Michael Flynn, the ousted former national security adviser, appears to have violated federal law by accepting money during a trip to Moscow in 2015, according to top lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee. In a press conference after a review of classified documents related to Flynn’s brief stint as the head of the NSA, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the chairman of the committee, said that Flynn’s failure to disclose the payment could be a prosecutable offense.

“As a former military officer, you simply cannot take money from Russia, Turkey or anybody else,” Chaffetz said, referring to Flynn’s consulting firm’s undisclosed work with a company tied to the Turkish government. “And it appears as if he did take that money. It was inappropriate, and there are repercussions for a violation of law.” Chaffetz, who delivered remarks on Tuesday with his colleague, Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland, added: “There was nothing in the data to show that Gen. Flynn complied with the law.”

According to Chaffetz, Flynn failed to disclose the payments when he was seeking a security clearance for his appointment as national security adviser. Moscow reportedly paid Flynn tens of thousands of dollars to make a speech in the capital in 2015, at an event organized by the state-owned Russia Today, or RT. White House officials on Tuesday said they would not turn over documents pertaining to Flynn’s foreign contacts while he served in the administration.

Flynn was pressured to resign from his post in mid-February, less than a month after being sworn in. After reports leaked that Flynn misled administration officials–including Vice President Mike Pence–about the content of his conversations with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, a public maelstrom ensued. Last month, Flynn offered to testify in the House and Senate investigations into President Donald Trump’s and his campaign advisers’ communications with Russia in exchange for immunity. His offer immediately raised a question: what did he seek immunity from? The latest revelations might offer a clue.

Following Chaffetz’s remarks on Tuesday afternoon, Flynn’s attorney, Robert Kelner, released a statement, denying any wrongdoing on Flynn’s part: “As has previously been reported, General Flynn briefed the Defense Intelligence Agency, a component agency of (the Defense Department), extensively regarding the RT speaking event trip both before and after the trip, and he answered any questions that were posed by DIA concerning the trip during those briefings.”

Also on Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is probing the Trump-Russia ties, announced it would hold a hearing on May 8. Testifying at the hearing will be former acting attorney general Sally Yates, who initially told the White House about Flynn’s misleading statements to Pence, and former director of national intelligence James Clapper.

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 Jason Chaffetz: Michael Flynn May Have Broken Federal Law with Moscow Speech appeared first on Law Street.

In contrasting reports released Monday and Tuesday by House Democrats and Republicans, respectively, the harrowing events at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya in 2012 have been poked and prodded, with the two sides reaching opposite conclusions.

“None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines,” the Republicans, headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), concluded in its 800-page report. “Nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost eight hours after the attacks began.” The report is the result a two year, $7 million investigation into the deaths of four Americans–including U.S. Ambassador to Libya  Christopher Stevens–in Benghazi. 

The Democratic minority faction of the House Select Committee on Benghazi concluded in its report, which was led by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and released on Monday in an effort to pre-empt the Republican findings, that the Department of Defense “could not have done anything differently on the night of the attacks that would have saved the lives of the four brave Americans killed in Benghazi.”

They added that while the security at the compound–which was the site of two separate terrorist bombings a mile away from each other, and hours apart–was “woefully inadequate,” “Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi.”

Hillary Clinton has been a political flashpoint over the nearly four years since the attacks and throughout the seven total investigations into the events of September 11, 2012. She was secretary of state at the time of the attacks, and her name has been wielded by Republicans as a key implicit character in its confusing aftermath.

She testified before the committee last October. Immediately following the tragic episode, the State Department portrayed the attacks as a response to an anti-Muslim video. In the subsequent months, the attack was found to have been premeditated by Islamic militants, unrelated to any such video.

And while Republicans have at least partially blamed Clinton in previous investigations–one of which led to a separate FBI investigation into her use of a private email server, an issue that is still present as she campaigns to be the next president–into the attacks, the latest report does not focus on her, but on the miscommunication and failings of the Department’s larger security apparatus. The Democrats called the Republican report “a conspiracy theory on steroids” and said it was the “opposite” of bipartisan.

For their part, the Republican side dismissed the Democrats’ report as being full of  “rehashed, partisan talking points defending their endorsed candidate for president,” alluding to Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

In their statement responding to the Democrats’ 339-page report, the Republicans highlighted a few key terms and the frequency with which they appeared in the Democrats’ “so-called ‘report'”: “Clinton” appears 334 times, and “Stevens,” the surname of the U.S. ambassador killed during the attack, appeared 85 times. This, according to the Republicans, reinforces the Democrats’ fixation on Clinton in regards to Benghazi.

Regardless of the political theatre and partisan ammunition the Benghazi attacks have provided, the one agreed upon point from both sides–the lax security at the diplomatic compound–has resulted in some good news. “We have made great progress towards making our posts safer since 2012,” the State Department said in a statement Monday.

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 Dueling Benghazi Reports Released by House Democrats and Republicans appeared first on Law Street.