Podcast appearances and mentions of adam entous

„Spojené státy se zapojily do vojenských operací na Ukrajině daleko víc, než se dosud předpokládalo.“ To je lakonické shrnutí obsáhlého materiálu, který vyšel v březnu 2025 v americkém deníku New York Times. Vychází z víc než tří stovek rozhovorů, které vedl novinář Adam Entous s vládami, velením armád a zpravodajskými službami v Evropě a Spojených státech o povaze partnerství Američanů s Ukrajinci při postupu proti ruské armádě.

The Russia-Ukraine war has dragged on for more than three years, but the depths of the U.S.-Ukrainian coordination in the war effort are only now coming to light. New York Times investigative reporter Adam Entous joins host Krys Boyd to discuss the dramatic secret U.S. military missions to Ukraine. And we'll speak with the mayor of Ukraine's second largest city, Kharkiv, about his appeal to Americans to not forget his country.   Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Send us a textWhat happens when American military expertise meets Ukrainian battlefield determination? The answer lies in one of the most extraordinary untold stories of the Russia-Ukraine war.When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, few expected Ukraine to survive. Behind the scenes, American military leaders faced an unprecedented challenge: how to support Ukraine without triggering World War III. Their solution was revolutionary – a secret command center in Wiesbaden, Germany, nicknamed the "V-spot," where U.S. generals remotely guided Ukrainian forces without ever setting foot on Ukrainian soil.At the heart of this story are the remarkable personalities who forged an unlikely brotherhood. General CD Donahue, described as having "the ability to befriend inanimate objects," formed an immediate bond with Ukrainian General Zabrodsky that transcended military and cultural differences. This human connection proved just as crucial as the sophisticated weaponry that followed – from M777 howitzers to satellite-guided HIMARS systems that transformed the battlefield.The partnership achieved stunning successes, including devastating attacks on Russia's Black Sea Fleet that forced its retreat from Crimean waters. Yet the relationship later fractured during Ukraine's failed 2023 counteroffensive when Ukrainian internal divisions led to a fateful splitting of forces against American advice. The resulting failure created mutual recriminations that continue to this day.New York Times investigative reporter Adam Entous brings unprecedented insights into this secret military alliance, revealing how personal trust, technological innovation, and strategic disagreements shaped the war's trajectory. As Ukraine now faces an uncertain future under a new American administration, understanding this remarkable partnership has never been more important. Join us for this exclusive deep dive into the hidden command structure that changed modern warfare.Subscribe now to hear more extraordinary stories from the front lines of global conflict and the shadowy world of military intelligence.

durée : 00:04:38 - Récits d'enquête - par : Mattéo Caranta - Le journaliste spécialiste du renseignement Adam Entous publie dans le New York Times une très longue enquête qui révèle le degré d'implication des Etats Unis dans la guerre en Ukraine. Un nouveau regard qui renverse complétement le récit de la guerre.

Darrell Castle talks about efforts to end the war in Ukraine as well as the apparent military buildup in the Middle East for a coming US attack against Iran and its Nuclear Research Facilities. Transcription / Notes PEACE WITH RUSSIA—WAR WITH IRAN Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today's Castle Report. This is Friday the 4th day of April in the year of our Lord 2025. I will be talking about efforts to end the war in Ukraine as well as a recent New York Times article which attempts to explain the war against Russia. I will also talk a little about the apparent military buildup in the Middle East for a coming US attack against Iran and its Nuclear Research Facilities. Last Sunday, March 30, 2025, the New York Times published an extensive article by investigative reporter Adam Entous entitled “The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine.” Mr. Entous claims to have interviewed many sources in various countries while working on the report which he says took over a year to complete. His report provides some answers to the question of how Ukraine was able to effectively keep Russia at bay and on the defensive for over three years. You know my position by now that the Times has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democrat Party so this article which started a year before the presidential election is puzzling. I suppose the idea is that it can't hurt Biden now so why not publish and reveal what many of us have suspected all along. I certainly suspected it but I admit that I didn't suspect the extent of US involvement alleged by the Times article. Mr. Entous would have had to talk to and probably clear his article through some very high-ranking individuals and the Russians were certain to see it right at the time when negotiations with Putin are at a critical stage. The article then, is an admission to Putin of America's vast involvement in and orchestration of the war conducted by the United States directly against nuclear armed Russia. “The United States was woven into the killing of Russian soldiers on sovereign Russian soil.” The article alleges that the United Staes waged and is still waging an undeclared, unauthorized war against Russia. American officers, some deployed inside Ukraine, have been selecting targets for attack and authorizing individual strikes, making those officers in essence combatants. The article presents a picture of the war in which the American military, entered into an informal partnership with the Ukrainian Government and the US planned everything Ukraine did. Everything from large scale troop movements to every long-range strike were planned by American officers who even directed Ukraine's counter-offensives. The Americans decided what Russian troops and civilian targets to attack, transmitted targeting data and launch codes to the Ukrainians for the weapons provided by the taxpayers of the United States. The intelligence gathering system was vast including satellite surveillance as well as people on the ground, and it allowed for everything from big picture battle strategy down to precise targeting information for individual soldiers on the field. The US command center in Wiesbaden, Germany oversaw and reviewed each long-range HIMARS missile strike against Russians and advised Ukrainians of how to position their launchers and how to most effectively time the strikes. One European intelligence officer quoted in the article said that the US was so closely involved that it was effectively part of the “kill-chain.” The American effort was known as Task Force Dragon and was far more detailed and involved than I have time to review in this report. The last thing I will say is that the US provided information that allowed for the sinking of the Moskva, the flagship of the Russian Black Sea fleet and also the missile attack against Kerch bridge which runs from the Russian mainland to Crimea. Well folks, this information and a lot more than I have mentione...

Attempting to retroactively set the narrative of U.S. involvement in Ukraine on behalf of the intelligence community, journalist Adam Entous of the New York Times has painfully revealed in his latest piece the utter inability of the Deep State to accept reality at home and abroad. The hosts are joined this week by Claremont senior fellow Jeremy Carl to read between the lines and unpack the previous administration's obfuscating of wartime details, now made clear, and the turn of public opinion thereafter—and the stalking shadow of nuclear threats, more real than initially predicted. Plus: A discussion of the Trump Administration's early successes, its new approach to tariffs, and the Left's unhinged response. And more!

Ein aktueller Artikel der New York Times, verfasst von Adam Entous, offenbart auf schockierende Weise die operative Tiefe der US-amerikanischen Kriegsführung in der Ukraine – und entlarvt zugleich das jahrelange Narrativ vom „Stellvertreterkrieg“ als bewusste Täuschung. Doch statt diesen Skandal als solchen zu benennen, feiert die Zeitung den massenhaften Tod junger Ukrainer als strategischesWeiterlesen

New York Times award winning journalist Adam Entous joins Marc Polymeropoulos to discuss Adam's latest NY Times article chronicling the extraordinary evolution between 2014 until today of the partnership between US and Ukrainian intelligence. From initial efforts by the US to “put in the plumbing,” building personal ties and basic intelligence exchanges, to the CIA remaining on the ground during the Russian invasion and an admission from Ukrainian intelligence that without CIA's targeting help, Kyiv would have fallen, it is an intelligence success story for the ages.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

New York Times award winning journalist Adam Entous joins Marc Polymeropoulos to discuss Adam's latest NY Times article chronicling the extraordinary evolution between 2014 until today of the partnership between US and Ukrainian intelligence. From initial efforts by the US to “put in the plumbing,” building personal ties and basic intelligence exchanges, to the CIA remaining on the ground during the Russian invasion and an admission from Ukrainian intelligence that without CIA's targeting help, Kyiv would have fallen, it is an intelligence success story for the ages.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In today's episode:Limited hangouts, slow disclosures, or something else?NYT's Adam Entous writes a romance novel about how two datings show contestants, brought together by fate and a shared hatred for Russia, created terrorist cells in UkraineWSJ reveals some of the details of the terms of Putin's 2022 negotiations with Ukraine, only two years after Putin told the world those terms.Connect with Be Reasonable: https://linktr.ee/imyourmoderatorHear the show when it's released. Become a paid subscriber at imyourmoderator.substack.comVisit the show's sponsors:Make life more comfortable: mypillow.com/reasonableDiversify your assets: reasonablegold.comOther ways to support the work:ko-fi.com/imyourmoderatorbtc via coinbase: 3MEh9J5sRvMfkWd4EWczrFr1iP3DBMcKk5Merch site: https://cancelcouture.myspreadshop.com/Follow the podcast info stream: t.me/imyourmoderatorOther social platforms: Truth Social, Gab, Rumble, or Gettr - @imyourmoderator Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/be-reasonable-with-your-moderator-chris-paul. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In today's episode:Limited hangouts, slow disclosures, or something else?NYT's Adam Entous writes a romance novel about how two datings show contestants, brought together by fate and a shared hatred for Russia, created terrorist cells in UkraineWSJ reveals some of the details of the terms of Putin's 2022 negotiations with Ukraine, only two years after Putin told the world those terms.Connect with Be Reasonable: https://linktr.ee/imyourmoderatorHear the show when it's released. Become a paid subscriber at imyourmoderator.substack.comVisit the show's sponsors:Make life more comfortable: mypillow.com/reasonableDiversify your assets: reasonablegold.comOther ways to support the work:ko-fi.com/imyourmoderatorbtc via coinbase: 3MEh9J5sRvMfkWd4EWczrFr1iP3DBMcKk5Merch site: https://cancelcouture.myspreadshop.com/Follow the podcast info stream: t.me/imyourmoderatorOther social platforms: Truth Social, Gab, Rumble, or Gettr - @imyourmoderator Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/be-reasonable-with-your-moderator-chris-paul. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (02/27/2024): 3:05pm- Michigan will hold its Republican and Democrat primaries today. Donald Trump currently leads Nikki Haley for the Republican nomination with 110 delegates to 20. Steven Shepard of Politico writes about Haley's uphill battle: “In Tuesday's Michigan primary, say Haley actually wins her first state and gets a majority of the delegates awarded, seven of 13. But the bulk of Michigan's delegates, 39, will actually be awarded next weekend at a state convention, where Trump is expected to romp with the party insiders.” You can read more here: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/25/haley-path-nomination-impossible-00143205 3:10pm- On Saturday, South Carolina held its Republican presidential primary—with Donald Trump defeating Nikki Haley 60% to 40%. Despite the loss, Haley told supporters that she will remain in the race at least through Super Tuesday on March 5th. According to Politico's calculations, Trump will likely accumulate 1,215+ delegates by March 19th—reaching a majority of the Republican party's delegates and officially becoming the presumptive nominee. 3:15pm- A CPAC straw poll asked conference attendees who they would like to see Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump select to be his Vice President. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy both received 15% of the vote. Former U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard finished third—receiving 9% of the vote. You can see the full results here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68388154 3:20pm- Henry Rodgers of The Daily Caller writes that South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem—a rumored Vice President contender—visited Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. You can read the full report here: https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/26/kristi-noem-donald-trump-meeting-mar-a-lago-vice-president/ 3:25pm- During a recent town hall meeting, New York City Mayor Eric Adams stated that it's time for NYC to rethink and modify its sanctuary city policy—which will, ideally, make it easier to remove undocumented migrants from residing in the city. 3:30pm- FLASHBACK: During his 1995 State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton called for the U.S. government to deport migrants who entered the country unlawfully. Perhaps surprisingly, he received a bipartisan round of applause for the declaration. When did Democrats become so radicalized on border security and migration policy? 3:40pm- On Tuesday, Nathan Wade's former divorce lawyer Terrence Bradley testified in a hearing to determine whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified from the Georgia election interference case she brought against former President Donald Trump. According to allegations, Willis engaged in an improper, romantic relationship with the lead prosecutor of the case, Wade—paying him an estimated $650,000 in taxpayer money. Willis is also alleged to have directly derived financial benefit from the relationship with Wade in the form of several extravagant vacations. During a court hearing from earlier this month, Robin Yeartie—a longtime friend of Willis—testified that Willis and Wade had a romantic relationship dating back to 2019. 4:05pm- Jonah E. Bromwich, Ben Protess, and William K. Rashbaum of The New York Times write: “Manhattan prosecutors on Monday asked the judge overseeing their criminal case against Donald J. Trump to prohibit the former president from attacking witnesses or exposing jurors' identities… The gag order in the Manhattan case, if the judge approves it, would bar Mr. Trump from ‘making or directing others to make' statements about witnesses concerning their role in the case. The district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, also asked that Mr. Trump be barred from commenting on prosecutors on the case…The Manhattan criminal case was the first of Mr. Trump's four indictments to be filed and is scheduled to go to trial on March 25. Last year, the district attorney's office accused Mr. Trump of 34 felonies, saying he had orchestrated a cover-up of a potential sex scandal with a porn star that could have hindered his 2016 presidential campaign… Mr. Bragg has cast Mr. Trump's actions as election interference, arguing that the cover-up led to the withholding of important information from voters shortly before they headed to the polls.” Rich notes, who exactly was victimized by these payments? Voters can't truly be considered impacted, as Trump didn't win New York in 2016 or 2020 anyway. You can read the full New York Times' article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/nyregion/trump-gag-order-hush-money-trial.html 4:30pm- On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases (Moody v. NetChoice LLC. and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton) which will determine whether social media companies are permitted to engage in politically based content moderation—or if this amounts to a form of censorship. But shouldn't private companies be permitted to act autonomously without government compulsion? 4:40pm- Adam Liptak of The New York Times writes: “The Supreme Court seemed skeptical on Monday of laws in Florida and Texas that bar major social media companies from making editorial judgments about which messages to allow. The laws were enacted in an effort to shield conservative voices on the sites, but a decision by the court, expected by June, will almost certainly be its most important statement on the scope of the First Amendment in the internet era, with broad political and economic implications. A ruling that tech platforms have no editorial discretion to decide which posts to allow would expose users to a greater variety of viewpoints but almost certainly amplify the ugliest aspects of the digital age, including hate speech and disinformation. Though a ruling in favor of big platforms like Facebook and YouTube appeared likely, the court also seemed poised to return the cases to the lower courts to answer questions about how the laws apply to sites that do not seem to moderate their users' speech in the same way, like Gmail, Venmo, Uber and Etsy.” You can read Liptak's full breakdown here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/us/politics/supreme-court-social-media-texas-florida.html 5:00pm- Tracey Tully and Patrick McGeehan of The New York Times write: “A year ago, Gov. Philip D. Murphy of New Jersey spoke proudly about his plan to let a corporate business tax expire, framing it as a promise kept in a state striving to compete for entrepreneurs… On Tuesday, Mr. Murphy will propose reversing course and again implementing a corporate business tax of 11.5 percent—the nation's highest rate—for the state's most profitable companies, according to several of his aides. He is expected to present the restoration of the tax as part of a permanent solution to the dire financial condition of New Jersey's statewide transit system during his annual budget address at the State House.” You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/nyregion/new-jersey-transit-taxes.html?searchResultPosition=1 5:20pm- According to a recent poll from Rasmussen, a whopping 48% of Democrat voters say they would like to see Joe Biden replaced as the party's presidential candidate in 2024. Vice President Kamala Harris, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and former First Lady Michelle Obama were all listed as potential replacements. 5:40pm- Gregg Opelka—Contributor for The Daily Caller (and brother of America's fill-in host Mike Opelka)—joins the The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his latest article, “Fiddler on the Roof—Brought to You By the Woke State Department.” You can read the full article here: https://dailycaller.com/2024/02/26/tevye-fiddler-on-the-roof-broadway-blinken-pronouns-gender-identity/ 6:05pm- Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz of The New York Times write: “Now entering the third year of a war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, the intelligence partnership between Washington and Kyiv is a linchpin of Ukraine's ability to defend itself. The C.I.A. and other American intelligence agencies provide intelligence for targeted missile strikes, track Russian troop movements and help support spy networks… But the partnership is no wartime creation…As the partnership deepened after 2016, the Ukrainians became impatient with what they considered Washington's undue caution, and began staging assassinations and other lethal operations, which violated the terms the White House thought the Ukrainians had agreed to. Infuriated, officials in Washington threatened to cut off support, but they never did.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html 6:30pm- In a piece published by The Atlantic, former New York Times opinion editor Adam Rubenstein recalled how he was once reprimanded by NYT human resources for telling co-workers his favorite sandwich was from Chick-fil-A. Rubenstein was informed that dining at the restaurant chain is considered offensive because “they hate gay people.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/tom-cotton-new-york-times/677546/

