Adam Schiff Says Obama Should Have Done More About Russian Meddling

On Friday, news broke that former President Barack Obama knew about Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election long before it was publicly known. Obama was apparently told about the Russian efforts in August of last year. Over the weekend, Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that Obama should have done more to address the issue and informed the public earlier. On Saturday, Trump tweeted the same thing.

Since the Obama Administration was told way before the 2016 Election that the Russians were meddling, why no action? Focus on them, not T!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 24, 2017

But Obama’s team says it didn’t want to make it look like they were trying to sway the election results, especially after Trump’s repeated allegations that the election was rigged. Instead, the administration imposed sanctions and issued stern warnings to Russia. Also, most people thought that Hillary Clinton would almost certainly win the election regardless of any Russian interference.

Yes, Obama should have been more decisive in countering Russia’s actions but leadership is about figuring out a solution, not just complain.

— Anirvan Ghosh (@anirvanghosh) June 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, reports came in that Susan Rice, the national security adviser from 2013 to early 2017, requested the identities of some of President Donald Trump’s associates be “unmasked” in intelligence reports. Rice is no stranger to political scandals: in 2013, she was grilled for her handling of the bombing at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. But what exactly did Rice uncover when combing over the reports, and were her actions that unusual, or illegal? Let’s take a deeper look.

What Did Rice Do?

U.S. intelligence services routinely surveil communications of foreign actors. Sometimes, American citizens are at the other end of these communications. A handful of Trump’s campaign associates are suspected of communicating with Russian government officials or businessmen, and therefore, were anonymously “swept up” in intelligence reports on the Russian actors. Usually, the identities of U.S. citizens who are included in foreign surveillance reports are kept hidden, or masked.

Rice, as first reported in Bloomberg View on Monday, repeatedly sought to “unmask” the identities of Trump’s associates who were caught up in the intelligence reports during the campaign. In an interview on MSNBC on Tuesday, Rice explained her thought process:

There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to–name not provided, just a U.S. person–and sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out, or request the information as to who the U.S. official was.

She did not, however, agree with her critics that her unmasking requests were for political gain. “The allegation is that somehow the Obama Administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,” she said. “That’s absolutely false.”

Is What She Did Illegal?

No, it’s not. Federal law does indeed allow the national security adviser, which Rice was at the time, to request the identities of U.S. persons in intelligence reports for “context.” And there is no evidence she acted to benefit the Obama Administration, or Trump’s opponent at the time, Hillary Clinton. That’s not stopping Trump, who first claimed Obama wiretapped Trump Tower in a now-infamous tweet in early March, from reaching that conclusion.

“It’s such an important story for our country and the world,” he said in an interview Wednesday with the New York Times. “It is one of the big stories of our time.” He did not elaborate, nor did he provide any fresh evidence to vindicate his earlier claims about Obama wiretapping him, or that Rice’s actions were politically motivated or criminal.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), a leading member of the House committee that is probing Trump’s and his associates’ ties to Russia, suggested on Wednesday that Rice could be subpoenaed to testify in front of the committee. “Whether she has pertinent testimony or not, I can’t say. If she does, we’d be happy to have her come in,” he said. He categorically rejected people who try to “besmirch the reputation” of Rice.

“I don’t know what it is about Susan Rice that has always drawn the conspiracy theories of that Breitbart crowd,” he said. “But they’re at it again and it is a disservice to someone who is a public servant.” Some Republicans are looking at the new reports as potential evidence that Rice was politically motivated in her handling of the intelligence reports.

“Every presidential administration from FDR through Nixon, the administration in power used intelligence agencies to engage in political espionage,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Wednesday. “Human behavior hasn’t changed. Technology has changed and made a lot of this simpler. We have to be on the lookout for it.” While Lee did not conclude Rice’s actions amount to a political or criminal act, he did say it is “not absurd to suggest something like this could have happened.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About Susan Rice’s “Unmasking” of Trump Associates appeared first on Law Street.

After the documentary “Blackfish” made waves, there was substantial outcry about SeaWorld’s actions, particularly as they related to orcas. Now, federal lawmakers are working to end some of SeaWorld’s most predatory practices.

Representative Adam Schiff (D-California) announced a bill, the Orca Responsibility and Care Advancement Act (ORCA), on Friday that would prohibit the breeding of captive orcas, as well as prevent the wild capture of the animals for exhibit purposes. This would essentially lead to a phase-out of Orcas being used for show at SeaWorld parks.

Orcas are too socially complex, too intelligent, too long-lived and simply too big to thrive in confinement #ORCAacthttps://t.co/pZmeg8hgsO

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) November 6, 2015

The controversial “Shamu Shows” have been under particular scrutiny since the release of “Blackfish” in 2013, which shed light on the way that the orcas are treated at SeaWorld, as well as the death of trainer Dawn Brancheau. Despite the $15 million that the company has spent trying to decry the movie as propaganda and promote its supposed good work instead, it has been hurting as a result of the negative scrutiny. For example, at its San Diego park, attendance fell 17 percent last year. Overall, SeaWorld’s profits have fallen by almost half since the film’s release.

Gabriela Cowperthwaite, the director of “Blackfish” explained the reason that so many were drawn to the film, saying:

I just think the movie struck a nerve. I think it has galled people to learn that a beloved cultural icon, an institution we think is dedicated to teaching our children, is the opposite of what it pretends to be. The whales aren’t happy and the trainers aren’t safe. It’s as simple as that.

Schiff”s motivation for introducing the bill was much along the same vein; in a statement he explained: “the evidence is very strong that the psychological and physical harm done to these magnificent animals far outweighs any benefits reaped from their display.”

Schiff’s bill is supported by a number of advocacy organizations, including the Animal Welfare Institute, the Humane Society of the United States, the Humane Society Legislative Fund and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal.

Although Congress’s near-constant gridlock nowadays may mean that the bill doesn’t go anywhere, SeaWorld isn’t in good shape. The consistently bad PR, falling profits, and now the threat of damaging legislation doesn’t bode well for the entertainment destination.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Post Blackfish: A Push to Change SeaWorld’s Practices appeared first on Law Street.