win followers. Daesh recruits random people from all over Europe and North America and Assad is gaining friends from different countries or political parties all over the world.People around the world have a various source of information at their disposal but they are unwilling to check them all. People choose sources of information according to their already formed opinion.

At no point did he know there was no collusion or obstruction. This is because there was a boatload of collusion and enough obstruction to make Nixon blush.“The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” (Volume 1 of the Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 election).In June of 2016, the DNC announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. A few weeks later, materials hacked from the DNC began to be released through Wikileaks, and others. More releases of information hacked from the DNC occurred in October and November.In July 2016, the FBI learned of an encounter with George Papadopoulos and a foreign government official in May, 2016. During that encounter, Papadopoulos had suggested the Trump Campaign, was aware that the Russian government could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened an investigation on several people in the the Trump Campaign suspected of coordinating with the Russian government in its cyber-crime and release of damaging information.In the fall of 2016, the U.S. government announced: (The Russian government) "directed recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including US political organizations," and, "[t]hese thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process." The U.S. government imposed sanctions on Russia in December 2016, as a result of these Russian efforts to interfere with the election. Early in 2017, several congressional committees began examining Russian interference in the 2016 election.The Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 Election showed that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Russia employed two main operations.The IRA (Internet Research Agency) used social media to bolster candidate Trump, and harm the reputation of candidate Clinton.Russian hackers conducted operations against “entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign” and then publicly released their stolen information.The Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 Election showed many contacts between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 Election, showed that the Russian government felt it would benefit from Trump being elected to the office of President and it worked to secure that outcome. The report showed that the Trump campaign felt it would benefit electorally from the release of information stolen by the Russians.“Information warfare” is the term the IRA used to describe its efforts to employ a troll army using social media accounts and infiltrating interest groups to divide the U.S. politically and sow discord in our country. The program began in 2014 and 2015 and evolved into an operation to favor candidate Trump and malign candidate Clinton. To accomplish this, the IRA purchased ads on social media in the names of U.S. persons and entities, and staged political rallies inside the U.S. The IRA posed as grassroots entities and persons with the goal of organizing political rallies in the U.S. and to engage with Trump campaign officials and Trump supporters in the U.S.2. IRA Controlled Social Media Operations in the U.S.The Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 Election states: “(D)ozens of IRA employees were responsible for operating accounts and personas on different U.S. social media platforms.” These IRA employees were referred to as “specialists.” In 2014, “the IRA's U.S. operations included social media specialists focusing on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. The IRA later added specialists who operated on Tumblr and Instagram accounts.” (Id.)The IRA began by creating social media accounts pretending to be U.S. persons. Eventually, the IRA created social media groups and public social media pages falsely claiming to be affiliated with U.S. political and grassroots organizations. In some situations, the IRA accounts would mirror real U.S. organizations. In one case, the IRA controlled account, @TEN_GOP, posed as an organization connected to the Tennessee Republican Party. The IRA also posed as anti-immigration groups, Tea Party activists, Black Lives Matter protesters, and other U.S. social and political activists through their fake accounts.The IRA’s support for the Trump campaign and opposition to candidate Clinton is shown through internal IRA documents. One IRA controlled author of Facebook group “Secured Borders” was criticized for the “lower number of posts dedicated to criticising Hillary Clinton” and reminded, “it is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton.”Clinton Campaign chairman John Podesta’s email account was hacked by the GRU (Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) in March 2016. The GRU also hacked the email accounts of Clinton Campaign volunteers and employees. The GRU hacked the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in April 2016, stealing hundreds of thousands of documents. In June 2016, the DNC announced the Russian government’s role in the hacking. “DC Leaks” and “Guccifer 2.0”, fictitious GRU online personas, began distributing the hacked information around this time. Later, the GRU released more materials through WikiLeaks.The Trump campaign expressed interest in WikiLeaks’s release of hacked documents and their potential to damage candidate Clinton. In July, 2016 WikiLeaks made their first release of hacked documents. Near that time, candidate Trump announced that he hoped Russia would recover emails described as missing from a private server used by Clinton.On October 7, 2016, WikiLeaks released documents stolen from John Podesta. This release occurred less than one hour after a video, considered damaging to candidate Trump, was released by a the U.S. media.IRA Operations using FacebookIRA specialists used Facebook accounts such as “Being Patriotic,” “Stop All Immigrants,” Secured Borders,” and “Tea Party News,” “Black Matters,” Blacktivist,” “Don’t Shoot Us,” “LGBT United,” and “United Muslims of America.”IRA specialists used an increasing number of materials supporting the Trump campaign throughout 2016. On May 31, 2016, the operational account "Matt Skiber" began to privately message dozens of pro-Trump Facebook groups asking them to help plan a "pro-Trump rally near Trump Tower."The IRA purchased advertisements from Facebook to promote IRA groups on U.S. user’s newsfeeds. The IRA purchased over 3,500 advertisements, totalling approximately $100,000.The IRA bought many ads explicitly supporting or opposing presidential candidates or promoting rallies organized by the IRA. The IRA purchased ads opposing candidate Clinton beginning, at least, in March 2016. One ad stated: "If one day God lets this liar enter the White House as a President - that day would be a real national tragedy." The IRA bought ads for its created account “Black Matters” instigating a “flashmob” of protesters to "take a photo with #HillaryClintonForPrison2016 or #nohillary2016." With very few exceptions, the IRA purchased ads featuring Clinton were negative.The ads purchased by the IRA referencing candidate Trump were largely supportive. On April 19, 2016, the IRA bought its first ad explicitly endorsing the Trump campaign. The IRA specialist account "Tea Party News" bought an Instagram asking: "make a patriotic team of young Trump supporters" by uploading photos with the hashtag "#KIDS4TRUMP." The IRA specialist accounts purchased dozens of advertisements in support of the Trump campaign. These purchases were primarily through the Facebook groups "Being Patriotic," "Stop All Invaders," and "Secured Borders."Tens of millions of U.S. individuals were reached by the IRA specialists’ social media outreach efforts. Hundreds of thousands of followers were following some IRA specialist accounts. “United Muslims of America” IRA specialist Facebook group had over 300,000 followers as of its deactivation in mid 2017. IRA specialist Facebook group “Don't Shoot Us” had over 250,000 followers. IRA specialist Facebook group "Being Patriotic" had over 200,000 followers. IRA specialist Facebook group "Secured Borders" had over 130,000 followers.IRA specialist Facebook accounts made over 80,000 posts before deactivating in August 2017. IRA specialist Facebook accounts reached at least 29 million U.S. persons, and may have reached an estimated 126 million people.IRA Twitter OperationsIRA specialists in the Translator Department operated on the Twitter platform.The IRA specialists used two strategies in their Twitter operations:The IRA specialists used Twitter accounts to create fictional U.S. personas.The Twitter accounts were operated in a similar manner to the Facebook accounts. The IRA specialists posted original content and communicated with U.S. Twitter users through public posts and private messages.The IRA specialists used these accounts to attempt to influence the U.S. election. “Individualized accounts used to influence the U.S. presidential election included @TEN_ GOP ( described above); @jenn _ abrams ( claiming to be a Virginian Trump supporter with 70,000 followers); @Pamela_Moorel3 (claiming to be a Texan Trump supporter with 70,000 followers); and @America:_lst_ (an anti-immigration persona with 24,000 followers). In May 2016, the IRA created the Twitter account @march_for_trump, which promoted IRA-organized rallies in support of the Trump Campaign” (described below).Through the use of these accounts, the IRA provoked reactions from social media users and the media. Seventy U.S. media outlets quoted tweets from IRA specialist accounts, portraying them as the reactions of real U.S. persons. Many high profile U.S. persons such as: Ambassador Michael McFaul, Roger Stone, Sean Hannity, and Michael Flynn Jr., retweeted or responded to tweets posted to these IRA controlled accounts. Several Trump campaign affiliates also promoted IRA related tweets.The IRA operated a bot network to amplify existing IRA content on Twitter. (Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 election Volume 1 p. 26)3,814 IRA specialist Twitter accounts were identified in In January 2018. In the ten weeks prior to the 2016 U.S.. presidential election, these IRA specialist accounts posted approximately 175,993 tweets, "approximately 8.4% of which were election related." 1.4 million people, who may have been in contact with these IRA specialist Twitter accounts, were notified of their potential conduct with IRA related accounts.IRA Operations involving U.S. Political RalliesWhile posing as grassroots organizations and activists, IRA specialists organized and promoted U.S. political rallies.IRA specialists used social media personas (Facebook groups, Twitter accounts) to announce and promote an event. The IRA specialists used direct messaging to account followers to invite them to attend events. From the respondents, the IRA sought a U.S. person to serve as the event’s coordinator. The IRA specialists then contacted U.S. media to engage with the coordinator and further promote the events. Photos and videos of the events were then posted to the IRA specialist’s social media accounts.Dozens of rallies in the U.S. were organized by IRA specialists. In November 2015, the IRA organized, a “confederate rally.” Some IRA specialist organized events drew few (if any) participants, others drew hundreds. The IRA closely monitored the attendance and success of these events. The events were closely tied to the 2016 election, often promoting the Trump campaign and opposing the Clinton campaign. There were 3 Pro-Trump rallies in New York. A series of Pro-Trump rallies in Florida. There were a series of Pro-Trump rallies in Pennsylvania. The Florida rallies gained the attention of the Trump campaign, which posted about the Miami rally on Trump’s Facebook account.Many of the IRA specialists overseeing the IRA social media accounts also conducted recruiting operations for U.S. political rallies.6. Targeting and Recruitment of U.S. PersonsThe IRA instructed its specialists to target U.S. persons, as early as 2014 to advance its operational goals and amplify IRA posted content.IRA specialists utilized Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, to recruit U.S. followers from across the political spectrum. The IRA recruited black social justice advocates by posing as a group called “Black Matters US.” The persona “Black Fist” hired a self-defense instructor in New York to offer classes on self-defense to protect attendees when they were contacted by law enforcement. IRA specialists recruited conservative social media group moderators to promote IRA-generated content, and recruited individuals to perform political acts (such as walking around New York City while dressed as Santa Claus donning a Trump mask. (Report on Russian Interference in the 2016 election Volume 1 p. 31)IRA specialists tracked U.S. persons with whom they communicated and tasked them with organizing political rallies and taking pictures with political messages.The IRA social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations were coincident with many contacts involving the Trump campaign and Russian government affiliates. The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities.The Trump campaign contacts were through business connections, offers of assistance to the Campaign, invitations for Candidate Trump to meet with Putin, invitations for Trump campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government to meet, and policy positions seeking improved U.S.-Russian relations.Trump Tower Moscow was the subject of some of the early contacts with Trump associates and Russian government affiliates. By November 2015, Donald J. Trump had signed a Letter of Intent for Trump Tower Moscow. In January 2016, Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer, emailed and spoke about the project with Dmitry Peskov. The project was pursued by the Trump Organization through at least June 2016. Candidate Trump and Cohen considered travelling to Russia to coordinate the project.A London-based professor, with connections to Russia, named Joseph Mifsud, made contact with George Papadopoulos in April 2016. Mifsud told Papadopoulos that the Russian government had “dirt,” in the form of thousands of emails, on Hillary Clinton. A week later, Papadopoulos suggested to a member of a foreign government that the Trump campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the campaign and the Russian government. This meeting did not take place.Candidate Trump’s likelihood of becoming the Republican presidential nominee increased in the Summer of 2016. During this time, Russian outreach to the Trump campaign continued. Trump campaign officials Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian lawyer, and other Russian government affiliates in Trump Tower on June 9, 2016. The email proposing the meeting described “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary” to be offered as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” The communications in advance of the meeting indicated that the campaign believed receiving Russian assistance could help Trump’s ability to win the presidential election. At the meeting, the Russian lawyer’s presentation did not provide such information.The DNC, and a cybersecurity firm, made an announcement that Russian government hackers had stolen opposition research on President Trump in addition to other documents.Carter Page, a Trump campaign foreign policy advisor, travelled to Moscow in July 2016. Page travelled in his personal capacity to give a keynote address to the New Economic School.Between 2003 and 2007, Page had lived and worked in Russia. Upon his return to the U.S. Page made the acquaintance of at least two Russian intelligence officers. One of those officers was charged in 2015, with conspiracy to act as an unregistered foreign agent. Following media attention given to Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow, the Trump campaign distanced itself from Page. Page was removed from the Trump campaign by late September 2016. WikiLeaks first released emails stolen from the DNC by the GRU in July 2016.WikiLeaks posted thousands of DNC documents, revealing information on the Clinton campaign, on July 22, 2016. Shortly thereafter, public reporting confirmed U.S. Intelligence had high confidence the hacking was done by the GRU. Shortly thereafter, the FBI was informed, by a foreign government, of Papadopoulos’s statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump campaign. Based on that reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, in New York City on August 2, 2016. The FBI assess that Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence. At the meeting, Kilimnik requested a backdoor way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine, through a “peace plan.” Both men agreed the plan would require the assent of candidate Trump (were he to be elected). The men also talked about the Trump campaign’s status and campaign strategy for Midwestern states. Prior to, and after, the meeting, Manafort caused polling data to be shared with Kilimnik.A video featuring candidate Trump speaking about women in graphic terms was released on October 7, 2016. WikiLeaks made its second release of thousands of John Podesta’s stolen emails less than an hour later. That same day, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint public statement “That the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions.” Those “thefts” and “disclosures” of the hacked materials through online platforms such as WikiLeaks, the statement continued “are intended to interfere with the US election process.”Following Trump’s November 8 victory, prominent Russian businessmen and Russian government officials began attempting to make inroads to the new administration. These efforts were encouraged by the most senior levels of the Russian government. Efforts to set up a call from President Putin were made by the Russian Embassy, hours after the election.The CEO of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, Kirill Dmitriev, was among several prominent Russian businessmen who tried to make contact with the incoming administration. Eric Prince, a Trump campaign affiliate, and associate of prominent Trump advisor, Steve Bannon was contacted by Dmitriev. Prince and Dmitriev met in the Seychelles in January 2017, to discuss U.S.-Russia relations. A friend of Jared Kushner’s, was also introduced to Dmitriev. That friend and Dmitriev worked together on a short reconciliation plan for the U.S. and Russia. Dmitriev implied this plan had been approved by Putin. Kushner later gave copies of this plan to Steve Bannon and incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election were met by the imposition of sanctions on December 29, 2016. Michael Flynn, a Trump National Security Advisor, called Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak to implore Russia not to respond to the sanctions. The next day, President Putin announced there would be no retaliatory measures taken in response to the sanctions. President-Elect Trump tweeted, hours later, “Great move on delay (by V. Putin).” Kislyak spoke with Flynn the following day and informed him that Russia had chosen not to retaliate at Flynn’s behest.Trump was briefed, on January 6, 2016, by the CIA, FBI and NSA. These agencies concluded that Russia had intervened in the election through an array of channels to assist Trump and hurt Clinton. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), the Senate Select Committee on INtelligence (SSCI), and the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC), informed the public they would be conducting inquiries into Russian interference in the 2016 election. FBI director James Comey confirmed the existence of the counterintelligence investigation. On March 20, 2017, before HPSCI. Corney stated:I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, and that includes 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 ... . As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.Following Comey’s termination by President Trump, Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert S. Mueller III, as Special Counsel.Following the appointment of the Special Counsel, President Trump told advisors that it was the end of his presidency. Trump made efforts to have Attorney General Jefferson (Jeff) Sessions unrecuse from the Russia investigation. Trump also made efforts to have the Special Counsel removed. To prevent the disclosure of evidence, Trump privately and publicly contacted potential witnesses.Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort met with a Russian attorney, and several others, on June 9, 2016, in Trump Tower. The expectation of the meeting was they would receive “dirt” on Candidate clinton from the Russian lawyer.Robert Goldstone emailed Donald Trump Jr. to propose the meeting. This was done at the request of his then-client Emin Agalarov, the son of Russian real-estate developer Aras Agalarov. Mr. Goldstone’s email stated: "Crown prosecutor of Russia ... offered to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia" as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump.""(I)f it's what you say I love it," was Trump Jr.’s response.Trump Jr. arranged the meeting through a series of emails and telephone calls. Trump campaign members had discussions regarding the upcoming meeting. Candidate Trump may have been told about the meeting, without linking the meeting to Russia, based on the testimony of Michael Cohen.President Trump said he had no recollection of learning of the meeting at that time, according to written answers submitted to the Special Counsel.On June 3, 2016, Emin Agalarov called Goldstone, who facilitated the ongoing contact between the Trumps and the Agalarovs- including an invitation that Trump sent to Putin to attend the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow.Shortly after his June 3 call with Emin Agalarov, Goldstone emailed Trump Jr. The email stated:Good morning - Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting. 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. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but it is a part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin. What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly? I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so I wanted to send it to you first.BestRob GoldstoneThe public learned of the June 9, 2016 meeting in July 2017.From January 2016-September 2016, Carter Page worked as a foreign policy advisor for the Trump Campaign. Russian intelligence officers had engaged with Page years before, while he was living and working in Russia. On the Trump campaign, Page advocated pro-Russia foreign policy. He also traveled to Moscow in a personal capacity during his time on the Trump campaign. Page formed relationships with Russian intelligence officials in 2008 and 2013.After he was named a Trump campaign foreign policy advisor, Carter Page was invited to give a speech at the July 2016 commencement ceremony at the New Economic School (NES) in Moscow. The Special Counsel was told that his invitation was based entirely on his status as a Trump Campaign advisor. The excitement was palpable when Russians learned of Page's involvement in the Trump Campaign.Page emailed several Trump campaign officials, while in Moscow, stating he would deliver: "a readout soon regarding some incredible insights and outreach I've received from a few Russian legislators and senior members of the presidential Administration here."An email from Page to Sam Clovis, stated pertinent part:Russian Deputy Prime minister and NES board member Arkady Dvorkovich also spoke before the event. In a private conversation, Dvorkovich expressed strong support for Mr. Trump and a desire to work together toward devising better solutions in response to the vast range of current international problems. Based on feedback from a diverse array of other sources close to the presidential Administration, it was readily apparent that this sentiment is widely held at all levels of governmentTrump campaign advisor Sen. Jeff Sessions interacted with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the week of the 2016 Republican National Convention. He also met with the ambassador in his Senate office in September 2016. Before candidate Trump’s speech at the Mayflower hotel in April 2016, the Senator and the Ambassador attended a reception at the hotel. The Special Counsel’s office found it was possible they met during that reception.Dimitri Simes is President and CEO of the Center for National Interest (CNI). CNI is a Washington-based non-profit describing itself as having “unparalleled access to Russian officials and politicians.” Simes and Kushner discussed CNI hosting a foreign policy speech by candidate Trump. CNI was to provide insight into the content of the speech and coordinate logistics with Sessions’s staff.Kushner connected Simes with Trump campaign senior policy advisor Stephen Miller. He also forwarded an outline of Miller’s foreign policy speech to Simes. Simes responded with ideas for the speech that he had drafted with help from CNI. CNI officials later spoke with Miller about the content of the speech.CNI decided to have its publication, The National Interest host the speech to avoid the appearance that CNI was endorsing a particular candidate. Kushner requested the event be held at the Mayflower Hotel. Prior to the speech a VIP reception was held at the hotel. Sessions and Kislyak were among CNI’s invitees to the reception. Kislyak was informed by Simes that he would have the opportunity to meet Trump. At the reception, Simes introduced Kislyak to Trump. Kislyak also met Kushner during the reception. Kushner recalled Kislyak saying, "we like what your candidate is saying ... it's refreshing."The 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland saw a change in the foreign policy platform toward Russia. Trump campaign and the RNC Platform Committee discussed toning down language from the 2012 RNC platform that identified Russia as the country's number one threat.During a FBI interview on January 24, 2017, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn lied about his interactions with Ambassador Kislyak during the transition period. Flynn told the FBI that he did not ask Kislyak to avoid Russian escalation following the imposition of sanctions by the U.S. as a result of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI.In August 2017, Michael Cohen testified before the HPSCI and SSCI. in a pre-testimony statement, Cohen represented that the Trump Tower Moscow project had ended in January 2016 and he had briefed candidate Trump on the project, only three times, prior to making the unilateral decision to terminate it. Cohen also stated he never agreed to travel to Russia in connection with the Trump Tower Moscow project and never considered asking candidate Trump to travel for the project. Cohen also stated that he didn’t remember any Russian government contact regarding the project. These statements were all found to be false and misleading.Trump Tower Moscow had been considered through approximately June 2016, and there had been more than three reports to candidate Trump regarding the project. Felix Sater and Cohen had discussed the possibility of Cohen travelling to Moscow for the project and the possibility of Trump travelling for the project. He had discussed the possibility of Trump traveling to Moscow with Trump, and with Corey Lewandowski. Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress.George Papadopoulos lied to FBI agents about the timing, extent, and nature of his communications with Professor Mifsud and two other Russians, in a manner that impeded the investigation. His lies impeded investigators’ questioning of Mifsud in a February 10, 2017 interview.During the spring and summer of 2016, Papadopoulos continued to communicate with Trump campaign officials about his Russia-related communications. He forwarded an email to Lewandowski on May 4, 2016 raising the possibility of a meeting in Moscow. He also forwarded the same email to Campaign affiliate Sam Clovis. He also included that email in an email to senior Trump campaign official Paul Manafort under the subject line: "Request from Russia to meet Mr. Trump." In the Manafort email, Papadopoulos stated: "Russia has been eager to meet Mr. Trump for quite sometime and have been reaching out to me to discuss." Manafort forwarded this email to another Trump campaign official stating: "Let[']s discuss. We need someone to communicate that [Trump] is not doing these trips. It should be someone low level in the Campaign so as not to send any signal."On another email chain, in June 2016, about a Russia visit, Papadopoulos replied to Lewandowski asking if he: "want[ ed] to have a call about this topic" and whether "we were following up with it." Lewandowski told Papadopoulos to "connect with" Clovis because he was "running point." Papadopoulos sent an email to Clovis stating: "the Russian MFA" was asking him "if Mr. Trump is interested in visiting Russia at some point."Papadopoulos wrote in an email that he "[w]anted to pass this info along to you for you to decide what's best to do with it and what message I should send (or to ignore)." After several email and Skype exchanges with a Russian, Papadopoulos sent one more email to Lewandowski on June 19, 2016, stating: "[t]he Russian ministry of foreign affairs" had contacted him asking whether a lower campaign staffer could attend the meetings if Trump could not attend. Papadopoulos informed Lewandowski he would be "willing to make the trip off the record if it's in the interest of Mr. Trump and the campaign to meet specific people."Campaign chairman Paul Manafort served on the Trump campaign from March to August 2016, though not as campaign manager for the entire time period. Manafort’s prior work for the pro-Russian Ukrainian regime and Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska were part of his Russian connections. Konstantin Kilimnik, Manafort’s associate from his previous office in Kiev, facilitated Manafort’s contact with his Russian associates. The FBI assesses Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence.Rick Gates, Manafort’s deputy campaign manager, was instructed to provide Kilimnik with Trump campaign updates. These updates included internal polling data. Manafort expected Kilimnik would share the provided information with others in Ukraine and Deripaska. Polling data was periodically sent to Kilimnik by Gates during the course of the campaign.During the week of the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump campaign officials met with Ambassador Kislyak. The evidence shows those meetings to be brief and insubstantial. J.D. Gordon, a senior Trump campaign national security advisor advisor diluted a proposed amendment to the Republican Party platform. The platform was changed from providing “lethal” assistance to the Ukraine in response to Russian aggression. The revision stated only that “appropriate” assistance would be provided.Kilimnik and Manafort met at the Grand Havana Club in New York City on August 2, 2016. Prior to the meeting, Kilimnik flew from Kiev to Moscow. The next day, Kilimnik wrote a coded email with the subject line “Black Caviar.”I met today with the guy who gave you your biggest black caviar jar several years ago. We spent about 5 hours talking about his story, and I have several important messages from him to you. He asked me to go and brief you on our conversation. I said I have to run it by you first, but in principle I am prepared to do it. ... It has to do about the future of his country, and is quite interesting.In early January 2017, George Nader and Eric Prince had lunch and dinner meetings where they discussed Dmitriev. Nader told Prince the Russians were interested in building a relationship with Trump. He informed Prince, Dmitriev had requested that Nader introduce him to members of the incoming Trump administration. He suggested, Prince and Dmitriev meet to discuss issues of mutual concern.Nader sent a Wikipedia entry about Dmitriev to Prince. He sent Dmitriev a message that he had just met “with some key people within the family and inner circle.” This message was referring to Prince and included information that he had spoken at length and positively about Dmitriev. He told Dmitriev that some people had requested Dmitriev’s bio. Nader later received Dmitriev’s bio and positive quotes from Dmitriev about Donald J. Trump.Nader later forwarded Dmitriev’s messages to Prince, stating the documents were “to be used with some additional details for them” (referring to members of the incoming Trump administration). At Trump Tower in New York City, Prince opened the attachments. Prince said while he was at Trump Tower that day, he spoke with Kellyanne Conway, Wilbur Ross, Steve Mnuchin, and others while waiting to see Steve Bannon.On January 7, 2017 Eric Prince booked a ticket to the Seychelles. The next day, Nader wrote Dmitriev stating that he had a “pleasant surprise” for him. The pleasant surprise was that he had arranged for Dmitriev to meet a “Special Guest” from the “New Team.” This special guest was Eric Prince. At Nader’s request, Dmitriev agreed to attend a meeting in the Seychelles on January 12, 2017.Though Dmitriev was not enthusiastic about meeting Prince, Nader assured him the meeting would be worthwhile and that Prince was an influential associate of the incoming Trump administration. Nader wrote: “This guy [Prince] is designated by Steve [Bannon] to meet you! I know him and he is very very well connected and trusted by the New Team. His sister is now a Minister of Education.” Bannon told the Special Counsel that Prince did not tell him about the meeting with Dmitriev in advance.On January 11, 2017, Dmitriev arrived in the Seychelles. He checked into the Four Seasons resort Crown Prince Mohammed and Nader were also staying at that hotel. Prince arrived in the Seychelles on the same day. Prince and Dmitriev had an initial meeting in Nader’s villa that lasted 30-45 minutes.Kushner’s assistant received a request for a meeting with Ambassador Kislyak on November 16, 2016. Later that day, Kushner responded in an email about the call “I think I do this one-- confirm with Dimitri (Simes of CNI) that this is the right guy.” Kushner’s assistant reported back that Kislyak was the “best go-to guy for routine matters in the US,” while Yuri Ushakov, a Russian foreign policy advisor, was the contact for “more direct/substantial matters.”Kushner met with Kislyak in Trump Tower in New York City on November 30, 2016. Michael Flynn attended the meeting on Kushner’s invitation. Steve Bannon was invited to the meeting, but did not attend. The meeting lasted about 30 minutes. At the meeting Kushner expressed desire for a reset to the U.S.-Russia relationship, and asked Kislyak whether he, or someone else, would have direct contact with Putin and the ability to speak for him.Despite several attempts by the Russian Embassy to schedule another meeting with Kushner, he told the Special Counsel that he did not want to take another meeting because he had determined Ambassador Kislyak was not the right channel for him to communicate with Russia. He arranged for his assistant Avi Berkowitz to meet with Kislyak in his stead.On December 12, 2016, Kislyak met with Berkowitz at Trump Tower in New York City. During the meeting Kislyak mentioned that he wanted Kushner to meet Sergey Gorkov, the head of the Russian-government owned bank Vnesheconombank (VEB).On December 13, 2016, Kushner met with Gorkov at the Colony Capital building in New York City. At the time (and currently) VEB was the subject of Department of Treasury economic sanctions. These sanctions were imposed in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Kushner did not recall discussing sanctions at the meeting with Gorkov.The Meddling TreeBySid SilverfishOnce, near a troll farm in Russia, there was a tree.And she colluded with candidate Trump to steal the electionAnd every day Trump would comeAnd he would gather stolen emailsAnd call for their release in publicHis campaign manager would would share polling dataAnd they would help geotarget the electorateAnd they would set up backchannels to the KremlinAnd when he was tired he would dream about Trump Tower MoscowAnd Trump loved the troll tree......very much. And the troll tree was happy.But time went byAnd Trump grew horizontallyAnd the troll tree was often aloneThen one day Trump came to the troll tree and said:“They’ve opened a special counsel investigation.”Come Trump, tweet to my bots and use my memes.“I am too dumb to tweet,”“I can barely read.”“Can you help me.”“I’m sorry,”Said the troll tree.“My English not so good neither..”“I only have memes and bots.”“Tweet my memes and follow my bots.” Then you will have followers,And you will be happy.And, so, Trump was too fat to climb the tree. But, he tweeted the memes and retweeted the bots. And the troll tree was happy.But the special counsel’s investigation lasted for a long time.And Trump was SAD.Then one day Trump came back.“Come, Trump, tweet my memes and retweet my bots. And you’ll have followers and be happy.”“I am too busy to retweet bots.”But Congress subpoenaed documentsAnd Tax returnsAnd when he came backThe troll tree said: Come Trump tweet my memes and retweet my bots.“I am to fat and sad to tweet.“I want a boat that will take me far away from here.”“Can you give me a boat?”“No, said the tree. You are not worth me giving up my trunk.Maybe you should’ve thought about this when you came to me in the first place. Try and make a deal to avoid severe prosecution for you and those around you, who are complicit.Then you will be happy.Can you help me? Said Trump.No, what do you think I am, some kind of lawyer? Said the tree. Have you ever met a tree that had been to Law School?Wait, don’t answer that. I forgot, my cousin from Wisconsin, is practicing environmental law in New York. But, you should really talk to someone who specializes in criminal defense, with federal experience. And you should probably fire Rudy.” Said the tree.And Trump did.And theTroll tree was happy.To be honest,the Troll tree didn’treally like Trumpthat much, anyhow.The EndThe Obstructionist in ChiefTrump’s UNDER OATH Written AnswersJune 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump TowerWhen did you first learn that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner was considering participating in a meeting on June 2016 concerning potentially negative information about Hillary Clinton? Describe who you learned the information from and the substance of the discussion.Attached to this document as Exhibit A is a series of emails from June 2016 between, among others, Donald Trump Jr. and Rob Goldstone. In addition to the emails reflected in Exhibit A, Donald Trump Jr. had other communications with Rob Goldstone and Emin Agalarov between June 3, 2016 and June 9, 2016.Did Mr. Trump Jr. or anyone else tell you about or show you any of these communications? If yes, describe who discussed the communications with you, when, and the substance of the discussions.When did you first see or learn about all or any part of the emails reflected in Exhibit A?When did you first learn that the proposed meeting involved or was described as being part of Russia and its government’s support for your candidacy?Did you suggest or direct anyone not to discuss or release publicly all or any portion of the emails reflected in Exhibit A? If yes, describe who you communicated with, when, the substance of the communication(s), and why you took this action.On June 9, 2016 Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner attended a meeting at Trump Tower with several individuals, including a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya (the “June 9 meeting”).i. Other than as set forth in your answers to I.a and I.b, what, if anything, were you told about the possibility of this meeting taking place, or the scheduling of such a meeting? Describe who you discussed this with, when, and what you were informed about the meeting.ii. When did you learn that some of the individuals attending the June 9 meeting were Russian or had any affiliation with any part of the Russian government? Describe who you learned this information from and the substance of the discussion(s).iii. What were you told about what was discussed at the June 9 meeting? Describe each conversation in which you were told about what was discussed at the meeting, who the conversation was with, when it occurred, and the substance of the statements they made about the meeting.iv. Were you told that the June 9 meeting was about, in whole or in part, adoption and/or the Magnitsky Act? If yes, describe who you had that discussion with, when, and the substance of the discussion.PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:Response to Question l, Parts (a) through (c): I have no recollection of learning at the time that Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner was considering participating in a meeting in June 2016 concerning potentially negative information about Hillary Clinton. Nor do I recall learning during the campaign that the June 9, 2016 meeting had taken place, that the referenced emails existed, or that Donald J. Trump Jr., had other communications with Emin Agalarov or Robert Goldstone between June 3, 2016 and June 9, 2016.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:d. For the period June 6, 2016 through June 9, 2016, for what portion of each day were you in Trump Tower?i. Did you speak or meet with Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner on June 9, 2016? If yes, did any portion of any of those conversations or meetings include any reference to any aspect of the June 9 meeting? If yes, describe who you spoke with and the substance of the conversation.TRUMP:Response to Question I, Part (d): I have no independent recollection of what portion of these four days in June of 2016 I spent in Trump Tower. This was one of many busy months during a fast-paced campaign, as the primary season was ending and we were preparing for the general election campaign.I am now aware that my Campaign’s calendar indicates that I was in New York City from June 6-9, 2016. Calendars kept in my Trump Tower office reflect that I had various calls and meetings scheduled for each of these days. While those calls and meetings may or may not actually have taken place, they do indicate that I was in Trump Tower during a portion of each of these working days, and I have no reason to doubt that I was. When I was in New York City, I stayed at my Trump Tower apartment.My Trump Organization desk calendar also reflects that I was outside Trump Tower during portions of these days. The June 7, 2016 calendar indicates I was scheduled to leave Trump Tower in the early evening for Westchester where I gave remarks after winning the California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, and South Dakota Republican primaries held that day. The June 8, 2016 calendar indicates a scheduled departure in late afternoon to attend a ceremony at my son’s school. The June 9, 2016 calendar indicates I was scheduled to attend midday meetings and a fundraising luncheon at the Four Seasons Hotel. At this point, I do not remember on what dales these events occurred, but I do not currently have a reason to doubt that they took place as scheduled on my calendar.Widely available media reports, including television footage, also shed light on my activities during these days. For example, I am aware that my June 7, 2016 victory remarks at the Trump National Golf Club in Briarcliff Manor, New York, were recorded and published by the media. I remember winning those primaries and generally recall delivering remarks that evening.At this point in time, I do not remember whether I spoke or met with Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner on June 9, 2016. My desk calendar indicates I was scheduled to meet with Paul Manafort on the morning of June 9, but I do not recall if that meeting took place. It was more than two years ago, at a time when I had many calls and interactions daily.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:e. Did you communicate directly or indirectly with any member or representative of the Agalarov family after June 3, 2016? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, and the substance of the communication.TRUMP:Response to Question I, Part (e): I have no independent recollection of any communications I had with the Agalarov family or anyone I understood to be a representative of the Agalarov family after June 3, 2016 and before the end of the campaign. While preparing to respond to these questions, I have become aware of written communications with the Agalarovs during the campaign that were sent, received, and largely authored by my staff and which I understand have already been produced to you.In general, the documents include congratulatory letters on my campaign victories, emails about a painting Emin and Aras Agalarov arranged to have delivered to Trump Tower as a birthday present, and emails regarding delivery of a book written by Aras Agalarov. The documents reflect that the deliveries were screened by the Secret Service.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:f. Did you learn of any communications between Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner and any member or representative of the Agalarov family, Natalia Veselnitskaya, Rob Goldstone, or any Russian official or contact that took place after June 9, 2016 and concerned the June 9 meeting or efforts by Russia to assist the campaign? If yes, describe who you learned this information from, when, and the substance of what you learned.TRUMP:Response to Question I, Part (f): I do not recall being aware during the campaign of communications between Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Jared Kushner and any member or representative of the Agalarov family, Robert Goldstone, Natalia Veselnitskaya (whose name I was not familiar with), or anyone I understood to be a Russian official.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:g. On June 7, 2016, you gave a speech in which you said, in part, “I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons.”i. Why did you make that statement?ii. What information did you plan to share with respect to the Clintons?iii. What did you believe the source(s) of that information would be?iv. Did you expect any of the information to have come from the June 9 meeting?v. Did anyone help draft the speech that you were referring to? If so, who?vi. Why did you ultimately not give the speech you referenced on June 7, 2016?TRUMP:Response to Question I, Part (g): In remarks I delivered the night I won the California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana, and South Dakota Republican primaries, I said, “I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we’re going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons.” In general, l expected to give a speech referencing the publicly available, negative information about the Clintons, including, for example, Mrs. Clinton’s failed policies, the Clintons’ use of the State Department to further their interests and the interests of the Clinton Foundation, Mrs. Clinton’s improper use of a private server for State Department business, the destruction of 33,000 emails on that server, and Mrs. Clinton’s temperamental unsuitability for the office of President.In the course of preparing to respond to your questions, I have become aware that the Campaign documents already produced to you reflect the drafting, evolution, and sources of information for the speech I expected to give “probably” on the Monday following my June 7, 2016 comments. These documents generally show that the text of the speech was initially drafted by Campaign staff with input from various outside advisors and was based on publicly available material, including, in particular, information from the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer.The Pulse Nightclub terrorist attack took place in the early morning hours of Sunday, June 12, 2016. In light of that tragedy, I gave a speech directed more specifically to national security and terrorism than to the Clintons. That speech was delivered at the Saint Anselm College Institute of Politics in Manchester, New Hampshire, and, as reported, opened with the following:“This was going to be a speech on Hillary Clinton and how bad a President, especially in these times of Radical Islamic Terrorism, she would be. Even her former Secret Service Agent, who has seen her under pressure and in times of stress, has stated that she lacks the temperament and integrity to be president. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss these important issues at a later time, and I will deliver that speech soon. But today there is only one thing to discuss: the growing threat of terrorism inside of our borders.”I continued to speak about Mrs. Clinton’s failings throughout the campaign, using the information prepared for inclusion in the speech to which I referred on June 7, 2016.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:h. Did any person or entity inform you during the campaign that Vladimir Putin or the Russian government supported your candidacy or opposed the candidacy of Hillary Clinton? If yes, describe the source(s) of the information, when you were informed, and the content of such discussion(s).TRUMP:Response to Question I, Part (h): I have no recollection of being told during the campaign that Vladimir Putin or the Russian government “supported” my candidacy or “opposed” the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. However, I was aware of some reports indicating that President Putin had made complimentary statements about me.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:i. Did any person or entity inform you during the campaign that any foreign government or foreign leader, other than Russia or Vladimir Putin, had provided, wished to provide, or offered to provide tangible support to your campaign, including by way of offering to provide negative information on Hillary Clinton? If yes, describe the source(s) of the information, when you were informed, and the content of such discussion(s).TRUMP:Response to Question I, Part (i): I have no recollection of being told during the campaign that any foreign government or foreign leader had provided, wished to provide, or offered to provide tangible support to my campaign.___II. RUSSIAN HACKING/RUSSIAN EFFORTS USING SOCIAL MEDIA/WIKILEAKSSPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:a. On June 14, 2016, it was publicly reported that computer hackers had penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and that Russian intelligence was behind the unauthorized access, or hack. Prior to June 14, 2016, were you provided any information about any potential or actual hacking of the computer systems or email accounts of the DNC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the Clinton Campaign, Hillary Clinton, or individuals associated with the Clinton campaign? If yes, describe who provided this information, when, and the substance of the information.TRUMP:Response to Question II, Part (a): I do not remember the date on which it was publicly reported that the DNC had been hacked, but my best recollection is that I learned of the hacking at or shortly after the time it became the subject of media reporting. I do not recall being provided any information during the campaign about the hacking of any of the named entities or individuals before it became the subject of media reporting.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:b. On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks released nearly 20,000 emails sent or received by Democratic party officials.i. Prior to the July 22, 2016 release, were you aware from any source that WikiLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, DCLeaks, or Russians had or potentially had possession of or planned to release emails or information that could help your campaign or hurt the Clinton campaign? If yes, describe who you discussed this issue with, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).ii. After the release of emails by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016, were you told that WikiLeaks possessed or might possess additional information that could be released during the campaign? If yes, describe who provided this information, when, and what you were told.TRUMP:Response to Question II, Part (b): I recall that in the months leading up to the election there was considerable media reporting about the possible hacking and release of campaign-related information and there was a lot of talk about this matter. At the time, I was generally aware of these media reports and may have discussed these issues with my campaign staff or others, but at this point in time — more than two years later — I have no recollection of any particular conversation, when it occurred, or who the participants were.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:c. Are you aware of any communications during the campaign, directly or indirectly, between Roger Stone, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Rick Gates and (a) WikiLeaks, (b) Julian Assange, (c) other representatives of WikiLeaks, (d) Guccifer 2.0, (e) representatives of Guccifer 2.0, or (f) representatives of DCLeaks? If yes, describe who provided you with this information, when you learned of the communications, and what you know about those communications.TRUMP:Response to Question II, Part (c): I do not recall being aware during the campaign of any communications between the individuals named in Question II (c) and anyone I understood to be a representative of WikiLeaks or any of the other individuals or entities referred to in the question.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:d. On July 27, 2016, you stated at a press conference: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”i. Why did you make that request of Russia, as opposed to any other country, entity, or individual?ii. In advance of making that statement, what discussions, if any, did you have with anyone else about the substance of the statement?iii. Were you told at any time before or after you made that statement that Russia was attempting to infiltrate or hack computer systems or email accounts of Hillary Clinton or her campaign? If yes, describe who provided this information, when, and what you were told.TRUMP:Response to Question II, Part (d): I made the statement quoted in Question II (d) in jest and sarcastically, as was apparent to any objective observer. The context of the statement is evident in the full reading or viewing of the July 27, 2016 press conference, and I refer you to the publicly available transcript and video of that press conference. I do not recall having any discussion about the substance of the statement in advance of the press conference. I do not recall being told during the campaign of any efforts by Russia to infiltrate or hack the computer systems or email accounts of Hillary Clinton or her campaign prior to them becoming the subject of media reporting and I have no recollection of any particular conversation in that regard.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:e. On October 7, 2016, emails hacked from the account of John Podesta were released by WikiLeaks.i. Where were you on October 7, 2016?ii. Were you told at any time in advance of, or on the day of, the October 7 release that WikiLeaks possessed or might possess emails related to John Podesta? If yes, describe who told you this, when, and what you were told.iii. Are you aware of anyone associated with you or your campaign, including Roger Stone, reaching out to WikiLeaks, either directly or through an intermediary, on or about October 7, 2016? If yes, identify the person and describe the substance of the conversations or contacts.TRUMP:Response to Question II, Part (e): I was in Trump Tower in New York City on October 7, 2016. I have no recollection of being told that WikiLeaks possessed or might possess emails related to John Podesta before the release of Mr. Podesta’s emails was reported by the media. Likewise, I have no recollection of being told that Roger Stone, anyone acting as an intermediary for Roger Stone, or anyone associated with my campaign had communicated with WikiLeaks on October 7, 2016.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:f. Were you told of anyone associated with you or your campaign, including Roger Stone, having any discussions, directly or indirectly, with WikiLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, or DCLeaks regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails? If yes, describe who had such contacts, how you became aware of the contacts, when you became aware of the contacts, and the substance of the contacts.TRUMP:Response to Question II, Part (f): I do not recall being told during the campaign that Roger Stone or anyone associated with my campaign had discussions with any of the entities named in the question regarding the content or timing of release of hacked emails.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:g. From June 1, 2016 through the end of the campaign, how frequently did you communicate with Roger Stone? Describe the nature of your communication(s) with Mr. Stone.i. During that time period, what efforts did Mr. Stone tell you he was making to assist your campaign, and what requests, if any, did you make of Mr. Stone?ii. Did Mr. Stone ever discuss WikiLeaks with you or, as far as you were aware, with anyone else associated with the campaign? If yes, describe what you were told, from whom, and when.iii. Did Mr. Stone at any time inform you about contacts he had with WikiLeaks or any intermediary of WikiLeaks, or about forthcoming releases of information? If yes, describe what Stone told you and when.TRUMP:Response to Question ll, Part (g): I spoke by telephone with Roger Stone from time to time during the campaign. I have no recollection of the specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1.2016 and November 8, 2016. I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with him, nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign, although I was aware that WikiLeaks was the subject of media reporting and campaign-related discussion at the time.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:h. Did you have any discussions prior to January 20, 2017, regarding a potential pardon or other action to benefit Julian Assange? If yes, describe who you had the discussion(s) with, when, and the content of the discussion(s).TRUMP:Response to Question II, Part (h): I do not recall having had any discussion during the campaign regarding a pardon or action to benefit Julian Assange.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:i. Were you aware of any efforts by foreign individuals or companies, including those in Russia, to assist your campaign through the use of social media postings or the organization of rallies? If yes, identify who you discussed such assistance with, when, and the content of the discussion(s).TRUMP:Response to Question II, Part (i): I do not recall being aware during the campaign of specific efforts by foreign individuals or companies to assist my campaign through the use of social media postings or the organization of rallies.___III. THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION MOSCOW PROJECTSPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:a. In October 2015, a “Letter of Intent,” a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B, was signed for a proposed Trump Organization project in Moscow (the “Trump Moscow project”).i. When were you first informed of discussions about the Trump Moscow project? By whom? What were you told about the project?ii. Did you sign the letter of intent?b. In a statement provided to Congress, attached as Exhibit C, Michael Cohen stated: “To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Trump was never in contact with anyone about this proposal other than me on three occasions, including signing a non-binding letter of intent in 2015.” Describe all discussions you had with Mr. Cohen, or anyone else associated with the Trump Organization, about the Trump Moscow project, including who you spoke with, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).c. Did you learn of any communications between Michael Cohen or Felix Sater and any Russian government officials, including officials in the office of Dmitry Peskov, regarding the Trump Moscow project? If so, identify who provided this information to you, when, and the substance of what you learned.d. Did you have any discussions between June 2015 and June 2016 regarding a potential trip to Russia by you and/or Michael Cohen for reasons related to the Trump Moscow project? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).e. Did you at any time direct or suggest that discussions about the Trump Moscow project should cease, or were you informed at any time that the project had been abandoned? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and why that decision was made.f. Did you have any discussions regarding what information would be provided publicly or in response to investigative inquiries about potential or actual investments or business deals the Trump Organization had in Russia, including the Trump Moscow project? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).g. Aside from the Trump Moscow project, did you or the Trump Organization have any other prospective or actual business interests, investments, or arrangements with Russia or any Russian interest or Russian individual during the campaign? If yes, describe the business interests, investments, or arrangements.TRUMP:Response to Question III, Parts (a) through (g): Sometime in 2015, Michael Cohen suggested to me the possibility of a Trump Organization project in Moscow. As I recall, Mr. Cohen described this as a proposed project of a general type we have done in the past in a variety of locations. I signed the non-binding Letter of Intent attached to your questions as Exhibit B which required no equity or expenditure on our end and was consistent with our ongoing efforts to expand into significant markets around the world.I had few conversations with Mr. Cohen on this subject. As I recall, they were brief, and they were not memorable. I was not enthused about the proposal, and I do not recall any discussion of travel to Russia in connection with it. I do not remember discussing it with anyone else at the Trump Organization, although it is possible. I do not recall being aware at the time of any communications between Mr. Cohen or Felix Sater and any Russian government official regarding the Letter of Intent. In the course of preparing to respond to your questions, I have become aware that Mr. Cohen sent an email regarding the Letter of Intent to “Mr. Peskov” at a general, public email account, which should show there was no meaningful relationship with people in power in Russia. I understand those documents already have been provided to you.I vaguely remember press inquiries and media reporting during the campaign about whether the Trump Organization had business dealings in Russia. I may have spoken with campaign staff or Trump Organization employees regarding responses to requests for information, but I have no current recollection of any particular conversation, with whom I may have spoken, when, or the substance of any conversation. As I recall, neither I nor the Trump Organization had any projects or proposed projects in Russia during the campaign other than the Letter of Intent.___IV. CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA AND RUSSIA-RELATED ISSUES DURING THE CAMPAIGNSPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:a. Prior to mid-August 2016, did you become aware that Paul Manafort had ties to the Ukrainian government? If yes, describe who you learned this information from, when, and the substance of what you were told. Did Mr. Manafort’s connections to the Ukrainian or Russian governments play any role in your decision to have him join your campaign? If yes, describe that role.b. Were you aware that Paul Manafort offered briefings on the progress of your campaign to Oleg Deripaska? If yes, describe who you learned this information from, when, the substance of what you were told, what you understood the purpose was of sharing such information with Mr. Deripaska, and how you responded to learning this information.c. Were you aware of whether Paul Manafort or anyone else associated with your campaign sent or directed others to send internal Trump campaign information to any person located in Ukraine or Russia or associated with the Ukrainian or Russian governments? If yes, identify who provided you with this information, when, the substance of the discussion(s), what you understood the purpose was of sharing the internal campaign information, and how you responded to learning this information.d. Did Paul Manafort communicate to you, directly or indirectly, any positions Ukraine or Russia would want the U.S. to support? If yes, describe when he communicated those positions to you and the substance of those communications.TRUMP:Response to Question IV, Parts (a) through (d): Mr. Manafort was hired primarily because of his delegate work for prior presidential candidates, including Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole. I knew that Mr. Manafort had done international consulting work and, at some time before Mr. Manafort left the campaign, I learned that he was somehow involved with individuals concerning Ukraine, but I do not remember the specifics of what I knew at the time.l had no knowledge of Mr. Manafort offering briefings on the progress of my campaign to an individual named Oleg Deripaska, nor do I remember being aware of Mr. Manafort or anyone else associated with my campaign sending or directing others to send internal Trump Campaign information to anyone I knew to be in Ukraine or Russia at the time or to anyone I understood to be a Ukrainian or Russian government employee or official. I do not remember Mr. Manafort communicating to me any particular positions Ukraine or Russia would want the United States to support.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:e. During the campaign, were you told about efforts by Russian officials to meet with you or senior members of your campaign? If yes, describe who you had conversations with on this topic, when, and what you were told.TRUMP:Response to Question IV, Part (e): I do not recall being told during the campaign of efforts by Russian officials to meet with me or with senior members of my campaign. In the process of preparing to respond to these questions, I became aware that on March 17, 2016, my assistant at the Trump Organization, Rhona Graff, received an email from a Sergei Prikhodko, who identified himself as Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Foundation Roscongress, inviting me to participate in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum to be held in June 2016. The documents show that Ms. Graff prepared for my signature a brief response declining the invitation. I understand these documents already have been produced to you.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:f. What role, if any, did you have in changing the Republican Party platform regarding arming Ukraine during the Republican National Convention? Prior to the convention, what information did you have about this platform provision? After the platform provision was changed, who told you about the change, when did they tell you, what were you told about why it was changed, and who was involved?TRUMP:Response to Question IV, Part (f): I have no recollection of the details of what, when, or from what source I first learned about the change to the platform amendment regarding arming Ukraine, but I generally recall learning of the issue as part of media reporting. I do not recall being involved in changing the language to the amendment.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:g. On July 27, 2016, in response to a question about whether you would recognize Crimea as Russian territory and lift sanctions on Russia, you said: “We’ll be looking at that. Yeah, we’ll be looking.” Did you intend to communicate by that statement or at any other time during the campaign a willingness to lift sanctions and/or recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea if you were elected?i. What consideration did you give to lifting sanctions and/or recognizing Russia’s annexation of Crimea if you were elected? Describe who you spoke with about this topic, when, the substance of the discussion(s).TRUMP:Response to Question IV, Part (g): My statement did not communicate any position.___V. CONTACTS WITH RUSSIA AND RUSSIA-RELATED ISSUES DURING THE TRANSITIONSPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:a. Were you asked to attend the World Chess Championship gala on November 10, 2016? If yes, who asked you to attend, when were you asked, and what were you told about why your presence was requested?i. Did you attend any part of the event? If yes, describe any interactions you had with any Russians or representatives of the Russian government at the event.TRUMP:Response to Question V, Part (a): I do not remember having been asked to attend the World Chess Championship gala, and I did not attend the event. During the course of preparing to respond to these questions, I have become aware of documents indicating that in March of 2016, the president of the World Chess Federation invited the Trump Organization to host, at Trump Tower, the 2016 World Chess Championship Match to be held in New York in November 2016. I have also become aware that in November 2016 , there were press inquiries to my staff regarding whether I had plans to attend the tournament , which was not being held at Trump Tower. I understand these documents have already been provided to you.SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:b. Following the Obama Administration’s imposition of sanctions on Russia in December 2016 (“Russia sanctions”), did you discuss with Lieutenant General (LTG) Michael Flynn, K.T. McFarland, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Jared Kushner, Erik Prince, or anyone else associated with the transition what should be communicated to the Russian government regarding the sanctions? If yes, describe who you spoke with about this issue, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).c. On December 29 and December 31, 2016, LTG Flynn had conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the Russia sanctions and Russia’s response to the Russia sanctions.i. Did you direct or suggest that LTG Flynn have discussions with anyone from the Russian government about the Russia sanctions?ii. Were you told in advance of LTG Flynn’s December 29, 2016 conversation that he was going to be speaking with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, describe who told you this information, when, and what you were told. If no, when and from whom did you learn of LTG Flynn’s December 29, 2016 conversation with Ambassador Kislyak?iii. When did you learn of LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak’s call on December 31, 2016? Who told you and what were you told?iv. When did you learn that sanctions were discussed in the December 29 and December 31, 2016 calls between LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak? Who told you and what were you told?d. At any time between December 31, 2016, and January 20, 2017, did anyone tell you or suggest to you that Russia’s decision not to impose reciprocal sanctions was attributable in any way to LTG Flynn’s communications with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, identify who provided you with this information, when, and the substance of what you were told.e. On January 12, 2017, the Washington Post published a column that stated that LTG Flynn phoned Ambassador Kislyak several times on December 29, 2016. After learning of the column, did you direct or suggest to anyone that LTG Flynn should deny that he discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, who did you make this suggestion or direction to, when, what did you say, and why did you take this step?i. After learning of the column, did you have any conversations with LTG Flynn about his conversations with Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016? If yes, describe when those discussions occurred and the content of the discussions.f. Were you told about a meeting between Jared Kushner and Sergei Gorkov that took place in December 2016?i. If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of the meeting.g. Were you told about a meeting or meetings between Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev or any other representative from the Russian government that took place in January 2017?i. If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of the meeting(s).h. Prior to January 20, 2017, did you talk to Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, or any other individual associated with the transition regarding establishing an unofficial line of communication with Russia? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of such an unofficial line of communication.TRUMP:(No answer provided.)As the Chart below shows, there were at least 7 acts by Trump that would constitute criminal Obstruction of Justice.Obstruction of Justice Requires an Obstructive Act (anything that blocks, makes difficult or hinders the investigation) Corrupt intent (knowledge, by Trump, that he was acting improperly or with corrupt motives), and a nexus to an official proceeding (knowledge, by Trump, that there was an active investigation or court case when the obstruction occurred).Event Obstructive Act Intent NexusAsked Comey to let Flynn case goYesYesYesAsked McGahn to stop Sessions’s recusalUnknownYesYesFired ComeyYesYesYesTried to Fire MuellerYesYesYesTried to get the investigation to only focus on future electionsYesYesYesLied to the press about the Trump Tower MeetingNoNoNoTried to have Sessions Take over Mueller InvestigationYesYesYesOrdered McGahn to deny Trump’s attempt to fire MuellerYesYesYesAttempted to influence Michael FlynnUnknownUnk.YesAttempted to influence ManafortYesYesYesAttempted to influence Manafort’s JuryYesUnkYesAttempted to influence Michael Cohen’s TestimonyUnknownYesYesPublic attacks on Cohen, and his family, after Cohen’s cooperationYesYesYesIn 2017, the President of the United States did a range of things toward the ongoing FBI investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election and matters related to the investigation. The President’s actions raised questions about whether he had obstructed justice.The Special Counsel’s office was given jurisdiction to investigate matters arising from the FBI’s Russia investigation. This jurisdiction included whether the President had obstructed justice in connection with matters related to Russia, as well as potentially obstructive actions in relation to the Special Counsel’s investigation.A traditional decision to prosecute a case for obstruction of justice is binary. The prosecutor decides whether to initiate or decline a prosecution. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued a finding that “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.” in violation “of the constitutional separation of powers.”The Special Counsel recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s ability to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing the President’s potential misconduct.The OLC opinion does recognize that a criminal investigation while the President is in office is permissible. The opinion also recognizes that a President may be prosecuted after he leaves office. The opinion also recognizes that if individuals other than the President committed obstruction, they may be prosecuted. The Special Counsel conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve evidence and interview witnesses while their memories were fresh.The Special Counsel’s office considered whether to evaluate the investigated conduct under the Justice Manual standards governing prosecutorial decisions, but determined to refrain from applying an approach that could potentially result in a judgment the President committed crimes. There were fairness concerns regarding reaching a prosecutorial judgment where no charges could be brought. The procedural protections of a criminal case and a speedy and public trial would not be available. An individual, believing himself to be wrongfully accused, and seeking to clear his name could not use the speedy and public trial process for that purpose. A prosecutorial judgment that crimes were committed, but no charges could be brought offers no adversarial opportunity for public name clearing before an impartial adjudicator.In the case of a sitting President, fairness concerns are heightened where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequences extending beyond the realm of criminal justice. Sealed indictments raised similar concerns with the OLC. The OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve an indictment’s secrecy.”Were a sealed indictment to become public, the “stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President's ability to govern.If the Special Counsel had confidence, following a thorough factual investigation, that the President did not commit obstruction of justice, the Special Counsel would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, the Special Counsel was unable to reach that judgment. However, the evidence obtained by the Special Counsel, regarding the President’s actions and intent presented the Special Counsel with difficult issues preventing the Office from reaching conclusive determinations that criminal conduct occurred. Thus, while the Special Counsel’s report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.****The Special Counsel’s Report, Volume II, consists of four parts. Section 1 provides an overview of obstruction of justice principles and summarizes certain investigatory and evidentiary considerations. Section 2 sets forth factual results of the obstruction investigation and analyzes the evidence. Section 3 addresses statutory and constitutional defenses. Section 4 states the conclusion of the Special Counsel.There are three basic elements common to most obstruction of justice statutes relative to President Trump’s conduct. 1. An obstructive act; 2. A nexus between the obstructive act and an official proceeding; and 3. A corrupt intent. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, 1512(c)(2)The statutes involving witness tampering see 18 U.S.C. § I 512(b )And and attempted offenses and endeavors to obstruct justice are also relevant to President Trump’s conduct, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1512(c)(2)Executive Summary to Volume 2The Special Counsel’s inquiry into obstruction of justice focused on a series of actions by the President relating to the Russian-interference investigation, including the President’s conduct toward the law enforcement officials overseeing the investigations and the witnesses to relevant events.Factual Results of the Obstruction Investigation:The Campaign’s response to reports regarding Russia’s support for Trump.Questions arose during the 2016 presidential campaign regarding the Russian government’s apparent support for candidate Trump. Trump differed from other candidates by speaking of closer ties with Russia, saying he and President Putin would get along well and praising him as a “strong leader.” He also differed from other candidates by questioning whether the NATO alliance was obsolete. Following the release of damaging Democratic Party emails reported to have been hacked by Russia, Trump publicly expressed skepticism that Russia was behind the hacks. At the same time, he and other campaign officials privately sought information about further planned releases by WikiLeaks. As late as June 2016,the Trump organization had been pursuing a licensing deal for a proposed Russian skyscraper to be known as Trump Tower Moscow.Despite this, Trump denied having any business connections to Russia. Following his election, Trump told his advisors that reports of Russian election interference might cause the public to question the legitimacy of his electoral victory.Starting in February 2016, reports began to surface of Trump campaign advisors ties to Russia. Michael Flynn was seated next to Putin at an RT and appeared regularly on RT as an analyst. Carter Page had ties to a Russian state-run gas company. Campaign chairman Paul Manafort had done work for “Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.” The press also exposed the changing of the Republican platform’s stance on giving “weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces.On June 14, 2016, WikiLeaks posted thousands of hacked emails from the DNC. Intelligence agencies told the White House they had high confidence the Russian government was behind the theft of DNC documents. The Trump campaign reacted with enthusiasm to reports of the hacks. Some witnesses said Trump himself spoke of the upcoming releases. Michael Cohen recalled that Trump responded, “oh good, alright.”Manafort said that shortly after WikiLeaks July 16, 2016 release of hacked documents that he spoke to Trump. Trump told Rick Gates that more damaging information would be coming.In the summer of 2016, the Trump campaign was planning a communications strategy based on the release of Clinton emails by WikiLeaks.The Trump campaign deflected reports of Russian interference. Trump said the Russia’s hack of the emails was unproven, he stated “this whole thing with Russia” was a “total deflection” and that it was “farfetched” and “ridiculous.” Trump called for Russia to help find the Clinton emails: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope yoiu’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you’ll be rewarded mightily by our press.” Trump also said, “there’s nothing that I can think of that I’d rather do than have Russia friendly as opposed to the way they are right now.” Responding to a question regarding the recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and lifting sanctions on Russia, Trump said, “We’ll be looking at that. Yeah, we’ll be looking.”Trump repeated, “I have nothing to do with Russia” five times. Trump said, “The closest (he) came to Russia” was that Russians may have purchased homes or condos from him. Trump said that following the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow in 2013, he had been amenable to working with Russians that “wanted to put a lot of money into developments in Russia” but “it never worked out.” Trump said, “(f)rankly, I didn’t want to do it for a couple of different reasons. But we had a major developer...that wanted to develop property in Moscow and other places. But we decided not to do it.” On the contrary, the Trump Organization had been attempting to make a deal for Trump Tower Moscow from September 2015 to June 2016. Trump was regularly updated on the project. These updates included possible trips by Michael Cohen to Moscow to promote the project and for Trump to finalize the deal. The Trump campaign developed a “party line” that Trump had no business with Russia and no connections to Russia.The Trump campaign reacted to reports of Russian interference to help Trump by distancing itself from Russian connections. In August 2016, J.D. Gordon did not accept an invitation to Ambassador Kislyak’s residence because the timing was “not optimal in light of media reports of Russian influence. Manafort was asked to resign on August 19, 2016, following media coverage of his ties to a pro-Russian political party in the Ukraine and Russian businesses. Carter Page was disassociated from the campaign in September 2016 following reports about his connections to Russia.WikiLeaks released the first set of Podesta’s stolen emails on October 7, 2016. That day, the U.S. government directly linked the Russian hacking and the WikiLeaks releases, with the goal of election interference, announcing “The Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.” The U.S. government concluded “only Russia’s senior-most officials cold have authorized these activities.” based on their “scope and sensitivity”Podesta stated on October 11, 2016 that the FBI was investigating Russia’s hacking and said candidate Trump may have known in advance of the WikiLeaks releases. Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence said “nothing could be further from the truth” when asked about whether the Trump campaign was “in cahoots” with WikiLeaks in their releases of damaging Clinton-related information.After the election, Trump continued to deny connections with Russia or that Russia helped him get elected. Two days after the election, Russian officials told the press that the Russian government had maintained contacts with Trump’s “immediate entourage” during the campaign. Trump campaign spokesperson, Hope Hicks, said: “We are not aware of any campaign representatives that were in touch with any foreign entities before yesterday, when Mr. Trump spoke with many world leaders.” She also said, “It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”After the press reported U.S. Intelligence conclusions that “Russia interfered in last month’s presidential election to boost Donald Trump’s bid for the White House.” Trump responded, “I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse.” Trump continued to state the IC had “no idea if it’s Russia or China or somebody. It could be somebody sitting on a bed some place.”He also said Democrats were “putting () out” the story of Russian interference “because they suffered one of the greatest defeats in the history of politics.”On December 18, 2016, Reince Priebus, Trump’s incoming Chief of Staff, declined to state whether the Trump accepted the IC’s determination that russia intervened in the election. On Fox News, he was asked whether there was contact or coordination between the campaign and Russia. He responded, “Even this question is insane. Of course we didn’t interface with the Russians… This whole thing is a spin job… the real question is, why Democrats...are doing everything they can to delegitimize the outcome of the election.?”The Obama Administration announces sanctions, on December 29, 2016, on several Russians and Russian entities in response to the Russian attack on the election. In response to a query about the sanctions, Trump said “It’s time for our country to move on to bigger and better things.” He was briefed on the Russian interference by the IC on January 6, 2017.Days later, BuzzFeed published the Steele Dossier. The president called the release “an absolute disgrace” and said, “I have no dealings with Russia. I have no deals that could happen in Russia, because we’ve stayed away… So I have no deals, I have no loans and I have no dealings. We could make deals in Russia very easily if we wanted to, I just don’t want to because I think that would be a conflict.” Trump advisors said Trump felt the IC assessment and stories about Russian election interference were a threat to the legitimacy of his victory. Hicks, Gates, Spicer and Priebus all issued statements supporting this.FBI Director Comey, Michael Flynn and President Trump.Michael Flynn, Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor, falsely denied that he had spoken with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about Russia’s response to U.S. sanctions in response to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Flynn had two calls with Kislyak regarding upcoming sanctions. The Special Counsel found Flynn lied to the Vice President, other administration officials, and the FBI. The day after learning of Flynn’s conduct, the President invited FBI Director Comey to a private dinner at the White House. At the dinner, he told Comey he needed loyalty. On February 14, 2017, the day after requesting Flynn’s resignation,the President told an outside advisor, “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.” On December 29, 2016, Flynn made the calls to Kislyak. He coordinated his response to Kislyak with Trump affiliates at Mar-a-Lago through K.T. McFarland. Following the Russian announcement they would not take retaliatory measures in response to the sanctions, Trump tweeted, “Great move on delay (by V. Putin) - I always knew he was very smart!”During the afternoon of February 14, 2017, The President cleared the Oval Office to have a meeting with Comey, one-on-one. The President told Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He’s a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Shortly thereafter, the President sought to have Deputy National Security Advisor K.T. McFarland draft an internal letter stating that the president had directed Flynn not to discuss sanctions with Kislyak.McFarland declined, because she did not know whether that was true, and a White House Counsel felt that would look like a quid pro quo for the offer of her ambassadorship position.The IC was surprised by Russia’s decision not to retaliate in response to the sanctions. The IC became aware of Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak when analyzing Russia’s response. Flynn’s Kislyak conversations became a key component of an FBI investigation already open into his ties with the Russian government.Following the Trump’s January 6, 2017 briefing by the IC, Comey spoke with Trump privately to brief him on personally sensitive allegations in the Steele dossier. Trump responded by telling Comey he thought highly of him and looked forward to working with him, and that he hoped Comey would stay on as FBI director. Comey recalled the president seemed defensive when confronted with the sensitive material from the Steele dossier.Following the Buzzfeed report on the Steele dossier, Trump expressed concern the information had leaked and asked whether members of the IC could refute the allegations in the Steele reports.President Trump called Priebus following at Washington Post story about whether Flynn’s Kislyak communications were a violation of the Logan Act, asking “What the hell is this all about?” Priebus called Flynn, told he he’d spoken to the “boss” and pressured him to “kill the story.” Flynn directed K.T. McFarland to call the Washington Post and, though she knew she was lying, she told the Post that Flynn and Kislyak had not discussed sanctions.When Priebus, Spicer, and Pence questioned him about the Post story, he maintained that he had not discussed sanctions with Kislyak. These officials denied Flynn had discussed sanctions in media reports. DOJ officials were alarmed by these media reports that they knew to be false. The DOJ determined the Russians could prove Flynn lied, and the calls raised potential Logan Act issues.Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017 and Flynn was sworn in as National Security Advisor. On January 23, 2017, Sean Spicer said in a press briefing that he had spoken with Flynn and the Kislyak calls were unrelated to sanctions. Flynn agreed to an FBI interview on January 24, 2017. At the interview, Flynn lied about whether he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak and about whether Russia would moderate its response at Flynn’s request.Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, contacted White House Counsel Don McGahn on January 26, 2017. Yates and senior national security offical Mary McCord met at the White House with McGahn and White House Counsel attorney James Burnham. Yates informed the White House attorneys about Flynn’s compromised position and that Pence’s statements regarding Flynn were untrue. McGahn left the meeting under the impression the FBI hadn’t pinned down Flynn in lies. However, he asked NSC legal counsel John Eisenberg to examine potential legal issues raised by Flynn’s FBI interview and Kislyak contacts.Upon being informed of the substance of Yates visit, Trump asked about the relevant law, and asked McGahn to work with Priebus and Bannon to look into the matter. Priebus recalled the President was angry with Flynn, and said, “not again, this guy, this stuff.”On the evening of January 26, 2017, Trump dined with senior advisors, including Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. He asked the group what they thought about Comey. Coats replied that he thought Comey was a good directory, and encouraged Trump to spend time with him before making a termination decision.On January 27, 2017, McGahn and Eisenberg discussed the results of Eisenberg’s legal research into Flynn’s conduct and potential violations of the Espionage Act, Logan Act, and 18 U.S.C SS 1001. The consensus was Flynn was unlikely to be prosecuted under the Logan Act.Yates returned to the White House that morning on McGahn’s invitation. McGahn expressed doubts there would be a Logan Act prosecution, but said the White House did not want to interfere with an ongoing FBI investigation. Yates responded that DOJ was notifying the White House so it could respond to the information. McGahn asked Yatesfor underlying information in DOJ’s possession regarding Flynn/Kislyak discussions.Later that day, Trump called Director Comey and invited him to dinner. Priebus recalled telling Trump, “don’t talk about Russia, whatever you do,: and the Trump promised not to talk about Russia during dinner. Bannon suggested Priebus attend the dinner. Trump stated he wanted to dine with Comey alone. Comey was surprised to find he and Trump had reservations for two.Comey’s account of the dinner is detailed in a contemporaneous memo, Special Counsel’s office interview, and congressional testimony. According to Comey, Trump repeatedly brought up Comey’s future, and asked him if he wanted to remain FBI director. Comey felt Trump was attempting to create a patronage relationship. Trump also brought up Steele’s dossier, and stated he was thinking about ordering the FBI to investigate the allegations to prove them false. Comey said Trump should be careful about that, because it could create a narrative that the FBI was investigating him personally, which was incorrect. Trump brought up Flynn and said, “the guy has serious judgment issues.” Comey made no comment nor did he divulge the FBI’s interest in Flynn. Comey stated that during the dinner, Trump stated, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” Comey did not respond. At the end of the dinner Trump again said, “I need loyalty.” Comey responded, “You will always get honesty from me.” Trump said, “That’s what I want, honest loyalty.” Comey said, “You will get that from me.”Trump and his associates denied Comey’s account of the dinner once it became public. Trump also stated he thought Comey had “asked for the dinner” because he “wanted to stay on.” However, there is substantial evidence that supports Comey’s account of the dinner and loyalty request, including the President’s Daily Diary. Comey documented the loyalty request in a memo he began drafting the night of the dinner. Comey also told senior FBI officials about the loyalty request shortly after the dinner. He also affirmed his account under oath in congressional testimony and to FBI agents. His memory of the dinner has remained consistent.Flynn had conversations with Trump in the Oval Office about negative media coverage of his conversations with Kislyak. According to Flynn, Trump was upset and asked for information about the conversations. Trump asked him about the substance of the conversations, and he said they may have been about sanctions.Following a Washington Post report that Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak, Pence learned of the DOJ’s notification to the White House about the content of Flynn’s calls. Pence and other Trump associates sought access to and reviewed the underlying information regarding the conversations. FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe recalled giving the White House officials access to the information. The officials asked whether Flynn’s conduct violated the Logan Act. McCabe responded that he did not know, but the FBI was investigating the matter. McGahn and Priebus concluded Flynn had been lying about the substance of the conversations and recommended that he be fired.Flynn accompanied Trump to Mar-a-Lago on February 12, 2017. Trump hugged him and told him, “We’ll give you a good recommendation. You’re a good guy. We’ll take care of you.The day after Flynn’s resignation, on February 13, 2017, Trump and Chris Christie had lunch. Trump said, “Now that we fired Flynn, the Russia thing is over.” Christie laughed, responding, “No way….”this Russia thing is far from over” adn “(w)e’ll be here on Valentine’s Day 2018 talking about this.” Trump said, (w)hat do you mean? Flynn met with the Russians. That was the problem. I fired Flynn. It’s over.” Christie responded that based on his experience as a prosecutor and the subject of an investigation, firing Flynn would not stop the investigation. He told Trump there was no way to make an investigation shorter, but lots of ways to make it longer and not to talk about the investigation, even if he was frustrated. Christie also said Flynn would be tough to get rid of, “like gum on the bottom of your shoe.”Trump asked Christie if he was still friendly with Comey. Christie affirmed that he was. Trump asked Christie to tell Comey that the President “really like(s) him. Tell him he’s part of the team.” Trump repeated his request that Christie reach out to Comey. However, Christie had no intention of complying with Trump’s request. He felt Trump was being nonsensical, and did not want to put Comey in the position of receiving that message, and felt uncomfortable passing it on himself.At 4 p.m. on February 13, 2017, Trump met with Comey, Sessions, and other officials for a Homeland Security briefing. Trump dismissed the others at the briefing to speak with Comey alone. Once they were alone, Trump said, “I want to talk about Mike Flynn.” He told Comey, Flynn had done nothing wrong in his conversations with the Russians, but that he fired him because Flynn had misled Pence. They then discussed unauthorized leaks of classified information. Trump returned the conversation to Flynn saying, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Comey agreed that Flynn “is a good guy.” However, he did not agree to end the Flynn investigation. Comey testified that he took Trump’s statement “as a direction” because of Trump’s position and the circumstances surrounding the meeting.Comey drafted a contemporaneous memorandum detailing the conversation. He also met with senior leadership to discuss Trump’s request. They agreed not to inform the FBI team working on the Flynn matter to avoid influencing them. Comey also asked for a meeting with Sessions and requested that the Attorney General not leave Comey alone with Trump again.Following Flynn’s resignation, the press questioned the two week delay between the decision to remove Flynn and the DOJ notification. Questions regarding the Trump campaign’s Russia contacts continued to be raised by the press. Trump told reporters on February 15, 2017, “General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he’s been treated very, very unfairly buy the media.” In a press conference on February 16, 2017, Trump said he fired Flynn because Flynn, “didn’t tell the Vice President of the United States the facts, and then he didn’t remember. And that just wasn’t acceptable to me.” Trump said he didn’t direct Flynn to discuss sanctions with Kislyak, but “it certainly would have been okay with me if he did. I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn’t doing it. I didn’t direct him, but I would have directed him because that’s his job.” Trump did not say Flynn lying to him was a reason for firing Flynn. Trump also, again, denied having anything to do with Russia, saying, “I have nothing to do with Russia. I told you, I have no deals there. I have no anything.” Trump also said he “had nothing to do with” the publication of hacked Clinton campaign documents by WikiLeaks.Priebus and Bannon told K.T. McFarland, on February 22, 2017, that Trump wanted her to resign as Deputy National Security Advisor, but said Trump could appoint her to be ambassador of Singapore. The following day, Trump asked Priebus to instruct McFarland to compose an internal email confirming that Trump did not direct Flynn to call Kislyak about sanctions. Priebus said he would do so, only if McFarland was comfortable with writing the email. McFarland said she didn’t know whether Flynn had contacted Kislyak at Trump’s behest. Priebus understood McFarland was uncomfortable with Trump’s request and advised her to speak with attorneys in the White House Counsel’s Office.McFarland reached out to Eisenberg, telling him she’d been fired from her Deputy National Security Advisor Position, and offered the Singapore ambassadorship, and that Priebus wanted a letter denying Trump’s involvement in the Flynn/Kislyak conversations. Eisenberg advised McFarland not to write the letter. McFarland’s contemporaneous “Memorandum for the Record” stated: “Eisenberg...thought the requested email and letter would be a bad idea-from my side because the email would be awkward. Why would T be emailing Priebus to make a statement for the record? But it would also be a bad ide for the President because it looked as if my ambassadorial appointment was in some way a quid pro quo.” Priebus told McFarland later that day to not write the email and forget he even mentioned it.Near that time, Trump asked Priebus to reach out to Flynn and tell him Trump still cared about him. Priebus called Flynn to check in and told Flynn he was an American hero. Priebus felt Trump didn’t want Flynn saying bad things about him.Trump tweeted, on March 31, 2017, “Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!” This outburst followed news reports that Flynn had offered to testify to FBI and Congress in exchange for immunity. Trump asked McFarland, in late March or early April, to tell Flynn that Trump felt bad for him and he should stay strong.3. The President’s reaction to the continuing Russia investigation.Because of his role in the Trump campaign, Attorney General Jeff Sessions began to assess whether he should recuse himself from the Russia investigation, in February 2017. The press reported, on March 1, 2017 that Sessions had not disclosed two meetings with Ambassador Kislyak during his confirmation hearing. Members of Congress began to call for Sessions recusal in the Russia investigation.In early March, Don McGahn was told by the President to stop Sessions from recusing from the investigation. Following Sessions’s recusal on March 2, 2017, the President expressed anger the decision and told his advisors that he should have an Attorney General who would protect him.The president took Sessions aside at an event that weekend and told him to “unrecuse” himself. Later in March, Comey publicly disclosed in congressional testimony that the FBI was investigating “The Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.” The investigation included any links or coordination with the Trump campaign. In the days following Comey’s testimony, the President reached out to the Director of National Intelligence and the leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) to ask them what they could do to publicly dispel the President’s connection to the Russian effort to interfere in the 2016 elections.The President called Comey twice, despite guidance from McGahn to avoid direct contact with the DOJ. During a call on March 1, 2017, Trump told Comey he heard he was “doing great” and he hoped Comey would come by the White House to say hello, he also “talked about Sessions a bit” Comey felt the call was an attempt by Trump to “pull (him) in.” Comey had assured the president that the FBI was not investigating him personally. The President asked Comey to “lift the cloud” of the Russia investigation through public disclosure that he was not being personally investigated. The next day, Trump asked McGahn to contact Sessions and tell him to refrain from recusing himself in the Russia investigation. McGahn understood Trump felt a recusal would make Sessions look guilty for leaving out details in his confirmation hearing; leave Trump vulnerable to the Russia investigation; and detract from favorable press coverage of his recent speech to Congress. McGahn reached out to Sessions and told him Trump was unhappy about his possible recusal. Sessions told McGahn he was going to follow the rules. McGahn told Trump of Sessions’s position and Trump, again, said he did not want Sessions to recuse himself. Over the course of the day, McGahn continued trying on behalf of Trump to lobby for Sessions to avoid recusal. He spoke on the matter with Sessions twice more, and with Sessions’s personal counsel, his Chief of Staff, and Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.Later that afternoon, Sessions said he would recuse “from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.” He believed the recusal decision was not a close call. Sessions had the impression that Trump was very upset with him and had failed his in his duty as Attorney General. The White House Counsel’s Office directed that there be “No contact w/Sessions” and “No comms/Serious concerns about obstruction.”The day after Sessions’s March 2, 2017 recusal, McGann, Priebus and Bannon met Trump in the Oval Office. Trump began the conversation saying, “I don’t have a lawyer.” Trump was angry toward McGahn about Sessions’s recusal and stated he wished Roy Cohn was his attorney because he would fight for Trump while McGahn would not. Trump wanted McGahn to talk to Sessions about his recusal. McGahn told Trump DoJ ethics officials had recommended the recusal. Trump then brought up former Attorneys General Robert Kennedy and Eric Holder, saying they protected their presidents. Trump said, “You’re telling me that Bobby and Jack didn’t talk about investigations? Or Obama didn’t tell Eric Holder who to investigate?” Bannon’s recollection was Trump was as mad as he’d ever seen him as he screamed at McGahn about Sessions’s weakness. Bannon’s recollection was he told Trump that Sessions’s recusal was unsurprising and that before the inauguration they had spoken about Sessions’s future recusal from campaign related investigations.Sessions and McGahn flew to Mar-a-Lago with Trump that weekend. Session’s recollection was Trump spoke with him alone and asked him to “unrecuse” from the investigation. Trump brought up Holder and Kennedy, saying they had strategically helped their presidents, while Sessions had failed to do so. Sessions said his impression was Trump was afraid that the Russia investigation could disrupt his ability to govern, and that Sessions could help avoid this if he were unrecused.The White House Counsel’s Office was informed, on March 5, 2017, of the FBI’s requests for transition-period records relating to Flynn. The next day, Trump told advisors he wanted to call the Acting Attorney General about whether the White House or Trump was being investigated. However, it is unclear whether Trump knew of the Flynn related requests at the time.During a “Gang of Eight” congressional briefing on March 9,2017, Comey identified principal U.S. subjects of the Russia investigation. It is unclear whether Trump knew of that briefing, at that time. However, notes by McGahn’s chief of staff, Annie Donaldson state. “POTUS in panic/chaos… Need binders to put in front of POTUS. 1. All things related to Russia.” A week later, the White House appears to have received information about the briefing from SSCI chairman Sen. Richard Burr.Comey testified before the HPSCI on March 20, 2017. He stated, in opening remarks drafted in consultation with the DOJ, he had “been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of (its) counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes, 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. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.” Comey said he wouldn’t comment further on what the FBI was “doing and whose conduct (it) (was) examining” however, he said he’d taken the “extraordinary step in consultation with the Department of Justice of briefing this Congress’s leaders in a classified setting in detail about the investigation.” Comey declined to answer when asked whether Trump was presently under investigation or under investigation during the campaign. He also declined to answer whether the FBI was investigating information contained in the Steele dossier.Trump expressed frustration with Comey’s testimony, according to McGahn and Donaldson. Trump had criticized Comey for failing to attend White House intelligence briefings and because Trump suspected Comey of leaking information to the media. McGahn said Trump thought Comey was acting like “his own branch of the government.”McGahn, Donaldson, and senior advisor Stephen Miller, recollected that Trump was upset because of Comey’s testimony and correlative media coverage suggesting Trump was under investigation. March 21, 2017 White House Counsel’s office notes show Trump was “beside himself” over Comey’s testimony. Trump repeatedly called McGahn to ask him to intervene with the DOJ. According To WHCO notes, Trump was “getting hotter and hotter, get rid?” WHCO office drafted a memorandum examining whether Trump needed cause to terminate Comey.McGahn contacted Boente repeatedly on March 21, 2017, to gain DOJ assistance in correcting the misperception that Trump was under investigation. Boente didn’t remember that conversation, but did remember talking with McGahn about whether there was a way to speed up, or end, the Russia investigation as quickly as possible. He told McGahn hre was no good way to shorten the investigation, and attempting that could erode confidence in its conclusions. Boente said McGahn agreed and did not further pursue the issue. Trump wanted to talk with Boente directly, but McGahn told him that Boente didn’t want to talk with him about the request to intervene with Comey. McGahn recollected that Boente told him he didn’t think it was sustainable for Comey to remain FBI director for four years. McGahn told this to Trump. Boente did not remember talking with McGahn, or anyone, about the idea that Comey shouldn’t continue as FBI director.In the following weeks, Trump asked IC officials to publicly push back on the suggestion that Trump had a connection to the Russian election interference effort. Trump asked DNI Director Coates and CIA Director Mike Pompeo if they could publicly state there was no link between Trump and Russia. Coates said there was no role for the DNI in the investigation and it was not his role to make a public statement on the investigation. Pompeo had no recollection of being pulled aside with Coats, but recollected Trump regularly asked officials to get the word out that he had nothing to do with anything wrong related to Russia.Coats told the Special Counsel’s Office that Trump didn’t ask him to speak with Comey directly about the FBI investigation. However, some DNI staffers had a different recollection of Coats account of the meeting immediately after its occurrence. DNI saffer Michael Dempsey said Coats said Trump had brought up the investigation and asked him to talk to Comey to determine if there was a way to get past the investigation, get it over with, end it, or words to that effect. Dempsey said Coats said Trump was falling “somewhere between musing about hating the investigation” and wanting Coats to “do something to stop it.” Dempsey said Coats was clear that he wouldn’t intervene in an ongoing FBI investigation. DNI official Edward Gistaro, recalled that Coats said Trump had kept him behind to see what he could do to “help with the investigation.” Another DNI staffer recalled Gistaro reporting Coats was upset because Trump had asked him to contact Comey to convince him there was nothing to do with Russia.Three days later, Trump called Coats again saying, “I can’t do anything with Russia, there’s things I’d like to do with Russia, with trade, with ISIS, they’re all over with this.” Coats told Trump the best thing to do was let the investigations run their course. Coats later testified before Congress that he had “never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way and shape-with shaping intelligence in a political way, or in relationship to an ongoing investigation.”The next day, Trump called NSA Director Admiral Michael Rogers. Trump told Rogers the Russia investigation made relations with Russia difficult. Trump said, “the thing with the Russians (was) messing up” his ability to get things done with Russia. Trump also said the news stories about his ties to Russia were not true and asked if Rogers could do anything to refute the stories. Richard Ledgett, Deputy Director of the NSA, was present for the call. Ledgett said it was the most unusual thing he had experienced in 40 years of government service. Following the call the two NSA officers prepared a memorandum of the call, signed it, and placed it in a safe. However, Rogers did not feel Trump was giving him an order and testified to that effect in before Congress.Trump spoke to other IC community officials in addition to Coats, Pompeo and Rogers about the Russia investigations. At least twice, Trump began his Presidential Daily Briefings by stating there was no collusion with Russia and he hoped a statement to that effect could be issued to the press. Pompeo recalled Trump venting about the investigation many times and complaining nobody would publicly defend him, and there was no evidence against him. Rogers recollected Trump privately vented to him, saying he’d done nothing wrong and saying something to the effect of “Russia thing has got to go away.” Coats finally told Trump Coats’s job was to provide intelligence and not get involved in investigations after Trump brought up the investigation several times.Trump reached out to Comey directly on March 30, 2017. Comey said Trump said he was “trying to run the country and the cloud of this Russia business was making that difficult.” He asked Comey what could be done to “lift the cloud.” Comey told Trump, “that we were running it down as quickly as possible and that there would be great benefit, if we didn’t find anything, to our Good Housekeeping seal of approval, but we had to do our work.” Comey said leaders in Congress were aware that the FBI wasn’t investigating Trump personally. Trump said “We need to get that fact out.” several times. Trump commented that if there was “some satellite” (Comey understood this to refer to a Trump or Trump campaign associate) that did something, “it would be good to find that out” but that he hadn’t done anything wrong and he hoped Comey would “find a way to get that out that we weren’t investigating him.” Comey then called Boente and informed him of the conversation, asking Boente for guidance on how to respond, and conveying that he was not comfortable with direct contact with Trump about the investigation.Trump called Comey again on April 11, 2017. He told him that he was “following up to see if (Comey) did what (Trump) had asked last time -getting out that he personally is not under investigation.” Comey said he’d passed the request to Boente, but had not heard back. He told Trump that the traditional channel for his request would be through DOJ leadership.Trump said he’d take that step, “Because I have been very loyal to you, very loyal, we had that thing, you know. Responding to a question about whether he would call for Comey’s resignation, Trump said, in a televised interview, “No, it’s not too late, but you know, I have confidence in him. We’ll see what happens. You know, it’s going to be interesting.” Following the interview, Hicks told Trump she felt the Comey comment should be removed. Trump wanted to keep the comment in, which Hicks felt was unusual.That same day, Trump told his advisors, including McGahn and Priebus that he’d spoken to Comey twice in recent weeks. Trump told McGahn that Comey indicated the FBI could publicly state Trump wasn’t being investigated if the DOJ approved. McGahn followed up with Boente to relay Trump’s message. McGahn recollected that Boente had said Comey felt Trump’s calls were not obstructive, but nevertheless made him feel uncomfortable. McGahn said Boente told him he didn’t want to make a statement about Trump not being under investigation because of the political ramifications and he didn’t want Comey to do it, because that might give cause for appointing a Special Counsel.4. The President’s firing of James Comey.In congressional testimony on May 3, 2017, Comey declined to answer questions regarding whether the President was personally under investigation. Prior to Comey’s testimony Trump told advisors that he wanted Comey to publicly state that Trump was not under investigation. Days later, the President decided to fire the Director of the FBI, James Comey. The President insisted the letter, written for public release, state that James Comey had informed him that he was not personally under investigation. At a dinner in Bedminster N.J. on May 5, 2017, Trump told various advisors and family members, including Kushner and Stephen Miller, that he had ideas for a letter to fire Comey. He dictated ideas for the letter, and Miller took notes. Miller’s notes reflect that Trump said, “While I greatly appreciate you informing me that I am not under investigation concerning what I have often states is a fabricated story on a Trump-Russia relationship -pertaining to the 2016 presidential election, please be informed that I, and I believe the American public - Including O’s and R's have lost faith in you as Director of the FBI.” Miller prepared a termination letter based on the notes and research to support Trump’s arguments. During that weekend Trump provided several rounds of edits to the draft letter.The final version of the letter stated: Dear Director Comey, While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation concerning the fabricated and politically motivated allegations of a Trump-Russia relationship with respect to the 2016 Presidential Election, please be informed that I, along with members of both political parties, and most importantly, the American Public, have lost faith in you as the Director of the FBI, and you are hereby terminated. The four-page letter criticized Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation, and his failure to hold leakers accountable.On the day of the firing, the White House continued the narrative that Comey’s termination resulted from independent recommendations from the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, that Comey should be discharged for mishandling the Hillary Clinton email investigation. However, the President had decided to fire Comey prior to hearing from the DOJ. the day after firing Comey, the President told Russian officials, in the Oval Office, that he had “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which had been “taken off” by firing Comey. The following day, in an interview with Lester Holt, the President acknowledged he was going to fire Comey regardless of the DOJ recommendation. He stated when he “decided to just do it” he was thinking “this thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story.” When asked if was angry with Comey regarding the Russia investigation, he said “As far as I’m concerned. I want that thing to be absolutely done properly.” He added that firing Comey “might even lengthen out the investigation.”Trump told the Russian Foreign Minister, “I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off… I’m not under investigation.5. The appointment of a Special Counsel and removal efforts by the President.The Acting Attorney General for the Russia investigation appointed a Special Counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and related matters. The President reacted to the news by telling advisors,“Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked. Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won’t be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that’s ever happened to me.”He also demanded Sessions’s resignation, saying “you were supposed to protect me,” and “How could you let this happen, Jeff? Though Sessions submitted his resignation, the President did not ultimately accept it. The President complained to his advisors that the Special Counsel had conflicts and could not serve. Trump complained Mueller’s interviewing for the FBI director job, prior work for a law firm that represented some of Trump’s advisors, and a dispute over membership fees at one of Trump’s golf courses were conflicts of interest for the Special Counsel. His advisors informed him that the conflicts were “ridiculous and petty.” Furthermore, the DOJ had already considered them.The media reported, on June 14, 2017, that the Special Counsel’s Office was investigating whether the President had obstructed justice. The President reacted to this news by tweets critical of the DOJ and the Special Counsel’s investigation. The President directed McGahn, on June 17, 2017, to call the Attorney General and say the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn declined to carry out this directive, instead deciding he would resign rather than trigger a potential Saturday Night Massacre. McGahn advised it was not an issue for White House counsel and Trump could talk with his personal attorney about the situation, but it would “look like still trying to meddle in (the) investigation” and “knocking out Mueller” would be “(a)nother fact used to claim obstr(ruction) of just(ice).” McGahn told Trump his biggest exposure to obstruction charges was not firing Comey, but “other contacts” and “calls,” and his “ask re: Flynn.” At this point there had been wide reporting on Trump’s loyalty request for Comey and his request to “Let Flynn go,” which Trump denied, as well as Trump’s statement to the Russian Foreign Minister that Comey’s firing had relieved “great pressure” related to Russia, which Trump did not deny.On June 9, 2017, following Comey’s congressional testimony, the Special Counsel informed the White House Counsel’s Office that investigators intended to interview IC officials regarding allegations Trump had asked them to push back on the Russia investigation.On June 12, 2017, CEO of Newsmax Media, and friend of Trump’s met with Trump, Priebus, and Bannon at the White House. Rudy recalled Trump was strongly considering the firing of the Special Counsel.Later that day, Rudy stated in a televised interview that the President was “considering perhaps terminating the Special Counsel.” He later told another outlet “Trump is definitely considering” terminating the Special counsel.White House officials and Trump were upset with Ruddy divulging Trump’s intentions. Trump dictated an answer to Sarah Sanders, which she delivered, saying “while the president has every right to” fire the Special Counsel, “he has no intention to do so.”6. Efforts to curtail the Special Counsel’s investigation.The President made another attempt to curtail the Russia investigation two days after asking McGahn to fire the Special Counsel. On June 19, 2017, the President met with Corey Lewandowski, his former campaign manager, alone in the Oval Office. White House officials characterized Lewandowski as a “devotee” of Trump and said the two men shared a “close” relationship. The President dictated a message to deliver to Sessions, stating that Sessions should announce, notwithstanding his recusal, that the Russia investigation was “very unfair” to the President, who had done nothing wrong and that Sessions planned to meet with the Special Counsel and “let (him) move forward with investigating meddling for future elections.” Trump said that if Sessions delivered his dictated statement he would be the “most popular guy in the country.” Lewandowski stated that he understood what the President desired that Sessions do.On July 19, 2017, in another meeting with Lewandowski, the President inquired about the status of his message for Sessions to limit the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference. Prior to the meeting, the public became aware of the June 9, 2016 meeting between several Russians and Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort. Lewandowski informed the President that he would soon deliver the message. Lewandowski asked White House official Rick Dearborn to deliver the President’s requested message. Dearborn felt uncomfortable and did not deliver the message.The President criticized Sessions hours later in an an interview with the New York Times. Trump said, “Sessions never should have recused himself, and if he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me before he took the job, and I would have picked somebody else.” Trump said Sessions recusal was “very unfair to the president. How do you take a job and then recuse yourself? If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, ‘Thanks, Jeff, but I can’t, you know, I’m not going to take you’ It’s extremely unfair, and that’s a mild word, to the president.” Hicks, recollected trying to “throw (herself) between reporters and (the President)” to stop parts of the interview. However, Trump “loved the interview.” He then tweeted several times in a manner that made it clear Sessions job was in jeopardy.8. Trump’s Efforts to Prevent Disclosure of EmailsRegarding the June 9, Meeting Between Russians and Senior Campaign Officials.Sometime in June 2017, Trump became aware of emails setting up the June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Trump campaign officials and Russians offering “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”“If it it’s what you say I love it,” was Trump Jr.’s response. At the meeting, Natalya Veselnitskaya said they had found funds deriving from illegal activities in Russia were provided to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats. She also spoke about the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 U.S. statute imposing financial and travel sanctions on Russian officials that had resulted in a retaliatory ban on the adoption of Russian children by U.S. citizens.According to his written answers, Trump had no recollection of learning of the meeting, nor did he know about the emails setting up at the time of the meeting or at any other time before the election.On several occasions in June and July of 2017, Trump directed aides to refrain from publicly disclosing the emails. Hope Hicks and Josh Raffel recollected discussing that the damaging emails would inevitably be released with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.Trump also dictated a statement about the meeting for Donald Trump Jr. to issue to the press describing the content of the meeting as the adoption of Russian children. On July 8, 2017 on Air Force One, Trump worked with Hope Hicks, Trump Jr. and others to craft a statement explaining Trump Jr.’s involvement in the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting.On July 11, 2017, Trump Jr. posted images of his emails regarding the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting, after the New York Times told him they were about to publish them. Later that day, the media reported Trump’s role in crafting Trump Jr.’s misleading statement. Trump’s personal counsel inaccurately claimed, over the next few days, that Trump had no role in crafting Trump Jr.’s statement. After consulting with Trump White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders stated Trump “certainly didn’t dictate” the statement, but “he weighed in, offered suggestions like any father would do.” Months later, Trump’s personal counsel told the Special Counsel’s Office “the President dictated a short but accurate response to the New York Times article on behalf of his son, Donald Trump Jr.”In a July 19, 2017 New York Times interview, Trump said, he “didn’t know anything about the meeting” at the time. He also said, “As I’ve said-most other people, you know, when they call up and say, ‘By the way, we have information on your opponent,’ I think most politicians -I was just with a lot of people, they said…, ‘Who wouldn’t have taken a meeting like that?”9. Other efforts to implore the Attorney General to take control of the investigation.The President called Sessions at his home in the early summer of 2017, asking him to reverse his recusal from the investigation. Sessions did not unrecuse himself from the investigation. The President met privately with Sessions in October of 2017, in the Oval Office and asked him to “take (a) look” at investigating Clinton. On October 18, 2017 Trump tweeted, “ Wow, FBI confirms report James Comey drafted letter exonerating Crooked Hillary Clinton long before investigation was complete. Many people not interviewed, including Clinton herself. Comey stated under oath that he didn’t do this - obviously a fix? Where is Justice Dept?”On October 29, 2017 Trump tweeted there was “ANGER & UNITY?” over the “lack of investigation” of Clinton amid “the Comey fix,” and said: “DO SOMETHING!”Shortly after Flynn pleaded guilty, pursuant to a cooperation agreement, the President met with Sessions in the Oval Office and suggested Sessions unrecuse himself and supervise the Russia investigation, and by doing so he would be a “hero.” The President told Sessions, “I’m not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly.” Sessions responded that he hadn’t seen anything “improper” on the campaign and told the president there was a “whole new leadership team” running the investigation. He did not unrecuse himself from the investigation.Trump continued to criticize Sessions in interviews and tweets, and publicly called for him to take action in the Russia investigation. Trump tweeted, “The Russian Witch Hunt Hoax continues, all because Jeff Sessions didn’t tell me he was going to recuse himself...I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined...and Sessions new better than most that there was No Collusion!”On August 1, 2018, Trump tweeted “Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now.” On August 23, 2018 Trump gave an interview where he criticized Sessions and said prosecutions at the DOJ were politically motivated because Manafort had been prosecuted, while Democrats had not. He said, “I put in an Attorney General that never took control of the Justice Department, Jeff Sessions.”The next day, Trump tweeted, in response to a Sessions statement that the DOJ wouldn’t be influenced by political decisions. Trump said, “‘Department of Justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations,’ Jeff, this is GREAT, what everyone wants, so look into all of the corruption on the ‘other side’ including deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller conflicts, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Ohr, FISA abuse, Christopher Steele & his phony and corrupt Dossier, the Clinton Foundation, illegal surveillance of Trump campaign, Russian collusion, by Dems -and so much more. Open up the papers & documents without redaction? Come on Jeff, you can do it, the country is waiting!”Trump replaced Sessions with Sessions’s chief of staff as Acting Attorney General.9. Efforts to have McGahn deny that the President had ordered him to have the Special Counsel removed.The press reported, in early 2018, the President had directed McGahn to remove the Special counsel in June of 2017, and that McGahn had offered to resign, rather than carry out that order. In response to the news stories, the President ordered White House officials to inform McGahn he should dispute the story and memorialize that he had not been ordered to have the Special Counsel removed.Priebus appeared on Meet the Press on February 4, 2018 and said he hadn’t heard that Trump wanted the Special Counsel fired. Afterward, Trump called Priebus, telling him that he’d done a great job and that he’d “never said any of those things about” the Special Counsel. Trump told his aide, Rob Porter, to tell McGahn to write a letter to the file “for our records” to make clear that Trump had never directed McGahn to fire the Special Counsel. He also wanted something beyond a press statement to prove McGahn’s claims were inaccurate. Trump referred to McGahn as a “lying bastard” Porter recalled Trump saying something like: “If he doesn’t write a letter, then maybe I’ll have to get rid of him.”McGahn informed the White House officials that the reports were accurate. The President again pressured McGahn to deny the reports in a meeting in the Oval Office. The President also asked McGahn why he had informed the Special Counsel regarding the President’s efforts to remove the Special Counsel and why McGahn took notes during Presidential conversations. McGahn declined to change his story. Following a request from Porter that he create a false record McGahn said he planned to resign rather than carry out the order. He felt the President was testing his mettle to see how committed he was to what happened.Trump met with McGahn on February 6, 2018 in the Oval Office. He told McGahn, “I never said to fire Mueller. I never said ‘fire.’ This story doesn’t look good. You need to correct this. You’re the White House counsel.” McGahn told Trump, “What you said is, ‘Call Rod (Rosenstein), tell Rod that Mueller ahs conflicts and can’t be the Special Counsel.” Trump responded, “I never said that.” Trump said he just wanted McGahn to raise the conflicts issue with Rosenstein and leave the decision to him. McGahn said he didn’t understand the conversation that way, and he heard “Call Rod. There are conflicts. Mueller has to go.” Trump also asked McGahn why he had told the Special Counsel’s investigators that Trump had told him to have the Special Counsel removed. McGahn responded that he had to and that his conversations with Trump weren’t protected by attorney-client privilege. Trump then asked, “What about these notes? Why do you take notes? Lawyers don’t take notes. I never had a lawyer who took notes.” McGahn responded that he kept notes because they create a record and he is a “real lawyer.” Trump said, “I’ve had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn. He did not take notes.Chief of Staff, John Kelly, was also present at the meeting. He recalled McGahn saying that he and Trump did have the conversation about removing the Special counsel. After the meeting Trump’s personal counsel called McGahn and said Trump was “fine” with the McGahn.10. Conduct toward Flynn and Manafort.Flynn resigned on February 13, 2017. Following Flynn’s resignation, Trump publicly described Flynn as a “wonderful man,” a “fine person” and a “very good person.” He asked advisors to pass messages to Flynn saying Trump still cared about him. Following Flynn’s withdrawal from a joint defense agreement with the President, and subsequent cooperation with the Special Counsel, the President's personal lawyer left a message for Flynn’s attorneys. His lawyer said:I understand your situation, but let me see if I can’t state it in starker terms...It wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve gone on to make a deal with...the government...If...there’s information that implicates the President, then we’ve got a national security issue, … so, you know, … we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can… REmember what we’ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and that still remains...The message was to remind Flynn of the President’s warm feelings for him, which Cohen said “still remains,” and asking for a “heads up” if Flynn knew “information that implicates the President.” Flynn’s counsel reiterated that Flynn could no longer share information pursuant to the joint defense agreement. The President’s personal counsel said he would make sure that the President knew that Flynn’s conduct reflected “hostility” towards the President.Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements on December 1, 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements. The following day, Trump said he was not concerned about what Flynn might tell the Special Counsel. When asked if he still stood by Flynn, Trump said, “We’ll see what happens.” When asked whether he was considering a pardon for Flynn, Trump said, “I don’t want to talk about pardons for Michael Flynn yet. We’ll see what happens. Let’s see. I can say this: When you look at what’s gone on with the FBI and with the Justice Department, people are very, very angry.”In January 2018, Manafort told his Deputy, Rick Gates,that he’d spoken with Trump’s counsel and they were “going to take care of us.” Manafort told Gates that it would be stupid to plead, saying that he should “sit tight: and “we’ll be taken care of.”Trump publicly criticized the prosecution of Manafort, saying he felt Manafort was being unfairly treated. Prior to a bail revocation hearing for allegations of witness tampering by Manafort, Trump said, “I feel badly about a lot of them because I think a lot of it is very unfair. I mean, I look at some of them where they go back years. Like Manafort has nothing to do with our campaign. But I feel so -- I tell you, I feel a little bit badly about it. They went back 12 years to get things that he did 12 years ago? ...I feel badly for some people, because they’ve gone back 12 years to find things about somebody, and I don’t think it’s right.” Responding to a question about whether he was considering pardons for Manafort and others caught up in the Russia investigation, Trump said, “I don’t want to talk about that. No, I don’t want to talk about that… But look I do want to see people treated fairly. That’s what it’s all about.” After Manafort’s bail was revoked, Trump tweeted, “Wow, what a tough sentence for Paul Manafort, who has represented Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other top political people and campaigns. Didn’t know Manafort was the head of the Mob. What about Comey and Crooked Hillary and all the others? Very unfair!”Following Manafort’s bail revocation, Rudy Giuliani, gave several interviews where he raised the possibility of a Manafort pardon. Rudy said, “When the whole thing is over, things might get cleaned up with some presidential pardons.” Rudy also said that while Trump shouldn’t pardon anyone while the investigation was ongoing, “when the investigation is concluded, he’s kind of on his own, right?” In a later interview, Rudy said, “I guess I should clarify this once and for all...The president has issued no pardons in this investigation. The president is not going to issue pardons in this investigation… When it’s over, hey, he’s the president of the United States. He retains his pardon power. Nobody is taking that away from him.” Rudy said his comments only acknowledged individuals in the investigation wouldn’t be “excluded from (a pardon), if in fact the president and his advisors.. Come to the conclusion that you have been treated unfairly.”The day after Manafort’s trial in the Eastern District of Virginia began, Trump tweeted “This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to the USA!” Minutes later Trump tweeted, “Paul Manafort worked for Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other prominent and respected political leaders. He worked for me for a very short time. Why didn’t government tell me that he was under investigation. These old charges have nothing to do with Collusion-a Hoax!” Later that day, Trump tweeted, “Looking back on history, who was treated worse, Alfonse Capone, legendary mob boss, killer and ‘Public Enemy Number One,’ or Paul Manafort, political operative & Reagan/Dole darling, now serving solitary confinement -although convicted of nothing? Where is the Russian Collusion?”When asked about Trump’s tweets, Sarah Sanders told the press, “Certainly, the President’s been clear. He thinks Paul Manafort’s been treated unfairly.”During jury deliberations for Paul Manafort, the President praised him in public. The President called Manafort “a brave man” for refusing to “break” and said that “flipping” “almost ought to be outlawed.” As jury deliberations began, Rudy said the Special Counsel’s investigation needed to be “done in the next two or three weeks.” As deliberations continued, Trump twice called the Special Counsel’s investigation a “rigged witch hunt.” When asked about a pardon for Manafort, Trump said “I don’t talk about that now. I don’t talk about that. I think the whole Manafort trial is very sad when you look at what’s going on there. I think it’s a very sad day for our country. He worked for me for a very short period of time. But you know what, he happens to be a very good person. And I think it’s very sad what they’ve done to Paul Manafort.” In response to Trump’s comments, Manafort’s attorney stated, “Mr. Manafort really appreciates the support of Mr. Trump.”In a later interview, following Manafort’s conviction and guilty plea, Trump suggested it was “very brave” that Manafort did not “flip”:If you told the truth, you go to jail. You know this flipping stuff is terrible. You flip and you lie and you get the prosecutors will tell you 99 percent of the time they can get people to flip. It’s rare that they can’t. But I had three people: Manafort, Corsi, don’t know Corsi, but he refuses to say what they demanded, Manafort, Corsi, REDACTED. It’s actually very brave.Responding to a question about a Manafort pardon, Trump said, “It was never discussed, but I wouldn’t take it off the table. Why would I take it off the table?”11. Conduct involving Michael CohenThe President’s conduct toward Michael Cohen, a former Trump Organization executive, shifted from praise to castigation. President Trump praised Cohen after Cohen falsely minimized the President’s involvement in the Trump Tower Moscow project. In reality, Trump wanted many briefings on the project and requested to be updated on multiple occasions. Cohen also discussed the project with Donald Trump Jr. and Ivanka Trump. In the fall of 2015 Trump signed a letter of intent for the Trump Tower Moscow project, specifying highly lucrative terms for the Trump Organization. According to Cohen it was “potentially a $1 billion dollar deal.” Trump associate Felix Sater requested copies of Cohen and Trump’s passports to facilitate travel to Moscow for meetings with the Russian government and possible investors on the project.Cohen directly contacted Russian government officials on the project, and briefed Trump about his interactions. A text to Cohen about the interactions stated:Peskov would like to invite you as his guest to the St. Petersburg Forum which is Russia’s Davos its June 16-19. He wants to meet there with you and possibly introduce you to either Putin or Medvedev...This is perfect. The entire business class of Russia will be there as well. He said anything you want to discuss including dates and subjects are on the table to discuss.Trump said he’d be willing to travel to Russia if Cohen could “lock and load” on the Trump Tower Moscow deal.When Cohen became a cooperating witness with the Special Counsel’s office, he castigated him. Cohen had pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project on behalf of the Trump Organization from September 2015-June 2016. He had briefed candidate Trump on Trump Tower Moscow many times. His briefings included discussions of whether Trump should travel to Russia to advance the deal. Cohen provided false statements to Congress about the project, including testimony that he had only briefed Trump on the project three times, and never discussed travel to Russia. In an effort to adhere to a “party line” developed to minimize Trump’s connections to Russia. In preparation for his congressional testimony, Cohen had many discussions with Trump’s personal counsel. Cohen says Trump’s counsel instructed him to “stay on message” and not contradict the President and keep his statement short and “tight.” Following a search of Cohen’s home by the FBI in April 2018, Trump publicly asserted that cohen would not “flip.” He contacted Cohen directly, telling him to “stay strong.” Trump privately passed messages of support to Cohen. Cohen also discussed pardons with the President’s personal counsel, believing that if he stayed on message he would be taken care of.Following a FBI raid on Cohen’s office, Trump publicly stated Cohen wouldn’t “Flip.” He also privately passed supportive messages to Cohen.Following Cohen’s cooperation with the government in the summer of 2018. Trump changed his tune regarding Cohen. The President called him a “rat” and suggested that Mr. Cohen’s family members had committed crimes.After Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign-finance violations involving Trump, where he had worked “at the direction of the candidate in making those payments.” Trump sought to contrast Cohen with Manafort tweeting, “I feel badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family. ‘Justice’ took a 12 year old tax case, among other things, applied tremendous pressure, and unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to ‘break’ -make up stories in order to get a ‘deal.’ Such Respect for a brave man!”In response to written questions by the Special Counsel’s Office regarding the timing and substance of discussions about the Trump Tower Moscow project, Trump stated:had few conversations with Mr. Cohen on this subject. As I recall, they were brief, and they were not memorable. I was not enthused about the proposal, and I do not recall any discussion of travel to Russia in connection with it. I do not remember discussing it with anyone else at the Trump Organization, although it is possible I do not recall being aware at the time of any communications between Mr. Cohen and Felix Sater and any Russian government official regarding the Letter of Intent.After Cohen’s plea and cooperation agreements, Trump repeatedly implied that Cohen’s family members were guilty of crimes. On December 3, 2018 Trump tweeted, “Michael Cohen asks judge for no Prison Time.’ You mean he can do all of the TERRIBLE, unrelated to Trump, things having to do with fraud, big loans, Taxis, etc. and not serve a long prison term? He makes up stories to get a GREAT & ALREADY reduced deal for himself, and get his wife and father-in-law (who has the money?) off Scott Free. He lied for this outcome and should, in my opinion, serve a full and complete sentence.”After Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison, Trump Tweeted:I never directed Michael Cohen to break the law… Those charges were just agreed to by him in order to embarrass the president and get a much reduced prison sentence, which he did-including the fact that his family was temporarily let off the hook. Michael has great liability to me!?On December 16, 2018, Trump tweeted,Remember, Michael Cohen only became a ‘Rat’ after the FBI did something which was absolutely unthinkable & unheard of until the Witch Hunt was illegally started. They BROKE INTO AN ATTORNEY’S OFFICE! Why didn’t they break into the DNC to get the Server, or Crooked’s office?”On January 23, 2019, Cohen postponed congressional testimony, citing threats against his family. The next day, Trump tweeted, “So interesting that bad lawyer Michael Cohen, who sadly will not be testifying before Congress, is using the lawyer of Crooked Hillary Clinton to represent him -Gee, how did that happen?”In January 2019, Rudy gave press interviews that confirmed Cohen’s account that the Trump Organization pursued Trump Tower Moscow well past January 2016. Rudy stated: “it’s our understanding that (discussions about the Trump Tower Moscow project) went on throughout 2016. Weren’t a lot of them, but there were conversations. Can’t be sure of the exact date. But the president can’t remember having conversations with him about it. The president also remembers- yeah, probably up- Could be up to as far as October, November.” In a New York Times interview, Rudy quoted Trump as saying discussions on Trump Tower Moscow were “going on from the day I announced to the day I won.”

Yes, but the sources are hard to find.Here is a source showing that ISIS was created by the West:HOW THE WEST CREATED ISISThe following is a repost of an article that appeared at the Italian site Nena News in 2014. This article puts context to the Russian report, which in turn puts context to the amazing confession “we’re going to keep the oil.” As this Nena News report makes clear, the idea of keeping other people’s oil goes back over a decade and fits in neatly with the cooperation with both ISIS (and other terrorist groups) and the Kurds. It shows that the Kurds have long been part of the West’s oil theft scheme. It also shows that the idea of partitioning Iraq and Syria was an Israeli idea that was wholeheartedly endorsed by the Western powers.Many Westerners have complained bitterly of the uncontrolled migration to Europe and many have alleged high crime among immigrants, while others insist immigration is good for us no matter what. The upshot of this controversy is a split between the rank and file on the one hand and the elites on the other, and between the EU and individual states. And, let us recall, between US and European conservatives on the one hand and Western liberals on the other. And if we can rely on the information provided below, the answer is neither to hate, nor to pander to, people of any religion or lack thereof, or any ethnicity. And not to claim that Westerners are exempt of all blame and it is all the fault of the Arabs who lost their homes and families to Western bombs.Yet very few are willing to admit that the root of the problem is the West’s support for the Arab Spring, starting in the early 2000s, and the fact that the West was in fact, wittingly or not, supporting terrorists who were ripping apart individual Middle Eastern countries, especially Syria, Iraq and Libya. Wahhabist terrorists in territories that had never known Wahhabists. The report below clearly shows that this Western support, military training, materiel (guns, ammo, ordnance, missiles, etc), money – in exchange for the same oil as today, notably from Deir Ez-Zor – and moral support via the msm and the political class on both the left and the right, in the supposedly disparate administrations of mostly Bush Jr., Obama and Trump, is the main driver of the conflicts, without which the immigration to Europe would have been but a manageable trickle. If the Westerners suffering from the fallout of these Middle Eastern conflicts could bring themselves to admit that it was their own nations that generated the massive waves of migration, perhaps they could find reconciliation and redemption, tone down the internecine Western conflicts and start to solve them peacefully and in a civilized and brotherly way. But today, the West is far from achieving anything resembling reconciliation or brotherhood, either amongst each other or between them and their international guests.The contribution appearing below is intended as a possible first step toward understanding why the West is in this crisis and how the next one can be averted. The answer is simple: The West – starting with the US – needs to start tending to its own business and stop pretending to know what is best for others. I am reminded of the last sentence in Voltaire’s novel Candide: Il faut cultiver notre jardin.Yes, indeed. It is way past time to tend our own garden.This commentary and notes [in brackets] are by Vince Dhimos.HOW THE WEST CREATED ISISHow the West created the Islamic StateSept 13, 2014A deep analysis of the roots of Islamic State, created and founded by Us, Arab regimes and Israel to counter the Iranian influence in the region and the tools that today it can use to grow, writes Nafeez Ahmed.by Nafeez Ahmed – CountepunchPart 1 – OUR TERRORISTS“This is an organisation that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision which will eventually have to be defeated,” Gen Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon press conference in August.Military action is necessary to halt the spread of the ISIS “cancer,” said President Obama. Yesterday he called for expanded airstrikes across Iraq and Syria, and new measures to arm and train Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces.“The only way to defeat [IS] is to stand firm and to send a very straightforward message,” declared Prime Minister Cameron. “A country like ours will not be cowed by these barbaric killers.”Missing from the chorus of outrage, however, has been any acknowledgement of the integral role of covert US and British regional military intelligence strategy in empowering and even directly sponsoring the very same virulent Islamist militants in Iraq, Syria and beyond, that went on to break away from al-Qaeda and form ‘ISIS’, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or now simply, the Islamic State (IS).Since 2003, Anglo-American power has secretly and openly coordinated direct and indirect support for Islamist terrorist groups linked to al-Qaeda across the Middle East and North Africa. This ill-conceived patchwork geostrategy is a legacy of the persistent influence of neoconservative ideology, motivated by longstanding but often contradictory ambitions to dominate regional oil resources, defend an expansionist Israel, and in pursuit of these, re-draw the map of the Middle East.Now despite Pentagon denials that there will be boots on the ground – and Obama’s insistence that this would not be another “Iraq war” – local Kurdish military and intelligence sources confirm that US and German special operations forces are already “on the ground here. They are helping to support us in the attack.” US airstrikes on ISIS positions and arms supplies to the Kurds have also been accompanied by British RAF reconnaissance flights over the region and UK weapons shipments to Kurdish Peshmerga forces.Divide and Rule in Iraq“It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs,” said one US government defense consultant in 2007. “It’s who they throw them at – Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr [a Shiite cleric leader in Iraq, who opposes Sunni terror], Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah [Hezbollah saved Lebanon from a deadly Israeli attack in 2006. This is probably the main reason they are hated in the West. Lebanon – where the Sunnis, the West’s, and Israel’s, darlings –are outnumbered by Christians plus Shiites, was supposed to be destroyed] and Iran.”Early during the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, the US covertly supplied arms to al-Qaeda affiliated insurgents even while ostensibly supporting an emerging Shi’a-dominated administration.Pakistani defense sources interviewed by Asia Times in February 2005 confirmed that insurgents described as “former Ba’ath party” loyalists – who were being recruited and trained by “al-Qaeda in Iraq” under the leadership of the late Abu Musab Zarqawi – were being supplied Pakistan-manufactured weapons by the US. The arms shipments included rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, ammunition, rockets and other light weaponry. These arms “could not be destined for the Iraqi security forces because US arms would be given to them”, a source told Syed Saleem Shahzad – the Times’ Pakistan bureau chief who, “known for his exposes of the Pakistani military” according to the New Yorker, was murdered in 2011. Rather, the US is playing a double-game to “head off” the threat of a “Shi’ite clergy-driven religious movement,” said the Pakistani defense source.This was not the only way US strategy aided the rise of Zarqawi, a bin Laden mentee and brainchild of the extremist ideology that would later spawn ‘ISIS.’According to a little-known November report for the US Joint Special Operations University (JSOU) and Strategic Studies Department, Dividing Our Enemies, post-invasion Iraq was “an interesting case study of fanning discontent among enemies, leading to ‘red-against-red’ [enemy-against-enemy] firefights.”While counterinsurgency on the one hand requires US forces to “ameliorate harsh or deprived living conditions of the indigenous populations” to publicly win local hearts and minds,” the reverse side of this coin is one less discussed. It involves no effort to win over those caught in the crossfire of insurgent and counterinsurgent warfare, whether by bullet or broadcast. On the contrary, this underside of the counterinsurgency coin is calculated to exploit or create divisions among adversaries for the purpose of fomenting enemy-on-enemy deadly encounters.”In other words, US forces will pursue public legitimacy through conventional social welfare while simultaneously delegitimising local enemies by escalating intra-insurgent violence, knowing full-well that doing so will in turn escalate the number of innocent civilians “caught in the crossfire.” The idea is that violence covertly calibrated by US special operations [think Hong Kong, Kiev, Bolivia] will not only weaken enemies through in-fighting but turn the population against them.In this case, the ‘enemy’ consisted of jihadists, Ba’athists, and peaceful Sufis, who were in a majority but, like the militants, also opposed the US military presence and therefore needed to be influenced. The JSOU report referred to events in late 2004 in Fallujah where “US psychological warfare (PSYOP) specialists” undertook to “set insurgents battling insurgents.” This involved actually promoting Zarqawi’s ideology, ironically, to defeat it: “The PSYOP warriors crafted programs to exploit Zarqawi’s murderous activities – and to disseminate them through meetings, radio and television broadcasts, handouts, newspaper stories, political cartoons, and posters – thereby diminishing his folk-hero image,” and encouraging the different factions to pick each other off. “By tapping into the Fallujans’ revulsion and antagonism to the Zarqawi jihadis the Joint PSYOP Task Force did its ‘best to foster a rift between Sunni groups.’”Yet as noted by Dahr Jamail, one of the few unembedded investigative reporters in Iraq after the war, the proliferation of propaganda linking the acceleration of suicide bombings to the persona of Zarqawi was not matched by meaningful evidence. His own search to substantiate the myriad claims attributing the insurgency to Zarqawi beyond anonymous US intelligence sources encountered only an “eerie blankness.”The US military operation in Fallujah, largely justified on the claim that Zarqawi’s militant forces had occupied the city, used white phosphorus, cluster bombs, and indiscriminate air strikes to pulverise 36,000 of Fallujah’s 50,000 homes, killing nearly a thousand civilians, terrorising 300,000 inhabitants to flee, and culminating in a disproportionate increase in birth defects, cancer and infant mortality due to the devastating environmental consequences of the war.To this day, Fallujah has suffered from being largely cut off from wider Iraq, its infrastructure largely unworkable with water and sewage systems still in disrepair, and its citizens subject to sectarian discrimination and persecution by Iraqi government backed Shi’a militia and police. “Thousands of bereaved and homeless Falluja families have a new reason to hate the US and its allies,” observed The Guardian in 2005. Thus, did the US occupation plant the seeds from which Zarqawi’s legacy would coalesce into the Frankenstein monster that calls itself “the Islamic State.”Bankrolling al-Qaeda in SyriaAccording to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: “I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business,” he told French television: “I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria.”Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor, including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials, confirmed that as of 2011, US and UK special forces training of Syrian opposition forces was well underway. The goal was to elicit the “collapse” of Assad’s regime “from within.”Since then, the role of the Gulf states – namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan (as well as NATO member Turkey) – in officially and unofficially financing and coordinating the most virulent elements amongst Syria’s rebels under the tutelage of US military intelligence is no secret. Yet the conventional wisdom is that the funnelling of support to Islamist extremists in the rebel movement affiliated to al-Qaeda has been a colossal and regrettable error.The reality is very different. The empowerment of the Islamist factions within the ‘Free Syrian Army’ (FSA) was a foregone conclusion of the strategy.In its drive to depose Col. Qaddafi in Libya, NATO had previously allied itself with rebels affiliated to the al-Qaeda faction, the Islamic Fighting Group. The resulting Libyan regime backed by the US was in turn liaising with FSA leaders in Istanbul to provide money and heavy weapons for the anti-Assad insurgency. The State Department even hired an al-Qaeda affiliated Libyan militia group to provide security for the US embassy in Benghazi – although they had links with the very people that attacked the embassy.Last year, CNN confirmed that CIA officials operating secretly out of the Benghazi embassy were being forced to take extra polygraph tests to keep under wraps what US Congressman suspect was a covert operation “to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.”With their command and control centre based in Istanbul, Turkey, military supplies from Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular were transported by Turkish intelligence to the border for rebel acquisition. CIA operatives along with Israeli and Jordanian commandos were also training FSA rebels on the Jordanian-Syrian border with anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. In addition, other reports show that British and French military were also involved in these secret training programmes. It appears that the same FSA rebels receiving this elite training went straight into ISIS – last month one ISIS commander, Abu Yusaf, said, “Many of the FSA people who the west has trained are actually joining us.”The National thus confirmed the existence of another command and control centre in Amman, Jordan, “staffed by western and Arab military officials,” which “channels vehicles, sniper rifles, mortars, heavy machine guns, small arms and ammunition to Free Syrian Army units.” Rebel and opposition sources described the weapons bridge as “a well-run operation staffed by high-ranking military officials from 14 countries, including the US, European nations [My highlighting. See? The same countries that are now overrun with migrants and complain of their bad behaviour were the ones who sponsored the terror in the first place!] and Arabian Gulf states, the latter providing the bulk of materiel and financial support to rebel factions.”The FSA sources interviewed by The National went to pains to deny that any al-Qaeda affiliated factions were involved in the control centre, or would receive any weapons support. But this is difficult to believe given that “Saudi and Qatari-supplied weapons” were being funnelled through to the rebels via Amman, to their favoured factions.Classified assessments of the military assistance supplied by US allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar obtained by the New York Times showed that “most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups… are going to hardline Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”Lest there be any doubt as to the extent to which all this covert military assistance coordinated by the US has gone to support al-Qaeda affiliated factions in the FSA, it is worth noting that earlier this year, the Israeli military intelligence website Debkafile – run by two veteran correspondents who covered the Middle East for 23 years for The Economist – reported that: “Turkey is giving Syrian rebel forces, including the al-Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front, passage through its territory to attack the northwestern Syrian coastal area around Latakia.”In August, Debkafile reported that “The US, Jordan and Israel are quietly backing the mixed bag of some 30 Syrian rebel factions”, some of which had just “seized control of the Syrian side of the Quneitra crossing, the only transit point between Israeli and Syrian Golan.” However, Debkafile noted, “al-Qaeda elements have permeated all those factions.” Israel has provided limited support to these rebels in the form of “medical care,” as well as “arms, intelligence and food…“Israel [my highlighting] acted as a member, along with the US and Jordan, of a support system for rebel groups fighting in southern Syria. Their efforts are coordinated through a war-room which the Pentagon established last year near Amman. The US, Jordanian and Israeli officers manning the facility determine in consultation which rebel factions are provided with reinforcements from the special training camps run for Syrian rebels in Jordan, and which will receive arms. All three governments understand perfectly that, notwithstanding all their precautions, some of their military assistance is bound to percolate to al-Qaeda’s Syrian arm, Jabhat Al-Nusra, which is fighting in rebel ranks. Neither Washington or Jerusalem or Amman would be comfortable in admitting they are arming al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in southern Syria.” [Yes, publicly, the US, Israel and Jordan would not want to admit this but in reality, they obviously were totally unconcerned that terrorists might soon seize all of Syria. Otherwise, ISIS would not have been able to take over the lion’s share of the nation’s territory by September 2015 when the Russians came and turned around the nation’s fate. This isn’t hard. The nation with the biggest armed forces in the world had claimed to be waging a “war on terror.” Yet a less powerful country with a much smaller air force was able to immediately turn around the war. It is painfully clear then that the goal of the united West was to enable the terrorists to establish a caliphate in Syria. Later in this report we read that the terrorists were stealing Syrian oil and selling it cheap to Western countries. This oil seized from the war-weary and impoverished Syrian people by Western-backed terrorists, became the genuine motive for persecuting the war.]This support also went to ISIS. Although the latter was originally founded in Iraq in October 2006, by 2013 the group had significantly expanded its operations in Syria working alongside al-Qaeda’s al-Nusra until February 2014, when ISIS was formally denounced by al-Qaeda. Even so, experts on the region’s Islamist groups point out that the alleged rift between al-Nusra and ISIS, while real, is not as fraught as one might hope, constituting a mere difference in tactics rather than fundamental ideology.Officially, the US government’s financial support for the FSA goes through the Washington DC entity, the Syrian Support Group (SSG), which was incorporated in April 2012. The SSG is licensed via the US Treasury Department to “export, re-export, sell, or supply to the Free Syrian Army (‘FSA’) financial, communications, logistical, and other services otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13582 in order to support the FSA.”In mid-2013, the Obama administration intensified its support to the rebels with a new classified executive order reversing its previous policy limiting US direct support to only nonlethal equipment. As before, the order would aim to supply weapons strictly to “moderate” forces in the FSA.Except the government’s vetting procedures to block Islamist extremists from receiving US weapons have never worked.A year later, Mother Jones found that the US government has “little oversight over whether US supplies are falling prey to corruption – or into the hands of extremists,” and relies “on too much good faith.” The US government keeps track of rebels receiving assistance purely through “handwritten receipts provided by rebel commanders in the field,” and the judgement of its allies. Countries supporting the rebels – the very same which have empowered al-Qaeda affiliated Islamists – “are doing audits of the delivery of lethal and nonlethal supplies.”Thus, with the Gulf states still calling the shots on the ground, it is no surprise that by September last year, eleven prominent rebel groups distanced themselves from the ‘moderate’ opposition leadership and allied themselves with al-Qaeda.By the SSG’s own conservative estimate, as much as 15% of rebel fighters are Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, either through the Jabat al-Nusra faction, or its breakaway group ISIS. But privately, Pentagon officials estimate that “more than 50%” of the FSA is comprised of Islamist extremists, and according to rebel sources neither FSA chief Gen. Salim Idris nor his senior aides engage in much vetting, decisions about which are made typically by local commanders.Part 2 – THE LONG WARFollow the MoneyMedia reports following ISIS’ conquest of much of northern and central Iraq this summer have painted the group as the world’s most super-efficient, self-financed, terrorist organisation that has been able to consolidate itself exclusively through extensive looting of Iraq’s banks and funds from black market oil sales. Much of this narrative, however, has derived from dubious sources, and overlooked disturbing details.One senior anonymous intelligence source told Guardian correspondent Martin Chulov, for instance, that over 160 computer flash sticks obtained from an ISIS hideout revealed information on ISIS’ finances that was completely new to the intelligence community.“Before Mosul, their total cash and assets were $875 m [£515 m],” said the official on the funds obtained largely via “massive cashflows from the oilfields of eastern Syria, which it had commandeered in late 2012.” Afterwards, “with the money they robbed from banks and the value of the military supplies they looted, they could add another $1.5 bn to that.” The thrust of the narrative coming from intelligence sources was simple: “They had done this all themselves. There was no state actor at all behind them, which we had long known. They don’t need one.”“ISIS’ half-a-billion-dollar bank heist makes it world’s richest terror group,” claimed the Telegraph, adding that the figure did not include additional stolen gold bullion, and millions more grabbed from banks “across the region.”This story of ISIS’ stupendous bank looting spree across Iraq made global headlines but turned out to be disinformation. Senior Iraqi officials and bankers confirmed that banks in Iraq, including Mosul where ISIS supposedly stole $430 million, had faced no assault, remain open, and are guarded by their own private security forces.How did the story come about? One of its prime sources was Iraqi parliamentarian Ahmed Chalabi – the same man who under the wing of his ‘Iraqi National Congress’ peddled false intelligence about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda.In June, Chalabi met with the US ambassador to Iraq, Robert Beecroft, and Brett McGurk, the State Department’s deputy assistant secretary of state for Iraq and Iran. According to sources cited by Buzzfeed in June, Beecroft “has been meeting Chalabi for months and has dined at his mansion in Baghdad.”Follow the OilBut while ISIS has clearly obtained funding from donors in the Gulf states, many of its fighters having broken away from the more traditional al-Qaeda affiliated groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, it has also successfully leveraged its control over Syrian and Iraqi oil fields.In January, the New York Times reported that “Islamist rebels and extremist groups have seized control of most of Syria’s oil and gas resources”, bolstering “the fortunes of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, and the Nusra Front, both of which are offshoots of al-Qaeda.” Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels had “seized control of the oil and gas fields scattered across the country’s north and east,” while more moderate “Western-backed rebel groups do not appear to be involved in the oil trade, in large part because they have not taken over any oil fields.”Yet the west had directly aided these Islamist groups in their efforts to operationalise Syria’s oil fields. In April 2013, for instance, the Times noted that al-Qaeda rebels had taken over key regions of Syria: “Nusra’s hand is felt most strongly in Aleppo”, where the al-Qaeda affiliate had established in coordination with other rebel groups including ISIS “a Shariah Commission” running “a police force and an Islamic court that hands down sentences that have included lashings.” Al-Qaeda fighters also “control the power plant and distribute flour to keep the city’s bakeries running.” Additionally, they “have seized government oil fields” in provinces of Deir al-Zour [alternately spelled Deir Ez-Zor] and Hasaka, and now make a “profit from the crude they produce.”Lost in the fog of media hype was the disconcerting fact that these al-Qaeda rebel bread and oil operations in Aleppo, Deir al-Zour and Hasaka were directly and indirectly supported by the US and the European Union (EU). One account by the Washington Post for instance refers to a stealth mission in Aleppo “to deliver food and other aid to needy Syrians – all of it paid for by the US government,” including the supply of flour. “The bakery is fully supplied with flour paid for by the United States,” the Post continues, noting that local consumers, however, “credited Jabhat al-Nusra – a rebel group the United States has designated a terrorist organisation because of its ties to al-Qaeda – with providing flour to the region, though he admitted he wasn’t sure where it comes from.”And in the same month that al-Qaeda’s control of Syria’s main oil regions in Deir al-Zour and Hasaka was confirmed, the EU voted to ease an oil embargo on Syria to allow oil to be sold on international markets from these very al-Qaeda controlled oil fields. European companies would be permitted to buy crude oil and petroleum products from these areas, although transactions would be approved by the Syrian National Coalition. Due to damaged infrastructure, oil would be trucked by road to Turkey where the nearest refineries are located.“The logical conclusion from this craziness is that Europe will be funding al-Qaeda,” said Joshua Landis, a Syria expert at the University of Oklahoma.Just two months later, a former senior staffer at the Syria Support Group in DC, David Falt, leaked internal SSG emails confirming that the group was “obsessed” with brokering “jackpot” oil deals on behalf of the FSA for Syria’s rebel-run oil regions. “The idea they could raise hundreds of millions from the sale of the oil came to dominate the work of the SSG to the point no real attention was paid to the nature of the conflict,” said Falt, referring in particular to SSG’s director Brian Neill Sayers, who before his SSG role worked with NATO’s Operations Division. Their aim was to raise money for the rebels by selling the rights to Syrian oil.Tacit Complicity in IS Oil SmugglingEven as al-Qaeda fighters increasingly decide to join up with IS, the ad hoc black market oil production and export infrastructure established by the Islamist groups in Syria has continued to function with, it seems, the tacit support of regional and western powers.According to Ali Ediboglu, a Turkish MP for the border province of Hatay, IS is selling the bulk of its oil from regions in Syria and Mosul in Iraq through Turkey, with the tacit consent of Turkish authorities: “They have laid pipes from villages near the Turkish border at Hatay. Similar pipes exist also at [the Turkish border regions of] Kilis, Urfa and Gaziantep. They transfer the oil to Turkey and parlay it into cash. They take the oil from the refineries at zero cost. Using primitive means, they refine the oil in areas close to the Turkish border and then sell it via Turkey. This is worth $800 million.” He also noted that the extent of this and related operations indicates official Turkish complicity. “Fighters from Europe, Russia, Asian countries and Chechnya are going in large numbers both to Syria and Iraq, crossing from Turkish territory. There is information that at least 1,000 Turkish nationals are helping those foreign fighters sneak into Syria and Iraq to join ISIS. The National Intelligence Organization (MIT) is allegedly involved. None of this can be happening without MIT’s knowledge.”Similarly, there is evidence that authorities in the Kurdish region of Iraq are also turning a blind eye to IS oil smuggling. In July, Iraqi officials said that IS had begun selling oil extracted in the northern province of Salahuddin [possible alternate form of Saladin or Salah ad Din]. One official pointed out that “the Kurdish Peshmerga forces stopped the sale of oil at first, but later allowed tankers to transfer and sell oil.”State of Law coalition MP Alia Nasseef also accused the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) of secretly trading oil with IS: “What is happening shows the extent of the massive conspiracy against Iraq by Kurdish politicians… The [illegal] sale of Iraqi oil to ISIS or anyone else is something that would not surprise us.” Although Kurdish officials have roundly rejected these accusations, informed sources told the Arabic daily Asharq Al-Awsat that Iraqi crude captured by ISIS was “being sold to Kurdish traders in the border regions straddling Iraq, Iran and Syria, and was being shipped to Pakistan where it was being sold ‘for less than half its original price.’” [Today, the Kurds are still an ally of the US, and now they are guarding the oil deposits in Deir Ez-Zor, with the only difference that Trump now proudly admits “we are keeping the oil,” in the full knowledge that by now the brainwashed masses would accept the message]An official statement in August from Iraq’s Oil Ministry warned that any oil not sanctioned by Baghdad could include crude smuggled illegally from IS: “International purchasers [of crude oil] and other market participants should be aware that any oil exports made without the authorisation of the Ministry of Oil may contain crude oil originating from fields under the control of [ISIS].”“Countries like Turkey have turned a blind eye to the practice” of IS oil smuggling, said Luay al-Khateeb, a fellow at the Brookings Doha Center,” and international pressure should be mounted to close down black markets in its southern region.” So far there has been no such pressure. Meanwhile, IS oil smuggling continues, with observers inside and outside Turkey noting that the Turkish government is tacitly allowing IS to flourish as it prefers the rebels to the Assad regime.According to former Iraqi oil minister Isam al-Jalabi,“ Turkey is the biggest winner from the Islamic State’s oil smuggling trade.” Both traders and oil firms are involved, he said, with the low prices allowing for “massive” profits for the countries facilitating the smuggling.Buying ISIS Oil?Early last month, a tanker carrying over a million barrels in crude oil from northern Iraq’s Kurdish region arrived at the Texas Gulf of Mexico. The oil had been refined in the Iraqi Kurdish region before being pumped through a new pipeline from the KRG area ending up at Ceyhan, Turkey, where it was then loaded onto the tanker for shipping to the US. Baghdad’s efforts to stop the oil sale on the basis of its having national jurisdiction were rebuffed by American courts.In early September, the European Union’s ambassador to Iraq, Jana Hybášková, told the EU Foreign Affairs Committee that “several EU member states have bought oil from the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) terrorist organisation that has been brutally conquering large portions of Iraq and Syria,” according to Israel National News. She however “refused to divulge the names of the countries despite being asked numerous times.”A third end-point for the KRG’s crude this summer, once again shipped via Turkey’s port of Ceyhan, was Israel’s southwestern port of Ashkelon. This is hardly news though. In May, Reuters revealed that Israeli and US oil refineries had been regularly purchasing and importing KRG’s disputed oil.Meanwhile, as this triangle of covert oil shipments in which ISIS crude appears to be hopelessly entangled becomes more established, Turkey has increasingly demanded that the US pursue formal measures to lift obstacles to Kurdish oil sales to global markets. The KRG plans to export as much as 1 million barrels of oil a day by next year through its pipeline to Turkey.Among the many oil and gas firms active in the KRG capital, Erbil, are ExxonMobil and Chevron. They are drilling in the region for oil under KRG contracts, though operations have been halted due to the crisis. No wonder Steve Coll writes in the New Yorker that Obama’s air strikes and arms supplies to the Kurds – notably not to Baghdad – effectively amount to “the defense of an undeclared Kurdish oil state whose sources of geopolitical appeal – as a long-term, non-Russian supplier of oil and gas to Europe, for example – are best not spoken of in polite or naïve company.” The Kurds are now busy working to “quadruple” their export capacity, while US policy has increasingly shifted toward permitting Kurdish exports – a development that would have major ramifications for Iraq’s national territorial integrity. [The ultimate unspoken goal of Western powers, bowing to Israel, is to break up Syria and Iraq into sectors along sectarian and ethnic lines, as we see further on. This is one of the main motives for the Iraqi and Syrian wars. Russia was the unforeseen saviour of these sovereign countries]To be sure, as the offensive against IS ramps up, the Kurds are now selectively cracking down on IS smuggling efforts – but the measures are too little, too late.A New MapThe Third Iraq War has begun. With it, longstanding neocon dreams to partition Iraq into three along ethnic and religious lines have been resurrected.White House officials now estimate that the fight against the region’s ‘Islamic State’ will last years, and may outlive the Obama administration. But this ‘long war’ vision goes back to nebulous ideas formally presented by late RAND Corp analyst Laurent Muraweic before the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board at the invitation of then chairman Richard Perle. That presentation described Iraq as a “tactical pivot” by which to transform the wider Middle East. [to better understand this, read about the Israeli Yinon plan to break up the Middle East and sow chaos. Supposedly, if the Middle Eastern ethnicities and tribes can be made to hate and mistrust each other, Israel will be more secure. Seriously?]Brian Whitaker, former Guardian Middle East editor, rightly noted that the Perle-RAND strategy drew inspiration from a 1996 paper published by the Israeli Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, co-authored by Perle and other neocons who held top positions in the post-9/11 Bush administration.The policy paper advocated a strategy that bears startling resemblance to the chaos unfolding in the wake of the expansion of the ‘Islamic State’ – Israel would “shape its strategic environment” by first securing the removal of Saddam Hussein. “Jordan and Turkey would form an axis along with Israel to weaken and ‘roll back’ Syria.” This axis would attempt to weaken the influence of Lebanon, Syria and Iran by “weaning” off their Shi’ite populations. To succeed, Israel would need to engender US support, which would be obtained by Benjamin Netanyahu formulating the strategy “in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the cold war.” [Russia spoiled this plan for good]The 2002 Perle-RAND plan was active in the Bush administration’s strategic thinking on Iraq shortly before the 2003 war. According to US private intelligence firm Stratfor, in late 2002, then vice-president Dick Cheney and deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz had co-authored a scheme under which central Sunni-majority Iraq would join with Jordan; the northern Kurdish regions would become an autonomous state; all becoming separate from the southern Shi’ite region. [To set the record straight, on average, Iraq is majority Shiite, and that is the problem for the West and Israel, which favour Sunnis. Iraq is 70% Shiite]The strategic advantages of an Iraq partition, Stratfor argued, focused on US control of oil:“After eliminating Iraq as a sovereign state, there would be no fear that one day an anti-American government would come to power in Baghdad, as the capital would be in Amman [Jordan]. Current and potential US geopolitical foes Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria would be isolated from each other, with big chunks of land between them under control of the pro-US forces.“Equally important, Washington would be able to justify its long-term and heavy military presence in the region as necessary for the defense of a young new state asking for US protection – and to secure the stability of oil markets and supplies. That in turn would help the United States gain direct control of Iraqi oil and replace Saudi oil in case of conflict with Riyadh.”The expansion of the ‘Islamic State’ has provided a pretext for the fundamental contours of this scenario to unfold, with the US and British looking to re-establish a long-term military presence in Iraq.In 2006, Cheney’s successor, Joe Biden, also indicated his support for the ‘soft partition’ of Iraq along ethno-religious lines – a position which the co-author of the Biden-Iraq plan, Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations, now argues is “the only solution” to the current crisis.In 2008, the strategy re-surfaced – once again via RAND Corp – through a report funded by the US Army Training and Doctrine Command on how to prosecute the ‘long war.’ Among its strategies, one scenario advocated by the report was ‘Divide and Rule’ which would involve “exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts.”Simultaneously, the report suggested that the US could foster conflict between Salafi-jihadists and Shi’ite militants by “shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes… as a way of containing Iranian power and influence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.”One way or another, the plan is in motion. Last week, Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Leiberman told US secretary of state John Kerry: “Iraq is breaking up before our eyes and it would appear that the creation of an independent Kurdish state is a foregone conclusion.” [the only thing preventing this is Russia.]The rise of the ‘Islamic State’ is not just a direct consequence of this neocon vision, tied as it is to a dangerous covert operations strategy that has seen al-Qaeda linked terrorists as a tool to influence local populations – it has in turn offered a pretext for the launch of a new era of endless war, the spectre of a prolonged US-led military presence in the energy-rich Persian Gulf region, and a return to the dangerous imperial temptation to re-configure the wider regional order.Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is a bestselling author, investigative journalist and international security scholar. He has contributed to two major terrorism investigations in the US and UK, the 9/11 Commission and the 7/7 Coroner’s Inquest, and has advised the Royal Military Academy Sandhust, British Foreign Office and US State Department. He is a regular contributor to The Guardian where he writes about the geopolitics of interconnected environmental, energy and economic crises. He has also written for The Independent, Sydney Morning Herald, CounterPunch, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde diplomatique, among many others.