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz of The New York Times write: “Now entering the third year of a war that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, the intelligence partnership between Washington and Kyiv is a linchpin of Ukraine's ability to defend itself. The C.I.A. and other American intelligence agencies provide intelligence for targeted missile strikes, track Russian troop movements and help support spy networks… But the partnership is no wartime creation…As the partnership deepened after 2016, the Ukrainians became impatient with what they considered Washington's undue caution, and began staging assassinations and other lethal operations, which violated the terms the White House thought the Ukrainians had agreed to. Infuriated, officials in Washington threatened to cut off support, but they never did.” You can read the full article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html In a piece published by The Atlantic, former New York Times opinion editor Adam Rubenstein recalled how he was once reprimanded by NYT human resources for telling co-workers his favorite sandwich was from Chick-fil-A. Rubenstein was informed that dining at the restaurant chain is considered offensive because “they hate gay people.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/tom-cotton-new-york-times/677546/

Vicarious trauma from the Israel-Hamas conflict; traffic maps and other consumer data with international security implications; reasons to delay an invasion of Gaza; the risk of a wider war in the Middle East; linking military action and political goals; the challenges of fighting in an urban environment; and Marcus would like you to follow him on StravaPlease subscribe and leave a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your podcast player of choiceContribute to a future episode by sending us an email or leaving a voicemailFurther Reading:Katelyn Jetelina and Julie Kaplow. 2023. “Social media, terrorist attacks, war, and vicarious trauma.” Your Local Epidemiologist Substack.Olafimihan Oshin. 2023. “Google and Apple disable map functions in Israel, Gaza Strip as invasion looms.” The Hill.Jeremy Hsu. 2018. “The Strava Heat Map and the End of Secrets.” Wired.Helene Cooper, Adam Entous, and Eric Schmitt. 2023. “U.S. Raises Concerns About Israel's Plan of Action in Gaza, Officials Say.” New York Times.Daniel Byman. 2018. “Why Israel Is Stuck with Hamas.” Lawfare.Renee Ridden and Amy O'Kruk. 2023. “Maps show the extreme population density in Gaza.” CNN.See all Cheap Talk episodes

In late 2016, American diplomats in Havana, Cuba started hearing a mysterious buzzing sound and experiencing debilitating symptoms. On this week's On the Media, why the government now disputes theories that it was a secret Russian weapon. Plus, what the electric hum of your refrigerator and the uncanny hearing ability of pigeons reveal about the world we live in. 1. Adam Entous, staff writer at The New York Times, Jon Lee Anderson, staff writer at The New Yorker, and Robert Bartholomew, sociologist and author of Havana Syndrome: Mass Psychogenic Illness and the Real Story Behind the Embassy Mystery and Hysteria, on the investigation into the mysterious affliction that spread across the globe. Listen. 2. Jennifer Munson, OTM Technical Director, and Nasir Memon, New York University professor of computer science and engineering, on the obscure technology called electrical network frequency analysis, or ENF, and the world of audio forensics. Listen. 3. Robert Krulwich [@rkrulwich], co-creator and former co-host of Radiolab, and John Hagstrum, a geophysicist emeritus at the U.S. Geological Survey, on the mysterious avian disappearance that rocked world headlines. Listen. Music:Meet Tina - Havana SyndromeHistory Lesson - Havana SyndromeOkami - Nicola CruzElectricity - OMDWallpaper - Woo

Many Americans have been fascinated by the story of Hunter Biden, who has allegedly leveraged his father's prominence for his own financial gain. Hunter's spiral into alcoholism and drug addiction has been chronicled by the press. Recently, federal prosecutors announced a deal in which Hunter would plead guilty to two tax charges and be sentenced to two years of probation, bringing a five-year-long investigation into his business dealings to an end.  In July, 2019, The New Yorker published a groundbreaking investigation titled “The Untold History of the Biden Family.” Its author, Adam Entous, uncovered the rags-to-riches-to-rags story behind the President's modest upbringing in Scranton. It's a very different tale from the one that Joe Biden has shared with the public, replete with polo matches, war profiteering, addiction, and scandal. It's a story that, until recently, even the President and his children may not have known in full. It provides crucial context for the Hunter Biden saga, and a deeper understanding of Joe Biden himself—and the people and events that have shaped the choices he's made during his decades-long political career.

The president's son is admitting to tax and gun crimes but is unlikely to spend time behind bars after reaching a deal with prosecutors. The deal promises a potential end to Hunter Biden's ongoing legal saga, but the political drama is far from over. Geoff Bennett discussed the latest with Carrie Johnson and Adam Entous. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

The president's son is admitting to tax and gun crimes but is unlikely to spend time behind bars after reaching a deal with prosecutors. The deal promises a potential end to Hunter Biden's ongoing legal saga, but the political drama is far from over. Geoff Bennett discussed the latest with Carrie Johnson and Adam Entous. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Hunter Biden faces possible indictment from the Justice Department. Exploring the details behind the headlines about the President's son. Adam Entous joins Meghna Chakrabarti.

In late 2016, American diplomats in Havana, Cuba started hearing a mysterious buzzing sound, followed by debilitating symptoms. On this week's On the Media, why the government now disputes theories that it was a secret Russian weapon. Plus, what the electric hum of your refrigerator and the uncanny hearing ability of pigeons reveal about the world we live in. 1. Adam Entous, staff writer at The New York Times, Jon Lee Anderson, staff writer at The New Yorker, and Robert Bartholomew, sociologist and author of Havana Syndrome: Mass Psychogenic Illness and the Real Story Behind the Embassy Mystery and Hysteria, on the investigation into the mysterious affliction that spread across the globe. Listen. 2. Jennifer Munson, OTM Technical Director, and Nasir Memon, New York University professor of computer science and engineering, on the obscure technology called electrical network frequency analysis, or ENF, and the world of audio forensics. Listen. 3. Robert Krulwich [@rkrulwich], co-creator and former co-host of Radiolab, and John Hagstrum, a geophysicist emeritus at the U.S. Geological Survey, on the mysterious avian disappearance that rocked world headlines. Listen. 

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for April 2, 2023 is: démarche • day-MARSH • noun The word démarche refers to a course of action or a maneuver, and especially to a political or diplomatic maneuver. Démarche is also often used specifically for a petition or protest that is presented through diplomatic channels. // The speaker urged wealthy nations to heed the démarches of those less powerful countries bearing the brunt of climate change. See the entry > Examples: “… the two top American diplomats, Antony J. Blinken, the secretary of state, and Wendy Sherman, the deputy secretary, issued a formal démarche to a senior Chinese diplomat, Zhu Haiquan, at the State Department around 6:30 p.m. on Feb. 1 over the balloon, telling him his government had to do something about it.” — Edward Wong, Julian E. Barnes, and Adam Entous, The New York Times, 16 Feb. 2023 Did you know? When it comes to international diplomacy, it's important not only to talk the talk but to walk the walk—which makes démarche an especially fitting word for diplomatic contexts. The word comes from French, where it can mean “gait” or “walk,” among other things. In English it was first used in the 17th century generally in the sense of “a maneuver,” and it soon developed a specific use in the world of diplomacy. Some of the other diplomacy-related words we use that come from French include attaché, chargé d'affaires, communiqué, détente, and agrément—not to mention the words diplomacy and diplomat themselves.

In 2016, U.S. government officials began reporting a mysterious set of symptoms. They first appeared in Havana, but then showed up in other countries around the world. For Vice World News, reporters Adam Entous and Jon Lee Anderson explain everything they’ve learned about what’s now commonly called Havana syndrome, and why the U.S. still can’t explain what causes it. On this week’s episode of Apple News In Conversation, Entous and Anderson discuss their reporting with host Shumita Basu. This is a preview of that conversation.

In 2016, U.S. government officials began reporting a mysterious set of symptoms. They first appeared in Havana, but then showed up in other countries around the world. In a podcast for Vice World News, reporters Adam Entous and Jon Lee Anderson explain everything they’ve learned about what’s now commonly called Havana syndrome, and why the U.S. still can’t explain what causes it. On this week’s episode of Apple News In Conversation, Entous and Anderson discuss their reporting with host Shumita Basu.

Starting in 2016, U.S. diplomats and spies began reporting a wide range of mysterious and debilitating medical symptoms, first in Cuba and then around the world. Doctors who initially treated patients couldn't come up with a diagnosis and some just called it “The Thing.” Patients said they felt like they were hit by an invisible, directed pressure while stationed on government property, or sometimes standing in their own homes or hotel rooms. The intense health effects, which some have referred to as potentially psychogenic, included high pitched ringing in ears, vertigo, memory loss and brain zaps. The set of medical conditions became known as Havana Syndrome. Why has investigating this been so difficult? Who or what force could be behind all of this? Although the C.I.A. has maintained that it's unlikely that the cases were caused by foreign adversaries, many questions and doubts remain about the agency's findings. Award-winning journalists Jon Lee Anderson and Adam Entous explore some of these questions in a new Vice World News 8-part podcast aptly titled “Havana Syndrome.” Anderson and Entous join WITHpod to discuss the events leading up to the first reported Havana Syndrome cases, the global blame game that followed, what technology could be the culprit and more.

Today we are sharing an episode from one of our newest series – Havana Syndrome. In 2016, a mysterious, debilitating illness begins to afflict American diplomats and spies working abroad – first in Cuba, and then around the world. Victims report crippling neurological symptoms. Some describe the feeling of being hit by an invisible, directed pressure while they were stationed on government property, or sometimes standing in their own homes or hotel rooms. Is this bizarre illness the result of a weapon? Is it mass psychosis? Or something else entirely?Award-winning journalists Jon Lee Anderson and Adam Entous take listeners to the heart of this saga in Havana Syndrome, a new podcast from VICE World News. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. Havana Syndrome is hosted and reported by Jon Lee Anderson and Adam Entous, and produced and reported by Julia Nutter, Jesse Alejandro Cotrell and Ramon Campos Iriarte. Edited and executive produced by Annie Aviles and Kate Osborn. Original composition and sound design by Steve Bone. Production support from Pran Bandi.Janet Lee is Senior Production Manager for VICE Audio. Fact Checking by Nicole Pasulka. Charles Raggio is the head of VICE Audio. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today we are sharing an episode from one of our newest series – Havana Syndrome. In 2016, a mysterious, debilitating illness begins to afflict American diplomats and spies working abroad – first in Cuba, and then around the world. Victims report crippling neurological symptoms. Some describe the feeling of being hit by an invisible, directed pressure while they were stationed on government property, or sometimes standing in their own homes or hotel rooms. Is this bizarre illness the result of a weapon? Is it mass psychosis? Or something else entirely?Award-winning journalists Jon Lee Anderson and Adam Entous take listeners to the heart of this saga in Havana Syndrome, a new podcast from VICE World News. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. Havana Syndrome is hosted and reported by Jon Lee Anderson and Adam Entous, and produced and reported by Julia Nutter, Jesse Alejandro Cotrell and Ramon Campos Iriarte. Edited and executive produced by Annie Aviles and Kate Osborn. Original composition and sound design by Steve Bone. Production support from Pran Bandi.Janet Lee is Senior Production Manager for VICE Audio. Fact Checking by Nicole Pasulka. Charles Raggio is the head of VICE Audio. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tina Onufer thought she was getting a plum gig at the newly reopened U.S. embassy in Havana, Cuba. Then she has a bizarre incident in her kitchen that makes her question everything. Reporters Jon Lee Anderson and Adam Entous set out to solve what happened to Tina and other victims of the so-called Havana Syndrome. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The tributes have been pouring in as the world marks the passing of Mikhail Gorbachev, who died last night at 91. A titan of the 20th century, he was the last leader of the Soviet Union, who raised the Iron Curtain and – along with his American partner President Ronald Reagan – ended the Cold War. Ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Christiane spoke with President Gorbachev about the dissolution of the Soviet Union and his reflections a decade on. They had another, very different conversation in 2012, just after Vladimir Putin's re-election, during which he expressed worries about the authoritarian tendencies taking shape in Russia.  Also on today's show: Nina Khrushcheva, historian and great-granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev, who put up the Berlin Wall in 1961; former US Ambassador to Russia Thomas Pickering; Adam Entous on his New Yorker piece, The Untold History of the Biden Family.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

President Joe Biden's political talents are inseparable from his folksy persona. In speeches, he emphasizes his modest upbringing and quotes aphorisms from his car-salesman father about dignity and honest labor. But this rendition of Biden's upbringing, as Adam Entous puts it in this week's magazine, is “woefully incomplete.” Entous has done a deep and groundbreaking investigation into the President's family history, uncovering a previously untold rags-to-riches-to-rags story of how the Bidens landed in Scranton. It's a very different story from the one that Biden usually shares with the public, complete with mansions, yachts, and war profiteering. Entous joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the Biden family's finances, its history with addiction and scandal, and its influence on the President.

Journalist and author Steve Coll examines the debates and decisions in Washington, Kabul, and Doha preceding the collapse of the Afghan government and the return to power of the Taliban. In a recent article in the New Yorker, Steve and coauthor Adam Entous document a “dispiriting record of misjudgment, hubris, and delusion” that characterized the diplomatic efforts to end the war in Afghanistan. What went wrong? Why? And who is to blame?

Something strange is happening to American officials around the world. Migraines, dizziness, even brain injury. And the incidents keep happening. So who, or what, is behind Havana Syndrome? Adam Entous and Frank Figliuzzi join Meghna Chakrabarti.

Nicolle Wallace discusses the feeling in Trumpworld in the wake of the news that the Manhattan DA has convened a special grand jury. Plus, the mother of fallen Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick urges Senate Republicans to support a 1/6 commission, the latest out of San Jose where a public transit employee opened fired at co-workers killing at least 8, Michigan's Secretary of State warns against audits, a new Texas bill would drop most restrictions around handguns, Biden asks his intel community to investigate the origins of the coronavirus, and a look at the mysterious Havana Syndrome.  Joined by: Andrew Weissman, Phil Rucker, Donna Edwards, Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Jacob Ward, Jocelyn Benson, Eugene Daniels, Tim Miller, Matthew Dowd, Michael Gordon, Dr. Nahid Bhadelia, and Adam Entous  

The Trump Justice Department secretly obtained Washington Post journalists' phone records and tried to obtain their email records over reporting they did in the early months of the Trump administration on Russia's role in the 2016 election, according to government letters and officials. In three separate letters dated May 3 and addressed to Post reporters Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller, and former Post reporter Adam Entous, the Justice Department wrote they were “hereby notified that pursuant to legal process the United States Department of Justice received toll records associated with the following telephone numbers for the period from April 15, 2017 to July 31, 2017.” The letters listed work, home or cell phone numbers covering that three-and-a-half-month period. Cameron Barr, The Post's acting executive editor, said: “We are deeply troubled by this use of government power to seek access to the communications of journalists. The Department of Justice should immediately make clear its reasons for this intrusion into the activities of reporters doing their jobs, an activity protected under the First Amendment.” See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Donald Trump. Ukraine. Joe Biden. A phone call. Election Interference. Impeachment! What the hell is going on? In this episode, an irritated Jen gives you the backstory that you need to know about the impeachment drama, including what the steps to impeachment are. Prepare yourself: Everyone devoted to the Republican or Democratic parties will be pissed off by this episode. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD167: Combating Russia NDAA CD102: The World Trade Organization: COOL? CD067: What do We Want in Ukraine CD068: Ukraine Aid Bill CD190: A Coup for Capitalism CD176: Target Venezuela Regime Change in Progress Articles/Documents Article: Pelosi, Trump may reach trade deal despite impeachment by Niv Elis, The Hill, October 3, 2019 Article: This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense by Alex Ward, Vox, October 3, 2019 Article: Civilian Deaths in U.S. Wars Are Skyrocketing Under Trump. It May Not Be Impeachable, but It’s a Crime. by Murtaza Hussain, The Intercept, October 2, 2019 Article: Hunter Biden, the black sheep who might accidentally bring down Trump, explained by Matthew Yglesias, Vox, October 1, 2019 Article: Shoot Migrants’ Legs, Build Alligator Moat: Behind Trump’s Ideas for Border by Michael D. Shear and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, The New York Times, October 1, 2019 Article: Impeachment inquiry erupts into battle between executive, legislative branches By Karen DeYoung, Josh Dawsey, Karoun Demirjian and John Hudson, The Washington Post, October 1, 2019 Article: McConnell says if House impeaches Trump, Senate rules would force him to start a trial by Seung Min Kim, The Washington Post, September 30, 2019 Article: Trump claim on stalled aid for Ukraine draws new scrutiny by Robert Burns, Lolita Baldor, and Andrew Taylor, The Associated Press, MilitaryTimes, September 30, 2019 Article: Hunter Biden: The Most Comprehensive Timeline by Jim Geraghty, National Review, September 30, 2019 Article: The gas tycoon and the vice president’s son: The story of Hunter Biden’s foray into Ukraine by Paul Sonne, Michael Kranish and Matt Viser, The Washington Post, September 28, 2019 Article: The gas tycoon and the vice president’s son: The story of Hunter Biden’s foray into Ukraine by Paul Sonne, Michael Kranish and Matt Viser, The Washington Post, September 28, 2019 Article: Piety and Power by Tom LoBianco, The New York Times, September 27, 2019 Article: White House Knew of Whistle-Blower’s Allegations Soon After Trump’s Call With Ukraine Leader by Julian E. Barnes, Michael S. Schmidt, Adam Goldman and Katie Benner, The New York Times, September 26, 2019 Article: Democrats, Please Don’t Mess This Up. Impeach Trump for All His Crimes, Not Just for Ukraine. by Mehdi Hasan, The Intercept, September 26, 2019 Document: S. 2583 [Report No. 116-126], September 26, 2019, Pg 144 Article: Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed by Joe Gould and Howard Altman, Defense News, September 25, 2019 Article: Read the record of Trump’s controversial call to Ukraine’s president Zelensky by Ephrat Livni, Quartz, September 25, 2019 Article: How the Impeachment Process Works by Charlie Savage, The New York Times, September 24, 2019 Article: Trump ordered hold on military aid days before calling Ukrainian president, officials say By Karoun Demirjian, Josh Dawsey, Ellen Nakashima and Carol D. Leonnig, The Washington Post, September 23, 2019 Article: Ukraine military aid extension passes US House after White House delay by Joe Gould, Defense News, September 19, 2019 Article: US State Department clears Ukraine security assistance funding. Is the Pentagon next? by Aaron Mehta, Defense News, September 12, 2019 Document: S. 2474: Defense Appropriations Act, September 12, 2019, Pg 305 Document: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2020, September 12, 2019, Pg 148 Letter: For Chairman Burr and Chairman Schiff August 12, 2019 Article: Will Hunter Biden Jeopardize His Father’s Campaign? by Adam Entous, The New Yorker, July 1, 2019 Article: What Powers Does a Formal Impeachment Inquiry Give the House? by Molly E. Reynolds, Margaret Taylor, Lawfare, May 21, 2019 Article: U.S. ambassador to Ukraine is recalled after becoming a political target by Josh Rogin, The Washington Post, May 7, 2019 Article: Timeline in Ukraine Probe Casts Doubt on Giuliani’s Biden Claim by Stephanie Baker and Daryna Krasnolutska, Bloomberg, May 7, 2019 Article: How does impeachment work? Here is the step-by-step process by Debbie Lord, Cox Media Group National Content Desk, AJC, April 22, 2019 Article: Trump’s feud with Jerry Nadler rooted in decades-old New York real estate project by Rachael Bade and Josh Dawsey, The Washington Post, April 8, 2019 Article: Joe Biden's 2020 Ukrainian nightmare: A closed probe is revived by John Solomon, The Hill, April 1, 2019 Article: Senior Ukrainian official says he's opened probe into US election interference The Hill, March 20, 2019 Article: Top Ukrainian justice official says US ambassador gave him a do not prosecute list The Hill, March 20, 2019 Document: 2019 Funding Report, February 13, 2019 Article: The Danger of President Pence by Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, October 16, 2017 Article: Joe Biden, His Son and the Case Against a Ukrainian Oligarch by James Risen, The New York Times, December 8, 2015 Additional Resources Document: H.R. Full Committee Print, Department of State Appropriations Document: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2020, Pg 100 Prepared Remarks: Prepared Remarks by Senator John McCain on America’s Role in Europe’s East, Atlantic Council, December 19, 2013 Sound Clip Sources Interview with Mitch McConnell:, CNBC, September 30, 2019 Speakers: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell Transcript: Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY): Yeah, it's a, it's a Senate rule related to impeachment that would take 67 votes to change. So I would have no choice but to take it up. How long you're on it is a whole different matter, but I would have no choice but to take it up. President Trump Meeting with Ukrainian President, C-SPAN, 74th U.N. General Assembly at United Nations headquarters in New York City, September 25, 2019 Speakers: Donald J. Trump President Zelensky Transcript: 1:45 Volodymyr Zelensky: It’s a great pleasure to me to be here, and it’s better to be on TV than by phone. 3:30 Volodymyr Zelensky: My priority to stop the war on Donbass and to get back our territories, –- thank you for your support in this case, thank you very much. 6:40 Volodymyr Zelensky: And to know when, I want world to know that now we have the new team, the new parliament, the new government. So now we – about 74 laws, new laws, which help for our new reforms, land reform, -- law about concessions, that we – general – and we launched the – secretary, and anti-corruption court. As we came, we launched the anti-corruption court, it began to work on the 5th of September. It was, you know, it was, after five days we had the new – So we are ready, we want to show that we just come, and if somebody, if you, you want to help us, so just let’s do business cases. We have many investment cases, we’re ready. 12:00 Reporter: Do you believe that the emaiIs from Hillary Clinton, do you believe that they are in Ukraine? Do you think this whole -- President Trump: I think they could be. You mean the 30,000 that she deleted? Reporter: Yes. President Trump: Yeah, I think they could very well, boy that was a nice question. I like, that's why, because frankly, I think that one of the great crimes committed is Hillary Clinton deleted 33,000 emails after Congress sends her a subpoena. Think of that. You can't even do that in a civil case. You can't get rid of evidence like that. She deleted 33,000 emails after, not before, after receiving the subpoena from the U.S. Congress. 16:00 Translator for Volodymyr Zelensky: During the investigation, actually, I want to underscore that Ukraine is an independent country. We have a new –- in Ukraine, a hired, professional man with a western education and history, to investigate any case he considers and deems -- Speaker Pelosi Announcement of Impeachment Inquiry, C-SPAN, September 24, 2019 Speakers: Nancy Pelosi 0:40 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA): Shortly thereafter, press reports began to break of a phone call by the President of the United States calling upon a foreign power to intervene in his election. 4:30 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA): And this week, the President has admitted to asking the President of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically. The action of the Trump, the actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable fact of the President's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections. Therefore, today, I'm announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I'm directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry. The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) talks with CNN's Erin Burnett, CNN, August 8, 2019 Speakers: Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) Transcript: Rep. Jerrold Nadler (NY): This is formal impeachment proceedings. We are investigating all the evidence, we are gathering the evidence, and we will at the conclusion of this, hopefully by the end of the year, vote to, vote articles of impeachment to the House floor, or we won't. That's a decision that we'll have to make, but that, but that's exactly the process we're in right now. Council of Foreign Relations: Foreign Affairs Issue Launch with Former Vice President Joe Biden, Tuesday, January 23, 2018 Speakers: Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Michael R. Carpenter Presider, Richard N. Haass Transcript: 6:00* Joe Biden: I think there's a basic decision that they cannot compete against a unified West. And I think that is Putin's judgment. And so everything he can do to dismantle the post world war two liberal world order, including NATO and the EU, I think is viewed as they're in their immediate self-interest. 52:00 Joe Biden: I’ll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team and our leaders, that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor, and they didn’t. So they said they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. 54:00 Joe Biden: But always worked in Kiev because, as I said, look, it's simple proposition. If in fact you do not continue to show progress in terms of corruption, we are not going to be able to hold the rest of Europe on these sanctions and Russia is not going to roll across the inner line here and take over the rest of the country with their tanks. What they're going to do is they're going to take your economy down. You're going to be absolutely buried and you're going to be done, and that's when it all goes to hell. 56:00 Joe Biden: It's a very difficult spot to be in now, when foreign leaders call me, and they do, because I never, ever, ever would say anything negative to a foreign leader, and I mean this sincerely, about a sitting president, no matter how fundamentally I disagree with them. And it is not my role, not my role to make foreign policy. But the questions across the board range from, what the hell is going on, Joe, to what advice do you have for me? And my advice always is to, I give them names of individuals in the administration who I think to be knowledgeable and, and, and, and, and committed, and I say, you should talk to so and so. You should, and what I do, and every one of those times, I first call the vice president and tell him I received the call, tell him, and ask him whether he has any objection to my returning the call. And then what is the administration's position, if any, they want me to communicate to that country. Interview, ABC News, March 30, 2015 Speakers: Mike Pence George Stephanopoulos 8:00 George Stephanopoulos: One fix that people have talked about is simply adding sexual orientation as a protected class under the state civil rights laws. Will you push for that? Mike Pence: I will not push for that. That's not on my agenda. And that's not been an objective of the people of the state of Indiana. Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call, BBC News, February 7, 2014 Speakers: Victoria Nuland Geoffrey Pyatt Watch on YouTube Victoria Nuland: Good. So, I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea. Geoffrey Pyatt: Yeah, I mean, I guess. In terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate Democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys, and I’m sure that’s part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all of this. I kind of— Victoria Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. What he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know? I just think Klitsch going in—he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk; it’s just not going to work. Victoria Nuland: So, on that piece, Geoff, when I wrote the note, Sullivan’s come back to me VFR, saying, you need Biden, and I said, probably tomorrow for an “atta-boy” and to get the deets to stick. Geoffrey Pyatt: Okay. Victoria Nuland: So, Biden’s willing. Geoffrey Pyatt: Okay, great. Thanks. Senator John McCain on Ukraine, C-SPAN, Atlantic Council of the U.S., December 13, 2013 Speakers: John S. McCain III Watch on YouTube Transcript: 16:45 Sen. John McCain: Finally, we must encourage the European Union and the IMF to keep their doors open to Ukraine. Ultimately, the support of both institutions is indispensible for Ukraine's future. And eventually, a Ukrainian President, either this one or a future one, will be prepared to accept the fundamental choice facing the country, which is this: While there are real short-term costs to the political and economic reforms required for IMF assistance and EU integration, and while President Putin will likely add to these costs by retaliating against Ukraine's economy, the long-term benefits for Ukraine in taking these tough steps are far greater and almost limitless. This decision cannot be borne by one person alone in Ukraine. Nor should it be. It must be shared—both the risks and the rewards—by all Ukrainians, especially the opposition and business elite. It must also be shared by the EU, the IMF and the United States. All of us in the West should be prepared to help Ukraine, financially and otherwise, to overcome the short-term pain that reforms will require and Russia may inflict. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)  

We finally have the facts. The two year long investigation, lead by Robert Mueller, into whether or not the 2016 Donald Trump for President campaign worked with members of the Russian government to steal and release Democratic Party emails is now complete. In this episode, after reading every word of the 448 page report, Jen breaks what the facts indicate Donald Trump did and did not do so that we can all be "in the know" for the Congressional battles with the President that are sure to come. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Official Mueller Report Jen Briney's highlighted version Interactive Mueller Report from The New York Times Justice Department's pdf version  Additional Reading   Article: Roger Stone/ Mueller Report: 448 pages with 900 redactions by Elaine Godfrey, The Atlantic, May 1, 2019. Document: Official Mueller Report U.S. Department of Justice, March 2019. Document: Interactive NYT Mueller report  New York Times, March 2019. Article: Taibbi: As Mueller Probe Ends,New Russiagate Myth Begins by Matt Taibbi, RollingStone, March 25, 2019.  Article: Cohen Hired IT Firm to Rig Early CNBC, Drudge Polls to Favor Trump by Michael Rothfeld, Rob Barry and Joe Palazzolo, Washington Post, January 17, 2019. Article: Trump Dodges Question on Fox News if He's a Russian Asset by Audrey McNamara, The Daily Beast, January 13, 2019. Article: Trump is Compromised by Russia by Michele Goldberg, NY Times, November 29, 2018. Article: Text with Roger Stone’s name (Volume II, pg 128), by Marisa Schultz and Nikki Schwab, New York Post, November 28, 2018. Article: Roger Stone Associate says He won't agree to Plea Deal by Sara Murray and Eli Watkins, CNN, November 26, 2018. Article: 14 States Forgo Paper Ballots, Despite Security Warnings by Gopal Ratnam, Government Technology, October 31, 2018. Article: Will Trump be Meeting his Russian Counterpart or Handler? by Jonathon Chait, NY Intelligencer, July 2018. Transcript: Remarks by President Trump in Press Gaggle The White House, June 15, 2018. Article: Rudy Giulani says Mueller Probe might Get Cleaned up with Presidential Pardons by Chris Somerfeldt, NY Daily News, June 15, 2018 Article: Michael Cohen has said he would take a bullet for Trump by Honorable Maggie Haberman, Sharon LaFriere and  Danny Hakim, NY Times, April 20, 2018. Article: Russians Turned Away at Seattle Consulate After Trump announces Closure  by Evan Bush, Christine Clarridge, Dominic Gates and Hal Bernton, The Seattle Times, March, 26 2018. Article: It's Official: Russiagate is this Generation's WMD  by Matt Taibbi, Substack, March 23, 2018. Article: Russian Tweets used as sources for Partisan Opinion study by Josephine Lukito and Chris Wells, Columbia Journalism Review, March 8, 2018. Article: Cable News Ad Revenue up 25 Percent  by Joe Concha, The Hill, February 23, 2018. Document: Transcript of December 13, 2017 Rosenstein hearing by Committee of the Judiciary House of Representative U.S. Congress, December 13, 2017. Article: In Retaliations, US Orders Russian to Close Consulate in San Francisco  by  Mark Landler and Gardiner Harris, NY Times, August, 31 2017. Article: Excerpts from Interview with Trump  by Stephen Crowley, NY Times, July 19, 2017. Document: Transcript of June 8, 2017 Comey hearing by Select Committee on Intelligence U.S. Senate, June 8, 2017. Article: Comey, Mueller and the Showdown at John Ashcroft's Hospital Bed by Colleen Shalby, LA Times, May 17, 2017. Document: Statement from Press Secretary regarding James Comey's Testimony White House U.S. Press Secretary, May 9, 2017. Article: Sessions Met with Russian Ambassador During Trumps Presidential Campaign by Adam Entous, Ellen Naskashima and Greg Miller, The Washington Post, March 1, 2017 Article: National Security Advisor Flynn Discussed Sanctions with Russian Ambassador Despite Denials by Greg Miller, Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima Washington Post, February 9, 2017. Document: Steele Dossier Confidential, by Mark Schoofs, BuzzFeed, October 19, 2016. Article: Wiki Leaks to Publish More Hilary Emails by Mark Tran, The Guardian, June 12, 2016. Article: Panel Told of a Sickbed Face-Off by Richard Schmitt, LA Times, May 16, 2007. Resources Press Gaggle Transcript: Remarks by President Trump in Press Gaggle, June 15, 2018 Hearing Transcript: Oversight Hearing with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, December 13, 2017 Hearing Transcript: Open Hearing with Former FBI Director James Comey, June 8, 2017 Report: Steele Dossier, Company Intelligence Report 2016/080 Statement Transcript: Statement from the Press Secretary, May 9, 2017   Visual Resources Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Michael Cohen Testimony Before House Oversight Committee, C-SPAN, February 27, 2019. Sound Clips: 33:31 Michael Cohen: You need to know that Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers reviewed and edited my statement to Congress about the timing of the Moscow Tower negotiations before I gave it. 33:44 Michael Cohen: To be clear, Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it. He lied about it because he never expected to win. He also lied about it because he stood to make hundreds of millions of dollars on the Moscow real estate project. 39:21 Michael Cohen: Donald Trump is a man who ran for office to make his brand great, not to make our country great. He had no desire or intention to lead this nation, only to market himself and to build his wealth and power. Mr. Trump would often say this campaign was going to be greatest infomercial in political history. He never expected to win the primary. He never expected to win the general election. The campaign, for him, was always a marketing opportunity. 43:50 Michael Cohen: Mr. Trump directed me to find a straw man to purchase a portrait of him that was being auctioned off at an art Hampton’s event. The objective was to ensure that this portrait, which was going to be auctioned last, would go for the highest price of any portrait that afternoon. The portrait was purchased by the fake bidder for $60,000. Mr. Trump directed the Trump Foundation, which is supposed to be a charitable organization, to repay the fake bidder, despite keeping the art for himself. 48:50 Michael Cohen: When I say con man, I'm talking about a man who declares himself brilliant, but directed me to threaten his high school, his colleges, and the College Board to never release his grades or SAT scores. 53:09 Michael Cohen: Mr. Trump had frequently told me and others that his son Don Jr had the worst judgment of anyone in the world. 55:31 Michael Cohen: And by coming today, I have caused my family to be the target of personal scurrilous attacks by the president and his lawyer trying to intimidate me from appearing before this panel. 56:30 Michael Cohen: And I hope this committee and all members of Congress on both sides of the aisle make it clear that as a nation, we should not tolerate attempts to intimidate witnesses before Congress and attacks on family are out of bounds and not acceptable. 2:10:30 Michael Cohen: And when Mr. Trump turned around early in the campaign and said, I can shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it, I want to be very clear. He's not joking. He's telling you the truth. You don't know him. I do. I sat next to this man for 10 years and I watched his back. 2:11:13 Michael Cohen: And when he goes on Twitter and he starts bringing in my in-laws, my parents, my wife, what does he think is going to happen? He's causing... He's sending out the same message that he can do whatever he wants. This is his country. He's becoming an autocrat and hopefully something bad will happen to me or my children and my wife so that I will not be here and testify. That's what his hope was. To intimidate me. 2:11:46 Rep. Jim Cooper (TN): Have you ever seen Mr. Trump personally threaten people with physical harm? Michael Cohen: No. He would use others. 2:12:00 Michael Cohen: Everybody’s job at the Trump organization is to protect Mr. Trump 2:12:07 Michael Cohen: Every day. Most of us knew we were coming in and we were going to lie for him on something, and that became the norm, and that's exactly what's happening right now in, in this country. That's exactly what's happening here in government. 4:10:30 Rep. Brenda Lawrence (MI): Mr Cohen, why do you feel or believe that the president is repeatedly attacking you? You are stating that you feel intimidated asking us to protect you following your cooperation with law enforcement. Michael Cohen: When you have access to 60 plus million people that follow you on social media and you have the ability within which to spark some action by individuals that follow and follow him and from his own words that he can walk down Fifth Avenue, shoot someone and get away with it. It's never comfortable when the President of the United States… Rep. Brenda Lawrence (MI): What do you think he can do to you? Michael Cohen: A lot. And it's not just him, it's those people that follow him in his rhetoric. Rep. Brenda Lawrence (MI): What is a lot? Michael Cohen: I don't know. I don't walk with my wife. If we go to a restaurant or we go somewhere, I don't walk with my children. I make them go before me because I have fear and it's the same fear that I had before when he initially decided to drop that tweet in my cell phone. I receive some, and I'm sure you, you'll understand. I received some tweets. I received some Facebook messenger, all sorts of social media attacks upon me, whether it's the private direct message that I've had to turn over to secret service because they are the most vile, disgusting statements that anyone can ever receive. And when it starts to affect your children, that's when it really affects you. Interview: Trump joins Judge Jeanine for a phone interview to give an update on where Washington is at with the border crisis, Fox News, January 12, 2019. Sound Clip: 15:00 President Donald Trump: Look, I was a client of his, and you know, you're supposed to have lawyer-client privilege, but it doesn't matter because I'm a very honest person, frankly, but he's in trouble on some loans and fraud and taxi cabs and stuff that I know nothing about and in order to get a sentence reduced, he says, "I have an idea, I'll give you some information on the president." Well, there is no information, but he should give information, maybe on his father in law because that's the one that people want to look at because where does that money? That's the money in the family. And I guess he didn't want to talk about his father in law. He's trying to get his sentence reduced. Press Conference: President Trump Accuses Personal Lawyer Michael Cohen of Lying, C-SPAN, November 29, 2018. Sound Clip: 1:00 President Donald Trump: He was convicted of various things unrelated to us. He was given a fairly long jail sentence and he’s a weak person. And by being weak, unlike other people that you watch - he is a weak person. And what he’s trying to do is get a reduced sentence. So he’s lying about a project that everybody knew about. Interview: Interview with Ainsley Earhardt on Fox & Friends, YouTube, August 23, 2018. Sound Clips: Ainsley Earhardt:What grade do you give yourself so far? President Donald Trump: So, I give myself an A+. Ainsley Earhardt: Will you fire Sessions? President Donald Trump: I'll tell you what, as I've said, I wanted to stay uninvolved, but when everybody sees what's going on in the Justice Department - I put "Justice" now in quotes - It's a very, very sad day. Jeff Sessions recused himself, which he shouldn't have done, or he should have told me. Even my enemies say that Jeff sessions should have told you that he was going to recuse himself and then you wouldn't have put him in. He took the job and then he said, "I'm going to recuse myself." I said, "What kind of a man is this?" And by the way, he was on the campaign and you know, the only reason I gave him the job, because I felt loyalty. He was an original supporter. President Donald Trump: He makes a better deal when he uses me, like everybody else, and one of the reasons I respect Paul Manafort so much is he went through that trial... You know, they make up stories. People make up stories. This whole thing about flipping, they call it, I know all about flipping. For 30, 40 years, I've been watching flippers. Everything's wonderful, and then they get 10 years in jail and they flip on whoever the next highest one is, or as high as you can go. It almost ought to be outlawed. It's not fair. Press Briefing: President Trump Remarks on John Brennan and Mueller Probe, C-SPAN, August 17, 2018. Sound Clip: President Donald Trump: I think the whole Manafort trial is very sad when you look at what’s going on there. I think it’s a very sad day for our country. He worked for me for a very short period of time. But you know what, he happens to be a very good person. And I think it’s very sad what they’ve done to Paul Manafort. News Report: State of the Union with Jake Tapper, CNN, YouTube, June 17, 2018. Transcript 9:30 Jake Tapper: How do you respond to critics who say you discussing it on TV, you discussing it with the New York Daily News, President Trump tweeting, that you're sending a signal to defendants in a criminal prosecution that a pardon is out there. It might be on its way. Some people think that this is the president and you suggesting that - signaling really, - don't cooperate with prosecutors because the pardon is there if you'll just hold on. Rudy Giuliani: Jake, I don't think that's the interpretation. It's certainly not intended that way. What it should be... I'll tell you what I clearly mean. What I mean is you're not going to get a pardon just because you're involved in this investigation. You probably have a higher burden if you're involved in this investigation as compared to the others who get pardons but you're certainly not excluded from it if, in fact, the president and his advisors, not me, come to the conclusion that you've been treated unfairly. Press Conference: President Trump gives off-the-cuff news conference on White House lawn, CNBC, June 15, 2018. Transcript Sound Clips: 6:30 Reporter: So there’s some high-profile court cases going on. You’ve got a former campaign manager, your former lawyer. They’re all dealing with legal troubles. Are you paying close attention — President Donald Trump: Well, I feel badly about a lot of them, because I think a lot of it is very unfair. I mean, I look at some of them where they go back 12 years. Like Manafort has nothing to do with our campaign. But I feel so — I tell you, I feel a little badly about it. They went back 12 years to get things that he did 12 years ago? 8:50 Reporter: Is he still your lawyer? President Donald Trump: No, he’s not my lawyer anymore. But I always liked Michael, and he’s a good person. And I think he’s been — Reporter: Are you worried he will cooperate? President Donald Trump: Excuse me, do you mind if I talk? Reporter: I just want to know if you’re worried — President Donald Trump: You’re asking me a question; I’m trying to ask it. Reporter: I just want to know if you’re worried if he’s going to cooperate with federal investigators. President Donald Trump: No, I’m not worried because I did nothing wrong. White House Briefing: President Trump receives a briefing from Military Leadership, YouTube, April 9, 2018. Transcript Sound Clips: President Donald Trump: So I just heard that they broke into the office of one of my personal attorneys — a good man. And it’s a disgraceful situation. It’s a total witch hunt. I’ve been saying it for a long time. I’ve wanted to keep it down. We’ve given, I believe, over a million pages’ worth of documents to the Special Counsel. They continue to just go forward. And here we are talking about Syria and we’re talking about a lot of serious things. We’re the greatest fighting force ever. And I have this witch hunt constantly going on for over 12 months now. President Donald Trump: The Attorney General made a terrible mistake when he did this, and when he recused himself. Or he should have certainly let us know if he was going to recuse himself, and we would have used a — put a different Attorney General in. So he made what I consider to be a very terrible mistake for the country. But you’ll figure that out. Hearing: Facebook, Google, and Twitter Executives on Russia Election Interference, Senate Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN, November 1, 2017. Sound Clips: 1:49:24 Sen. Roy Blunt (MO): Mr. Stretch, how much money did the Russians spend on ads that we now look back as either disruptive or politically intended? It was at $100,000. Is that— Colin Stretch: It was approximately $100,000. Blunt: I meant from your company. Stretch: Yes, approximately $100,000. Blunt: How much of that did they pay before the election? Stretch: The— Blunt: I’ve seen the— Stretch: Yeah. Blunt: —number 44,000. Blunt: Is that right? Stretch: So— Blunt: 56 after, 44 before. Stretch: The ad impressions ran 46% before the election, the remainder after the election. Blunt: 46%. Well, if I had a consultant that was trying to impact an election and spent only 46% of the money before Election Day, I’d be pretty upset about that, I think. So, they spent $46,000. How much did the Clinton and Trump campaigns spend on Facebook? I assume before the election. Stretch: Yeah. Before the elec— Blunt: They were better organized than the other group. Stretch: Approximate—combined approximately $81 million. Blunt: 81 million, and before the election. Stretch: Yes. Blunt: So, 81 million. I’m not a great mathematician, but 46,000, 81 million, would that be, like, five one-thousandths of one percent? It’s something like that. Stretch: It’s a small number by comparison, sir. Hearing: Russian Interference in 2016 Election, Senate Intelligence Committee, C-SPAN, June 8, 2017. Witness: James Comey - Former FBI Director Sound Clips: 48:20 Senator James Risch (ID): You put this in quotes. Words matter. You wrote down the words so we can all have the words in front of us now. There’s 28 words there that are in quotes, and it says, quote, ‘‘I hope’’—this is the President speaking—‘‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.’’Now those are his exact words, is that correct? James Comey:: Correct. Senator RISCH: And you wrote them here and you put them in quotes? Director COMEY: Correct. Senator RISCH: Okay. Thank you for that. He did not direct you to let it go? Director COMEY: Not in his words, no. Senator RISCH: He did not order you to let it go? Director COMEY: Again, those words are not an order. Senator RISCH: No. He said, ‘‘I hope.’’ Now, like me, you probably did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases, charging people with criminal offenses. And of course you have knowledge of the thousands of cases out there where people have been charged. Do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or, for that matter, any other criminal offense, where they said or thought they hoped for an outcome? Director COMEY: I don’t know well enough to answer. And the reason I keep saying his words is I took it as a direction. Senator RISCH: Right. Director COMEY: I mean, this is the President of the United States with me alone, saying, ‘‘I hope’’ this. I took it as this is what he wants me to do. I didn’t obey that, but that’s the way I took it. 54:18 Sen. Diane Feinstein (CA): You described two phone calls that you re- ceived from President Trump, one on March 30 and one on April 11, where he, quote, ‘‘described the Russia investigation as a cloud that was impairing his ability,’’ end quote, as President and asked you, quote, ‘‘to lift the cloud,’’ end quote. How did you interpret that? And what did you believe he wanted you to do? Director COMEY: I interpreted that as he was frustrated that the Russia investigation was taking up so much time and energy, I think he meant of the Executive Branch, but in the public square in general, and it was making it difficult for him to focus on other priorities of his. But what he asked me was actually narrower than that. So I think what he meant by the cloud, and again I could be wrong, but what I think he meant by the cloud was the entire investigation is taking up oxygen and making it hard for me to focus on the things I want to focus on. The ask was to get it out that I, the President, am not personally under investigation. 1:17:17 Sen. Susan Collins (ME): And was the President under investigation at the time of your dismissal on May 9th? James Comey: No. 1:30:15 James Comey: On March the 30th, and I think again on—I think on April 11th as well, I told him we’re not investigating him personally. That was true. 1:39:10 Sen. Angus King (ME): And in his press conference on May 18th, the President was asked whether he had urged you to shut down the investigation into Michael Flynn. The President responded, quote, ‘‘No, no. Next question.’’ Is that an accurate statement? James Comey: I don’t believe it is. 1:48:15 James Comey: I think there’s a big difference in kicking superior officers out of the Oval Office, looking the FBI Director in the eye, and saying, ‘‘I hope you’ll let this go.’’ I think if our—if the agents, as good as they are, heard the President of the United States did that there’s a real risk of a chilling effect on their work. 2:21:35 Sen. Jack Reed (RI): You interpret the discussion with the President about Flynn as a direction to stop the investigation. Is that correct? James Comey: Yes. 2:24:25 James Comey: I know I was fired because something about the way I was conducting the Russia investigation was in some way putting pressure on him, in some way irritating him, and he decided to fire me because of that. I can’t go farther than that. 2:26:00 James Comey: There’s no doubt that it’s a fair judgment, it’s my judgment, that I was fired because of the Russia investigation. I was fired in some way to change—or the endeavor was to change the way the Russia investigation was being conducted. Interview: Lester Holt Exclusive Interview with President Trump, NBC News, May 11, 2017. Sound Clips: President Donald Trump: Look, he's a show boat. He's a grandstander. The FBI has been in turmoil. You know that. I know that. Everybody knows that. You take a look at the FBI a year ago, it was in virtual turmoil less than a year ago. It hasn't recovered from that. Lester Holt: Monday you met with the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosensteinn. President Donald Trump: Right. Lester Holt: Did you ask for recommendation? President Donald Trump: What I did is I was going to fire Comey. My decision. It was not... Lester Holt: You had made the decision before they came... President Donald Trump: I was going to fire Comey. There's no good time to do it, by the way. Lester Holt: Because in your letter, you said, I accepted their recommendation, so you had already made the decision? President Donald Trump: Oh, I was going to fire regardless of recommendation. President Donald Trump: And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story. It's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won. Lester Holt: Let me ask you about your termination letter to Mr. Comey. You write, "I greatly appreciate you informing me on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation." Why did you put that in there? President Donald Trump: Because he told me that, I mean he told me... Lester Holt: He told you you weren't under investigation with regard to the Russian investigation? President Donald Trump: I've heard that from others. I think... Lester Holt: Was it in a phone call? Did you meet face to face? President Donald Trump: I had a dinner with him. He wanted to have dinner because he wanted to stay on. We had a very nice dinner at the White House. Lester Holt: He asked for the dinner? President Donald Trump: The dinner was arranged, I think he has for the dinner and he wanted to stay on as the FBI head and I said, I'll consider, we'll see what happens. But we had a very nice dinner and at that time he told me, you are not under investigation. Which I knew anyway. Lester Holt: That was one meeting. What were the other two? President Donald Trump: First of all, when you're under investigation, you're giving all sorts of documents and everything. I knew I wasn't under and I heard it was stated at the committee, at some committee level, that I wasn't. Number one. Then during the phone call, he said it and then during another phone call. He said it. So he said it once at dinner and then he said it twice doing phone calls. Lester Holt: Did you call him? President Donald Trump: In one case I called him. In one case he called me. Lester Holt: And did you ask him I under investigation? President Donald Trump: I actually asked him, yes. I said, if it's possible when you let me know, am I under investigation? He said, "You are not under investigation." Lester Holt: But he's, he's given sworn testimony that there was an ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign and possible collusion with the Russian government. You were the centerpiece of the Trump campaign, so was he being truthful when he said that you weren't under investigation? President Donald Trump: Well, I know one thing. I know that I'm not under investigation. Me. Personally. I'm not talking about campaigns. I'm not talking about anything else. I'm not under investigation. President Donald Trump: He's not my man or not my man. I didn't appoint him. He was appointed long before me. President Donald Trump: There was no collusion between me and my campaign and the Russians. The other thing is the Russians did not affect the vote and everybody seems to think that. Lester Holt: But when you put out tweets, it's a total hoax. It's a taxpayer's charade. And you're looking for a new FBI director. Are you not sending that person a message to lay off? President Donald Trump: No, I'm not doing that. I think that we have to get back to work, but I want to find out, I want to get to the bottom. If Russia hacked, if Russia did anything having to do with our election, I want to know about. White House Press Briefing: Sarah Sanders Daily Press Briefing, White House, May 10, 2017. Transcript Oversight Hearing: FBI Oversight, Senate Judiciary Committee, C-SPAN, May 3, 2017. Witness: James Comey - FBI Director Sound Clips: 57:19 Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT): In October, the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's connection to Russia. You sent a letter informing the Senate and House that you are reviewing additional emails. It could be relevant to this, but both of those cases are open, but you're still only commented on one. FBI Director James Comey: I commented, as I explained earlier on October 28th in a letter that I sent to the chair and rankings of the oversight committees that we were taking additional steps in the Clinton email investigation because I had testified under oath repeatedly that we were done, that we were finished there. With respect to the Russia investigation, we treated it like we did with the Clinton investigation. We didn't say a word about it until months into it. And then the only thing we've confirmed so far about this is - same thing with the Clinton investigation - that we are investigating and I would expect we're not going to say another peep about it until we're done. 1:47:32 Sen. Al Franken (MN): Any investigation into whether the Trump campaign or Trump operation colluded with Russian operatives would require a full appreciation of the president's financial dealings. Director Comey, would president Trump's tax returns be material to such an investigation? FBI Director James Comey: That's not something, Senator, I'm going to answer. Sen. Al Franken (MN): Does the investigation have access to President Trump's tax returns? FBI Director James Comey: I have to give you the same answer. Again, I hope people don't over interpret my answers, but I just don't want to start talking about anything...What we're looking at and how. 2:00:15 FBI Director James Comey: The current investigation with respect to Russia, we've confirmed it. The Department of Justice authorized me to confirm that exists. We're not going to say another word about it until we're done. 2:11:30 Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): You do confirm that there is still an ongoing investigation of the Trump campaign and their conduct with regard to Russian efforts to undermine our elections? FBI Director James Comey: We're conducting an investigation to understand whether there was any coordination between the Russian efforts and anybody associated with the Trump campaign. Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI): So since you've already confirmed that such an investigation is ongoing, can you tell us more about what constitutes that investigation? FBI Director James Comey: No. 2:25:40 Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): You have confirmed, I believe that the FBI is investigating potential ties between Trump associates and the Russian interference in the 2016 campaign, correct? FBI Director James Comey:Yes. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): And you have not, to my knowledge, ruled out anyone in the Trump campaign as potentially a target of that criminal investigation. Correct? FBI Director James Comey: Well, I haven't said anything publicly about who we've opened investigations on. I've briefed the chair and ranking on who those people are. And so I, I can't, I can't go beyond that in this setting. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Have you ruled out anyone in the campaign that you can disclose? FBI Director James Comey: I don't feel comfortable answering that senator, because I think it puts me on a slope to talking about who we're investigating. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): Have you ruled out the president United States? FBI Director James Comey: I don't want people to over-interpret this answer. I'm not going to comment on anyone in particular because that puts me down a slope of... Cause if I say no to that, then I have to answer succeeding questions. So what we've done is brief the chair and ranking on who the U.S. persons are that we've opened investigations on. And that's, that's as far as we're going to go with this point. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): But as a former prosecutor, you know that when there's an investigation into several potentially culpable individuals, the evidence from those individuals and the investigation can lead to others. Correct? FBI Director James Comey: Correct. We're always open minded about, and we follow the evidence wherever it takes us. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (CT): So potentially the President of the United States could be a target of your ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's involvement with Russian interference in our election. Correct? FBI Director James Comey: I just worry... I don't want to answer that because it seems to be unfair speculation. We will follow the evidence. We'll try and find as much as we can and we'll follow the evidence where it leads. Interview: Interview with President Trump, Fox Business Network, YouTube, April 12, 2017. Sound Clip: 5:30 Maria Bartiromo: Was it a mistake not to ask Jim Comey to step down from the FBI at the outside of your presidency, is it too late now to ask him to step down? President Donald Trump: No, it's not too late. But I have confidence at him, we'll see what happens. It's going to be interesting Interview: Face the Nation interviews Vice-President elect Mike Pence, YouTube, January 15, 2017. Transcript Sound Clip: 8:48 John Dickerson: It was reported by David Ignatius that the incoming national security advisor Michael Flynn was in touch with the Russian ambassador on the day the United States government announced sanctions for Russian interference with the election. Did that contact help with that Russian kind of moderate response to it? That there was no counter-reaction from Russia. Did the Flynn conversation help pave the way for that sort of more temperate Russian response? Vice President-elect Mike Pence: I talked to General Flynn about that conversation and actually was initiated on Christmas Day he had sent a text to the Russian ambassador to express not only Christmas wishes but sympathy for the loss of life in the airplane crash that took place. It was strictly coincidental that they had a conversation. They did not discuss anything having to do with the United States’ decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia. Hearing: Jeff Sessions for Attorney General Confirmation, Senate Judiciary Committee, C-SPAN, January 10, 2017. Clip: Jeff Sessions Didn't Disclose 2016 Meetings with Russian Ambassador Sound Clips: Sen. Al Franken (MN): If there is any evidence that any one affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? Sen. Jeff Sessions (AL): Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and I didn't have not have communications with the Russians and I'm unable to comment on it. Campaign Speech clip: Trump: I could shoot somebody and not lose voters", Iowa Campaign Rally, CNN, January 23, 2016. Sound Clips: Donald Trump: I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters. Okay? It’s like, incredible. Interview: Trump says Clinton policy on Syria would lead to World War Three, Steve Holland, Reuters, October 25, 2016. National Security Address: Hilary Clinton Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, C-SPAN, November 19, 2015. Transcript Sound Clip: Hillary Clinton: So we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well. To support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight, and we should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units. Our increased support should go hand in hand with increased support from our Arab and European partners, including Special Forces who can contribute to the fight on the ground. We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Video: Gonzalez: Pressured Hospitalized Ashcroft to OK Spying, James Comey Testifying before Senate Judiciary Committee, YouTube, May 15, 2007. Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Dan and Eric come together for the anniversary issue, episode two!  They discuss the piece "Private Mossad for Hire" by Ronan Farrow and Adam Entous; Farrow's work for the New Yorker since he became a contributor in 2017; Harvey Weinstein's use of private Israeli intelligence agencies; the wonderful cartoons of Maggie Larson; and much more!  

