Late Wednesday, a variety of news outlets published reports that Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election, requested interviews with a trio of current and former intelligence officials.

The news was first reported by the Washington Post, and later by the New York Times. It came from anonymous sources and fueled speculation that Mueller is widening his investigation to determine whether President Donald Trump, in firing Comey last month, obstructed justice. On Thursday morning, Trump tweeted that the obstruction of justice probe is a “phony story” created by “conflicted” people:

They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected Mueller to lead the investigation last month, soon after Trump fired Comey, who at the time was heading the FBI’s inquiry into Russia and its potential links to the Trump campaign. Testifying in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee–which is conducting its own investigation into Russia’s interference–last week, Comey said a number of private meetings with the president led him to document the encounters.

“I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, and so I thought it really important to document,” Comey said.

In his retelling of the events, Comey recalled Trump said he “hoped” that he would shutter the FBI’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn. This, some observers have said, might amount to a case against Trump for obstructing justice. The Post’s report does indicate Mueller is indeed investigating the matter in terms of potential obstruction, but it does not mean that Trump is guilty of any misdeeds.

“This unfounded accusation against the president changes nothing,” the RNC said in a statement in response to the Post’s story, despite the fact that Mueller has yet to level any accusations against the president. “There’s still no evidence of obstruction, and current and former leaders in the intelligence community have repeatedly said there’s been no effort to impede the investigation in any way.”

According to the anonymous source, Mueller will interview three current and former high-ranking intelligence officials: Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, NSA Director Mike Rogers, and former deputy director of the NSA Richard Ledgett.

Rogers has publicly acknowledged that he had never felt pressured to end the FBI’s probe into Flynn. During a hearing last week, he said:

“I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate,” Rogers said. “And to the best of my recollection, during that same period of service, I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so.”

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 Mueller’s Apparent Obstruction of Justice Investigation: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

President Trump Under Investigation for Obstruction of Justice

Special counsel Robert Mueller is now reportedly investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice regarding former FBI Director James Comey’s investigation into Russia. Comey said in his Senate testimony last week that he told Trump three times earlier this year that he was not personally under investigation for the alleged Russia collusion. But Trump still fired Comey, and later said that he had “that Russia thing” on his mind when doing so.

Mueller will reportedly also look at other issues in the investigation, such as possible financial crimes. Some officials from the NSA will be interviewed as early as this week.

Reposting: Don’t rule out the possibility of Trump trying to remove Mueller. This is now more relevant: https://t.co/dBEXKZWDV4 https://t.co/tIim9xqQys

— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) June 14, 2017

Spokespeople for Mueller declined to comment after the news broke, but Trump’s team was quick to denounce it, calling the FBI’s “leaking” of information about the president “outrageous, inexcusable and illegal.” However, it’s not clear why they thought the information came from the FBI, given that no source has been released. This morning at 4 a.m., Trump commented on Twitter and called it a “phony story.”

They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 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 15, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Theresa May Loses Majority in Huge Upset

Prime Minister Theresa May originally called for the snap election in the U.K. to strengthen the position of her Conservative Party, but after yesterday’s votes were counted it was clear that she came out the loser. Her party still holds a plurality, but no one party will hold a majority. This is called a hung parliament, meaning that May will need to form a coalition with other parties. And her party will have a hard time passing legislation, as the main opposition party, Labour, won so many seats. Labour’s leader Jeremy Corbyn said May should resign and that he wants to form a minority government. But May doesn’t seem likely to resign–in a speech, she announced she will form a government with a small Northern Irish Party called DUP. Now a lot of people are expressing worries about what will happen with the impending Brexit talks.

PM Theresa May says Conservatives will ensure much-needed “stability” for Britain as the party reels from a string of losses pic.twitter.com/LBIx3HK1EI

— AFP news agency (@AFP) June 9, 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 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Washington nearly exploded on Thursday morning. Not literally, of course. But when James Comey, the now-ubiquitous former FBI Director, testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the capital was transfixed.

For an hour or so, it seemed like much of the country was fairly united–CNN dubbed the event “Washington’s Superbowl.”

But while all eyes were on Comey, all ears were certainly not. Some heard Comey all but indict Trump. Others heard him liberate the president, and take aim at the New York Times and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The hearing centered around the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible communications with Russia, and its meddling in the election, which Comey was overseeing before he was fired by the president last month.

Comey’s firing, coupled with a leaked memo Comey wrote (which he revealed in the hearing he had a hand in leaking) that detailed a questionable conversation with Trump, ignited claims that Trump could be guilty of obstruction of justice.

Among other things, here is what Comey revealed in his testimony to the committee: he firmly believes he was fired because he was leading an investigation into Trump’s campaign operatives and Russia; he kept detailed memos of every private conversation he had with Trump because he was afraid the president would later lie about their interactions; Comey believes Trump, in a February 14 conversation, asked him to scrap the FBI’s investigation into Michael Flynn, the former head of the NSA.

To everyone’s surprise, Trump did not tweet during the hearing. But his personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, released a statement soon after the proceedings ended. It reads:

Contrary to numerous false press accounts leading up to today’s hearing, Mr. Comey has now finally confirmed publicly what he repeatedly told the President privately: The President was not under investigation as part of any probe into Russian interference.

The statement denied that Trump ever demanded loyalty from Comey, as the former director said he did, or that the president ever, “in form or substance,” instructed Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.

Kasowitz also called out “those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications.” He added, “Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers.”

During the hearing, Comey said Lynch, the attorney general at the time, requested he publicly refer to the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server as a “matter,” rather than an “investigation.” This, he said, along with Lynch’s infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, partially informed his decision to publicly announce Clinton was under investigation.

Some observers pounced on this small nugget, raising questions as to whether or not Lynch would be charged with obstruction of justice.

Will fmr AG Lynch be charged w/ obstruction of justice after Comey revelations of demands she made? Will Dems demand it?

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 8, 2017

The RNC and the DNC released two completely irreconcilable statements following the hearing.

The RNC statement read, “Today’s testimony proved what we have known all along: President Trump is not under investigation, there’s still no evidence of collusion, and he did not hinder the investigation in any way.”

In contrast, the DNC statement said Comey’s testimony “gave us the clearest and most damning evidence yet that President Trump lied to the American people and is likely under investigation for obstruction of justice–a serious and disturbing charge.”

While millions of Americas may have been united in watching Comey’s testimony, both statements illustrate the potentially unbridgeable divide in American politics.

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 Reactions to Comey Hearing Illustrate America’s Political Divide appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Comey Testifies in Front of the Senate

This morning at 10, the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing of former FBI Director James Comey began. The hearing is intended to address President Donald Trump’s interactions with Comey regarding the FBI’s investigation into Russian hacking of the 2016 elections. Yesterday, Comey’s prepared testimony was released and many people said the content was troubling. It described, among other things, the president’s request for loyalty during a private dinner with Comey–followed by an “awkward silence” and a staring contest. Comey then spoke to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and asked to not be left alone with the president again, as the request made him uneasy.

At the entrance to the Comey hearing room, one of the cops tells me he’s never seen anything like this pic.twitter.com/GpZx8kJ3oZ

— Adam Khan (@Khanoisseur) June 8, 2017

This is a pretty big deal, so a lot of bars opened early to let people watch the hearing live. A D.C. bar served discounted Russian vodka with “FBI sandwiches” and wrote on Facebook, “Grab your friends, grab a drink and let’s COVFEFE!”

Only in DC would a restaurant/bar play the Comey Hearing live and feature themed food and drinks. If you haven’t heard it’s at Shaw’s Tavern pic.twitter.com/iIJzxUYsKN

— Samantha-Jo Roth (@SamanthaJoRoth) June 5, 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 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A day before former FBI Director James Comey is set to testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, President Donald Trump, who fired Comey in May, nominated his successor. The nominee is Christopher Wray, a former Justice Department official with years of experience in the private sector. Trump made the announcement on Twitter early Wednesday morning:

I will be nominating Christopher A. Wray, a man of impeccable credentials, to be the new Director of the FBI. Details to follow.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 7, 2017

Wray served with the DOJ in various capacities. From 1997 to 2001 he was a U.S. attorney in Georgia. In 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Wray as the assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Crimes Division, where he led a number of investigations.

Donald Trump chooses Christopher Wray to head the FBI https://t.co/Kp6ladW3qg

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) June 7, 2017

Wray “was also integral to the DOJ’s response to the 9/11 attacks and played a key role in the oversight of legal and operational actions in the continuing war on terrorism,” according to his bio on the King & Spaulding website, where he has been a partner since 2005. Specializing in white-collar crime, he has represented a wide array of clients, including: “The Governor of New Jersey in connection with investigations relating to the George Washington Bridge toll lane closings.”

Translation: Wray was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s attorney in the infamous “Bridgegate” trial, in which Christie was accused of orchestrating–or willfully ignoring–a plot to close traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge in the fall of 2013. The lane closures were allegedly a response to the actions of the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, who refused to back Christie’s re-election bid.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former colleague of Wray’s at the Justice Department, called him “smart, serious, and professional” in a blog post. He said Wray has “deep experience with federal criminal law and the FBI,” and is “a good choice, a much better choice than any of the politicians I previously saw floated, and a much better choice than I expected Trump to make.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement a few hours after Trump’s announcement, calling Wray an “extraordinary person, possessing all the gifts necessary to be a great Director of the FBI.” Sessions added: “The President asked us to look for an FBI Director who has integrity, who understands and is committed to the rule of law, and who is dedicated to protecting the American people from crime, gangs, and terrorists. We have found our man in Chris Wray.”

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 Trump’s FBI Director Nominee is Christopher Wray: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

As former FBI Director James Comey prepares to speak on Thursday before a Senate committee on recent events surrounding Russia, President Donald Trump, and the 2016 election, many are preparing their watch parties.

First off, not only will C-SPAN and PBS be broadcasting the feed but ABC, NBC, and CBS all plan to replace their normally scheduled daytime programing with a live feed of his testimony, according to CNN.

And some bars in the nation’s capital are changing things up to show the testimony on their flat-screen televisions.

Shaw’s Tavern plans to open at 9:30 a.m. Thursday morning in preparation for Comey’s 10 a.m. testimony, according to The Washington Post. The bar is calling its viewing party a “Comey Hearing Covfefe,” nicknamed after Trump’s mysterious tweet last week.

They will be offering $5 vodka drinks along with $10 “FBI” sandwiches, according to CNN.

A bar fittingly named The Partisan will also be opening at 10 a.m. to offer food and beverages.

Other bars are running with the “covfefe” theme. Duffy’s Irish Pub, normally a Washington Nationals bar, will tune into the testimony instead of baseball. The pub is offering a “Covfefe Cocktail,” an orange drink with unknown ingredients.

Duffy’s getting in on the Comey watch party action pic.twitter.com/HvDT35YMHR

— Tierney Sneed (@Tierney_Megan) June 6, 2017

“…It is like drinking Kool Aid but only a small group of people know what’s in it,” the advertisement says.

“Covfefe” is quite clearly another joke on the administration. In the aftermath of Trump’s strange tweet, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer explained that “the president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant,” according to CNN.

Comey’s testimony on Thursday has the potential to be an interesting morning in Washington so television networks and bars are looking to capitalize. Cheers to what may be a momentous day in American history.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Television Stations (and Bars) Prep for the Comey Hearing appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump sent shockwaves through Washington last week when he abruptly fired James Comey, the FBI director who was investigating him for his communications with Russia during the campaign. Concerns about how a Trump-appointed director would impartially handle the investigation were somewhat placated on Wednesday, when Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected Robert Mueller as a special prosecutor to lead the probe into Trump’s contacts with Russian officials.

But the question remains: who will Trump select to lead the FBI? The president reportedly interviewed four candidates at the White House on Wednesday, and said a selection can come as early as Friday. Here are the top candidates:

Joe Lieberman

Lieberman is no stranger to Washington, serving three terms as a Connecticut senator, twice as a Democrat and once as an Independent. The 75-year-old was Connecticut’s attorney general in the 1980s, and presidential nominee Al Gore’s running mate in the hotly contested 2000 election. On Wednesday, Lieberman said that being considered to lead the FBI was “unexpected,” and “not something I was seeking.”

People on Twitter were quick to point out Lieberman’s connections to the Trump campaign:

Joe Lieberman for FBI Director? Huh, what’s Joe been up to recently? pic.twitter.com/iGaVT7cy7h

— Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) May 18, 2017

Andrew McCabe

Prior to Comey’s firing, McCabe had been serving as his deputy since early 2016. He is now serving as the Acting Director of the FBI. McCabe, 49, worked in the bureau’s New York Field Office in the late ’90s, and has been with the FBI ever since. A Democrat, McCabe attracted some controversy in 2015 when his wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, ran for a Virginia state Senate seat. She was endorsed by Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a friend of Hillary Clinton who, at the time, was being investigated by McCabe and the FBI for her use of a private email server.

Frank Keating

Most well-known for the eight years (1995 to 2003) he served as Oklahoma’s governor, Keating also has spent some time in the FBI. He briefly served in the agency in the 1970s, and was also in consideration for the director position in 2001, when then-director Louis Freeh resigned. Keating, 73, spent years in the private sector, and currently works as an attorney in the international law firm Holland & Knight. If Trump’s track record of loyalty is any indicator, Keating likely won’t get the job. In April 2016, he wrote an editorial in the Tulsa World newspaper titled, “Anyone but Trump.”

Richard McFeely

Of the candidates on Trump’s short-list, McFeely has the most experience in the FBI. The former head of the FBI’s field office in Baltimore, McFeely served in the agency from 1990 to 2014, according to his LinkedIn bio. In 2011, McFeely headed an investigation into the Baltimore Police Department that ended with 17 officers being charged with extortion. Before retiring from the FBI in 2014, McFeely was the executive assistant director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response Services Branch.

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 Who Are the Top Candidates to Replace James Comey as FBI Director? appeared first on Law Street.

Washington was hit with yet another bombshell on Tuesday: according to a memo former FBI Director James Comey wrote in February, President Donald Trump might be guilty of obstructing justice. In the memo, the contents of which were divulged to The New York Times, Comey detailed a closed-door conversation he had with the president a day after he fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Trump allegedly asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn and his contacts with Russia. “I hope you can let this go,” Trump told Comey, according to the memo. The FBI investigation into Flynn is ongoing. Shortly after the news broke, Capital Hill was abuzz with accusations that Trump, in nudging Comey to end a federal investigation, crossed the line. Dozens of Democrats, and some Republicans, suggested Trump’s actions, as described in Comey’s memo, constituted obstruction of justice.

In a Twitter post Tuesday night, after the Times’ report about the Comey memo was published, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) wrote: “Just leaving Senate floor. Lots of chatter from Ds and Rs about the exact definition of ‘obstruction of justice’.” Around the same time, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), tweeted: “Asking FBI to drop an investigation is obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.”

Two prominent Republican congressmen, Justin Amash of Michigan and Jason Chaffetz of Utah, also expressed concern that Trump obstructed justice. The White House, in a statement on Tuesday, denied Comey and Trump ever had the conversation as described in Comey’s memo. “The president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn,” the White House said.

According to legal analysts, the key to determining whether Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, and if he could eventually be charged, is determining his intent when he fired Comey.

“There’s definitely a case to be made for obstruction,” former federal prosecutor Barak Cohen told the Washington Post. “But on the other hand you have to realize that–as with any other sort of criminal law–intent is key, and intent here can be difficult to prove.” That is, in asking Comey to end the FBI’s investigation into Flynn, and subsequently firing the director a few months later, did Trump intentionally obstruct an ongoing investigation?

Federal law broadly defines what exactly obstruction of justice means. According to Title 18, the criminal code that deals with federal crimes, it is a crime if a defendant “obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding.” But again, proving intent to obstruct would be tricky. Besides, any case against Trump would have to be carried out by his own Justice Department, meaning that consequences seem unlikely.

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 Exactly is “Obstruction of Justice”? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Comey Contradictions Are Everywhere

During a hearing yesterday, the acting director of the FBI, Andrew G. McCabe, contradicted what the White House has said about the firing of James Comey and the importance of the ongoing Russia inquiry. The administration has tried to downplay the latter, but McCabe said the inquiry is very significant. “Simply put, you cannot stop the men and women of the F.B.I. from doing the right thing,” he said. He also emphasized that Comey had the support of most people within the FBI, saying, “Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the F.B.I. and still does.” But White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders continued trying to undermine that report by saying that she had talked to “countless members of the F.B.I. that are grateful and thankful for the president’s decision.”

Love the thought of a bunch of FBI agents randomly reaching out to Sarah Huckabee Sanders to express their appreciation for Comey firing

— Amanda Terkel (@aterkel) May 12, 2017

But when pressed for details by reporters, Huckabee Sanders admitted that she didn’t “know that many people in the F.B.I.” At the same time, President Donald Trump claimed he fired Comey because he thought “this Russia thing with Trump” was a story Democrats made up to explain why they lost the election. And it has also been revealed the two had dinner in the White House, but accounts on what happened differ.

Trump tweets “Comey better hope” there are no “tapes” of convos as Comey associates question if he told Trump he wasn’t under investigation pic.twitter.com/EU7Ya1Yvtv

— ABC News (@ABC) May 12, 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: May 12, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Astounding Democrats and Republicans alike, President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday evening. The abrupt firing ignited widespread calls for a special, independent inquiry into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. 

Comey was leading a probe into Trump’s and his campaign associates’ ties to Russian actors during the 2016 campaign; Russian hackers delivered Democratic operatives’ emails to WikiLeaks, which in turn made the emails public through an online database. U.S. intelligence agencies, including the FBI, concluded that the cyber-meddling was intended to assist Trump.

Comey lost the confidence of almost everyone in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike. When things calm down, they will be thanking me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017

Lawmakers expressed worry immediately after the Comey firing that the FBI’s inquiry into the Trump-Russia ties could be compromised. “If there was ever a time when circumstances warranted a special prosecutor, it is right now,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Wednesday morning. And Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) said in a statement posted to his Twitter account that the timing of this firing is “very troubling,” and that it represents “the loss of an honorable public servant” and “a loss for the nation.”

According to people familiar with the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to Comey’s ouster, Trump was upset with Comey on two accounts: the ongoing Russia investigation, and his public rebuttal of  Trump’s claims that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. The White House is also saying that Comey’s dismissal was a result of his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” read Trump’s letter to Comey.

The Democrats have said some of the worst things about James Comey, including the fact that he should be fired, but now they play so sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017

On Wednesday, before Trump was set to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, he told reporters he fired Comey “because he was not doing a good job.” Trump dispatched his aides, including counselor Kellyanne Conway and Vice President Mike Pence, to defend the decision. People familiar with Trump’s deliberations said he was surprised at the torrent of negative reactions–from Democrats, Republicans, and the press–that have followed Comey’s dismissal.

Meanwhile, current and former FBI officials, including Comey himself, were reportedly flabbergasted at the news of Comey’s ouster. “We just have no idea why this happened. No idea,” one recently retired top FBI official told Politico. “No one knew this was coming. Everyone is just shocked that this happened.”

There were conflicting reports over who exactly took the lead in the decision to fire Comey. Some said Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy Rod Rosenstein led the charge. Rosenstein wrote a letter released Tuesday that pointed to Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation as the grounds for his dismissal, saying “I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgement that he was mistaken.” Other White House officials told reporters that this was a unilateral decision by Trump, who directed the Justice Department to fish out a reason to fire the director.

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 Why Did Trump Fire FBI Director James Comey? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump to Comey: “You’re Fired”

Last night, President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, who was leading the investigation into his campaign’s connections to Russia. Comey’s firing was almost unprecedented–usually, FBI directors serve for 10 years, regardless of political affiliation. The only previous firing of an FBI director was in 1993, when President Bill Clinton fired William S. Sessions. Comey found out that he lost his job when it was broadcast on the news while he was meeting with FBI employees in Los Angeles.

A lot of people think this is very suspicious, especially since Trump cited Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails as a reason to let him go. Trump himself praised the FBI’s investigation into Clinton during the campaign and said that she should be imprisoned. The move had many people drawing parallels to events during the Watergate scandal, when President Richard Nixon fired the special prosecutor who was investigating him. Now everyone is assuming Trump wants to hide something about the Russia collusion affair, and both Democrats and Republicans are calling for an independent investigation.

An incredibly ominous sign, no matter your view of Comey. He investigated + was removed by Sessions, who is implicated in interference case. https://t.co/zNgMqkCnus

— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) May 9, 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: May 10, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

During a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning, FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers he felt “mildly nauseous” that his actions may have affected the outcome on November 8. This was Comey’s first hearing since he told the House in March that the FBI has been investigating ties between Trump’s campaign and the Russian government. It also gave a clearer view into Comey’s thoughts on the consequences of his actions leading up to Election Day.

But although Comey implied that his actions could be regretful–including publicly announcing that the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was ongoing on October 28–he said concealing that information would have been “catastrophic.” Democrats–including Clinton–have derided Comey for going public with information regarding the Clinton investigation but failing to reveal the Trump investigation until months after the election.

The hearing opened with remarks from the committee’s top members from each party, Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Grassley pressed for specifics on why Comey and the FBI pursued the investigation into Trump’s role in the Kremlin’s election meddling. “We need to know if there was anything improper between the Trump campaign and the Russians,” he said, or if Trump critics are merely “chasing a conspiracy theory.”

Feinstein focused on the FBI’s potential effect on the election. “I join those who believe that the actions taken by the FBI did in fact have an impact on the election,” she said. Clinton, in an extensive and unguarded interview on Tuesday, pegged her loss on Comey, WikiLeaks, and Russia. She did, however, take “absolute personal responsibility,” for losing to Trump. “I was the candidate. I was the person who was on the ballot,” she said.

Comey also made it clear in the hearing that Russia, which U.S. intelligence agencies concluded hacked Democratic operatives’ emails to aid Trump’s campaign, remains a threat. Russia is the primary threat to democracy, he said, and bluntly concurred when asked if Moscow’s cyber efforts are ongoing. “Yes,” he responded. Seemingly responding to Clinton’s remarks on Tuesday, Trump sent a series of tweets that critiqued Comey and Clinton, and referred to himself in the third person, all at the same time:

FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds! The phony…

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2017

…Trump/Russia story was an excuse used by the Democrats as justification for losing the election. Perhaps Trump just ran a great campaign?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 3, 2017

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 James Comey Feels “Mildly Nauseous” that the FBI Might Have Affected the Election appeared first on Law Street.

At the moment, there are three active investigations into the communications between Russian government officials and the Trump campaign. The Senate and House intelligence committees, as well as the FBI, are probing the matter. And while all three investigations are likely asking some of the same questions, it’s the House investigation that has generated the most noise.

That attention has largely been a byproduct of how its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), has handled intelligence reports. On Thursday, Nunes temporarily stepped aside in his role as the head of the committee’s investigation. So, what, if anything, did the committee discover since its investigation launched? And, more importantly, where is the investigation headed?

At a recent panel in Washington DC, Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), a member of the committee, said the investigation is about two things. One, he said, is answering the question of whether or not Trump or members of his administration colluded with the Russians in meddling in the election, intending, as the FBI and CIA concluded, to prop up the Trump campaign. Even if there was no collusion, Himes said, “is it nonetheless possible that the Russians have some form of compromise on the United States president?”

Himes called Nunes’s decision to recuse himself from the investigation “welcome news,” adding that while the chairman made mistakes, he is “fundamentally a decent guy.” But last week, on CNN, Himes also said Nunes’s behavior was “loopy” and “bizarre.”

Rep. Jim Himes says Rep. Devin Nunes’ behavior is “loopy” and “bizarre” https://t.co/uIuE85kQdQ pic.twitter.com/4KSvlwGHRe

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) March 27, 2017

Himes expressed dismay at the noise Nunes stirred up because “we were actually making pretty good progress.” He also called for “an independent, outside, bipartisan commission” to head the effort moving forward. Many have called for something akin to the special commission that investigated the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But, Himes added, regardless of who is in charge, “[the investigation] is not going to happen quickly.”

Himes was tight-lipped about what exactly the committee has dug up thus far, but he did say “there is not nothing there.” He added: “This doesn’t end I think with the conclusion that really nobody did nothing to anybody…but how serious it is I don’t want to characterize and prejudge.” Regardless of the committee’s ultimate conclusions, Himes said Russia’s actions, and its attempts to undermine America’s democratic system, deserve a “concerted response.”

Weeks before he was set to leave office, former President Barack Obama punished Russia by imposing further sanctions on individual actors, as well as barring four Russian officials from traveling to the U.S. Two Russian-owned diplomatic compounds in the U.S. were shuttered as well. Obama’s response, Himes said, was “inadequate.” He added that it is unclear what a proper response might look like, but “we do need to extract a price.”

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 Where is the House Intel Committee’s Russia Investigation Headed? appeared first on Law Street.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) said, in a press conference on Capitol Hill and later at the White House on Wednesday, that President Donald Trump and his associates were compromised during the campaign as the result of surveillance in Trump Tower. Trump’s associates, Nunes said, were “unmasked” by the surveillance, and some of Trump’s communications were swept up in “incidental collection” as a result. He cited a classified report as the source of his claims, but did not divulge who provided him with the information.

“I don’t want to get too much into the details, but these were intelligence reports, and it brings up a lot of concern about whether things were properly minimized or not,” Nunes said. “What I have read bothers me, and I think it should bother the president himself and his team, because I think some of it seems to be inappropriate.”

This behavior by Nunes, head of the House investigation into Trump and his associates’ communications with Russia, brings up a host of questions: Can Nunes continue to lead an impartial investigation? Did he reveal any new information? What is “unmasking” and “incidental collection”? And was the surveillance that Nunes described lawful?

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) said that Nunes apologized Thursday morning for going straight to the White House with his concerns, and circumventing the House Intelligence Committee. But many House Democrats, including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, said Nunes could no longer be expected to be an impartial voice in the Trump-Russia investigation.

The White House, in contrast, warmly embraced Nunes’s direct approach. “I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found,” Trump said, adding that he feels “somewhat” vindicated for his accusations that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, said Nunes provided “startling information.” But what exactly did Nunes reveal that was previously unknown?

The FBI and the Senate Intelligence Committee, which are leading separate investigations into Russia’s communications with Trump and his associates, both concluded there is no evidence Trump Tower was wiretapped–by Obama or any other intelligence agency. And Nunes on Wednesday admitted as much. It is the “unmasking” of Trump’s associates that has Nunes concerned. Americans are often surveilled for communicating with foreign actors that might concern the U.S. But their identities are commonly masked, hidden from U.S. authorities who are tracking them.

Not so in the case of Trump’s associates, Nunes claims. He said the identity of those who were surveilled–Nunes said it was multiple associates, Schiff said it was one–was revealed to U.S. officials. Given the unusual nature of the investigation into people close to Trump who had ties to Russia (a common target of U.S. surveillance), it is hardly surprising that U.S. officials might not have conducted business as usual.

And according to Schiff, “unmasking” in and of itself “does not indicate that there was any flaw in the procedures followed by the intelligence agencies,” and “is fully appropriate when it is necessary to understand the context of collected foreign intelligence information.”

The “incidental collection” Nunes mentioned refers to Trump’s communications that might have been collected due to the surveillance of his associates. Again, there is nothing illegal about that. As to who might have been the subject of the surveillance, Nunes provided no specifics. Here’s a good bet though: Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman who resigned last August after his name was included on a ledger of cash payments made by Ukraine’s former pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych.

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 Did Devin Nunes Reveal Any New Information About Trump’s Wiretap Claim? appeared first on Law Street.

Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, lobbied on behalf of a Russian oligarch with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. According to an Associated Press investigation, Manafort began discussing a strategy, as early as June 2005, with Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska to push his business interests in Russia and other former Soviet republics.

One of Deripaska’s goals, as indicated by memos obtained by the AP, was to support Putin’s government and to undermine anti-Putin politicians in Russia and former Soviet republics like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Georgia. 

In a 2005 memo obtained by the AP, Manafort wrote to Deripaska, whose net worth is $5.1 billion according to Forbes, and described a “great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government.” Manafort added: “We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success.”

Manafort’s “great service” involved influencing politics, business exchanges, and news not only in Russia and former Soviet states, but in the U.S. as well, according to the AP. Manafort and Deripaska signed a contract to carry out the lobbying efforts in 2006. Deripaska paid Manafort $10 million per year for his efforts, and the two maintained a business relationship until at least 2009.

Last August, Trump asked Manafort to resign as his campaign chairman after reports came out that he lobbied on behalf of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who had a cozy relationship with Putin. On Monday, FBI Director James Comey revealed that a number of Trump’s campaign associates are under investigation for their Russian ties. And though Comey declined to explicitly name Manafort as one of the associates in question, it is highly likely he is a subject of the probe.

After Comey testified in front of the House Intelligence Committee on Monday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Manafort “played a very limited role for a very limited amount of time” for the Trump campaign. In fact, Manafort was campaign chairman from March to August, a crucial six-month stretch of the campaign.

Manafort denied any malfeasance in a statement to the AP: “I worked with Oleg Deripaska almost a decade ago representing him on business and personal matters in countries where he had investments,” Manafort said. “My work for Mr. Deripaska did not involve representing Russia’s political interests.”

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed concern over the AP’s report. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Manafort’s lobbying could amount to “basically taking money to stop the spread of democracy, and that would be very disturbing to me.” Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the AP report “undermines the groundless assertions that the administration has been making that there are no ties between President Trump and Russia.”

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 Did Paul Manafort Work to Benefit Vladimir Putin’s Government? appeared first on Law Street.

Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State and former CEO of oil giant Exxon Mobil, will not attend a meeting with NATO representatives next month in Brussels, a spokeswoman said on Monday. Instead, Tillerson will travel to President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to meet with China’s President Xi Jinping. Tillerson will then travel to the G7 meeting in Sicily, Italy, followed by a jaunt to Moscow to meet with Russian officials.

In forgoing the NATO meeting in favor of a trip to meet with Kremlin officials, Tillerson is only compounding the dim view some have of his personal ties to Russia, and the Trump Administration’s connections as well. Tillerson steered Exxon through lucrative drilling contracts with Russia, and President Vladimir Putin awarded him the Order of Friendship in 2013.

And Trump himself has called NATO “obsolete,” though members of his cabinet–and Vice President Mike Pence–have since tried to walk back those remarks. Then of course, there are Trump’s murky relations with Russia: FBI Director James Comey said on Monday that Trump’s associates are currently under investigation for communications with Russia during the campaign.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) said Tillerson’s decision to skip the NATO meeting would do little to alleviate the defense alliance’s concerns about U.S. support. “Donald Trump’s Administration is making a grave error that will shake the confidence of America’s most important alliance and feed the concern that this Administration [is] simply too cozy with Vladimir Putin,” Engel, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement.

The State Department spokeswoman said in lieu of Tillerson, Under Secretary of State for Political Affair Tom Shannon will represent the U.S. in Brussels. Tillerson will, however, be meeting with NATO foreign ministers on Wednesday in Washington. The meeting will focus on defeating Islamic State, or ISIS, the spokeswoman said.

A former U.S. official and former NATO diplomat told Reuters that the alliance offered to change the date of the Brussels meeting so that Tillerson could attend, but that the department declined the offer. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the former diplomat said engagement with NATO is vital given the growing Russian threat. “Given the challenge that Russia poses, not just to the United States but to Europe, it’s critical to engage on the basis of a united front if at all possible,” the diplomat said.

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 Rex Tillerson to Skip NATO Meeting, Meet with Chinese and Russian Leaders Instead appeared first on Law Street.

The House Intelligence Committee convened its first public hearing with FBI Director James Comey on Monday. Fielding questions from Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the committee’s chairman, and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the committee, Comey was reluctant to reveal anything too explosive. He did, however, reaffirm the Senate Intelligence Committee’s conclusions that, contrary to President Donald Trump’s tweets, there is no evidence that Trump Tower was bugged at any time during the campaign. Comey also said the bureau is actively investigating Russia’s election meddling, including any communications it had with Trump’s campaign associates.

No Evidence of a Wiretap

To hardly anyone’s surprise (except the president’s), Comey said there is “no information” to support Trump’s accusations that President Barack Obama had his de facto campaign headquarters, Trump Tower, wiretapped. “With respect to the president’s tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets,” Comey said.

He added: “And we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components: the department has no information that supports those tweets.”

Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee came to the same conclusion, even as Trump and his aides refused to lay the issue to rest. Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, quoted a report from a Fox News reporter that suggested Obama colluded with GCHQ, the British spy agency, in bugging Trump Tower. GCHQ strongly rejected that claim, and Spicer reportedly met with the British ambassador to promise the unfounded claim would not be made again.

Russia Probe

Confirming what many privately suspected, Comey said the FBI is actively investigating Russia’s role in hacking the emails of Democratic operatives during the campaign; a cohort of Trump’s current and former campaign aides are also being investigated for their Russian ties. What was a surprise to many observers of the hearing, however, was that the FBI has been probing the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia since July of last year, well before the Obama Administration announced the possible role Russia played in hacking the Democrats’ emails.

“Because it is an open, ongoing investigation and is classified, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining,” Comey said.

Trump, early Monday morning before the hearing, tried to deflect blame to his favorite target: Hillary Clinton. He tweeted:

The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017

The hearing showcased what Democrats and some Republicans perceive as the real issues at hand. For Democrats, it is the fact that an adversary intentionally hacked the U.S. political process, and what role the current administration might have played in that plot. Republicans at the hearing largely questioned the leaks that ultimately led to former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s resignation. The leaker, they seemed to imply, should be identified and punished.

“Unauthorized dissemination is punishable by felony up to 10 years in federal prison?” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) asked Comey, who responded: “Yes, as it should be.” But to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Senate minority leader, the most pressing issue facing the country is not the leaker, but the content of the leaks.

“The possibility of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials is a serious, serious matter,” Schumer said after the hearing. “The investigation must be fair, independent, and impartial in every way, and the F.B.I. must be allowed to follow the facts wherever they may lead.”

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 the House Intelligence Committee Hearing with James Comey appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Tough Week Ahead For Donald Trump?

It’s going to be an important and busy week for President Donald Trump. This morning at 10 a.m., the hearing on Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election began. FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee and acknowledged that there is an ongoing investigation into the matter. The FBI leader also disclosed that there’s an investigation into any collusion between Trump aides and Russians officials. Comey also said he has “no evidence” of Trump’s claims that President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. This morning, seemingly to divert attention, Trump went on a tweet storm and claimed that the Russia story is fake news.

The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. Big advantage in Electoral College & lost!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017

Trump also claimed that there has been contact between Russia and the Clinton campaign, a claim for which there is seemingly no evidence.

What about all of the contact with the Clinton campaign and the Russians? Also, is it true that the DNC would not let the FBI in to look?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017

Today is also the first day of confirmation hearings for Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s SCOTUS nominee. And on Thursday, the House will vote on the new health care plan. NBC reports that at least 17 Republican House members do not approve of the plan, so it could be a close and interesting vote.

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: March 20, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The inspector general for the Department of Justice said Thursday that he will conduct an inquiry into the actions FBI Director James Comey took during his investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server. Comey’s actions, especially the letter he sent to Congress 11 days before the election, roiled Clinton and her supporters, and instantly put Comey on the hot seat. Clinton and her aides claim that the letter turned thousands of undecided voters against her, and ultimately cost her the election.

Michael Horowitz, the inspector general, will examine three actions Comey took in the months, weeks, and days leading up to Election Day: the July news conference in which Comey called Clinton “extremely careless,” but decided not to indict her; the letter Comey sent to Congress in late October, which announced the discovery of potentially relevant emails; and the letter Comey sent to Congress on November 5, which said that those emails did not include damaging information.

In a statement, Horowitz said the inquiry is “in response to requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations, and members of the public.” Horowitz has the power to recommend a criminal investigation into Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation.

More likely, he will be determining whether Comey, a Republican appointed by President Barack Obama, violated Justice Department rules or demonstrated poor judgment. It is unclear what sort of punishment, if any, could be dealt if Horowitz finds that Comey acted irresponsibly. An internal memo sent to DOJ officials in 2012 directs employees, including the FBI director, to enforce laws “in a neutral and impartial manner.”

All parties involved in the matter expressed support for the watchdog’s probe. Comey, in a statement, said Horowitz is “professional and independent,” adding: “I hope very much he is able to share his conclusions and observations with the public because everyone will benefit from thoughtful evaluation and transparency.” Brian Fallon, Clinton’s former press secretary who was outraged by Comey’s late-October letter, echoed that support.

“This is highly encouraging and to be expected, given Director Comey’s drastic deviation from Justice Department protocol,” he said. “A probe of this sort, however long it takes to conduct, is utterly necessary in order to take the first step to restore the FBI’s reputation as a nonpartisan institution.” Trump, in a pair of tweets on Friday morning, said based on the information the FBI had regarding Clinton’s emails, she should have never been allowed to run. “She lost because she campaigned in the wrong states – no enthusiasm!” he added.

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 DOJ Launches Inquiry into Comey’s Handling of the Clinton Investigation appeared first on Law Street.

Hey everyone, happy winter solstice! Today marks the beginning of winter and the shortest day of the year for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere. But…that also means it’s only going to get better (and lighter) moving forward! So lean back and enjoy today’s RantCrush. Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

ISIS Claims Responsibility for the Berlin attack

Yesterday, German officials released the suspect in the truck attack at a Christmas market in Berlin, as there was no hard evidence linking him to the attack. Also yesterday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that a lone “soldier” acted on the group’s behalf. The statement didn’t specify if the man was simply inspired by the group, or if he was directly affiliated with it. Either way, this means that the perpetrator is still at large, and German police launched a countrywide search. However, late last night, a warrant was issued for a 24-year-old Tunisian-born man whose residence permit was found in the truck used in the attack.

#BREAKING German officials confirm to @ABC that manhunt for perpetrator of #Christmas Market attack is 24 y/o Tunisian man pic.twitter.com/ZRFnoND23s

— Matt Gutman (@mattgutmanABC) December 21, 2016

At the same time, the far right in Germany blamed Chancellor Angela Merkel for the attack, claiming that her generous immigration policies are the problem.

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: December 21, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, there was a meeting between the heads of the country’s leading intelligence agencies: FBI Director James Comey, National Intelligence Director James Clapper, and CIA Director John Brennan. The gathering’s subject matter: Russia’s hacking of email networks during the presidential election. On Friday, an official with direct knowledge of the meeting said that the agencies now agree that Russia’s hacking operation had the intention of putting President-elect Donald Trump in the White House.

When the CIA first announced its assessment that Russia had indeed hacked into both the Democratic and Republican email networks, only leaked the Democrat’s emails, and aimed to aid Trump, the FBI was hesitant to come to the same conclusion. Trump has called the CIA’s claims “ridiculous,” and continues to deflect any notion that he was aided by Russia.

The official close to the FBI said that the bureau was timid at first because officials entertained other motives for the Russian hacks: Perhaps Russia was trying to undermine Clinton’s position if she were to be elected, or maybe it was a personal rebuke as a result of her dicey past with Putin? Eventually, the FBI agreed that Russia’s actions were motivated by putting Trump in the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, Trump’s opponent during the election, Democrat Hillary Clinton, told Democratic Party donors on Friday that the Russian breach was not only directed by President Vladimir Putin, but that the episode was a personal attack on her. She said Putin has a “personal beef” with her, alluding to her statement five years ago that Russia’s parliamentary elections were”rigged.” Clinton said: “Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people, and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election.”

But Clinton also called the Russian hacks “an attack against our country,” not just her campaign. “We are well beyond normal political concerns here,” she said. “This is about the integrity of our democracy and the security of our nation.” President Barack Obama, in his final news conference of the year, defended his handling of the Russian hacks. He said he even delivered this stern command to Putin when they met in September: “Cut it out.”

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 The FBI Now Agrees with the CIA: Russia Intended to Help Trump appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, FBI Director James Comey announced that after reviewing new emails found on Anthony Weiner’s computer, his decision not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton remains. Barring any new information, the FBI’s announcement effectively closes Clinton’s case–a conclusion that has left many unsatisfied.

FBI Dir just informed us “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Sec Clinton”

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) November 6, 2016

The FBI was in the process of investigating Anthony Weiner’s computer because of an alleged sexting affair with an underage girl. During the course of that investigation, the FBI found emails related to Hillary Clinton sent or received by Weiner’s estranged wife Huma Abedin, a top Clinton aide.

Soon after Comey’s announcement, conspiracy theorists and Donald Trump supporters questioned whether the FBI could review so many emails in just over a week. Michael T. Flynn, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, seemed to imply that Comey himself had looked through all of the documents.

IMPOSSIBLE:
There R 691,200 seconds in 8 days. DIR Comey has thoroughly reviewed 650,000 emails in 8 days? An email / second? IMPOSSIBLE RT

— General Flynn (@GenFlynn) November 6, 2016

It took 1 year to review 60K and 8 days to review 650K? Smart machines or not, something does not jive. Thoughts?

— General Flynn (@GenFlynn) November 6, 2016

In response to a tweeted question by journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted back an explanation of how a computer could do this:

@jeffjarvis Drop non-responsive To:/CC:/BCC:, hash both sets, then subtract those that match. Old laptops could do it in minutes-to-hours.

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) November 7, 2016

Snowden, who revealed the NSA’s metadata surveillance program, said that such a review shouldn’t take very long. And according to reports, most of the emails, that were found on Weiner’s computer were duplicates of emails already reviewed by the FBI.

John Conyers Jr., a Michigan Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told NBC on Sunday, “In the days that come, we will have many questions about the FBI’s handling of this investigation. In the meantime, however, I welcome this news confirming again that no charges are warranted in this matter.”

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 Snowden Debunks FBI Investigation Conspiracy Theories with One Tweet appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Deja Vu: Clinton Is Cleared By The FBI – Again

It’s been a long saga–there have been more emails, FBI Director James Comey’s comments that those emails were being investigated, and Obama’s criticism of Comey’s comments. But on Sunday the FBI declared that it did NOT find anything incriminating whatsoever in the new emails that had surfaced. This could mean that Hillary can finally put that whole email thing behind her.

All I want to hear from FBI Director James Comey is a freaking apology to Hillary Clinton and to the people of this country #clintonemails

— Nasty Gnu (@GopSux2) November 6, 2016

But it’s too early to say whether or how it could affect the election outcome. Trump, who loved the FBI last week, may not be as affectionate toward the federal bureau now…because it didn’t come up with the answer he wanted.

“Hillary Clinton is guilty. She knows it, the FBI knows it, the people know it,” he said at a rally in Michigan.

via GIPHY

Democrat Dianne Feinstein criticized the FBI, saying, “Today’s letter makes Director Comey’s actions nine days ago even more troubling. There’s no doubt that it created a false impression about the nature of the agency’s inquiry.”

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 7, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

The World’s Scariest GOTV Strategy?

A historically black church in Greenville, Mississippi was set on fire late Tuesday night and vandalized with the words “Vote Trump” spray-painted on the façade. Most of the damage was to the main building and no people were hurt. But the community is in shock over what reminds many of hateful attacks in the 1950’s and 60’s.

Black Church in Mississippi Burned Down, ‘Vote Trump’ Painted on It https://t.co/vTcPtZs72F pic.twitter.com/HUBpCy8PFB

— CitizenSlant (@CitizenSlant) November 2, 2016

Many fear that this is only the beginning of what could happen if Trump is elected president. But at the same time some crazy people think it was staged by Democrats to place blame on the Republicans.

Just like the 1960’s, #Democrats are burning churches to scare and intimidate Black Voters who are voting for Trump https://t.co/SSm317UFfL

— P. J. (@Portosj81J) November 2, 2016

The Trump campaign made sure to dissociate itself from that message.

Trump campaign statement on Mississippi church arson pic.twitter.com/d6PnyVuHBR

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 2, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 3, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader and retiring Democratic Senator of Nevada, sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey calling on him and his team to release to the public the “explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government” that Comey allegedly possesses. But does the FBI possess any “explosive information” regarding Trump’s ties to Russia? And what about those recent claims by a former spy that Trump’s allies maintain a backchannel to a Russian bank?

First, a bit of background:

Comey and the FBI find themselves at the center of an extraordinarily divisive presidential campaign that cannot end soon enough for all parties (and voters). It started with an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, which concluded without an indictment. Last week, however, Comey’s team stumbled upon some emails that were pertinent to the Clinton case while reviewing Anthony Weiner’s sexting case. Comey sent a letter to Congress alerting them of the new development, which in turn sparked claims of Comey’s anti-Clinton bias by Democrats and a new round of Clinton attacks by Republicans.

A story published Monday by the website Mother Jones featured a “former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence” as a source. He said that “in recent months he provided the [FBI] with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump.”

The FBI has in fact investigated Trump’s ties to any Kremlin entities, including Russian President Vladimir Putin, a leader who Trump has profusely praised. They also investigated, and continue to investigate, the hacks involving Democratic emails released by Wikileaks in recent weeks. FBI officials, speaking under the condition of anonymity, told The New York Times on Monday that “no clear link” has been discovered between Trump and Russia, and that the hacks are intent on undermining American democracy rather than electing Trump, as many Democrats have implied.

“It isn’t about the election,” a senior official told the Times. “It’s about a threat to democracy.” And then there are the accusations by the former spy who spoke with Mother Jones that Trump and his team maintains a back channel to Russia’s Alfa Bank, which the Clinton campaign–which seesawed between attacking Comey for his renewed probe into her emails and remaining silent on the matter–called “the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.”

The FBI investigated the Trump-Alfa Bank connection, and found “there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts.” Trump’s Press Secretary Hope Hicks responded to the allegations regarding the server: “First of all, it’s not a secret server. The email server, set up for marketing purposes and operated by a third-party, has not been used since 2010,” she said. “The Trump Organization has no communication or relationship with this entity or any Russian entity.”

Alfa Bank, the largest private commercial bank in Russia, responded to the claims as well. A spokesman for the bank said rumors that the bank is involved in a shadowy connection with Trump or his campaign is  “patently false.” He said the activity between the two servers were “caused by a spam attack.” He added: “Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr Trump or his entities.” 

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 How Credible are the Claims That Trump Has Deep Ties with Russia? appeared first on Law Street.

Did FBI Director James Comey break a federal law by sending a letter to Congress on Friday announcing the bureau’s renewed probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails? Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) seems to think so. Reid sent a letter of his own to Comey on Sunday accusing the director of breaking the Hatch Act, a little known but commonly enforced statute that prohibits federal employees from meddling in an election. “Through your partisan actions, you may have broken the law,” Reid wrote.

With the deepest regret, I now see that I was wrong about Mr. Comey. https://t.co/7tHfOgxvCN

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) October 30, 2016

Congress passed the Hatch Act in 1939, disallowing federal employees to “use [their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” The law has been repeatedly amended since, and the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 widened the scope of partisan participation granted to federal employees.

In July, the Office of Special Counsel–the agency that enforces the Hatch Act–found Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro in violation of the law. In an April interview with Katie Couric, Castro was asked about the coming election and his endorsement of Clinton. He responded: “Now, taking off my HUD hat for a second and just speaking individually, it is very clear that Hillary Clinton is the most experienced, thoughtful, and prepared candidate for President that we have this year.” The OSC wrote that Castro violated the Hatch Act “by advocating for and against Presidential candidates.”

According to Reid, Comey’s withholding of information regarding Donald Trump’s ties to Russia, along with the timing of his letter (11 days before Election Day), was “intended for the success or failure of a partisan candidate or political group,” which is a breach of the Hatch Act and a clear “double-standard.” Reid writes:

In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government–a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity.

Aside from Reid’s statement, there is no evidence that Trump or his advisors have ties to the Russian government, though Trump has repeatedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin–even calling on him to double down his hacking of Clinton’s emails. U.S. officials have found evidence that Russia is behind the recent hacks of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s Campaign Chairman John Podesta.

Harry Reid is a disgrace to American politics, among worst men ever in Senate. He can’t go soon enough, & many Democrats privately agree. https://t.co/4lCKx5pKi4

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) October 30, 2016

By alerting Congress to the emergence of new evidence in the Clinton email case–emails were found on devices belonging to Huma Abedin, Clinton’s longtime aide, and her former husband Anthony Weiner–Comey may have roused enough partisan passions to affect the presidential race, though more likely, down-ballot congressional races. His letter shifted the spotlight off Trump. It reminded voters of Clinton’s weaknesses. It provided fodder for Republican lawmakers, and buoyed Trump’s spirits. But proving Comey intended to cause any of these effects with his actions does not seem likely.

After sending his letter to Congress, Comey sent a letter to FBI employees that offered more details regarding his decision to send a fairly vague letter in the first place. He wrote:

Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.

President Obama appointed Comey as director in 2013, and his ten-year term is set to end in 2023. In a briefing with reporters on Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Obama does not think Comey is trying to influence the election. He also said Obama believes Comey is a “man of integrity and good character” and that he’s in a “tough spot.”

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 Did James Comey Break Federal Law with His Letter to Congress? appeared first on Law Street.

FBI Director James Comey, in a letter sent to Congress on Friday, announced a new probe into emails Hillary Clinton sent over a private sever. The new investigation is unrelated to the previous one that ultimately found Clinton not guilty of any criminal offense, but of being “extremely careless.” Comey writes:

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation

The New York Times is reporting that the emails were discovered after the FBI investigated devices belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her ex-husband, Anthony Weiner, in their case involving Weiner’s sexting practices. Apparently, there are three emails, not necessarily even involving Clinton, being reviewed.

Despite Election Day’s rapid approach, Comey said he “cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work.” Comey’s letter had an unexpected ripple effect after its release today: the stock market dipped, as many investors expecting a Clinton victory on November 8 were caught off guard. The Dow Jones average fell by over 150 points.

But a source told NBC’s Pete Williams that the FBI’s second look at Clinton’s email practices does not quite constitute a “reopening,” (in fact, Comey does not use this word in his letter) as many media outlets are reporting. Williams said that it appears that the new probe involves “another device,” and while Clinton could face a political fallout from the announcement, there might not be legal ramifications.

Donald Trump seemed excited by the FBI’s announcement. At a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, he said he was “very proud” of the bureau, adding “I think they are going to right the ship, folks.” On cue, the crowd commenced with their go-to chant: “Lock her up!” Trump also said Clinton’s seemingly immortal email scandal is “bigger than Watergate.”

While social media is bursting with Clinton supporters questioning Comey’s motives, and Clinton detractors reading his letter as the final dagger in her candidacy, Comey might simply be doing his job by reexamining fresh evidence, saying nothing of the content of that evidence–damaging or not. According to Newsweek, Comey likely did not have a choice but to renew the investigation: “because the new information followed his sworn testimony about the case, Comey was obligated by Department of Justice rules to keep the relevant committees apprised.”

The Associated Press is also reporting that according to a U.S. official, the new emails did not come from Clinton’s private server. Hang on folks, Election Day is almost here. Until then, stay tuned to Law Street for the latest updates on this and other issues.

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 Is the FBI Reopening its Investigation into Clinton’s Emails? appeared first on Law Street.

If you’re sick of hearing about Hillary Clinton’s emails, clap your hands.

James Comey is right there with you. The FBI Director said Tuesday that the bureau is recommending to the Department of Justice that no charges be brought against Hillary Clinton for using a personal email server during her term as secretary of state.

Some people are pretty mad.

Declining to prosecute Sec. Clinton for recklessly transmitting national security info will set a terrible precedent https://t.co/URtm1pFIIB

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) July 5, 2016

The Background

In 2012, Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in an attack in Benghazi, Libya, prompting a long string of investigations and questions about officials’ actions at the time–officials including a key player, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Part of the investigation was a look into Clinton’s email, which revealed that she had been using a personal server during her time heading up the State Department, which got more than a few people feeling uneasy. As secretary of state, she had access to a lot of classified information, which wasn’t supposed to be mixed in with her personal notes or hair appointment confirmations. This scandal has followed Clinton all throughout her campaign.

What’s Next?

 Comey said that the FBI didn’t find enough evidence to show that she intentionally mishandled the classified information, but did slide a little commentary in about how she was “extremely careless” with it. The Bureau is technically passing the case over to the Department of Justice to make a prosecutorial decision, but its recommendation essentially means there will be no prosecution.

While Hillary supporters are rejoicing, this recommendation is fuel for certain other candidates who don’t play nice with the Clintons and use “Crooked Hillary” in a good portion of their tweets.

FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 5, 2016

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FBI Recommends No Charges for Hillary Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

ISIS’s revolutionary ability to use technology for organizational, recruitment, and propaganda purposes is well known, but the terrorist group has now built its own encrypted Android app to use for covert conversations. It’s called “Alwari,” and it was recently uncovered by a counter-terrorism technology watchdog and Anonymous affiliate called Ghost Security Group.

Alwari is presumably in response to a few different recent developments. For one, Anonymous and other groups have threatened ISIS’s use of messaging apps like WhatsApp and Telegram. Additionally, those apps have the potential to be monitored by national security officials, such as the FBI, and some applications, including Telegram and Twitter, have taken steps to remove or block ISIS-related accounts.

Alwari isn’t the first time that ISIS has made an attempt at its own app. Ghost Security Group discovered last month that ISIS members were using Telegram to download a propaganda app called Amaq Agency. While it has now been taken down, according to Fortune it “provided users with a stream of news and videos filled with ISIS propaganda messages including executions, battlefield footage, and speeches.”

Exactly how technologically advanced Alwari is is unclear. While it doesn’t have the sophistication of WhatsApp or Telegram, whoever made it had the wherewithal to make sure that messages are protected. Unlike most Android apps, Alwari can’t be downloaded by visiting Google Play. Instead, it’s accessed through a shared code.

The U.S. is currently discussing the idea of “backdoors” into some encryption software–essentially ways that would allow the U.S. or other governments to access information sent via encryption. FBI Director James Comey has pushed for, at the very least, a debate over including these features. But, that debate may become somewhat irrelevant if there’s no ability to create those backdoors in the first place because the group we are trying to monitor has its own way to securely communicate. ISIS’s ability to use technology is, at the very least, unprecedented, but it shouldn’t be surprising, and at this point certainly needs to figure into the debate about privacy and backdoors waging in the U.S.

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 Alwari: ISIS Creates its Own Android Messaging App appeared first on Law Street.

In light of recent high profile police killings such as those of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri last August, Eric Garner in Staten Island, and 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio, a national discussion has developed about the force used by police officers against American citizens. In the most recent development in that discussion, President Obama called for all police shootings to be reported to the federal government so that kind of information is readily available and transparent.

This call comes after Obama’s December 2014 recommendation to establish the “Task Force on 21st Century Policing.” According to the White House,

The task force will examine how to strengthen public trust and foster strong relationships between local law enforcement and the communities that they protect, while also promoting effective crime reduction.

The task force will engage with federal, state, tribal, and local officials; technical advisors; young leaders; and nongovernmental organizations to provide a transparent process to engage with the public.

The task force is chaired by Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey and Laurie Robinson, a criminology professor at George Mason University who was formerly an Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ office of Justice Programs.

That task force has now come back to the President with its recommendations–the suggestion that police forces be required to report their shootings is just one of them. This comes after multiple high profile officials had made similar statements about the necessity of recording the incidences of police shootings. Attorney General Eric Holder expressed a similar sentiment in mid January when he stated in a speech,

I’ve heard from a number of people who have called on policymakers to ensure better record-keeping on injuries and deaths that occur at the hands of police. I’ve also spoken with law enforcement leaders — including the leadership of the Fraternal Order of Police — who have urged elected officials to consider strategies for collecting better data on officer fatalities. Today, my response to these legitimate concerns is simple: We need to do both.

FBI head James Comey made similar statements in a speech at Georgetown University a few weeks ago when he stated, “It’s ridiculous that I can’t tell you how many people were shot by the police in this country last week, last year, the last decade – it’s ridiculous.”

There isn’t any information yet about how the reporting of police shootings and force will be handled–whether it will go through the FBI or some other agency is yet to be seen.

This recommendation from the task force comes as that conversation about police shootings continues in the U.S. Last night, a video of a Los Angeles Police Department officer fatally shooting a homeless man went viral.

Here’s the video, although fair warning–it’s pretty brutal and graphic:

Officers claim that it was a struggle over one of the cop’s guns, and it very well may have been, but either way it’s a disturbing video in which deadly force is used very quickly. The conversation about police shootings in the United States is very far from over–a database may be able to be used to help make that conversation even more productive.

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 Task Force Calls for Police Shootings to be Reported to Federal Government appeared first on Law Street.

News of a secret detention facility in Chicago broke this week and it’s sparking horror and outrage across the country.

This “black site,” revealed by the Guardian, is a nightmare image straight out of a post-apocalyptic movie. People are “arrested” and taken to this site, which is inside a warehouse in Chicago’s Homan Square. Then they are subjected to inhumane treatment. They aren’t afforded the rights that the U.S. Constitution promises all of us. For example, lawyers claim they aren’t able to visit their clients at the site, and beatings and other forms of violence occur. In some ways most disturbingly, it’s all off the books. People who are taken to the Homan Square site aren’t entered into the Chicago PD system, or have any records of their detainment. As Anthony Hill, a criminal defense lawyer put it, “They just disappear, until they show up at a district for charging or are just released back out on the street.”

Read more: Chicago Still Dangerous Despite Absence From Crime Rankings

The facility at Homan Square is being dubbed a “black site” as a nod to the CIA detention facilities in the Middle East, although others have called them “shadow sites.”

The Chicago Police Department is, of course, trying to play Public Relations catch up. It’s claiming that nothing untoward has happened at Homan square, providing a statement that included:

CPD [Chicago police department] abides by all laws, rules and guidelines pertaining to any interviews of suspects or witnesses, at Homan Square or any other CPD facility. If lawyers have a client detained at Homan Square, just like any other facility, they are allowed to speak to and visit them. It also houses CPD’s Evidence Recovered Property Section, where the public is able to claim inventoried property…There are always records of anyone who is arrested by CPD, and this is not any different at Homan Square.

These revelations come at an interesting time–the United States has been engaged in a discussion over the power of our police forces for a while now. Reports of increased militarization, racial profiling, and human rights abuses are finally seeing the light of day and mainstream news coverage. From Ferguson, Missouri, to New York, New York, people this Fall stood up in protest against police treatment of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and others. This information out of Chicago seems to be just the latest in a long, terrifying list. It’s horrible, reprehensible, and heartbreaking, but it’s by no means unsurprising.

Reading the Guardian piece, complete with the many, many horrifying examples of what purportedly happens at this detention center, reminded me of a powerful speech by FBI Director James Comey just a few weeks ago. He talked a lot about innate racial biases in law enforcement, particularly in light of those events I mentioned above. Although his speech was by no means faultless, there were many honest truths to which Comey seemingly spoke. At one point, he said:

A mental shortcut becomes almost irresistible and maybe even rational by some lights. The two young black men on one side of the street look like so many others the officer has locked up. Two young white men on the other side of the street — even in the same clothes — do not. The officer does not make the same association about the two white guys, whether that officer is white or black. And that drives different behavior. The officer turns toward one side of the street and not the other. We need to come to grips with the fact that this behavior complicates the relationship between police and the communities they serve.

While there’s no indication exactly what race those interred at Homan Square are–there are certainly claims that many of the people brought there are low-income, and black, Hispanic, or members of other minority populations. It’s sad, in light of Comey’s speech and the events of this summer, how easy this becomes to imagine. Chicago’s police force taking those who lack resources, subjecting them to inhumane treatment, and not worrying about the consequences. It’s easy to silence a voice when that voice is nowhere near a microphone. While it’s yet to be seen what will be borne out of these revelations, I wouldn’t be surprised if more “black sites” exist in other cities. There’s a big problem here–and this is just one more piece of the puzzle.

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 Chicago “Black Site” Allegations Yet Another Example of Police Brutality appeared first on Law Street.