29 April 2020

BunkerBoy Trump Virus >240K Homicides More GOP Crime Against Humanity



President Trump delivers a television national address on the coronavirus pandemic from the Oval Office on March 11.
President Trump delivers a television national address on the coronavirus pandemic from the Oval Office on March 11. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
27 April 2020


U.S. intelligence agencies issued warnings about the novel coronavirus in more than a dozen classified briefings prepared for President Trump in January and February, months during which he continued to play down the threat, according to current and former U.S. officials.
The repeated warnings were conveyed in issues of the President’s Daily Brief, a sensitive report that is produced before dawn each day and designed to call the president’s attention to the most significant global developments and security threats.


For weeks, the PDB — as the report is known — traced the virus’s spread around the globe, made clear that China was suppressing information about the contagion’s transmissibility and lethal toll, and raised the prospect of dire political and economic consequences.
But the alarms appear to have failed to register with the president, who routinely skips reading the PDB and has at times shown little patience for even the oral summary he takes two or three times per week, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified material.


34 times Trump downplayed the coronavirus
Over the past two months, President Trump has regularly sought to downplay the coronavirus threat with a mix of facts and false statements. (Video: JM Rieger/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

The advisories being relayed by U.S. spy agencies were part of a broader collection of worrisome signals that came during a period now regarded by many public health officials and other experts as a squandered opportunity to contain the outbreak.
As of Monday, more than 55,000 people in the United States had died of covid-19.
The frequency with which the coronavirus was mentioned in the PDB has not been previously reported, and U.S. officials said it reflected a level of attention comparable to periods when analysts have been tracking active terrorism threats, overseas conflicts or other rapidly developing security issues.
A White House spokesman disputed the characterization that Trump was slow to respond to the virus threat. “President Trump rose to fight this crisis head-on by taking early, aggressive historic action to protect the health, wealth and well-being of the American people,” said spokesman Hogan Gidley. “We will get through this difficult time and defeat this virus because of his decisive leadership.”
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is responsible for the PDB. In response to questions about the repeated mentions of coronavirus, a DNI official said, “The detail of this is not true.” The official declined to explain or elaborate.
U.S. officials emphasized that the PDB references to the virus included comprehensive articles on aspects of the global outbreak, but also smaller digest items meant to keep Trump and senior administration officials updated on the course of the contagion. Versions of the PDB are also shared with Cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking U.S. officials.
One official said that by mid- to late January the coronavirus was being mentioned more frequently, either as one of the report’s core articles or in what is known as an “executive update,” and that it was almost certainly called to Trump’s attention orally.
The administration’s first major step to arrest the spread of the virus came in late January, when Trump restricted travel between the United States and China, where the virus is believed to have originated late last year.
But Trump spent much of February publicly playing down the threat while his administration failed to mobilize for a major outbreak by securing supplies of protective equipment, developing an effective diagnostic test and preparing plans to quarantine large portions of the population.
Trump insisted publicly on Feb. 26 that the number of cases “within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero,” and said the next day that “it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.”
In reality, the virus was by then moving swiftly through communities across the United States, spreading virtually unchecked in New York City and other population centers until state governors began imposing sweeping lockdowns, requiring social distancing and all but closing huge sectors of the country’s economy.
As late as March 10, Trump said: “Just stay calm. It will go away.” The next day, the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus outbreak a global pandemic.
By then, officials said, the warnings in the PDB and other intelligence reports had taken on the aspect of an insistent drumbeat. The first mention of the coronavirus in the PDB came at the beginning of January, focusing on what at that point were troubling signs of a new virus spreading through the Chinese city of Wuhan, and the Chinese government’s apparent efforts to conceal details of the outbreak.
In the ensuing weeks, U.S. intelligence agencies devoted additional resources and departments to tracking the spread of the coronavirus. At the CIA, the effort involved agency centers on China, Europe and Latin America, as well as departments de­voted to transnational health threats, officials said.
The preliminary intelligence on the coronavirus was fragmentary, and did not address the prospects of a severe outbreak in the United States.
U.S. intelligence officials, citing scientific evidence, have largely dismissed the notion that the virus was deliberately genetically engineered. But they are continuing to examine whether the virus somehow escaped a virology lab in Wuhan, where research on naturally occurring coronaviruses has been conducted.
“We’re looking at it very closely, but we just don’t know,” said one senior U.S. intelligence official.
The warnings conveyed in the PDB probably will be a focus of any future investigation of the Trump administration’s handling of the pandemic. Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, in early April called for the formation of an independent commission analogous to the one created to investigate the Sept, 11, 2001, attacks.
In response to that probe, the George W. Bush administration was pressured to declassify portions of the PDB from August 2001 — a month before 9/11 — warning that al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden was “determined to strike in U.S.”
Senior officials with direct knowledge of Trump’s intelligence briefings say that Trump listens and asks questions during the sessions. “We go in and he treats us with respect,” one senior official said.
But Trump has also been combative or dismissive toward U.S. intelligence agencies throughout his presidency.
In mid-February, as the pathogen was spreading, Trump fired acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire after learning that a senior analyst had briefed members of Congress that Russia was seeking to interfere in the 2020 presidential election and had developed a preference for Trump.
Officials have noted that Trump was also contending with the Senate impeachment trial in January and focused on other security issues, including tracking Iran’s response to a Jan. 3 U.S. airstrike that killed a top Iranian commander, Qasem Soleimani, in Baghdad.
David Priess, a former CIA officer who was a PDB briefer in the George W. Bush administration, said that even if Trump is ignoring his briefing book, other officials including national security adviser Robert O’Brien are probably digesting the material and interacting with Trump daily.
O’Brien’s deputy, Matthew Pottinger, has a background in intelligence and was among a small circle of senior officials urging early action to contain the coronavirus, U.S. officials said. Pottinger pushed to close off air travel from Europe in February, officials said, but Trump did not do so until mid-March.
“The fact that [Trump] gets only two or three briefings a week from the intelligence professionals doesn’t mean that’s the only exposure to the PDB he’s getting,” Priess said. “He can get the best intelligence in the world and still not make good decisions based on it.”
Priess, author of a book on intelligence briefings for presidents, said that Trump’s predecessors have been varied in their approaches to consuming intelligence. President Barack Obama was considered an avid reader of “the book,” which was prepared for him on a specially equipped computer tablet. President George W. Bush reviewed the highlights of the PDB and often discussed its contents at length with his briefer. President Richard M. Nixon likely didn’t read the PDB, Priess said, but was extensively briefed by his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger.
Trump’s top health officials and advisers were also delivering warnings on the coronavirus through January and February, though their messages at times appeared muddled and contradictory.
On Feb. 25, Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, warned publicly that virus was spreading so rapidly that “we need to be prepared for significant disruption in our lives.”
Trump, traveling in India at the time, was outraged by what he regarded as the alarmist tone of her remarks and their perceived impact on the U.S. stock market.
Two days later, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar testified before a Congressional committee that the risk to the public remained “low,” and that the coronavirus would “look and feel to the American people more like a severe flu season in terms of the interventions and approaches you will see.”
On March 11, with cases surging in New York and the stock market plummeting, Trump declared a national emergency and announced a ban on travel from Europe, which had become the new epicenter . . . .
Julie Tate contributed to this report.


11 April 2020

"Barr Can't Be Trusted" Rules Fed Judge On Trump IC IG Revenge Firing Lies

Endorsing Trump’s Firing of Inspector General, Barr Paints Distorted Picture

The attorney general misstated key facts in explaining the dismissed official’s handling of the whistle-blower complaint that prompted impeachment.

Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr endorsed and defended President Trump’s firing of Michael K. Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, in an interview with Fox News. But in making the case that Mr. Atkinson committed a firing offense in his handling of a whistle-blower complaint last year that led to the impeachment battle, Mr. Barr made several claims that are subject to scrutiny.
Mr. Atkinson pushed the Trump administration in September to tell Congress about the whistle-blower complaint accusing Mr. Trump of abusing his power to try to coerce Ukraine into announcing investigations that could deliver him personal political benefits. The complaint touched off Mr. Trump’s impeachment by the Democratic-controlled House.
Since the Republican-controlled Senate acquitted the president, he has been purging officials who cooperated with the House inquiry. On April 3, Mr. Trump fired Mr. Atkinson. The next day, the president made clear at a news briefing that he did so because he remained angry that the inspector general wanted to disclose the complaint to Congress.
“He did a terrible job, absolutely terrible,” Mr. Trump said, adding: “He took a fake report and he brought it to Congress with an emergency, OK? Not a big Trump fan, that I can tell you.”









He endorsed Mr. Trump’s move while putting forth a dubious account of what happened. This is Mr. Barr’s statement:
“The president did the right thing in removing Atkinson. From the vantage point of the Department of Justice, he had interpreted his statute — which is a fairly narrow statute, gave him jurisdiction over wrongdoing by intelligence people — and tried to turn it in to a commission to explore anything in the government and immediately report it to Congress without letting the executive branch look at it and determine whether there was any problem. He was told this in a letter from the Department of Justice, and he is obliged to follow the interpretation of the Department of Justice and he ignored it, so I think the president was correct in firing him.”
No, not when it came to an executive branch review. Mr. Atkinson tried to follow the procedures laid out in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which requires that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence review the complaint, then report it to Congress.
After determining that the complaint was “credible” and raised an “urgent concern,” Mr. Atkinson provided it on Aug. 26 to the acting director of national intelligence at the time, Joseph Maguire. Mr. Atkinson believed that under the whistle-blower protection law, Mr. Maguire would have seven days to review the materials and append any comments before passing on the complaint to Congress.
A senior Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, defended Mr. Barr’s claim that Mr. Atkinson instead thought he could “immediately report it to Congress without letting the executive branch look at it,” arguing that a week was insufficient for the department to conduct its own review of the complaint.
But it was Congress, not Mr. Atkinson, that set the review period at one week for complaints covered by the whistle-blower law. In addition, officials at the White House and the Justice Department already knew that an intelligence official had raised concerns about Mr. Trump’s Ukraine dealings even before he filed the complaint on Aug. 12. The department ultimately decided not to open any criminal investigation.









No. While Mr. Atkinson disagreed with it, he considered himself bound by it.
After Mr. Atkinson gave the complaint to Mr. Maguire, Steven E. Engel, the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, opined that the whistle-blower law did not apply because the complaint was not about an intelligence activity, so the administration could lawfully withhold it from Congress.
On Sept. 9, about a week after the deadline, Mr. Atkinson wrote to the intelligence oversight committees with the approval of Mr. Maguire, notifying them that a dispute had arisen over how the law applied to a whistle-blower complaint without disclosing its subject. Mr. Atkinson also wrote in a follow-up letter to Congress, “I understand that I am bound by the determination” of the Justice Department and “will continue to abide by that determination.”
The senior department official, defending Mr. Barr’s claim that Mr. Atkinson instead “ignored” the Justice Department’s interpretation, argued that if he had truly respected the Office of Legal Counsel’s role, he would not have told the oversight committees anything.
Yes. He claimed that the F.B.I. had opened its investigation into whether Trump campaign officials were coordinating with Russia’s election interference “without any basis.” But the official who decided to open the investigation, Bill Priestap, then the assistant director of the F.B.I.’s counterintelligence division, did so on the basis of certain facts.
Specifically, after WikiLeaks started dumping out stolen Democratic emails believed to have been hacked by Russia and timed to disrupt the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Australia told the United States that two months earlier, a Trump campaign official, George Papadopoulos, had told one of its diplomats that Russia had offered to help the Trump campaign by anonymously disclosing “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.
Defending Mr. Barr’s claim that the F.B.I. did not have “any basis” to open an investigation, the department official pointed to the apparent opinion of John H. Durham, a prosecutor whom Mr. Barr has assigned to reinvestigate the Russia investigators, that the F.B.I. should have opened a “preliminary investigation” rather than a “full investigation.”
The Justice Department inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, concluded that the facts available to Mr. Priestap were an adequate basis for a full investigation, but said in testimony last year that Mr. Durham had disagreed with him and believed the factual basis for the inquiry only rose to the standard for a preliminary one.









Yes. He has repeatedly come under fire for misleading the public about the findings and analysis of the special counsel who eventually took over the case, Robert S. Mueller III.
Last month, Reggie B. Walton, a federal judge appointed by a Republican president, declared in a ruling that Mr. Barr’s initial account of the then-still-secret Mueller report was so “distorted” and “misleading” that the court could not trust him. Judge Walton also suggested that the attorney general had made “a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller report in favor of President Trump.”
The Justice Department has said it “stands by” Mr. Barr’s statements without addressing the substance of the judge’s critique.
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.









https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/politics/barr-inspector-general-firing.html?

Copyright 2020 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved (no claim to The New York Times content)

05 April 2020

Criminal CIA Leads Gitmo Prosecutors Unconstitutional 9/11 "War Court" Trial

The Growing Culture of Secrecy at Guantánamo Bay


The war court where the men accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks are on trial operates under classification rules that are inconsistent, complex and sometimes absurd.


Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
This article was produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.
GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba — During a court session this year in the case of the men accused plotting Sept. 11, defense lawyers spotted something curious: Prosecutors were huddled around a wireless silver tablet computer.
When confronted about it, the judge made a surprising disclosure. He had secretly approved use of the device to allow real-time communication between prosecutors and representatives of the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies monitoring the trial from afar. The purpose, he said, was to allow the agencies to signal when they were concerned about a potential “spill,” the inadvertent disclosure of classified information.
“Spills cannot occur,” said the judge, Col. W. Shane Cohen, defending his decision to give the agencies a way to relay requests to silence the court audio. “That is the bottom line. The goal is zero spills.”
The judge said he regretted that he had agreed with prosecutors to keep secret the new communication system, but he stood by his decision to allow its use. He released his secret order, calling the wireless silver tablet a “teletype machine.”


In granting the request, Colonel Cohen added another layer of secrecy to the at times remarkably opaque national security court at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Government censors black out portions of transcripts of public hearings before they are posted on the military commissions website, which is adorned with the motto, “Fairness Transparency Justice.” Witnesses from the prison, including lawyers and some commanders, testify anonymously. Soldiers strip their name tapes off their Army uniforms when on the courtroom premises.
The judge and a court security officer can hit a mute button to silence the audio system that pipes the proceedings — on a 40-second delay — into the sealed-off observation room at the back of the courtroom where relatives of victims, journalists and other visitors watch.
But the secrecy extends beyond the courtroom, which is at the heart of the hybrid federal-military justice system that the United States created in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.
All court filings, including a judge’s order, undergo a security review before the public can see it.


By Defense Department regulation, court filings are to be released to the public within 15 business days. But they undergo a censorship scrub first, with representatives of a series of security agencies like the C.I.A., F.B.I., Guantánamo prison and the Pentagon’s United States Southern Command having a say on what portions of the filing are classified.
But delays are common. It took 10 months from filing until the public could read a legal motion from May 2019 asking the Army judge in that case to hold a hearing on the question of granting time served credit for the torture endured by Majid Khan, who pleaded guilty to being a courier for Al Qaeda.
Before Mr. Khan was brought to Guantánamo in 2006, the C.I.A. held him for three years in isolation and incognito in the C.I.A.’s secret prison network, the black sites. There, members of the medical staff “infused” a puréed meal into his rectum after he had gone on a hunger strike, an episode that itself was kept secret at the court until it was included in a declassified portion of a Senate study of the interrogation program.
It is a matter of not only concealing information that is classified — for example the countries that hosted the black sites — but also blacking out words that the intelligence agencies say could create a mosaic of information that could let people discern government secrets. So a continent that was the location of a black site is also classified.
Transcripts of public court sessions are also censored, with at times perplexing results.
On Jan. 27, a defense lawyer questioning James E. Mitchell, the C.I.A. contractor who waterboarded prisoners in 2002 and 2003, read aloud a sentence from Dr. Mitchell’s 2016 memoir, “Enhanced Interrogation,” which was released with approval of the agency.
In it, Dr. Mitchell, a psychologist, described the staffing of a black site this way: “There were also computer and communications geeks, analysts, targeters, subject matter experts, many, many agency police officers to act as security guards, two psychologists (counting me), nurses, and a physician.”
The transcript, released two weeks later, blacked out the words “agency police,” as though the C.I.A. had, on reconsideration, not wanted the world to know it used its own police force in the clandestine prison system.


“The commissions are susceptible to it because they are captive to the agency,” said Joshua L. Dratel, a New York criminal defense lawyer who has handled dozens of federal national security cases and represented David Hicks, a prisoner at Guantánamo who went home to Australia in 2007 as part of plea deal in a conviction that was overturned in 2015.
Mr. Dratel returned to the war court in February as an observer for the American Bar Association and spotted the court’s motto sewn into a carpet at the entrance.
“You looking at the floor, there’s a rug that says ‘blah, blah, blah transparency,’ and then you look up and you see a soldier in front of you, another one, and they have their names taped over,” he said. “To me it’s just the dissonance of Gitmo.”
In federal court in the United States, a defendant can choose to testify and tell his or her own story and let a judge or jury decide the truth of it. But at Guantánamo, Mr. Dratel said, even the detainee’s own story can be classified.
Lawyers for the man accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, are forbidden from releasing the full details of his memories of his interrogations — he was waterboarded 183 times — because where they were done, and the identities of some of those who he believes carried them out, are classified.
Defense lawyers in the Sept. 11 case were particularly outraged over the decision by Colonel Cohen, who abruptly announced in recent days that he was stepping down as the trial judge, to secretly allow prosecutors a direct channel of communication with the intelligence agencies from inside the court.
In 2013, the C.I.A., which was monitoring the proceedings from outside the courtroom, used the ability it had at the time to remotely mute the audio at a mention of the intelligence agency’s secret prison network.


The judge at that time, Col. James L. Pohl, was furious. He ordered anybody with remote access to the court’s systems to unplug. Colonel Cohen’s decision to allow the intelligence agencies to communicate directly with prosecutors in the courtroom during the proceedings effectively restored that ability, albeit through a prosecutor who was reading warnings from the C.I.A. somewhere else and signaling the court security officer to cut the feed.
Retroactive redaction is not unusual at the court. In last year’s motion in the Khan case, censors twice blacked out the name of President George W. Bush in an Amnesty International report from 2007 that recounted public remarks Mr. Bush had made in 2006.
The rule-making can be random and constantly changes. In January, students, lawyers and human rights advocates who were at Guantánamo to observe a hearing were instructed that they were forbidden to talk about the Sept. 11 case outside the confines of Camp Justice, the crude housing area of tents and trailers at the razor-wire ringed court complex.
Julia Hall, who works for Amnesty International, said she was discussing the case with other observers at O’Kelly’s, the base’s Irish pub, when a chaperone waved her hand in front of her mouth to silence her. The gag order was rescinded the next day.
A new delegation of observers brought to the base the next week were given a new gag order: They were forbidden to talk about how many soldiers were inside the court guarding . . . .
Copyright 2020 Martin P, All World Rights Expressly Reserved (no claim to The New York Times Content)