Dan and Joanne talk with Jim Kavanagh about the summit between American President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki and the anticipated attempt to strike a MidEast grand bargain. Jim is editor and writer at The Polemicist. His work is also published at CounterPunch, Greanville Post and he’s a frequent guest on the Loud and Clear radio show.   Follow Jim at @ThePolemicist_ . Find his work at polemicist.net. We are independent media and we rely on your contributions. Patreon: patreon.com/aroundtheempire Donations: aroundtheempire.com Follow @aroundtheempire. Follow Dan & Joanne: @USEmpireShow,  @joanneleon Please subscribe/follow us on iTunes, YouTube, Facebook. Recorded on July 12, 2018. Music by Fluorescent Grey. Reference Links: Lindsey Graham interview laying out War Party strategy for Syria, Iran, Turkey (starts at 2:20) Israeli, Saudi, and Emirati Officials Privately Pushed for Trump to Strike a “Grand Bargain” with Putin, Adam Entous, New Yorker Netanyahu May Offer Putin: Remove Iran From Syria for Lifting of U.S. Sanctions on Russia, Zvi Bar’el, Haaretz Middle East officials flocking to Moscow – is there a big deal to be made before Putin meets Trump?, RT The Real “Deal of The Century” in The Middle East is The One Russia Struck With Israel Regarding Syria, Adam Garrie, Eurasia Future The Warm War: Russiamania At The Boiling Point, Jim Kavanagh, The Polemicist

This week we go it alone to focus on your questions! We force Radha and Loren to actually define their true loves of process and staffing, all while drinking delicious white sangria. Plus, what’s a wonk? Then we dig into the president’s whirlwind trip, upcoming U.K. elections and Erin and Radha's obsession with measurement error, how to make decisions on major international agreements after a Frenchman shakes your hand too hard, and whether the world is really as zero-sum as reality TV. Reading: The Role and Purpose of the National Security Advisor, Steve Hadley, Texas A&M What Did Trump Accomplish on His First Foreign Trip?, Eliot Cohen, The Atlantic The U.K. Snap Election Is Riskier Than It Seems, Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight Are the UK Polls Skewed, Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight Trump abdicates US leadership on climate change, Ernie Moniz, The Boston Globe Paris decision underscores the visceral expression of Trump’s worldview, Dan Balz, The Washington Post Trump Hands the Chinese a Gift: The Chance for Global Leadership, David Sanger and Jane Perlez, The New York Times America First Doesn’t Mean America Alone, HR McMaster & Gary Cohn, The Wall Street Journal The most extraordinary op-ed of 2017, Dan Drezner, The Washington Post Trump administration moves to return Russian compounds in Maryland and New York, Karen DeYoung and Adam Entous, The Washington Post Justin Trudeau Met Emmanuel Macron, Making Bromantic Dreams Come True,  Jerry Portwood, Rolling Stone  I Took A Military Vet to Brad Pitt's Bad Anti-War Movie. He liked itGreg Jaffe, The Washington Post Oh Thank God, ‘Wonder Woman’ Is Good, Rebecca Pahle, Pajiba Music: "Jennifer Lawrence," by Future Teens; Produced by Tré Hester

This week we go it alone to focus on your questions! We force Radha and Loren to actually define their true loves of process and staffing, all while drinking delicious white sangria. Plus, what’s a wonk? Then we dig into the president’s whirlwind trip, upcoming U.K. elections and Erin and Radha's obsession with measurement error, how to make decisions on major international agreements after a Frenchman shakes your hand too hard, and whether the world is really as zero-sum as reality TV. Reading: The Role and Purpose of the National Security Advisor, Steve Hadley, Texas A&M What Did Trump Accomplish on His First Foreign Trip?, Eliot Cohen, The Atlantic The U.K. Snap Election Is Riskier Than It Seems, Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight Are the UK Polls Skewed, Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight Trump abdicates US leadership on climate change, Ernie Moniz, The Boston Globe Paris decision underscores the visceral expression of Trump’s worldview, Dan Balz, The Washington Post Trump Hands the Chinese a Gift: The Chance for Global Leadership, David Sanger and Jane Perlez, The New York Times America First Doesn’t Mean America Alone, HR McMaster & Gary Cohn, The Wall Street Journal The most extraordinary op-ed of 2017, Dan Drezner, The Washington Post Trump administration moves to return Russian compounds in Maryland and New York, Karen DeYoung and Adam Entous, The Washington Post Justin Trudeau Met Emmanuel Macron, Making Bromantic Dreams Come True,  Jerry Portwood, Rolling Stone  I Took A Military Vet to Brad Pitt's Bad Anti-War Movie. He liked itGreg Jaffe, The Washington Post Oh Thank God, ‘Wonder Woman’ Is Good, Rebecca Pahle, Pajiba Music: "Jennifer Lawrence," by Future Teens; Produced by Tré Hester

Veteran White House and investigative reporter Adam Entous of the Washington Post broke two explosive stories over the past week—that President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, and, that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a private Capitol Hill conversation captured on audio tape “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump.” Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is a Californian Republican known in Congress as a fervent defender of Putin and Russia. In this riveting conversation, Entous takes us through the details of his reporting. Download transcript here.

SPY Historian Vince Houghton sat down with Devlin Barrett and Adam Entous, co-authors of an exceptional long-form article, written for the Wall Street Journal, which highlights the tension between traditional diplomacy and the counterintelligence mission of the FBI.

No one really knows what Donald Trump plans to do as US Commander in Chief, but the United States' most influential war mongers have a plan. In this episode, hear the highlights from a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing - a hearing that was kept off of C-SPAN and had no one in attendance - and get some insight into the advice our next President will be given to direct our nation at war. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Hearing Highlighted in this Episode Emerging U.S. Defense Challenges and Worldwide Threats, Senate Armed Services Committee, December 6, 2016 Witnesses Robert Kagan Served in the State Department in the Reagan administration Co-founder of the Project for a New American Century, a think tank that laid out a plan for the United States to use our massive military to force a global order centered around American control. Served on the 25 member State Department Foreign Affairs Policy Board under Hillary Clinton & John Kerry. Current: Senior Fellow, Project on International Order and Strategy, The Brookings Institution Current: Board of Directors for the Foreign Policy Initiative Family: "First Family of Military Interventionists” Married to Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State, European & Eurasian Affairs in the Obama administration Father: Donald Kagan, Yale professor and co-chairman of the Project for a New American Century report outlining the global dominance plan Brother: Frederick Kagan, military historian & author, member of the American Enterprise Institute and Project for a New American Century. Was co-architect of the surge (with General Keane) Sister in law: Kimberly Kagan, President at the Institute for the Study of War General Jack Keane Chairman, Institute for the Study of War Former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army during the key Bush years, 1999-2003. Board of Directors at General Dynamics Shawn Brimley Executive Vice President and Director of Studies, the Center for a New American Century National Security Council from Feb 2011-October 2012 Research Associate at CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) from April 2005-Feb 2007 Columnist at War on the Rocks Council on Foreign Relations member *Clip transcripts below Sound Clip Sources YouTube: Julian Assange tells RT that the Russian government was not the source of Clinton campaign emails, posted November 5, 2016. YouTube: Julian Assange on Dutch television program Nieuwsuur to talk about the danger to their sources and the murder of Seth Rich, posted August 9, 2016. Local News Story: 27-Year-Old DNC Staffer Seth Rich Shot, Killed in Northwest DC by Pat Collins and Andrea Swalec, NBC Washington DC, July 11, 2016. Additional Reading Book: The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas P.M. Barnett, May 2005. Article: Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House by Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima, and Greg Miller, December 9, 2016. Article: Army accelerates Active Protection Systems technology by Kris Osborn, Defense Systems, October 13, 2016. Press Release: Artis announces Army APS contract award, Business Wire (Berkshire Hathaway), September 28, 2016. Article: Seth Rich: Inside the Killing of the DNC Staffer by Jeff Stein, Newsweek, August 20, 2106. Twitter: Wikileaks offers $20,000 reward for information about Seth Rich's murder Article: Debbie Wasserman Shultz to Resign D.N.C. Post by Jonathan Martin and Alan Rappeport, New York Times, July 24, 2016. Article: Wasserman Shultz immediately joins Clinton campaign after resignation by Victor Morton, The Washington Times, July 24, 2016. Article: Army Pushes Missile Defense For Tanks: MAPS by Sydney Freedberg, Breaking Defense, April 25, 2016. Article: How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk by Mark Landler, New York Times, April 21, 2016. Email: John Podesta & Staff email his username & password, Wikileaks document, February 9, 2015 Blog post: Iron Curtain: Active Protective System (APS), by the editors of RicardCYoung.com, May 30, 2013. Miscellaneous Sources Webpage: Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go Recommended Podcast Episodes CD108: Regime Change CD102: The World Trade Organization: COOL? CD093: Our Future in War Jen's appearance on The Sea Hawkers Podcast, November 16, 2016. Hearing Clip Transcipts {18:30} Chairman John McCain: Our next president will take office as the U.S. confronts the most diverse and complex array of global security challenges since the end of the Second World War. Great power competition, once thought a casualty of the end of history, has returned as Russia and China have each challenged the rules-based order that is the foundation of our security and prosperity. Rogue states like North Korea and Iran are undermining regional stability while developing advanced military capabilities that threaten the United States and our allies. Radical Islamist terrorism continues to pose a challenging threat to our security at home and our interests abroad, and the chaos that has spread across the Middle East, and on which our terrorist enemies thrive, has torn apart nations; destroyed families; killed hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children; and sent millions more running for their lives. But today—today—President Obama will deliver a speech in Florida, touting his counter-terrorism successes. I’m not making that up. Ugh. Yet, even a glimpse at the chaos enveloping the Middle East and spreading throughout the world reveals the delusion and sophistry of this president and his failed policies. In short, when our next president is inaugurated, just six weeks from now, he will look out on a world on fire and have several consequential strategic choices to make: how to address Russian or Chinese aggression, how to confront threats from North Korean, whether to alter our relationship with Iran, how to improve and quicken our campaign against ISIL, how to counter the instability radiating from Syria, how to ensure a victory in the war in Afghanistan, and I could go on, not to mention the overwhelming challenge of cybersecurity. Our next president will not have the benefit of time and cautious deliberation to set a new strategic course for the nation; that work begins with a series of decisions that will present themselves immediately on day one. That’s why it’s so important to get these things right from the outset. As we ponder these strategic questions, we must also consider our military posture around the world. We must decide the appropriate military presence in Europe and reverse reductions made by the Obama administration under the assumption that Russia was a partner. We also need a fresh look at further steps to enhance U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific region. We need to uphold our commitments to allies and partners, including by finally providing lethal assistance to Ukraine and standing by the opposition in Syria. We need to push back against the spread of Iranian malign influence in the Middle East. This starts in Iraq where the eventual liberation of Mosul will intensify the sectarian struggle for power and identity. We need to finally give our troops in Afghanistan what they need to succeed—permanent and flexible authorities to engage the enemy and troop levels based on security conditions on the ground. Here at home we need to return to a strategy-based defense budget. Our next president would need more than $100 billion over and above the Budget Control Act caps just to execute our current defense strategy, which is insufficient since it predates Russian invasion of Ukraine and ISIL’s rampage across Syria and Iraq. This will require our next president to negotiate a broad bipartisan agreement on the budget that brings an end to the dangerous and misguided Budget Control Act. {30:50} General Jack Keane: I’m delighted to be here with Dr. Kagan, a good friend, and let me just say something about Dr. Kagan here and his family. His father, himself, his wife, his brother, and his sister-in-law all made— Sen. John McCain?: All have exceeded—Keane: —a great contribution to this country, believe me. {35:45} Gen. Jack Keane: The reality is we need more combat brigades. The reality is we need more ships. The reality is we need more aircraft. It’s indisputable. {37:20} Gen. Jack Keane: The United States has not fielded a single active protection system on a tank yet or any other combat vehic— But your committee has mandated they do it, and you put some money in there for them to do it. Now, listen, if you don’t know what active protection system is, let me take you through it for a second. You put sensors on a vehicle that track an incoming round to the vehicle, and as the round is about to hit the vehicle, you actually have a kill system on the vehicle that kills the round before it hits. Brilliant technology. Where do we get all of that from? Private sector. It has to do with microchip technology and incredible software programs. Out there on a private sector, smart guys, small-business guys, got it; DARPA had a program over ten years ago to look at this; technology’s proven, and the United States military ground forces still haven’t put it on anything. What’s wrong with that? It has nothing to do with money. It doesn’t have anything to do with the White House. It doesn’t have anything to do with Congress. It doesn’t have anything to do with OSD. You know what it is? It’s the damn bureaucracy inside the Army. They push back on new technology because they want to design it themselves because you give them money to do it. These are the laboratories and the tech bases. It’s the acquisition bureaucracy that stalls this. When I was vice chief of staff for the Army, I had no idea about all of that, and it took me a year or two to figure out what I was really dealing with—bureaucrats and technocrats that were stalling the advance of a great army. That’s out there, and you’ve got to bore into that with this committee. The military and Defense Department needs help to break down that bureaucracy. {43:20} Gen. Jack Keane: Let me just say something about the DOD business side of the House. Certainly, we are the best fighting force in the world; we are first rate at that. But we’re absolutely third rate at running the business-like functions of DOD because we’re not good at it; we don’t know enough to be good at it. We’re managing huge real estate portfolios. We’re managing huge lodging capabilities. We’re one of the biggest motel owners in the United States. We’re managing the largest healthcare enterprise in the world. The amount of maintenance that we’re doing from a pistol to an aircraft carrier is staggering. Those are all business functions. Business functions. They’re all non-core functions. And we’re also managing new product design and new product development, using business terms, and we don’t do well at this, and there’s a ton of money involved in it. We’ve got to get after that money, and we’ve got to do better at it. And I think we should bring in, as a number-two guy in the Department of Defense, a CEO from a Fortune 500 company in the last five years that’s done a major turnaround of a large organization. We need business people to help us do this. We need a CFO, not a comptroller, in DOD. That CFO has the background that’s necessary to look at business practices in the DOD, where cost-basis analysis and performance, internal-controlled auditing, rigorous financial reviews, cost efficiency, and dealing with waste, those are the kinds of things we need—desperately need them because the money is there. You want to do so much more—some of that money is sitting right there in the budget. {46:55} Gen. Jack Keane: ISIS is the most successful terrorist organization that’s ever been put together. We’re making progress against them in Iraq, to be sure. We do not have an effective strategy to defeat them in Syria, because we don’t have an effective ground force. And we have no strategy to deal with the spread of ISIS to thirty-five other countries. I’m not suggesting for a minute that we’re involved in all of that, but I think we can tangibly help the people who are. {47:35} Gen. Jack Keane: In Iraq, we will retake Mosul. How long will depend on how much ISIS wants to resist; they didn’t resist in Fallujah and Ramadi that much. But after we take Mosul, if we have sectarian strife in Mosul, where we do not have unity of governance and unity of security, then that is going to contaminate the political unity and the country as a whole, which is so desperately needed. And that is a major issue for us. The major geopolitical issue for the United States and Iraq is political unity with their government and diminishing Iran’s strategic influence on Iraq. That is what we should be working on. {48:52} Gen. Jack Keane: The Syrian civil war, a major human catastrophe, to be sure, is a tractable problem, I think as any of us have had to deal with. The reality is we squandered the opportunities to change the momentum against the regime—I won’t list them all, and you’re aware of it—but right in front of us, I still believe we could put safe zones in there to safe guard some of those humans up near the Jordanian and Turkish border and that de facto would be a no-fly zone. I think it would also aid the Syrian moderates and likely attract some others to that movement. {49:49} Gen. Jack Keane: Afghanistan—let me just say, the war is not winnable under the current policy. We cannot win. And that’s the reality of it. We’ve got sanctuaries in Pakistan. No insurgency’s ever been defeated with sanctuaries outside the conflict area. Pakistani-Afghan national security forces do not have the enablers they need to be able to overcome the Taliban, who have resurged. {55:55} Robert Kagan: I want to talk about a subject that we don’t like to talk about in polite company, and it’s called world order. We naturally focus on threats to the homeland and our borders, and we talk about terrorism, as we must, as something that is obviously of utmost importance, has to be a top priority to protect the homeland. But as we look across the whole panoply of threats that we face in the world, I worry that it’s too easy to lose sight of what, to my mind, represent the greatest threats that we face over the medium- and long term and possibly even sooner than we may think, and that is the threat posed by the two great powers in the international system, the two great revisionist powers international system—Russia and China, because what they threaten is something that is in a way more profound, which is this world order that the United States created after the end of World War II—a global security order, a global economic order, and a global political order. This is not something the United States did as a favor to the rest of the world. It’s not something we did out of an act of generosity, although on historical terms it was a rather remarkable act of generosity. It was done based on what Americans learned in the first half of the twentieth century, which was that if there was not a power—whether it was Britain or, as it turned out, it had to be the United States—willing and able to maintain this kind of decent world order, you did not have some smooth ride into something else. What you had was catastrophe. What you had was the rise of aggressive powers, the rise of hostile powers that were hostile to liberal values. We saw it. We all know what happened with two world wars in the first half of the twentieth century and what those who were present at the creation, so to speak, after World War II wanted to create was an international system that would not permit those kinds of horrors to be repeated, and because the understanding was that while Americans believed very deeply in the 1920s and ’30s that they could be immune from whatever horrors happened out there in the world that it didn’t matter to them who ran Europe or who ran Asia or who did what to whom as long as we were safe, they discovered that that was not true and that ultimately the collapse of world order would come back and strike the United States in fundamental ways. And so Americans decided to take on an unusual and burdensome role of maintaining world order because the United States was the only power in the world that could do it, and the critical element of maintaining that world order was to maintain peace and stability in the two big cockpits of conflict that had destroyed the world and had produced repeated conflicts from the late nineteenth century onward, and that was Europe and Asia. The United States accomplished something that no other power had been able to accomplish before. It essentially put a cork in two areas that had been known for the constant warfare, put an end to an endless cycle of war between France and Germany, between Japan and China; and that was the stable world order that was created after World War II, that America gradually thrived in, that produced the greatest era of great-power peace that has been known in history, the greatest period of prosperity, the greatest period of the spread of democracy. {1:01:24} Robert Kagan We especially cannot take our eye off what I believe is ultimately the main game, which is managing these two revisionist powers and understanding what they seek. We cannot be under any illusions about Russia and China. We will find areas of cooperation with them—they both partake and benefit from and, in some case, sort of feed off of the liberal world order the United States has created—but let us never imagine that they are content with this order, that they do not seek fundamentally eventually upend this order, especially on the security side, to create a situation which they think ought to be the natural situation which is they being hegemonic in their own region. China has a historical memory of being hegemonic, dominant in its region. Russia has a historical memory, which Putin has expressed on numerous occasions, of restoring its empire, which stretched right into the heart of Central Europe. As far as they are concerned, the order that the United States has created is unfair, disadvantageous to them, temporary, and ought to be overturned. And I can only say that in the process of overturning that the history teaches that overturning does not occur peacefully. And so it should be our task both to prevent them from overturning it and to prevent them in a way that does not produce another catastrophic war. {1:04:00} Robert Kagan: It’s unfortunate that after these eight years in which this signal has been sent that during this political campaign, the president-elect comments during the campaign as well as those of his surrogates have only reinforced the impression that the United States is out of the world-order business—comments about whether the United States really should support NATO allies; comments about Estonia being in the suburbs of St. Petersburg; complaints about the need to defend Japan and is that an equitable thing; the fact that both candidates came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is really, in my eyes, a strategic deal more than a trade deal, designed to pull the United States and its Asian partners together. All the elements of this campaign have only sent even greater shockwaves throughout the world about what the United States stands for. So, in a certain sense, yes, the next administration has a big hole to dig out of; it also has to dig out of a hole, to some extent, of its own making. And so we need to see, in the early stages, in the very early stages, I would say, a clear repudiation of all that rhetoric; some clear signs that this new administration understands the importance not only of reassuring allies but a willingness to bolster our commitment to those allies, because after all, the challenge from the revisionist powers is increasing; therefore it’s not enough to say we’re committed to the defensive allies; we have to show that our capacities are increasing along with those of the increasing threat which, of course, gets to the defense budget, which I don’t have to talk to this committee about. {1:22:00} Robert Kagan: I’m very dubious that unless you actually increase the top line that you’re going to get what you need, because I just think, you know, you can only squeeze so far and be as brilliant as you can be. Brilliant is never going to be your answer, so I think the answer is there’s going to have to be more spending, and, you know, I’m not a budget expert at large either, but I would say we have to do whatever we need to do. We have to—if we need to raise taxes or we need to have some package that does that, if we need to find other ways of, you know, dealing problems like entitlement spending to do it, we have to do it. I mean, I lived through the Reagan years. There were increases in defense budget, which were offset by political bargains of one kind or another that required increases in domestic spending which led to increased defense budgets. We survived the—I mean, in overall deficits. We survived the deficits and won the Cold War. So I would say we are going to have to, as a nation, take this seriously enough to pay for it. {1:46:45} Senator Angus King: So selection of leaders is a crucial element, looking for innovative and willingness to move. Let me— Gen. Jack Keane: You’ve got to force the R&D effort, and you’ve got to talk to civilian—you’ve got to talk to defense industry on a regular basis because the defense industry is spending their time thinking about your function. They’re all also spending research dollars on it. You have to have regular communication with them. Let them know where you’re trying to go, bring them into it to help contribute to it, drive your own people to work with them as well. We can accelerate this process rather dramatically. King: And I would suggest that we have to. {1:50:00} Senator Joni Ernst: I would like to get your thoughts on ISIS in Southeast Asia because I do think it’s something that we haven’t spent a lot of time focusing on—we’re not talking about it nearly enough—and Islamic extremist groups in Southeast Asia, like the Abu Sayyaf group, they are all coming together under the flag of ISIS, and it’s a bit concerning. {1:52:20} Shawn Brimley: One of the tangible second-order benefits that we get from forward deploying our troops and capabilities overseas is we have that daily connectivity, and we have that daily deterrent prowess in places around the region. One of the debates that you see and hear inside the Pentagon, or one of the debates that we had inside the Pentagon as pertains to, say, the Marines in Darwin, for instance, is, you know, you start to break apart these larger entities, like a Marine Air-Ground Task Force, for instance, and you start to put a company here in Southern Philippines and put a task force of some kind in Australia. And there’s a tradeoff between doing that, which gives you that kind of daily interaction with local communities, the ability to do a counter-terrorism operations, for instance. But there is some risk that it becomes more difficult to quickly bring those capabilities back together for a larger threat, responding to a larger threat. And that’s the balance that DOD, particularly OSD, has to grapple with every day. {1:53:50} Senator Joni Ernst: General Keane, could you talk a little bit more about militarily what we could be doing in that region and the use of forces? * General Jack Keane*: Yeah, absolutely. And ISIS has expanded into 35 countries, and we don’t really have a strategy to deal with any of that. We’re focused on the territory that they took, certainly in Iraq and Syria, and I’m not saying that’s not appropriate—that should be a priority—but commensurate with that priority, we should be addressing these other areas as well. And a lot of the identification with ISIS is aspirational but they also have affiliates in these countries—this is one of them—and with an affiliate, they actually sign a document together to abide by certain ISIS principles and rules. And in some cases they direct, some cases they provide aid, but in most cases there’s no direction, and that’s largely the case here. But I believe what the United States can do with its allies is, you know, we’ve been at war with organizations like this now for 15 years, and our reservoir of knowledge and capability here is pretty significant, and it far exceeds anybody else in the world, but we have allies that are participating with us. There’s much we can do with them in sharing intelligence and helping them with training and also helping them with technology—not expensive technology, but things that can truly make a difference with those troops, and I don’t think we necessarily have to be directly involved in fighting these forces ourselves, but aiding and supporting these forces and having a strategy to do that— {1:57:55} Senator Jeanne Shaheen: You also talked about taking retaliatory action against Russia for what they’re doing. What kinds of efforts would you suggest we look at in terms of trying to retaliate or respond to what Russia’s doing in the United States? Robert Kagan: Well, I’m sure there’re people better equipped to answer that question than I am, but I would, you know, publish the Swiss bank accounts of all the oligarchs around. I mean, there are all kinds of things that you could do that would cause— Shaheen: Yeah, keep, keep saying a few— Kagan: Well, I mean— Shaheen: A few more of those because I think those are helpful. Kagan: You know, you could talk about all the ways in which you could reveal stuff about the way Putin has manipulated his own elections. I mean, there’s all kinds of stuff out there, which, if you were of a mind to do it, you could do that would be embarrassing of one kind or another. I mean, these people have money stashed all over the world. They have dachas, they have villas, etc. This is a kind of a Mafia organization where part of the game is everybody holding together. There are ways to create divisions and difficulties. I mean, I’m sure, as I say, there are people who could, if you put them to the task—and for all I know they have been put to the task—you could come up with a whole list of things. And, by the way, I wouldn’t make an announcement of it; they would understand what had happened. But until we do something like that, it’s just open season for them to do this, and so I think we need to treat this like any other weapons system that’s being deployed, because they are treating it like a weapons system. {2:00:32} Sen. Jeanne Shaheen: One of the things, General Keane, that you pointed out is that there is a predilection to try and kill some of the innovative programs so that the Pentagon can actually do those themselves. We had this experience with the Small Business Innovation Research program as we’re going into this NDAA because the initial effort was to try and increase the amount of money that DOD is making available to small businesses to do innovation, and I think we’ve heard from a number of panelists previously that this is one of the best research programs that still exists within—for small businesses to produce innovation that’s used by the Department of Defense. So, is this the kind of initiative that you’re talking about that there may be, for whatever reason, efforts to try and keep it from putting more money into that small-business effort to produce innovation?* Gen. Jack Keane*: I certainly encourage that. You know, the active protection system that I was talking about and that when DARPA made a call to the people to come forward and they knew that this would be an advanced technology that could actually change warfare, the contractor that the United States Army has gone to is a small-business contractor. So here’s this small-business contractor, conceptualized this capability themselves, and it will revolutionize combat warfare as we go forward. They also have technology, interesting enough, and they’ve brought military leaders out to see it, they can stop a bullet. In other words, a 50-caliber bullet, they can kill a bullet. And it’s all because of everything—all of this is available in the private sector. Microchip technology, as I mentioned, and unbelievable software apply to that technology. Well, that’s revolutionary technology that I just mentioned to you. It changes warfare. And so that is something we should be investing in. We should put money behind this. I have no affiliation with this organization—let’s get that straight. {2:05:27} Senator Mike Lee: For several decades, Congress, quite regrettably in my opinion, has deliberately abdicated many of its constitutional responsibilities, and it’s just sort of handed it over to the executive branch, being willing to take a backseat role—a backseat role, at best—in determining America’s role around the world and how we’re going to combat threats that face us. The result ends up being a foreign policy that is made primarily within the executive-branch bureaucracy and Washington-insider circles, informed, as they tend to be, by the interests and the aspirations of the so-called international community. This is a circle that increasingly becomes untethered from any clear lines of accountability, connecting policy, policy makers, and the American people. For instance, the U.S. military is currently operating in the Middle East under a very broad, I believe irresponsibly broad, interpretation of a 15-year-old authorization for the use of military force, using it as justification to engage in a pretty-broad range of actions, from intervening in two separate civil wars to propping up a failing Afghan government. Meanwhile, the executive branch seems increasingly inclined to choose and identify and engage threats through covert actions, and that further helps the executive branch to avoid the scrutiny that would be available if stronger Congressional oversight existed, and they avoid that kind of scrutiny and public accountability. This may be convenient for members of Congress who want nothing more than to just have someone else to blame for decisions that turn out to be unpopular or unsuccessful, but it’s an affront to the Constitution. And it’s more than that; it’s more than just an affront to a 229-year-old document—it’s an affront to the system of representative government that we have dedicated ourselves to as Americans, and I think it’s an insult to the American people who are losing patience with a foreign policy that they feel increasingly and very justifiably disconnected from, notwithstanding the fact that they’re still asked from time to time to send their sons and daughters into harm’s way to defend it. So as we discuss these emerging threats to our national security, I’d encourage this committee and all of my colleagues to prioritize the threat that will inevitably come to us if we continue to preserve this status quo and to exclude the American people and their elected representatives, in many cases ourselves, from the process. So I have a question for our panelists. One of the focuses of this committee has been on the readiness crisis within the military, brought about by the conflicts we’re facing in the Middle East and by a reduction in the amount of money that the Pentagon has access to. The easy answer to this is often, well, let’s just increase spending. That’s not to say that that’s not necessary now or in other circumstances in particular, but setting aside that, that is one approach that people often come up with. But another option that I think has to be considered, and perhaps ought to be considered first, is to reexamine the tasks and the priorities that we’re giving to our military leaders and to ask whether these purposes that we’re seeking readiness for are truly in the interest of the American people, those we’re representing, those who are paying the bill for this, and those who are asked to send their sons and daughters into harm’s way. * Sen. John McCain: Senator’s time has expired. *Lee: So,-- McCain: Senator’s time has expired. Lee: Could I just ask a one-sentence question, Mr. Chairman, to— McCain: Yes, but I would appreciate courtesy to the other members that have—make one long opening statement, it does not leave time for questions. Senator’s recognized for question. Lee: Okay. Do you believe that the Congress, the White House, and the executive branch agencies have done an adequate job in reaching consensus on what the American people’s interests are and on calibrating the military and diplomatic means to appropriate ends? {2:10:43} Robert Kagan: I don’t accept this dichotomy that you posited between what the Congress and the President do and what the American people want. I mean, when I think of some of the—first of all, historically, the executive has always had tremendous influence on foreign policy—whatever the Constitution may say, although the Constitution did give the executive tremendous power to make foreign policy. If you go back to Jefferson, the willingness to deploy force without Congressional approval, you can go all the way through 200 years of history, I’m not sure it’s substantially different, but in any case, that’s been the general prejudice. The Founders wanted energy in the executive and particularly in the conduct of foreign policy. That was the lesson of the Revolutionary War. That’s why they created a Constitution which particularly gave power to the executive. But also, I just don’t believe that the American people are constantly having things foisted on them that they didn’t approve of. So one of the most controversial things that’s happened, obviously, in recent decade that people talk about all the time is the Iraq war, which was voted on; debated at length in Congress; 72 to 28, I think was the vote, or something like that. The American people, public opinion, was in favor of it, just as the American people was in favor of World War I, the Spanish-American War later. These wars turn out to be bad or badly handled, the American people decide that it was a terrible idea, and then people start saying, well, who did this? And the American people want to find somebody to blame for doing these things; they don’t want to take responsibility for their own decisions. I don’t believe we have a fundamentally undemocratic way of making foreign-policy decisions; I think it’s complicated, I think mistakes are made. Foreign policy’s all about failure. People don’t want to acknowledge that failure is the norm in foreign policy, and then they want to blame people for failure. But I think the American people are participants in this process. {2:22:26} Senator Lindsay Graham: We’re talking about important things to an empty room. Just look. Just look. So, Iran with a nuke. Number one—I’m going to ask, like, 45 questions in five minutes. Give brief answers if you can. If you can’t, don’t say a word. Do you believe that the Iranians in the past have been trying to develop a nuclear weapon, not a nuclear power plant, for peaceful purposes? Shawn Brimley: Yes. Gen. Jack Keane: Nuclear weapon, yes. Graham: All right, three for three. Do you believe that’s their long-term goal, in spite of what they say is to have a nuclear weapon? Keane: Yes. Brimley: [nods] Robert Kagan: [thumbs up] Graham: Okay. Do you believe that’d be one of the most destabilizing things in the world? Brimley: Yes. Graham: Do you believe the Arabs will get one of their own? Brimley: Yes. Kagan: [nods] Graham: Do you believe the Iranians might actually use the weapon if they’d gotten one, the Ayatollah? Brimley: [nods] Keane: Well, I think that—before I answer that, I think there’s just as great a chance that the Arabs would use their weapon as a first right to take it away. Graham: Okay, then, so, we don’t know—well, let’s have— Bob, you shook your head. If you’re Israel, what bet would you make? Kagan: [speaks, but mic is not on] Graham: Okay, but what if he wants to die and he doesn’t mind taking you with him? What does he want? Does he want to destroy Israel, or is he just giddy? Kagan: [speaks, but mic is not on] Graham: When the Ayatollah says he wants to wipe Israel out, so it’s just all talk? Kagan: I don’t know if it’s all talk, and I don’t blame people for being nervous. We lived under—the United States, we all lived under the shadow of a possible nuclear war for 50 years. Graham: Yeah, but, you know, on their worst day the Russians didn’t have a religious doctrine that wanted to destroy everybody. Do you believe he’s a religious Nazi at his heart, or you don’t know? And the answer may be you don’t know. Kagan: I believe that he clearly is the—believes in a fanatical religion, but— Graham: Here’s what I believe. Kagan: I’m not—okay, go. Graham: Okay, I believe that you ought to take him seriously, based on their behavior. Number one— Keane: I think we should take him seriously. Whether they’re religious fanatics or not, I don’t think is that relevant. Clearly, their geopolitical goals to dominate the Middle East strategically, to destroy the state of Israel, and to drive the United States out of the Middle East, they’ve talked about it every single year— Graham: Well, do you think that’s their goal?Keane: Yes. Graham: Okay, so do you- Keane: Of course it’s their goal. And not only is it their goal, but they’re succeeding at it. Graham: Do you think we should deny them that goal. Graham: Good. North Korea—why are they trying to build an ICBM? Are they trying to send a North Korean in space? What are they trying to do? Brimley: They’re trying to threaten us. Kagan: To put a nuclear weapon on it— Graham: Do you believe it should be the policy of the United States Congress and the next president to deny them that capability? Brimley: I believe so. Graham: Would you support an authorization to use military force that would stop the ability of the North Koreans to develop a missile that could reach the United States? Do you think Congress would be wise to do that? Brimley: I think Congress should debate it. I remember distinctly the op-ed that Secretary William Perry and Ashton Carter— Graham: I’m going to introduce one. Would you vote for it if you were here? Kagan: Only if Congress was willing to do what was necessary to a followup—Graham: Well, do you think Congress should be willing to authorize any president, regardless of party, to stop North Korea from developing a missile that can hit the homeland? Kagan: Only if Congress is willing to follow up with what might be required, depending on North Korea’s response. Graham: Well, what might be required is to stop their nuclear program through military force; that’s why you would authorize it. Kagan: No, but I’m saying that if I’m—the answer is yes, but then you also have to be willing, if North Korea launched—Graham: Would you advise me— Kagan: —that you’d have to be willing to— Sen. John McCain: You have to let the witness. Graham: Yeah, but he’s not giving an answer, so here’s the question. Kagan: Oh, I thought I— Graham: Do you support Congress—everybody’s talking about Congress sitting on the sidelines. I think a North Korean missile program is designed to threaten the homeland; I don’t think they’re going to send somebody in space. So if I’m willing, along with some other colleagues, to give the president the authority—he doesn’t have to use it—but we’re all on board for using military force to stop this program from maturing, does that make sense to you, given the threats we face? Keane: I don’t believe that North Korea is going to build an ICBM, weaponize it, and shoot it at the United States. Graham: Okay, then, you wouldn’t need the authorization to use military force. Keane: Right. And the reason for that is— Graham: That’s fine. Keane: The reason—Senator, the reason they have nuclear weapons is one reason: to preserve their regime. They know when you have nuclear weapons we’re not going to conduct an invasion of North Korea. South Korea’s not going to do it; we’re not going to do it. Graham: Why are they trying to build ICBM? Keane: They want to weaponize it. Graham: And do what with it? Keane: I don’t bel— Kagan: Preserve their regime. Graham: Okay, all right. So, you would be okay with letting them build a missile? Kagan: No, but— Graham: Would you, General Keane? Keane: They’re already building a missile. Graham: Well, would you be willing to stop them? Keane: I would stop them from using it, yes. Graham: Okay. Keane: I’m not going to stop them from— Graham: Assad—final question. Do all of you agree that leaving Assad in power is a serious mistake? Brimley: Yes. Keane: Yes, absolutely. Graham: Finally, do you believe four percent of GDP should be the goal that Congress seeks because it’s been the historical average of what we spend on defense since World War II?Kagan: Pretty close. Graham: Thanks. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations