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:

Explosion Kills at Least 22 at Manchester Ariana Grande Concert

Last night, an explosion killed at least 22 people and injured 59 others during an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England. Officials are treating it as a suicide attack, but many details are still unclear. The attacker appears to have been one man acting alone, who detonated a homemade explosive device. He died in the explosion.

Young concertgoers left the site screaming and video footage shows chaos and panic. Grande is popular among young listeners and police confirmed several children were among the dead. This is the worst terror attack in Britain since the London subway bombings in 2005 and brought to mind the concert hall terrorist attack in Paris in 2015.

19 dead, 50 injured in #ManchesterArena explosion. Being treated as a terror incident. https://t.co/RaoedzKYpV pic.twitter.com/LJmydjJTnr

— BBC North West (@BBCNWT) May 23, 2017

According to the CEO of the Pennsylvania-based company that manages the Manchester Arena, you have to pass a strict security check to enter the concert area. But it seemed like the explosion went off in the foyer of the arena, at the very end of the concert when people had already started leaving. Witnesses said the whole building shook with the blast.

broken.
from the bottom of my heart, i am so so sorry. i don’t have words.

— Ariana Grande (@ArianaGrande) May 23, 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 23, 2017 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would testify in the House and Senate intelligence committees’ Russia investigations in exchange for immunity, his lawyer said in a statement on Thursday. Flynn “certainly has a story to tell,” said his lawyer, Robert Kelner, who added that his client is seeking immunity because of the “highly politicized, witch-hunt environment” of the investigations.

An immunity deal would protect Flynn against criminal charges, should it come to light that he broke the law. According to a U.S. official, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is engaged in one of two congressional investigations of President Donald Trump and his advisers’ communications with Russia, denied Flynn’s immunity request. The House Intelligence Committee, which is running the second congressional investigation, has not responded as of Friday morning.

Flynn resigned in February after he misled White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, about the content of his communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. He has since become a central figure in the murky saga of Russia–which the FBI and CIA concluded meddled in the U.S. election in favor of President Donald Trump–and its communications with Trump aides during the campaign.

Congress has the ability to grant immunity, but usually consults a prosecutor first. The FBI is conducting a parallel investigation into Trump and his advisers’ ties to Russia, which director James Comey recently said has been underway since last July. The Justice Department has the power to delay–but not outright deny–an immunity request.

Kelner, Flynn’s lawyer, said in a statement, “no reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch-hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution.” He added, somewhat cryptically: “General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should circumstances permit.” Trump, in a message on Twitter early Friday, encouraged Flynn to seek immunity:

Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2017

But an immunity request does not necessarily suggest Flynn is guilty of something worthy of criminal charges. “At this early stage, I wouldn’t read anything into this request beyond smart lawyering,” Mark Zaid, a lawyer who specializes in national security cases, told the New York Times. “In such a politically charged, high-profile national security case, I couldn’t imagine not first asking for immunity.”

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 Michael Flynn’s Immunity Request appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Flynn Wants Immunity Before He Talks

There’s a new development in the investigation into ties between the White House and Russia. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn said last night that he has information to spill and offered to tell all about it. But his lawyers said that he won’t reveal anything until he is promised immunity. Donald Trump commented on the development on Twitter this morning.

Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 31, 2017

An immunity deal would make it pretty much impossible to prosecute Flynn, and asking for it is a common procedure in such a high-profile case. But it definitely raised a lot of questions about what exactly he knows. Many Democrats quickly pointed out his 2016 comment about Hillary Clinton, “when you are given immunity, that means you probably committed a crime.”

“When you are given immunity, that means that you have probably committed a crime.” — Michael Flynn in September of 2016

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) March 31, 2017

As of early Friday morning, a senior official from the Senate Intelligence Committee turned down Flynn’s request for immunity, but this story is still unfolding.

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 31, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

As the House juggled a doomed health care bill on Thursday, lawmakers in the Senate introduced a bipartisan effort to tighten restrictions on Iran–specifically its government and powerful military–through a new round of sanctions. Iran’s ballistic missile program, its material support for foreign terrorist groups, and human rights violations provide the bases for the sanctions, which the Senate has been seeking for over a year.

The last attempt at tightening sanctions on Iran came last July. That bid failed, largely because the Obama Administration was tied up in negotiations for what would become the Iran nuclear deal. Looming over the bill that was introduced Thursday is that Iran deal, which some worry could be violated by stronger sanctions. In contrast to last summer’s attempt however, both Republicans and Democrats that opposed the nuclear deal, and those that supported it, are behind the new effort.

“This legislation demonstrates the strong bipartisan support in Congress for a comprehensive approach to holding Iran accountable by targeting all aspects of the regime’s destabilizing actions,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. “These steps will allow us to regain the initiative on Iran and push back forcefully against this threat to our security and that of our allies.”

More than a dozen Senators joined Corker in supporting the bill, including Marco Rubio (R-FL), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Chris Coons (D-DE). The legislation will likely hit the Senate floor for a vote. 

Days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, Iran tested a ballistic missile. His administration condemned the test, and said it might have violated the Iran deal, which Trump has promised to rip-up (he has since walked that promise back.) Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn put Iran “on notice” soon after its missile launch, and some worried the administration would take military action, or aggressive sanctions that could destabilize the nuclear agreement.

Those fears did not pan out: the nuclear deal remains in place and, so far, “on notice” has amounted to no more than lofty rhetoric. But the bill introduced on Thursday does represent a bipartisan push to punish Iran not only for its missile tests, but for its support of Hezbollah–a U.S.-designated terrorist group–and its abominable human rights record.

“The spirit of bipartisanship of this important legislation underscores our strong belief that the United States must speak with one voice on the issue of holding Iran accountable for its continued nefarious actions across the world as the leading state sponsor of terrorism,” Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a supporter of the bill, said in a statement. “Iran’s leaders must understand once and for all, that unless they change course their situation will only get worse.”

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 Senators Introduce Bill to Slap Further Sanctions on Iran appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration’s connections to Russia have worried both Democrats and Republicans, with lawmakers from both parties calling for special prosecutors, committee investigations, and intelligence probes into the matter. Late Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, had met with Russia’s U.S. ambassador twice before–in July and September–despite denying any contacts with Russian officials in his confirmation hearing in January.

A bi-partisan chorus has been building over the past few weeks for the Justice Department to investigate the administration’s ties to Russian officials. Lawmakers’ concerns were amplified when former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned last month after misleading the vice president about his contacts with the same ambassador Sessions met with, Sergey Kislyak. Sessions, the man who would lead a Justice Department investigation into Trump’s Russian contacts, might be embroiled in the investigation himself. Now lawmakers are calling on him to recuse himself or, like Flynn, step down completely.

A handful of prominent Republicans on Wednesday and early Thursday said a special prosecutor should investigate the Trump Administration’s contacts with Russia, instead of Sessions. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, said Sessions should recuse himself:

AG Sessions should clarify his testimony and recuse himself

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) March 2, 2017

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) initially echoed that sentiment, but hours later said he is “not calling on [Sessions] to recuse himself.” Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it “would be best for [Sessions] and for the country” to recuse himself. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), during a CNN town hall Wednesday evening, also seemed to embrace the idea of a special prosecutor in lieu of Sessions. Graham said that “if there’s something there that the FBI thinks is criminal in nature, then for sure you need a special prosecutor.” 

Of course, a senator is allowed to meet with Russian officials, and at the time Sessions met with Kislyak, he was a senator from Alabama. But Sessions denied having any contact with the Russians during the campaign (“I have no idea what this allegation is about,” he said in a statement), and during his hearing he swore under oath that he did not have contact with Russian officials. At worst, Sessions committed perjury, in which case he would certainly be forced to step down. And at best, he misled Congress, which many Democrats see as reason enough to resign.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Sessions “is not fit to serve as the top law enforcement officer of our country and must resign.” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said Sessions should “resign immediately, and there is no longer any question that we need a truly independent commission to investigate this issue.” And Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a vocal critic of Sessions when he was nominated as attorney general, said Sessions “should have never been confirmed in the first place,” and that he should resign. “We need it now,” she 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 Should Jeff Sessions Recuse Himself from the Russia-Trump Investigation? appeared first on Law Street.

After the ouster of Michael Flynn last week, President Donald Trump on Monday chose another highly decorated general as his National Security Adviser: Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster. The appointment was met with widespread approval; McMaster is as respected for his battlefield strategy as he is for his intellectual rigor.

McMaster was not Trump’s first choice to replace Flynn, however. Robert Harward, also a general, declined the post last week. Flynn resigned after reports surfaced that he misled Vice President Mike Pence about the content of his phone calls with the Russian ambassador during the transition period.

At a press conference on Monday, Trump called McMaster, 54, a “man of tremendous talent and tremendous experience.” He added that McMaster “is highly respected by everyone in the military, and we’re very honored to have him.” Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), a vocal critic of Trump over the past few weeks, said the president made an “outstanding choice,” and called McMaster a “man of genuine intellect, character, and ability.”

Congratulations to our new National Security Advisor, General H.R. McMaster. Video: https://t.co/BKn9r225Kk pic.twitter.com/VBXcJ1b6Pv

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 21, 2017

But despite his qualifications and reputation, McMaster is set to lead a national security apparatus that is largely dismayed by Trump’s first month in office, and is trying to navigate the outsize influence of Trump’s Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. Unlike Flynn, and others in Trump’s orbit, McMaster does not see the West as being in a “clash of civilizations” with Islam. In fact, while serving in the Iraq War, he allied his forces with Islamic militants who had killed Americans in order to defeat al-Qaeda. Instead of vilifying all of Islam, he sought to turn Muslims against the more radical, jihadist strains. He also forbid his troops from using derogatory terms for Muslims.

Time will tell if McMaster, known for being an independent-minded leader who is unafraid to stand up to his superiors, will advise the president on national security issues, as his post is meant to, or if he will be forced to yield to the vision of Bannon and Trump. For his part, McMaster said he is “grateful” for the opportunity. Sitting with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach on Monday, McMaster said he will do “everything I can to advance and protect the interests of the American people.”

Though he is lauded for his battlefield exploits–he earned a Silver Star during the Persian Gulf war in 1991–his 1997 book “Dereliction of Duty” was widely acclaimed, and serves as a sort of blueprint for his views. The book was an in-depth critique of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for failing to stand up to President Lyndon Johnson during the Vietnam War.

“The war in Vietnam was not lost in the field, nor was it lost on the front pages of the New York Times or the college campuses,” he wrote. “It was lost in Washington, D.C.” McMaster will now be plunging deep into the place and the system he has previously critiqued, at a time when its leader, Trump, has not shown much deference to his appointees, no matter their experience or expertise.

But for now, McMaster is a welcome maven of stability for an administration that has been anything but. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the highest ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, tweeted his approval of McMaster on Monday: “McMaster is solid choice, bright & strategic. Wrote the book on importance of standing up to POTUS. May need to show same independence here.”

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 Meet the New National Security Adviser: H.R. McMaster appeared first on Law Street.

The resignation of Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser and the subsequent revelations that Trump aides communicated with Russia during the campaign have raised a lot of questions in Washington. Clearly some sort of relationship exists between Russia and Trump–or at least his orbit of advisers and aides. But how deep does it go? How nefarious does it get? And, perhaps most importantly, what will happen next?

For one, the FBI is continuing to review the communications between Flynn and Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak. Flynn was pressured to resign after he misled Vice President Mike Pence about the content of his calls with Kislyak (they talked about U.S. sanctions, but Flynn told Pence they did not).

It is unclear if Trump, or any other top administration officials, directed Flynn to discuss the sanctions with Kislyak, or if Flynn acted of his own accord. But Trump, for one, is not happy about the leaks coming out of his administration:

The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by “intelligence” like candy. Very un-American!

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

On Tuesday, top Senate Republicans hinted that they would be calling for an investigation into the relationship between Trump, his aides, and Russia. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said a probe is “highly likely.” Two members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), also called for an investigation.

“We are aggressively going to continue the oversight responsibilities of the committee as it relates to not only the Russian involvement in the 2016 election, but again any contacts by any campaign individuals that might have happened with Russian government officials,” Burr said on Tuesday.

Republican Senators John Cornyn (TX) and Roy Blunt (MO) echoed the call for a Senate investigation, which would likely include a subpoena for Flynn to testify. Republicans in the House, however, struck a different tone Tuesday.

“I’ll leave it up to the administration to describe the circumstances surrounding what brought [Flynn] to this point,” said Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI).

Ryan did not call for a House Intelligence Committee investigation.

The decision to launch a House investigation into the Russia-Trump Administration relationship is unilaterally controlled by one man: Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), the House Intelligence Committee Chairman. In contrast with many of his Republican colleagues, his counterparts in the Senate, and Democrats, Nunes sees a bigger problem than Trump’s potential Russia ties.

“I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,” Nunes said on Tuesday, referring to the FBI’s recording Flynn’s call with Kislyak. “The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.”

In other words, Nunes likely won’t be launching a House probe any time soon.

The opaque, yet unmistakable, ties between Trump and Russia first came to light in the summer of 2016. In July, he flippantly implored Russia to dig deeper into Hillary Clinton’s emails. In August, his campaign manager at the time, Paul Manafort, quit amid reports about his past business dealings with Ukrainian government officials who were backed by the Kremlin. And in the waning months following Trump’s election win, U.S. intelligence officials concluded that Russia–perhaps directed by President Vladimir Putin–interfered in the election with the goal of netting Trump a victory.

Then, just over a week before Inauguration Day, reports of a salacious dossier on Trump compiled by a former British intelligence officer began to leak. The dossier claimed that Trump and his campaign colluded with Russian officials during the campaign in their hacking of Democratic operatives’ emails.

While U.S. intelligence officials have made some progress on corroborating the claims in the dossier, nothing too incriminating has been confirmed yet. They are continuing to probe the dossier, as well as Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), never one to mince words, called Russian interference in the U.S. “very disturbing” in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Wednesday. He added: “Any Trump person who was working with the Russians in an unacceptable way also needs to pay a price.”

Stay tuned to find out what happens next.

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 and Russia: What Will Happen Next? appeared first on Law Street.

National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned late Monday night, after less than one month of service. Last week, U.S. officials said that in his phone calls with the Russian ambassador in late December, Flynn discussed the sanctions President Barack Obama levied on the Kremlin after U.S. intelligence agencies concluded it interfered in the U.S. election. Flynn reportedly cautioned Kislyak against a harsh response, and suggested the sanctions could change under President Donald Trump, who was set to take office a few weeks later.

Though Trump’s team publicly supported Flynn last week and even early Monday, the external pressure proved too heavy. “I am tendering my resignation, honored to have served our nation and the American people in such a distinguished way,” Flynn wrote in his resignation letter, which the White House sent to reporters. On Tuesday morning, Trump gave his take on the matter via Twitter:

The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 14, 2017

While the White House publicly supported Flynn–Trump’s Counselor Kellyanne Conway on Monday morning said he had the “full confidence” of the president–privately, things were different. For one, Vice President Mike Pence was apparently incensed that Flynn had lied to him about the content of his calls with Kislyak. Because he was led to believe Flynn and Kislyak discussed nothing out of the ordinary, Pence publicly defended Flynn last week.

In his letter, Flynn said he “held numerous phone calls with foreign counterparts, ministers, and ambassadors” during the transition. “Unfortunately, because of the fast pace of events, I inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador. I have sincerely apologized to the President and the Vice President, and they have accepted my apology.”

Lt. Gen. Joseph Kellogg Jr. will temporarily replace Flynn until the White House chooses a permanent replacement. Kellogg is a retired Vietnam War veteran with decades of military experience. The leading candidate to replace Flynn is retired Vice Admiral Robert Harward, according to an anonymous source that is close to the Trump Administration. Former CIA Director David Petraeus and Kellogg are also in the running.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a fervent critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, issued a statement early Tuesday on Flynn’s resignation, which he said was “a troubling indication of the dysfunction of the current national security apparatus.” McCain, who also chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, continued:

General Flynn’s resignation also raises further questions about the Trump administration’s intentions toward Vladimir Putin’s Russia, including statements by the President suggesting moral equivalence between the United States and Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, threats to our NATO allies, and attempted interference in American elections.

According to a report by The Washington Post, the White House has known about Flynn’s potentially damaging phone calls for at least a month. Sally Yates, the acting attorney general who Trump fired after she refused to enforce his travel ban, told the administration that Flynn misled Pence about the content of his communications with Kislyak. Former National Intelligence Director James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan echoed the Justice Department’s warning.

Yates and the intelligence leaders worried that Russia could use the content of the calls to blackmail him in the future. If Russia wanted something, for instance, they could tell Flynn that they would expose the true nature of the calls unless he capitulated to Russia’s demands. But it took a public outcry and external pressure to finally uproot Flynn from his post, though according to administration officials, it was not easy for Trump to nudge Flynn to finally resign, because of the loyalty he showed throughout the campaign.

Even as he was heading out the door, Flynn showered praise on the Trump Administration. In his resignation letter, Flynn wrote: “this team will go down in history as one of the greatest presidencies in U.S. history, and I firmly believe the American people will be well served as they all work together to help Make American Great Again.”

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 Michael Flynn is Out: What You Need to Know About his Resignation appeared first on Law Street.

Michael Flynn Resigns as National Security Adviser

Last night, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn handed in his resignation. This announcement came after a lot of controversy surrounding his phone call with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. in December, before Donald Trump was president. The phone call reportedly took place the same day that President Barack Obama sent home a bunch of Russian officials and imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering in the U.S. election. Flynn claimed that he didn’t discuss those sanctions with the ambassador, and VP Mike Pence initially defended Flynn to the media. But last week, intelligence officials claimed that Flynn hadn’t exactly been honest.

Worth noting that acting AG Sally Yates (!) first alerted Trump WH about Flynn’s vulnerability to Russian blackmail… several weeks ago. https://t.co/I1qar11JXi

— Alex Wagner (@alexwagner) February 14, 2017

A private citizen, which is what Flynn was at the time, is prohibited from discussing foreign relations with other countries. Flynn also allegedly lied about his conversation to Trump and Pence, which according to the Justice Department made him a target for blackmail from Russia. But a lot of people are also questioning who in the White House knew what:

But let’s not forget: GOP majority in Congress was silent. If Flynn had not shamed the VP, he might still be on job – and still compromised https://t.co/9iLgfHUrBC

— David Frum (@davidfrum) February 14, 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: February 14, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

During the transition period, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn reportedly discussed President Barack Obama’s sanctions against Russia with the Russian ambassador. According to current and former U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials, Flynn and Sergey Kislyak, the ambassador, exchanged texts and at least five phone calls in the moments before and the day after Obama announced his actions on Russia, which were in retaliation for its election hacking. Flynn and White House officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, repeatedly denied that the two men discussed the sanctions. 

In an interview with The Washington Post, Flynn also denied he and Kislyak spoke about the sanctions, which Obama announced on December 29. However, Flynn, through a spokesman, slightly backtracked on Thursday. Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up,” the spokesman said.

This saga began on December 29, when Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S., and shuttered two Russian-owned compounds in New York and Maryland. The sanctions were a response to the U.S. intelligence agencies’ conclusion that Russia meddled in the election by hacking email correspondences between Democratic Party officials. According to U.S. officials who have reviewed intelligence reports and diplomatic cables, Kislyak requested a phone call with Flynn when news of the impending sanctions began to leak.

On January 13, President Donald Trump’s Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Flynn and Kislyak coordinated the logistics of a call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. But U.S. officials are now saying that the sanctions were also a topic of conversation. Flynn told Kislyak that Moscow should refrain from responding to the sanctions too harshly. Flynn reassured Kislyak that the sanctions would be reviewed once Trump was in the White House. “Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” a former U.S. official told the Post.

On December 30, when Putin announced he would not retaliate, everyone seemed surprised but Trump. “Great move on the delay,” he said in a Twitter message. “I always knew [Putin] was very smart.”

White House officials have denied that any impropriety took place during the phone calls. “They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia,” Pence said in an interview with CBS last month. He also said Trump’s team had no contact with Russia during the campaign. Flynn has raised concerns that he has a more-than-cordial relationship with Russia and its president. In 2015, Flynn sat next to Putin at a banquet in Moscow for the state-owned television network Russia Today. 

While Trump has tempered his seemingly pro-Russia stance since the campaign–he recently said the sanctions will remain in place–many worry that Flynn maintains too favorable of a relationship with Russian officials. There is also the question of whether he broke federal law by discussing the sanctions with Kislyak. The Logan Act of 1799 bars U.S. citizens from interfering in foreign affairs “with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government.” It is unclear what qualifies as a breach of that statue; it has never been acted on in court. The FBI, however, is investigating the correspondences between Flynn and Kislyak.

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 Michael Flynn Speak with Russia About Sanctions During Transition? appeared first on Law Street.