LISTEN TO WKJC ANYWHERE!

 

 

Political News
Subscribe To This Feed

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- For the second time in as many days, the White House sought to clarify President Donald Trump's comments on whether Russia targeting the U.S. saying that the president's "no" was actually a no to taking reporters' questions.

ABC News' Cecilia Vega asked her question twice and for a clarification on the president’s response as reporters were gathered just ahead of a session at the White House with Cabinet members.

She received a "no" each time, which other reporters confirmed hearing as well. The president ignored her request for clarification.

“Is Russia still targeting the U.S., Mr. President,” Vega asked.

“Thank you very much, no,” he said.

Vega pressed: “No?! You don’t believe that to be the case?”

He responded: "No."

Vega asked again a third time: "But can you just clarify, you don't believe that to be the case?"

The president ignored that question.

At the top of the White House briefing, press secretary Sarah Sanders clarified that she spoke to the president after his exchange with Vega and he said he was not actually answering her question, but saying instead, "thank you, no" to answering any questions.

Asked again by Vega whether the president agrees with Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats that the threat from Russia is still ongoing, Sanders answered, "certainly."

A "no" response would seem to contradict Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats who, in a speech on Friday at the Hudson Institute, a Washington D.C.-based think tank, warned of Russian cyber attacks. "The warning lights are blinking red again."

Coats went on to say: “These actions are persistent, they are pervasive and they are meant to undermine America’s democracy.”

On that same day, 12 Russian military officials were indicted for hacking democratic infrastructure in the 2016 election.

Trump's most recent comments are part of a multi-day series of statements and clarifications following the president's press conference with Russian president Vladimir Putin on Monday.

During that news conference, Trump appeared to accept what he called Putin's "strong" and "powerful" denial that Russia meddled in the 2016 election.

Coats responded that the intelligence community stands by its findings.

"The role of the Intelligence Community is to provide the best information and fact-based assessments possible for the President and policymakers," Coats said in a statement. "We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy, and we will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security."

Keenly aware there was a problem after his news conference in Helsinki with Putin, Trump met with top advisers Tuesday morning to discuss what to do about it.

Sources tell ABC News the president himself came up with the idea of the "would" versus "would not" clarification, telling aides he had seen the clip, realized he misspoke and wanted to make a statement.

Those involved with crafting the statement, according to sources, were: White House adviser Steven Miller, press secretary Sarah Sanders, Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications Bill Shine, Director of Strategic Communications Mercedes Schlapp and National Security Adviser John Bolton.

The president also discussed it with Newt Gingrich, who had called on Trump to clarify his comments in Helsinki on “the U.S. intelligence system and Putin,” calling the remarks “the most serious mistake of his presidency.”

Late in the process, Vice President Mike Pence also asked to see the statement.

The line "it could have been a lot of people" was not part of the prepared remarks. The president's aides were also not particularly surprised the president said it.

By Tuesday, the president said he used the wrong words and meant to say there was no reason "it wouldn't be Russia" behind election meddling.

"I said the word would instead of wouldn't...I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself."

The seeming contradiction in Trump's comments on Wednesday sparked anew congressional backlash as lawmakers press for clarification on the president's stance.

"A BIG discrepancy between President Trump’s statement and DNI Coates’ warning. It’s imperative we get to the bottom of what is going on so we can be prepared to protect ourselves in advance of the 2018 elections. My personal view: the Russians are at again," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican tweeted.

Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, tweeted: "The Russians continue efforts to undermine Western democracies, including ours. The President is wrong and needs to heed the warnings from our Intelligence Community, including DNI Dan Coats."

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer was quick to put out a statement challenging the president's comments.

“Mr. President, it is time to stop taking the word of a KGB agent over that of your own intelligence officials. Russia interfered in our 2016 elections. They’re actively trying to do it again. You must wake up to that fact," Schumer said. "We won’t be able, as a nation, to fight back against foreign interference in our elections if the Commander in Chief doesn’t even acknowledge that it’s a real problem. The American people will not trust that you will protect them if you continue to put your interests ahead of those of our country.”

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

Olivier Douliery - Pool/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump traveled to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland Wednesday for the return of a Secret Service agent who died Tuesday after falling ill during the president's overseas trip.

Nole E. Remagen suffered a stroke over the weekend while on duty during the president's trip to his Scotland golf club, according to the White House. He passed away Tuesday surrounded by family and fellow agents, the White House said, and was flown to Maryland on a U.S. Air Force plane Wednesday.

"Our hearts are filled with sadness over the loss of a beloved and devoted Special Agent, husband, and father," Trump said in a statement. "Our prayers are with Special Agent Remagen’s loved ones, including his wife and two young children. We grieve with them and with his Secret Service colleagues, who have lost a friend and a brother.”

Remagen served five years in the United States Marine Corps before beginning a 19-year career in the Secret Service.

"At the time of his passing, he was among the elite heroes who serve in the Presidential Protection Division of the Secret Service," Trump added. "Melania and I are deeply grateful for his lifetime of devotion, and today, we pause to honor his life and 24 years of service to our Nation."

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted sympathy for the Remagen family Wednesday morning.

"We are so sorry for your loss and are grieving with you," she tweeted.

Melania Trump tweeted her condolences along with praise for the Secret Service.

"The dedicated @SecretService work tirelessly & often behind the scenes to keep our family safe," she tweeted. "@POTUS & I thank you for your service & all that you do."

The Secret Service announced Remagen's return in a statement Wednesday, and tweeted that he was "one of America’s finest."

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- Senate Democrats, who believe they won't get any insight into what actually took place during the private meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin from the administration itself, are now looking to the U.S. interpreter who was in the one-on-one encounter for more information.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is leading the charge among her colleagues in the Senate to bring in Marina Gross, the American interpreter who sat in on the private meeting with Putin, to talk to the committee.

“If the president won't share that information with us, then the interpreter is the only person we can look to,” the Democrat from New Hampshire told ABC News in an interview Wednesday.

She said she has asked several State Department officials what, if anything, the two leaders agreed to on Syria, where Russia has allied with the Assad regime. She said they didn’t know, a troubling notion that she said underscored the need to talk to the interpreter not just for Congress’ edification but for that of the entire administration.

The Democrats' questions came as the Russian Ministry of Defense released a statement Tuesday referring to "agreements" reached at the summit, although it was unclear whether it was simply summing up what the leaders said they discussed.

“The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is ready for the practical implementation of the agreements between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump in the field of international security reached at the Helsinki summit. The Russian military department is ready to intensify contacts with its American counterparts in the General Staff and other available channels of communication to discuss the extension of the START treaty, interaction in Syria, and other topical issues of ensuring military security.”

Shaheen added that she has not yet spoken to committee chairman Bob Corker about the possibility of issuing a subpoena, but said such an action, if necessary, would be consistent with the committee’s role providing oversight of the nation’s foreign policy.

Corker said Wednesday he understands why Democrats would make such a request and is seemingly open to it.

"All of us want to know what took place in that meeting," Corker told reporters.

"That's been something that's been suggested, but again, is that really appropriate? We have to ask," Corker said. "One of the lowest levels that we've seen in our foreign policy is what we saw a couple of days ago in Helsinki, and I think all of us are incredibly still sort of wondering what thinking is taking place."

But he cautioned: "I don't want us to lower ourselves ... if it's appropriate we'll pursue it, if it's something that truly should be executive privilege, we won't."

On the notes specifically, Corker said: "These are notes taken by the translator at the meeting, I'm not sure it's even appropriate. We're checking that, if it is, certainly we're pursuing that."

Shaheen told ABC News that if the administration is to exert executive privilege, “we need to find another way to get the information.”

During a press briefing this afternoon, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert couldn't say if the White House can claim the conversations and notes from the Helsinki summit fall under executive privilege.

"That's the question I asked, is there any precedent for this?" Nauert told reporters Wednesday. "We've not been able to find that just yet. I can tell you there's no formal request to have the interpreter to appear before any congressional committees at this point, overall, as a general matter, you know we always seek to work with Congress."

It's expected Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who traveled with the president to Helsinki, will be pressed for his notes by Democrats when he appears before the Foreign Relations Committee in a public hearing next Wednesday.

But Democrats may be in for an uphill battle on their quest for information from Gross herself.

“I think the leaders on the Hill and their top staff people should know that trying to get the information out of the interpreter would be a wild goose chase," said Harry Obst, who was the Director of State’s Office of Language Services for 14 years and translated for presidents from Lyndon B. Johnson to Bill Clinton.

State Department staff interpreters, like Gross, are civil servants who take an oath that they will not reveal any classified information, according to Obst. Additionally, interpreters for a U.S. president have top secret clearances, and so they are bound by law to not reveal top secret or classified information.

According to Obst, the interpreter writes a memorandum of the conversation after every meeting, which is deemed as the property of the president, or whoever participated in the classified meeting. The memorandum could not be made public or shared with lawmakers without the permission of the owner, which in this case would be Trump. It goes through the same declassification process after 17 years, like other classified information.

To Obst’s knowledge, no State Department interpreter has ever testified on the Hill on the content of meetings.

And if an interpreter is to be subpoenaed, Obst said he believes the interpreter could and should, in his opinion, uphold their oath not to reveal information.

And some Republicans aren't keen on the idea, either.

"I think that would be a terrible precedent, to be pulling translators for meetings that presidents have," Sen. Ted Cruz told reporters. "I was not a fan of President Obama and his policies, and I certainly didn't call for translators who were in private meetings with President Obama to be pulled before Congress. I think there has to be some ability for the executive branch to operate."

"What you're seeing is an awful lot of Democrats playing politics," Cruz said.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- Air Force One could be one of the most recognizable airplanes in the world, but by 2024, the plane is getting a big patriotic makeover.

The next generation of Air Force One planes will feature a brand new red, white and blue color scheme, President Donald Trump said in an interview with CBS that aired Tuesday evening.

"Air Force One is going to be incredible," said Trump. "It's going to be top of the line, the top in the world, and it's going to be red, white and blue, which I think is appropriate."

At the cost of $3.9 billion, Boeing will be responsible for designing, building, and testing two new planes that can be used as Air Force One. The current fleet of two Presidential planes is just over 30 years old, according to White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders. The government started the process to replace the planes back in 2011.

Back in 2016, the president criticized the cost of a previous contract with Boeing to replace the aging presidential fleet, saying the cost was too high. The White House says the new contract is $1.3 billion less than the earlier $5.3 billion dollar proposal.

The new planes are expected to be completed by December 2024, which means they’ll be used mostly for future Presidents. President Trump would be in the final month of his potential second term by the time they are finished.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- A new court filing alleges Maria Butina, the Russian gun-rights activist who was recently arrested and charged as a foreign agent, offered “sex in exchange for a position within a special interest organization” as part of a bid to gain access and make contacts in American political circles.

Butina, the filing notes, is believed to have “cohabited and been involved in a personal relationship” with an unnamed U.S. person for the sole purpose of developing her alleged influence operation, sparking comparisons to the recent spy thriller “Red Sparrow” starring Jennifer Lawrence as a Russian femme fatale.

“This relationship does not represent a strong tie to the United States because Butina appears to treat it as simply a necessary aspect of her activities,” the filing said. “For example on at least one occasion, Butina offered an individual other than U.S. Person 1 sex in exchange for a position within a special interest organization. Further, in papers seized by the FBI, Butina complained about living with U.S. Person 1 and expressed disdain for continuing to cohabitant with U.S. Person 1.”

At her first court appearance in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, a federal magistrate judge ordered Butina held without bond pending trial. Butina pleaded not guilty to criminal charges of conspiracy and failure to register as a foreign agent. If she is found guilty, Butina could face up to ten years in prison.

The 12-page filing -- which quotes from electronic messages in which a Russian official compares her to Anna Chapman, the red-headed Russian spy who operated under deep cover until she was discovered and deported as part of a prisoner swap in 2010 -- notes that Butina’s lease was scheduled to end on July 31, and she packed her belongings and wired money from her bank account back to Russia, which they believe were signs she was preparing to leave Washington.

“Her strong incentive is to retreat to Russia,” the court filing said. “Butina presents an extreme risk of flight.”

The case brought against her was not brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, and it is not known whether it has any connection to the broader investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential campaign.

Butina’s attorney has offered a strong rebuke against the government allegations, calling them “overblown” and saying she only sought to build friendly relations between Russians and conservative American activists. But the filing by counter-intelligence prosecutors says only some of what is known of Butina’s activities in the U.S. have been made public so far.

“The weight of evidence against the defendant is substantial,” the filing said.

FBI agents have been monitoring Butina for more than a year, the filing said, and believe she maintained contact with the Russian spy agency FSB during her stay. They allege that she built close relationships with several politically-connected Americans for the sole purpose of exploiting them for access.

“The plan was calculated, patient, and directed by [a] Russian official,” the filing said. “The defendant’s covert influence campaign involved substantial planning, international coordination and preparation. The plan for Butina also required, and she demonstrated, a willingness to use deceit…to bring the plan to fruition.”

Butina, 29, had been a mysterious presence in conservative circles over the past several years. She cofounded the Russian gun-rights group “The Right to Bear Arms” with Alexander Torshin, one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s closest allies, and then, according to prosecutors, used those seemingly shared interests to cultivate ties to high-ranking NRA officials and conservative politicians in the United States.

Butina and Torshin were frequent attendees of the annual NRA conventions, and former NRA president David Keene returned the favor. In 2013, Butina introduced Keene at the Right to Bear Arms annual conference in Moscow, and in 2015, she hosted a delegation of NRA board members, including Keene, in Moscow.

The relationship with Keene, who has not responded to requests for comment from ABC News, appears to have positioned her to get close to other powerful people, including the president. At the FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas in July 2015, Butina asked then-candidate Donald Trump a question about whether he would uphold “damaging” Russian sanctions. She also attended the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. in February 2017, where President Trump was the keynote speaker.

Meanwhile, she was pursuing a master’s degree in international relations from American University, where she graduated in May, but law enforcement officials now believe that was just a cover as she acted as a “covert Russian agent” seeking to “exploit personal connections” and “infiltrate organizations active in U.S. politics in an effort to advance” Russian interests.

Throughout her time in the United States, according to the affidavit attached to the initial criminal complaint, she received guidance from an unnamed Russian official who, based on the description, appears to be Torshin, and coordinated with two unnamed U.S. persons, whose identities remain opaque.

According to the affidavit, Butina and the Russian official “took steps to develop relationships with America politicians in order to establish private, or as she called them, ‘back channel’ lines of communication. These lines could be used by the Russian Federation to penetrate the U.S. national decision-making apparatus to advance the agenda of the Russian Federation.”

That effort appears to have been focused on the NRA. In private messages, Butina emailed one of the unnamed U.S. persons, describing what she called the “central place and influence” an unnamed gun-right groups enjoys in an unnamed political party as the “largest sponsor of the elections to the US congress, as well as a sponsor of The CPAC conference and other events.”

The following year, that U.S. person emailed an acquaintance, saying “I’ve been involved in securing a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin” and leaders of an unnamed political party through an unnamed gun rights organization.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

Mark Wilson/Getty Images(WASHINGTON)-- If the Air Force Chief of Staff doesn't support President Donald Trump's idea of a separate Space Force, he did not reveal his feelings to the press Tuesday, instead praising his administration for putting focus on space as a "war-fighting domain."

"One of my challenges when I first came in this job two years ago was actually finding enough people interested and passionate about what I'm passionate about, which is where we move militarily but also nationally relative to space," Gen. David Goldfein said.

In the past, the Air Force has angled to keep the space domain under its command, but Goldfein would only heap compliments on the Trump administration's excitement about space, saying he's glad the president "is leading that discussion."

"So now," Goldfein added, "I've got the president of the United States that's talking openly about space as a war fighting domain. I've got a vice president of the United States that stood up a National Space Council and is moving that. I've got Congress that's engaged and now interested in talking a lot about space. I've got the Secretary of Defense working space. I've got a Deputy Secretary. So I see this as a huge opportunity right now that we've been given to have a national level dialogue about where we're going in space and so I love the fact that the president is leading that discussion."

Goldfein said the president was "loud and clear" on his directive to stand up a separate Space Force, and that the Department of Defense has "begun that planning effort."

"This is a dialogue that is going to include a lot of votes and stakeholders, and so we're moving under the secretary of defense's guidance to do just that," he said.

Goldfein said the Department of Defense is putting its "final touches" on its report to Congress that looks at how a separate Space Force would operate. That report, led by the deputy secretary of defense and due Aug. 1, grew out of language in Congress' National Defense Authorization Act, before Trump publicly directed the Pentagon to stand up a Space Force.

The general acknowledged that part of the analysis of a separate force is looking at the "bureaucratic angle ... to make sure we're moving forward smartly" -- the only time he came close to acknowledging that a command of space could remain under Air Force control.



Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

Mark Wilson/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- As President Donald Trump stood next to Vladimir Putin in Helsinki and called the Russian president's denials of Russian meddling "extremely strong," he snapped back into focus for lawmakers and cybersecurity experts alike the subject of election meddling.

Trump's remarks, which he has since tried to clarify, are in sharp contrast to the findings of the U.S. intelligence community. They provoked criticism from both sides of the aisle, and cybersecurity experts said Trump's stance could be putting the upcoming midterm elections at risk.

"Make no mistake, Russia was successful, and as the director of national intelligence recently stated, they continue their efforts to undermine our democracy," said John Cohen, the former acting undersecretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security and an ABC News contributor. "From all I have seen and heard from law enforcement and intelligence professionals we are woefully unprepared to stop Russia's attack."

During the Helsinki summit, Trump said he had no reason not to believe Putin when the Russian president denied meddling. This runs counter to findings of the U.S. intelligence community that has repeatedly asserted that Russians interfere in the election.

The president has since walked back his remarks, telling reporters on Tuesday he misspoke during the press conference with Putin and that he has full faith in the intelligence community.

"It is deeply deeply troubling that anyone would equate the denial of the Russian president as somehow equal evidence to the professional opinions and judgments of the intelligence community," said Michael Sulmeyer, the Director of Harvard's cybersecurity project. "But for the most part I don't see very many other people making that comparison."

Trump's stance Monday contrasts sharply with the views of his national security adviser Dan Coats, who released a statement Monday maintaining his belief that Russian election meddling occurred.

"We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy," the statement said. "We will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security."

The intelligence community first released its findings in a January 2017 report that concluded "Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him."

Despite the president's recent claims, the administration has long maintained that it is taking aggressive steps to prevent Russian meddling.

In March, administration officials told ABC News that there is, in fact, a comprehensive effort to combat Russian meddling, and, more broadly, foreign interference in our election systems, but offered few specifics, noting that some of the information is classified.

The officials said the FBI and Department of Homeland Security have met with all 50 states and offered federal assistance, but said it's up to the states as to whether they take or refuse the assistance.

DHS has teamed up with the Election Assistance Commission along with election officials in many states and has "already given technical assistance in both prevention and implementation to secure voting systems," a White House official said.

Sulmeyer, who has spoken with secretaries of state from across the country about elections as part of his research, said he’s seen the impact of some congressional and administrative efforts to improve security.

"We've also seen some good efforts by Congress to try to get more money available for states and local jurisdictions to help," Sulmeyer said. "I think despite what we've seen the president say over the last few days, the Department of Homeland Security, there are pockets of it that have really been trying to be constructive and help."

In addition to congressional funding and administrative action, prosecutors have also been narrowing in on Russians who may have engaged in election interference during the 2016 election.

On Friday, 12 Russian nationals were charged for their efforts to hack emails from the Democratic National Committee, then nominee Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman John Podesta.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said the email hacks were part of a larger attempt to influence the 2016 elections.

"Free and fair elections are hard fought and contentious. There will always be adversaries who work to exacerbate domestic differences and try to confuse, divide, and conquer us," Rosenstein said. "The blame for election interference belongs to the criminals who committed election interference."

Another group of Russian nationals was indicted as part of the probe earlier this year. 13 Russian nationals were indicted in February for violating criminal laws with the intent of meddling "with U.S. elections and political processes" as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation in Russia election interference.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- Although she has lived in the U.S. since she was 2 months old, Maria Palacios was disqualified from running for a Georgia House seat because she became a citizen just last year.

According to Georgia state constitution, candidates are required to be a “citizen of the state” for a minimum of two years before being elected to a government position. Palacios has partnered with ACLU of Georgia to sue the state’s secretary of state to reinstate her on the ballot.

She is scheduled to be in court on Wednesday.

"[It is] important that no other U.S. citizen is denied the right to run for office because they are naturalized," Palacios said. "I believe in our democracy allowing equal opportunities for naturalized citizens."

Palacios is among a small wave of formerly undocumented immigrants candidates running for offices this year -- many of them on the state and local level.

Organizations that promote the election of immigrants say it is important that the government better reflects the U.S. population.

Latinos and Asian-Americans comprise over 22 percent of the population in the U.S. but hold fewer than 2 percent of more than 500,000 elected positions, from county commissioners to school board members, mayors and Congress, according to a report by New American Leaders, a group that encourages immigrants to run for office.

"That means just one in 50 elected officials nationwide is Latino or Asian American," the report said.

Sayu Bhojwani, founder of New American Leaders, said newcomers to the U.S. may bring notable dedication to an elected office because they, or their families, made a conscious choice to become Americans.

"Most of us have thought to come here or to be here, and we are very committed to democracy," Bhojwani said.

New American Leaders has helped 38 immigrants win election to state and local office. Among the immigrants who hope to win election this year are some who were formerly undocumented. Here are a few:

Maria Palacios

A mother of three, Palacios said that when she found out she became ineligible to run for the Georgia state House, she became concerned about the future of other previously undocumented people who aspire to engage civically.

"When you’re growing up, you’re always looking to identify yourself," Palacios said. "Younger generations shouldn’t feel limited because they don’t identify with the people [...] in our government. If we truly want to be the best and the brightest we need to truly embrace all ethnicities and have them feel comfortable."

Catalina Cruz

Catalina Cruz said she is running for the New York state Assembly to set policies that will help people like her mother, who had to scrounge to make ends meet as Cruz was growing up, including by selling tamales and collecting cans.

"It gives me the opportunity to fight in a way I haven't been able to do or frankly had the courage to do until now," Cruz said.

If she wins the Queens, New York, seat, Cruz, who became a citizen in 2009, said she is not worried about any criticism because of her previous status as undocumented.

"If you grew up undocumented you already had enough hardships,” Cruz said. “What is an anti-immigrant going to do to you that this system and this society hasn’t already done to you as an undocumented person?"

Farrah Khan

Farrah Khan, an immigrant from Pakistan, quotes an adage to explain the need for minorities to run for office: "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu.”

In 1974, Khan came to the U.S. with her mother on a sponsorship from her father until she was naturalized years later. Now, she's running for city council in Irvine, California.

Khan, the executive director of a local non-profit, the Newport Mesa Irvine Interfaith Council in southern California, said immigrants face a number of challenges in winning election including work to gain “name recognition, support from elected officials or even party folks."

"It is much harder for immigrants, people of color to attain these positions because there isn't a natural pipeline of people coming into politics and there are many obstacles to overcome," Khan said. "It's mostly been these amazing unpredicted wins, which is a problem in itself. There needs to be a natural process by which immigrants, people of color are pushed up to feed into the leadership roles."

If Khan wins the seat, she will become the first Asian-Pacific Islander woman to serve on the Irvine City Council.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- For the second night in a row, protesters gathered in front of the White House on Tuesday, this time joined by Stormy Daniels' lawyer Michael Avenatti and actress Alyssa Milano, who delivered speeches regarding President Donald Trump’s relationship with Russia and more.

The #OccupyLafayettePark protest comes as a response to Trump’s apparent defense of Vladimir Putin at the Trump-Putin summit on Monday. Last Friday, 12 Russian intelligence individuals were charged in the ongoing Robert Mueller investigation.

"President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump said at the summit.

On Tuesday, Trump explained that he misspoke during Monday's joint presser with Putin and meant to say there was no reason "it wouldn't be Russia" behind election meddling.

"I said the word would instead of wouldn't...I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself," Trump stated.

Before Avenatti’s arrival at the protest Tuesday night, many at the rally held signs with phrases such as, "If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention," while others called for impeachment. Moreover, a woman beat her drum in rhythm to the chants being made such as "Putin’s puppet is a dummy" and "Impeach 45."

In Avenatti’s speech, the attorney touched on his disapproval of the events that took place during the summit, stating that Trump had "acknowledged Vladimir Putin as the real President of the United States."

"I, like so many of you, hoped back then that the office would change the man," Avenatti said. "Now I know that it is the man that has changed the office."

Actress Alyssa Milano also made an appearance at the protest to stress the importance of participating in the November midterm elections -- a frequent theme throughout the night. The "Charmed" actress closed her speech with a chant: "Human microphone. Repeat after me! I believe that we will win!"



Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

Mark Wilson/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump said he "has full faith" in and accepts the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion that meddling took place during the 2016 elections as he prepared to meet with members of Congress at the White House on Tuesday.

"I accept our intelligence community's conclusion that meddling took place," Trump said reading from remarks which came more than a day after he questioned their findings. He added that it "could be other people also. There's a lot of people out there."

His typed prepared remarks included what appeared to be a handwritten note in black marker which read: "There was no collusion."

Trump said he misspoke during Monday's joint presser with Vladimir Putin and meant to say there was no reason "it wouldn't be Russia" behind election meddling.

"I said the word would instead of wouldn't...I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself."

At one point, the lights in the White House room went out as Trump made his remarks.

"Oops, they just turned off the light," Trump said, joking: "That must be the intelligence agencies."

Trump also defended his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting it was a success in spite of the widespread political backlash at home over his remarks at a Helsinki news conference.

"I think this was our most successful visit and that had to do, as you know, with Russia. I met with Russian president Vladimir Putin in an attempt to tackle some of the most pressing issues facing humanity," Trump said. "We have never been in a worse relationship with Russia than we are as of a few days ago, and I think that's gotten substantially better and I think it has the possibility of getting much better."

Later Tuesday afternoon, the White House circulated a press release of all the ways President Trump is "protecting our elections and standing up to Russia's malign activities," while also strengthening alliances and "troop readiness in Europe."

The president drew criticism, even from some of his closest Republican allies, for his earlier comments during the summit's press conference in which he seemed to accept Putin's denials of election meddling in conflict with his own intelligence community's conclusion that Russia did, in fact, interfere in the election.

Among the strongest rebukes of the president's performance came from close ally Newt Gingrich, who called for Trump to immediately correct what he characterized as the "the most serious mistake of his presidency."

The president took to Twitter Tuesday morning to double down on his assessment that the meeting with Putin was successful, even more so than his meeting with the United States' closest allies at NATO.

The president also offered thanks to Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who was one of a small number of Republicans who offered a defense of the president.

Meanwhile, some lawmakers have expressed concern over what might have been discussed between Trump and Vladimir Putin during the private, two-hour meeting in Helsinki.

Senate Democrats are calling on the U.S. translator who was in the meeting to testify before Congress, "to determine what was specifically discussed and agreed to on the United States' behalf."

"We're even more worried about what happened in those two hours when the president was alone with Mr. Putin," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters during a press conference Tuesday afternoon. "Does anyone believe that he was tougher on Putin in secret than he was publicly?"

Schumer is also calling on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, DNI Dan Coats, and US Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman to testify before Congress. Schumer said he spoke with Coats Monday night, but he wouldn't share what was discussed.

"This is too important not to get the full story out before the Senate," Schumer said.

Senate Democrats are also demanding the administration turn over all the "contemporaneous notes" taken during the meeting.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- Maria Butina, the Russian gun-rights activist who was recently arrested by the FBI and charged with conspiracy, was indicted by a grand jury on Tuesday on a second offense of acting as an agent of a foreign government.

Butina, who is alleged to have been a “covert Russian agent” developing an “influence operation” in the United States since 2015, faces a statutory maximum of five years in prison for the first offense and a statutory maximum of 10 years in prison for the second offense.

It is routine for prosecutors to seek a grand jury indictment after initially filing charges with a criminal complaint. According to a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Butina is due to appear before Judge Deborah A. Robinson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday.

Butina denied the charges through an attorney, who called the complaint against her “overblown” and said she “intends to defend her rights vigorously and looks forward to clearing her name.”

Butina, 29, had been a mysterious presence in conservative circles over the past several years. She cofounded the Russian gun-rights group “The Right to Bear Arms” with Alexander Torshin, one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s closest allies, and then, according to prosecutors, used those seemingly shared interests to cultivate ties to high-ranking NRA officials and conservative politicians in the United States.

Butina and Torshin were frequent attendees of the annual NRA conventions, and former NRA president David Keene returned the favor. In 2013, Butina introduced Keene at the Right to Bear Arms annual conference in Moscow, and in 2015, she hosted a delegation of NRA board members, including Keene, in Moscow.

The relationship appears to have positioned her to get close to other powerful people, including the president. At the FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas in July 2015, Butina asked then-candidate Donald Trump a question about whether he would uphold “damaging” Russian sanctions. She also attended the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. in February 2017, where President Trump was the keynote speaker.

Meanwhile, she was pursuing a master’s degree in international relations from American University, where she graduated in May, but law enforcement officials now believe that was just a cover as she acted as a “covert Russian agent” seeking to “exploit personal connections” and “infiltrate organizations active in U.S. politics in an effort to advance” Russian interests.

Throughout her time in the United States, according to the affidavit attached to the initial criminal complaint, she received guidance from an unnamed Russian official who, based on the description, appears to be Torshin, and coordinated with two unnamed U.S. persons, whose identities remain opaque.

According to the affidavit, Butina and the Russian official “took steps to develop relationships with America politicians in order to establish private, or as she called them, ‘back channel’ lines of communication. These lines could be used by the Russian Federation to penetrate the U.S. national decision-making apparatus to advance the agenda of the Russian Federation.”

That effort appears to have been focused on the NRA. In private messages, Butina emailed one of the unnamed U.S. persons, describing what she called the “central place and influence” the NRA enjoys in an unnamed political party as the “largest sponsor of the elections to the US congress, as well as a sponsor of The CPAC conference and other events.”

The following year, that U.S. person emailed an acquaintance, saying “I’ve been involved in securing a VERY private line of communication between the Kremlin” and leaders of an unnamed political party through an unnamed gun rights organization.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- In October of 2016, less than one day after the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape was uncovered by the Washington Post, Alabama congresswoman Martha Roby became one of the first prominent Republicans to announce she would not vote for Donald Trump as a result.

Not even two years later, that decision could factor into her runoff in the GOP primary in Alabama's 2nd Congressional District Tuesday after falling well short of a majority in the first round of voting on June 5.

Her opponent, Bobby Bright, a former Democratic congressman and mayor of Montgomery now running as a Republican, is seeking to make Roby the fourth member of the House, and third Republican, to be defeated in a primary this year.

In a field of five last month, Roby captured 39 percent of the vote to Bright's 28.1 percent, leaving an additional 32.9 percent at play Tuesday if Roby and Bright's supporters stick with their candidates.

Despite Bright's past as a member of the Democratic Party, he has become an ardent supporter of the president who has criticized Roby's 2016 "Never Trump" position, characterizing her stance as an act of "disloyalty."

"Donald Trump's behavior makes him unacceptable as a candidate for president, and I won't vote for him," said Roby in her October 2016 statement. "As disappointed as I've been with his antics throughout this campaign, I thought supporting the nominee was the best thing for our country and our party. Now, it is abundantly clear that the best thing for our country and our party is for Trump to step aside and allow a responsible, respectable Republican to lead the ticket."

"Hillary Clinton must not be president, but, with Trump leading the ticket, she will be," concluded Roby, in a prediction that would turn out to be incorrect.

Any animosity between the president and congresswoman over her decision appears to have been buried, as Trump endorsed Roby in late June. Trump also went so far as to attack Bright for his vote to elect Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House while a Democratic member of Congress in 2009.

"Congresswoman Martha Roby of Alabama has been a consistent and reliable vote for our Make America Great Again Agenda," the president tweeted. "She is in a Republican Primary run-off against a recent Nancy Pelosi voting Democrat. I fully endorse Martha for Alabama 2nd Congressional District!"

Bright responded to the endorsement shortly after, chalking Trump's decision up to politics.

"It appears the D.C. powerbrokers have gotten to the president on this issue. It’s truly a swamp of insiders controlled by big money special interests," Bright said in a statement, adding that the endorsement wouldn't prevent his continued backing of Trump. "I support President Trump and his America First agenda. I always will. He can count on me to be his partner to build the Wall, promote peace through strength, and work for prosperity for all."

Should Roby lose Tuesday, she would join Reps. Robert Pittenger, R-N.C.; Mark Sanford, R-S.C.; and Joe Crowley, D-N.Y.; as incumbents who have fallen victim to upstart primary challengers.

Other noteworthy runoffs in Alabama Tuesday include the Republican primary races for lieutenant governor and attorney general, which have attracted influential outsiders in the campaigns' final days.

On Monday, former Trump political adviser Roger Stone stumped for Troy King, who is challenging incumbent Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall after the pair finished in the top two of a tight first round that saw all four Republican candidates receive over 20 percent of the vote. Marshall, who is seeking his first election to the post after being appointed by former Gov. Robert Bentley, has been boosted by events with fellow state attorney generals, including Florida's Pam Bondi, a close ally of the president.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- Environment and health advocates are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to abandon a proposed rule that they say would hurt environmental protections by blocking the agency from using some scientific research in its regulations.

The EPA held a public hearing on its "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" rule Tuesday, which former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said would bar the agency from basing regulations on science where the raw data is not made public -- what Pruit called "secret science." More than 200,000 public comments have been submitted on the proposal since it was announced in April.

Dozens of representatives from groups including the American Lung Association, Moms Clean Air Force, and Union of Concerned Scientists testified against the proposal in the hearing.

When he announced the rule, Pruitt said it would make regulations at the agency more transparent because any study used to write a rule could be replicated. But critics say because many EPA rules are related to protecting health, some of the data that is used in that research can't be released without breaching the privacy of the people involved.

Advocates from health and environmental groups say the rule is vague and would block regulators from citing research into the health effects of pollution, which usually does not release raw data due to privacy concerns.

Michael Halpern, director of the Center for Science and Democracy and the Union for Concerned Scientists, testified that the rule would prevent EPA from carrying out its mission to protect human health and the environment.

"Without the ability to use this scientific information, EPA would be unable to meet its mission and statutory obligations. This proposal would make it significantly harder for EPA to use the best available science to protect the public, including from harmful emissions of hazardous air pollutants, particulate matter and ozone, exposure to dangerous chemicals in commerce, (and) drinking water contaminated with toxic chemicals such as PFAS or lead," Halpern said.

In one example, the director of the nuclear program for the Natural Resources Defense Council said the proposed rule could undercut standards for radiation exposure because the EPA would no longer be able to rely on research on atomic bomb survivors -- because the data is available to other researchers but not the general public.

Matthew McKinzie, director of the nuclear program for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rule would exclude important studies about atomic bomb survivors, for example, even though the studies are well-regarded and have been reviewed by other researchers multiple times.

"Implementation of the rule would effectively block the use of such key scientific studies and allow for radiation standards to be either wholly weakened or made functionally meaningless," McKinzie said in his testimony.

The studies McKinzie cites and other health-related studies about issues like smog pollution or chemical exposure often study thousands of individuals monitored for decades, and researchers say they can't publicly release the data because it would not be possible to remove all the personal information or that the research subjects did not consent to make the data public.

Some advocates say the rule isn't actually about transparency but would benefit industry groups who want fewer regulations.

Groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Petroleum Institute, and the American Chemistry Council say they support the rule and would work with other stakeholders to maximize transparency while working within limitations like information that legally can't be made public because it includes private health information.

A report released by the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute on Tuesday says the rule is actually more limited than critics say and that the EPA would still be allowed to use research that can't be made publicly available when it is "not feasible" to do so. Angela Logomasini, a senior fellow at the institute who attended Tuesday's hearing, said some of the testimony ignored that other laws like the Safe Drinking Water Act require the EPA to use the "best available science" so it could not ignore studies who use data protected by privacy laws.

"Numerous presenters raised concerns that the transparency rule would somehow prevent EPA from using the best available science, and thereby prevent EPA from making rules to protect public health. Nothing could be further from the truth," said Angela Logomasini, a senior fellow at the institute who attended Tuesday's hearing. "The rule explicitly provides exemptions for science that cannot be released because of privacy concerns," Logomasini said, adding "Perhaps some opponents are actually more concerned that data release will undermine their ideological views about regulation."

But critics, including Democratic lawmakers, said the rule was unnecessary and implied that EPA was previously using science that wasn't already vetted by other researchers.

"The proposed rule perpetuates the incorrect notion that the science the EPA relies on is somehow hidden. It is not,” Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Or., said in her testimony. “The EPA would be forced to ignore valuable information discovered during their research because it contains confidential information. This would have chilling consequences for the EPA and every person who benefits from clean air and clean water."

The proposed rule is open for public comment until August 16.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- While House Speaker Paul Ryan struggled Tuesday to defend President Donald Trump's performance with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland, without criticizing him directly, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took to the Senate floor with a laundry list of things he says it’s obvious Congress should do in response to Trump's remarks.

They are, in the order Schumer presented them: Increase sanctions on Russia; demand that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other members of the Trump national security team in Helsinki testify before Congress; stop attacking special counsel Robert Mueller; urge Trump to extradite the 12 indicted Russians; bolster U.S. election security.

“Our Republican colleagues cannot just go 'tsk, tsk, tsk.' They must act if they want to help America,” Schumer said.

That’s a pretty thorough list of the options Congress could take in order to send a message to Trump, the American people and allies around the world. But each measure has a different likelihood of being implemented, based on a number of political and policy-related risks and rewards that each lawmaker would weigh individually.

Here’s a look at what's being discussed.

Stronger sanctions?

Congress relatively recently passed strict new sanctions on Russia which the Trump administration has only reluctantly implemented. Ryan expressed openness to increasing the pressure through sanctions if lawmakers identify new targets.

“What we intend to do is to make sure that they don't get away with it again,” Ryan said during a news conference Tuesday.

And that jibes with a bill from Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., that would impose new sanctions on Russia’s finance, energy and defense sectors if the director of national intelligence determines that the Kremlin has interfered again in U.S. elections.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle Tuesday expressed support of the bill and the notion in general of imposing more sanctions on Russia.

“By putting restrictions on banks and Russia not doing business with American banks, it's going to do real harm to Russia's economy,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said.

“That certainly would send a very strong message to the Russians, which is needed to counter what the president said yesterday,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, added.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., had a response that was briefer but to the point: “Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions,” he said.

The question is how Senate leadership feels about bringing such a bill to the Senate floor.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Monday did not rule out new sanctions but did note that Congress had already gotten “dramatic” penalties signed into law, however reluctantly the administration is implementing them.

“Much of what Sen. Schumer’s asking for I think we’ve already done,” Cornyn said.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, who expressed openness to additional sanctions, urged reporters to keep their expectations realistic in terms of how quickly they’d see Congress move on such legislation.

“Congress doesn't function in a way where you have an incredibly poor performance by the president in really over the last 10 days and then all of a sudden, the next day pass things,” he said.

The Senate also wants to see the House version of the annual defense policy bill -- the NDAA -- drop a provision that would allow the president to lift sanctions on Russia with very few preconditions. But Corker Tuesday said he wasn’t even aware of that House provision, meaning it’s not really on the Senate’s radar yet.

Testimony?

There is a bipartisan desire to hear from top Cabinet officials on what was said during the private meeting between Trump and Putin.

“I’m calling on Leader McConnell and his leadership team to immediately request a hearing with Secretary of State Pompeo and the rest of the team from Helsinki so we can find out what the hell happened there,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.

Corker told reporters that Pompeo might come in to brief members of his committee next week. Pompeo has not yet briefed the panel on the Singapore summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, so the original briefing would have only been on that, but would now include Helsinki, too.

“We need to find out who was giving [Trump] patriotic advice and who was giving him unpatriotic advice,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a member of the committee, said Monday.

Calls for extradition?

Lawmakers have already dismissed out of hand Putin’s offer to have reciprocal interrogation, wherein Russian officials invite Americans to witness them interrogating the 12 newly-indicted Russian operatives in exchange for the same opportunity in the United States. The president had called the offer an “interesting idea.”

“That’s ridiculous,” Cornyn told reporters Monday.

But some senators – including at least one Republican – are urging Trump to demand that Russia extradite the twelve to the United States.

“Ask for the extradition of the 12 criminals that invaded our election process and secondly, to be very strong,” Judiciary chairman Grassley said when asked for his advice to Trump.

“You mess in our election again and there's going to be big consequences.”

But it’s not clear whether Republican leadership will embrace that message. Cornyn yesterday called the suggestion “wishful thinking.”

“Putin’s not going to extradite those intelligence officers,” he added. It remains to be seen whether that dissuades Congress from speaking with one voice urging the president to demand extradition anyway.

Bolstering election security?

Congress also included $380 million in funding in this year’s omnibus spending bill to bolster states’ election infrastructure. But there are additional bills that have been circulating for months that would more directly bolster U.S. election security than imposing additional sanctions after the fact.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Mark Warner, D-Va., and John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced the Honest Ads Act in October 2017, intended to prevent foreign influence in online political ads, as Russia allegedly did in 2016 using platforms like Facebook and Twitter. It would impose public disclosure requirements on online political advertisements similar to those that already exist for TV, radio and satellite ads. A companion bill in the House was sponsored by Reps. Derek Kilmer, D-Wash., and Mike Coffman, R-Colo.

Klobuchar and Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., also have a separate bill that would streamline cybersecurity information-sharing between federal intelligence agencies and state election agencies.

A congressional aide told ABC that the Klobuchar-Lankford bill has picked up additional Republican sponsors and has “a lot of momentum,” especially after the Helsinki meeting. Both senators have been working with their party’s leadership teams to move the bill forward in the hopes of eventually holding a floor vote.

But the aide said that bill has a “higher likelihood of crossing the finish line” than Honest Ads, which has not picked up any Republicans beyond McCain, who is in his home state of Arizona undergoing cancer treatment. In the meantime, the bill’s sponsors have been urging social media companies to implement its requirements voluntarily.

In a statement released before the Helsinki meeting, Klobuchar urged Trump to tell Putin about congressional efforts to strengthen U.S. election security.

“Bipartisan support in Congress is important but there is no substitute for Presidential leadership and action,” she said.

Other measures?

Another likely measure that is already being discussed, according to several senators, is another nonbinding “sense of the Senate” resolution to condemn Trump’s remarks in Helsinki, where he questioned U.S. intelligence on Russian election interference and blamed his own country for Russian aggression.

On the House side, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., will introduce a resolution “endorsing” Speaker Ryan's written statement from Monday defending the U.S. intelligence community. She also said Democrats would call for increased funding for grants to states regarding election security, and teased that Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, will introduce his own resolution in the coming days to criticize the president.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., also attempted to offer a motion for the House Judiciary Committee to adjourn a hearing on social media filtering Tuesday in order to go into executive session and discuss Russian threats to the U.S. electoral process.

But as Corker noted, such measures can deliver a message, but not much else.

“Those are nice, you know, and we did that to show support for our NATO allies and for NATO itself, but they don't do anything,” Corker noted of similar resolutions that have already passed the Senate.

Corker wants to see the Senate take up what has become a priority of his: a bill to prevent the president from unilaterally imposing tariffs on other countries on the basis of national security.

But that bill has not previously received the support from Senate leadership needed to bring it up for a vote, and it’s not clear that it would be called up now as a means of responding to Trump’s comments in Helsinki.

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



Subscribe To This Feed

ABC News(WASHINGTON) -- Amid a flood of criticism from members of both parties over his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, President Donald Trump declined to reverse course Tuesday by instead highlighting the meeting as more productive than his gathering with NATO allies days before.

"While I had a great meeting with NATO, raising vast amounts of money, I had an even better meeting with Vladimir Putin of Russia," Trump tweeted Tuesday morning. "Sadly, it is not being reported that way - the Fake News is going Crazy!"

While the president dismissed the criticism as evidence of a biased media, it's not just Democrats who have raised serious alarms as Trump appeared to side with Putin's denials of interference in the 2016 election.

One of Trump's most stalwart defenders, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, tweeted following the summit saying it was "the most serious mistake of his presidency and must be corrected – immediately."

Trump instead chose to highlight one of his lone Republican backers Tuesday, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who said the backlash was instead evidence of "Trump derangement syndrome.”

"Thank you @RandPaul, you really get it!" Trump tweeted Tuesday morning. "'The President has gone through a year and a half of totally partisan investigations - what’s he supposed think?'"

None of Trump's cabinet members have rushed to Trump's defense amid the controversy, and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats issued a statement Monday standing by the Intelligence Community's assessment of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

However, in an attempt to justify the president's performance, the White House notably circulated talking points obtained by ABC News to surrogates and Republican allies on Capitol Hill late Monday evening as the president landed back in Washington.

The talking points seem to contradict what the president said standing alongside Putin, listing the previous times Trump said he "thinks" Russia meddled and one appearance in 2017 when he said, "I'm with our agencies."

The narrative being pushed by the White House runs counter to Trump's own comments just yesterday saying he doesn't "see any reason why" Russia would be interfering in the election, and called Putin's denial of meddling "strong and powerful."

Instead, the White House shared Trump's "real record on Russia" to Republicans "to push back on the false and hysterical claims currently being pushed by some of those on the left and in the media."

Copyright © 2018, ABC Radio. All rights reserved.

0
comments



KJC Kennel Club




   

 




JET

2007-2009

"Always in our Heart! "