Saturday, June 27, 2026

Feud over Trump dossier intensifies with release of interview transcript

January 10, 2018 by  
Filed under Latest Lingerie News

Comments Off

The political battle over the FBI and its investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election intensified Tuesday with the release of an interview with the head of the firm behind a dossier of allegations against then-candidate Donald Trump.

The transcript of Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson’s interview with the Senate Judiciary Committee was released by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the panel’s senior Democrat, over the objections of Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).

Feinstein’s action comes alongside an effort by Republicans to discredit the dossier as a politically motivated document that the FBI has relied too heavily upon in its investigation. Feinstein sought to push back against that perception and to bolster the FBI’s credibility.

“The innuendo and misinformation circulating about the transcript are part of a deeply troubling effort to undermine the investigation,” she said.

Grassley, who said Feinstein’s move “undermines the integrity of the committee’s oversight work,” had refused requests by Simpson to release his entire 10-hour interview, which was conducted in August.

The Senate committee has been probing how the FBI handled allegations it received from a British ex-spy, Christopher Steele, who compiled a series of memorandums, later collected as a dossier, alleging that the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin — a claim the president has repeatedly denied.

The 312-page transcript shows that Republican staffers on the committee repeatedly pressed Simpson about whether he had political motivations in hiring Steele. Simpson acknowledged that he didn’t like Trump as a candidate but said his job was to find facts, not to push an agenda.

In his testimony, Simpson said Steele contacted the FBI with concerns about Russian meddling in early July 2016. When the bureau reinterviewed Steele in early October, agents made it clear, according to Simpson’s testimony released Tuesday, that they believed some of what Steele had told them.

Simpson also said Steele was told that the FBI had someone inside Trump’s network providing agents with information — a claim he also made in an op-ed for the New York Times last week.

“My understanding was that they believed Chris at this point — that they believed Chris might be credible because they had other intelligence that indicated the same thing and one of those pieces of intelligence was a human source from inside the Trump organization,” Simpson said.

Simpson said he didn’t know whether the person was connected to the Trump campaign or a Trump company, adding that his understanding was that the source was “someone like us who decided to pick up the phone and report something.”

Several people familiar with the probe said Simpson’s comments refer to a report from an Australian official who contacted U.S. officials in late July with concerns about a conversation months earlier in London with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. In 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and is cooperating with investigators.

At another point in the interview, a lawyer for Fusion GPS, Joshua A. Levy, made a jarring assertion: that the dossier’s publication had led to someone’s death.

“Somebody’s already been killed as a result of the publication of this dossier and no harm should come to anybody related to this honest work,” Levy said late in the interview, according to the transcript.

Levy did not expand on that claim in the interview, nor is there any public information that would tie a specific killing to the information in the dossier. A person close to the investigation said Fusion GPS has long worried that Steele’s overseas sources could be in danger, given a handful of killings that took place in the months after the dossier’s existence became known.

Representatives for Fusion GPS declined to comment.

Fusion GPS was hired in mid-2016 by a lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee to dig into Trump’s background. Earlier that year, the firm had investigated Trump for a conservative website funded by a Republican donor, but that client stopped paying for the work after it became clear that Trump would win the GOP presidential nomination, according to people familiar with the matter.

After Democrats began paying for the research, Fusion GPS hired Steele, a former senior officer with Britain’s intelligence service, MI6, to gather intelligence about any ties between the Kremlin and Trump and his associates.

As the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has gathered momentum in recent weeks, Republicans have expanded their attacks on Fusion GPS, Steele and the FBI.

Conservatives have accused the bureau’s senior leaders of being biased or corrupt in their handling of investigations involving Clinton and Trump, attacking the reputation of an institution that has long held itself to a standard of being nonpartisan and evenhanded.

Democrats — and even some Republicans — were alarmed last week when Grassley made a criminal referral to the Justice Department, suggesting it investigate Steele for possibly lying to the FBI.

Feinstein countered by releasing the Simpson transcript, a move that at least one senior Republican applauded.

“I think that’s a good idea,’’ said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who said he wanted more transparency on how the FBI gathered information and the extent to which investigators may have used the dossier as a partial basis for obtaining a surveillance warrant.

In urging the committee to release the full transcript of his interview, Simpson has argued that Republicans are trying to obscure what happened in 2016.

Through much of 2017, Feinstein and Grassley made joint requests for information about Russia and the FBI’s investigation of election interference. In the fall, however, tensions between the two senators spilled into the open as Grassley requested information from the FBI and other sources without Feinstein’s support.

Increasingly, the Democrats and Republicans on the committee are going in different directions, with Grassley moving to investigate matters involving Clinton when she was secretary of state and Feinstein concentrating on Russian interference in the election.

Erica Werner and Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

DACA Immigration Protections Must Continue for Now, Judge Says

January 10, 2018 by  
Filed under Latest Lingerie News

Comments Off

One of the lead plaintiffs in the case, Janet Napolitano, is currently the president of the sprawling University of California system of colleges but served as the secretary of homeland security for Mr. Obama in 2012 and was an architect of the DACA program.

In his ruling, Judge Alsup questioned the administration’s contention that the DACA program had not been put into place legally. He asserted that the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has long had the authority to grant the kind of temporary protections that formed the basis of the program.

Judge Alsup also cited several of Mr. Trump’s Twitter posts that expressed support for the program. He noted that in September, the president wrote: “Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!” Such tweets, the judge said, bolstered the idea that keeping the program going was in the public’s interest.

The judge wrote that previous beneficiaries of DACA, known as Dreamers, must be allowed to renew their status in the program, though the government will not be required to accept new applications from immigrants who had not previously submitted one. The judge also said the administration could continue to prevent DACA recipients from returning to the United States if they leave the country.

It is unclear what the legal effect could be from the judge’s ruling, but the Trump administration may be headed for more intense legal wrangling like the kind that happened after the president’s travel bans.

A spokesman for the Justice Department, Devin O’Malley, said that the ruling did not change the department’s stance.

“DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend these benefits to this same group of illegal aliens,” he said. “As such, it was an unlawful circumvention of Congress, and was susceptible to the same legal challenges that effectively ended DACA. The Department of Homeland Security therefore acted within its lawful authority in deciding to wind down DACA in an orderly manner. Promoting and enforcing the rule of law is vital to protecting a nation, its borders, and its citizens.”

Photo

Janet Napolitano, a former homeland security secretary and the president of the sprawling University of California system of colleges, in May.

Credit
Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press

The administration could quickly appeal the judge’s ruling, hoping that an appeals court would prevent the injunction from taking effect and allowing the shutdown of the DACA program as the president announced in September.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

But such a ruling could itself be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, potentially tying the fate of the DACA program in court action for days, weeks or longer.

Either way, the ruling could have serious political effect.

If the court’s order to restart the DACA program stands, that could take pressure off Republicans and Democrats to find a political solution for the young immigrants who could be deported if the program ends.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Almost immediately after the president rescinded the DACA program in September, Mr. Trump expressed sympathy for the young immigrants who were children when their parents brought them to the country illegally. Mr. Trump repeated his sympathies on Tuesday at the White House meeting.

Democrats have seized on the president’s attitude, urging their Republican colleagues to support legislation that would permanently legalize the Dreamers to work in the United States, and give them an eventual path to American citizenship.

But hard-line conservatives say that would amount to an amnesty program for lawbreakers, and some Republicans in Congress have been pressing for other immigration changes before they will support legislation for the Dreamers.

In particular, Republicans at the White House meeting demanded an end to rules that allow immigrants to sponsor their extended family members — aunts, uncles, cousins — to enter the United States. And they want an end to a State Department visa lottery program that prioritizes legal immigration from certain countries in Africa and elsewhere.

Democrats have warned that demands for those measures could undermine support from their party for legislation on the Dreamers, potentially threatening a budget deal necessary to keep the government open past this month.

Xavier Becerra, the California attorney general and a former Democratic representative in Congress, filed one of the lawsuits seeking to block the administration from ending the DACA program. He hailed the judge’s ruling in a statement.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“Today’s ruling is a huge step in the right direction,” Mr. Becerra said. “We will fight at every turn for their rights and opportunities so they may continue to contribute to America.”

But some advocates expressed concern that the legal efforts, while well intentioned, could undermine the push to earn permanent relief for the young immigrants.

Camille Mackler, the director of immigration legal policy at the New York Immigration Coalition, said that while advocates were relieved that more DACA recipients would be able to renew their membership, they expected the government to appeal the judge’s ruling.

In the meantime, she said, only legislation offering legal status to Dreamers would suffice to protect them.

“This is not a win for us,” Ms. Mackler said. “We’re obviously glad that this is going to provide some relief, but what we really need is a clean Dream Act,” a reference to a bill that only legalizes the young immigrants without also imposing other immigration changes that Republicans are demanding.


Continue reading the main story

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS