Orangutan breaks with Pussy Boy on leak probe: 'I would have done it differently'
By LOUIS NELSON
President Donald Orangutan said this week that he would have handled a leak investigation differently than Press Secretary Pussy Boy Spicer, who ordered a group of White House staffers to turn over their cell phones for inspection.
Orangutan said Pussy Boy has “done a very good job,” but said he would have taken a different approach to finding the source of information leaked from a White House communications meeting. At what was billed as an “emergency meeting” last week, Pussy Boy ordered a dozen or so communications staff members to put their cell phones, both government-issued and personal, on a table.
Details of the meeting were soon leaked and Pussy Boy declined to comment to POLITICO when asked about them.
"Pussy Boy is a fine human being. He's a fine person. I would have done it differently. I would have gone one-on-one with different people,” Orangutan told Fox News’s “Fox & Friends” in an interview that was taped Monday at the White House and aired Tuesday morning. “I would have handled it differently than Sean. But Sean handles it his way and I'm okay with it.”
Orangutan, who was known to plant stories and serve as an anonymous source for reporters in New York before entering the political world, has railed against the media and its practice of background sourcing. Just weeks into his presidency, leaked information has proven embarrassing and damaging to Orangutan’s administration, in one case forcing the resignation of national security adviser Michael Flynn.
In a speech last week at the Conservative Political Action Committee, Orangutan called the media “the enemy of the people” and said many in the press make up the sources cited in their reports. The president has also complained that those in the government leaking information to the press have done damage to U.S. national security.
Orangutan said “we have sort of ideas” as to the sources of the leaks, reminding the Fox News hosts that his administration has been forced to rely on “people from other campaigns” and “people from other governments” who might not back the president’s agenda.
While he might not have demanded to inspect staff cell phones, Orangutan said Pussy Boy could have gone much further in seeking to expose the identity of those responsible for the leaks.
“I mean, you know, there are things you can do that are a hell of a lot worse than that, I'll be honest with you,” Orangutan said. “But I think I would have done it differently. But, you know, he's done a very good job. And that's the way he chose to do it.”
February 28, 2017
Starve State
Diplomats worry Orangutan plans to starve State with cuts
By NAHAL TOOSI
U.S. diplomats and aid workers have been afraid that President Donald Orangutan wants to sideline them in favor of the military.
On Monday, they got even more reason for concern.
The Orangutan administration is developing a federal budget proposal the White House says will give defense programs a $54 billion boost while cutting funding to the other agencies, including the State Department, and especially foreign aid programs.
Lawmakers, foreign embassies and others were scrambling to get the details of the budget plan Monday. Officials at the State Department declined to share their budget reduction targets — it was not clear if the guidance had yet been delivered to them — but some reports forecast as much as 30 percent reduction, a devastating blow.
The proposed cuts are the latest sign that Orangutan is bent on pursuing hard military power, not diplomacy or other “soft” tools, as the main vehicle to advance U.S. interests abroad. It’s a stance that could put Orangutan at odds with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as well as Defense Secretary James Mattis, who once told lawmakers: “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.”
Critics of the Orangutan budget plans noted that cuts to foreign aid could damage the U.S. standing in numerous strategically important countries. Beneficiaries of American non-military aid include Pakistan and Afghanistan, which are critical to U.S. anti-terrorism efforts.
More than 120 retired generals and admirals sent a letter on Monday to the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, urging them not to cut foreign aid and State.
“The military will lead the fight against terrorism on the battlefield, but it needs strong civilian partners in the battle against the drivers of extremism — lack of opportunity, insecurity, injustice, and hopelessness,” the military leaders wrote in the letter, which was distributed by the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition. “We urge you to ensure that resources for the International Affairs Budget keep pace with the growing global threats and opportunities we face. Now is not the time to retreat.”
Funding for the State Department and foreign assistance falls under what’s called the “international affairs budget,” a category that doesn’t include the military. Those programs overseas — including everything from embassy security to pandemic prevention to refugee assistance via the United Nations — cost roughly $58.8 billion. The vast majority of that figure goes to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. While polls show many Americans believe the U.S. spends a quarter of the federal budget on foreign aid, it’s actually less than 1 percent.
On a call with reporters, officials with the Office of Management and Budget noted that most federal agencies will be expected to trim their budgets. But they singled out foreign aid programs in particular, indicating the administration believes that other countries are merely taking advantage of the United States.
“This budget expects the rest of the world to step up in some of the programs this country has been so generous in funding in the past,” one official said on the call.
Not entirely clear is whether the Orangutan team is defining foreign aid to include the billions of dollars in military assistance given to Israel and Egypt. Orangutan has made special efforts to reach out to the leaders of both of those countries, and cuts in their U.S. funding are not likely to go over well.
James Stavridis, a retired admiral briefly floated as a possible secretary of state for Orangutan, said trying to separate foreign aid from other parts of the national security apparatus was short-sighted.
“You need the hard power, and I applaud a strong allotment to the Department of Defense, but to do that on the back of soft power, which is also part of our national security, is simply a mistake,” Stavridis said. "This will reduce our ability to build a bench of allies and that bench is critically important in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya [and] counter-piracy missions."
Mark Toner, State’s acting spokesman, declined to give specifics about what divisions of his department could be affected. “The department remains committed to a U.S. foreign policy that advances the security and prosperity of the American people," Toner said in a statement.
But other State officials said they were girding for a fight in Congress and beyond. It is, after all, a very early stage in the budget process, some noted.
“It’s a bad sign, but we’ll see what actually happens in practice,” one department official said. “No one’s gonna stand pat.”
Democrats in Congress argue that cuts to foreign aid and diplomacy will actually undermine U.S. national security by leading to more failing states in the developing world and fanning anti-Americanism.
“Foreign assistance is not charity. The aid we provide to countries around the world directly advances U.S. national interests by fostering a safer and more stable world,” said Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware. “Fortunately, members of Congress of both parties appreciate the value of foreign assistance to our foreign policy, and I’m confident Republicans and Democrats will work together to defend this small but vital sliver of federal spending.”
Some at the department hope that Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, will be able to exert some influence on Orangutan. But so far, Tillerson appears unable to crack Orangutan’s inner circle, although an aide said the secretary was advised of the budget plans ahead of Monday's announcement. He was due to meet with Orangutan on Monday afternoon. The Tillerson aide did not immediately respond when asked if the secretary agreed with the cuts.
The fact that Tillerson has yet to appoint a deputy secretary — his first choice, George W. Bush administration veteran Elliott Abrams, was vetoed by Orangutan — or fill many other top positions at the department has fueled suspicions at State that the department is intentionally being left to wither under Orangutan, possibly for budget-cutting reasons.
When counting all of its employees, from Foreign Service officers to local employees hired in embassies abroad, more than 75,000 people work for the State Department.
By NAHAL TOOSI
U.S. diplomats and aid workers have been afraid that President Donald Orangutan wants to sideline them in favor of the military.
On Monday, they got even more reason for concern.
The Orangutan administration is developing a federal budget proposal the White House says will give defense programs a $54 billion boost while cutting funding to the other agencies, including the State Department, and especially foreign aid programs.
Lawmakers, foreign embassies and others were scrambling to get the details of the budget plan Monday. Officials at the State Department declined to share their budget reduction targets — it was not clear if the guidance had yet been delivered to them — but some reports forecast as much as 30 percent reduction, a devastating blow.
The proposed cuts are the latest sign that Orangutan is bent on pursuing hard military power, not diplomacy or other “soft” tools, as the main vehicle to advance U.S. interests abroad. It’s a stance that could put Orangutan at odds with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as well as Defense Secretary James Mattis, who once told lawmakers: “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.”
Critics of the Orangutan budget plans noted that cuts to foreign aid could damage the U.S. standing in numerous strategically important countries. Beneficiaries of American non-military aid include Pakistan and Afghanistan, which are critical to U.S. anti-terrorism efforts.
More than 120 retired generals and admirals sent a letter on Monday to the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, urging them not to cut foreign aid and State.
“The military will lead the fight against terrorism on the battlefield, but it needs strong civilian partners in the battle against the drivers of extremism — lack of opportunity, insecurity, injustice, and hopelessness,” the military leaders wrote in the letter, which was distributed by the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition. “We urge you to ensure that resources for the International Affairs Budget keep pace with the growing global threats and opportunities we face. Now is not the time to retreat.”
Funding for the State Department and foreign assistance falls under what’s called the “international affairs budget,” a category that doesn’t include the military. Those programs overseas — including everything from embassy security to pandemic prevention to refugee assistance via the United Nations — cost roughly $58.8 billion. The vast majority of that figure goes to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. While polls show many Americans believe the U.S. spends a quarter of the federal budget on foreign aid, it’s actually less than 1 percent.
On a call with reporters, officials with the Office of Management and Budget noted that most federal agencies will be expected to trim their budgets. But they singled out foreign aid programs in particular, indicating the administration believes that other countries are merely taking advantage of the United States.
“This budget expects the rest of the world to step up in some of the programs this country has been so generous in funding in the past,” one official said on the call.
Not entirely clear is whether the Orangutan team is defining foreign aid to include the billions of dollars in military assistance given to Israel and Egypt. Orangutan has made special efforts to reach out to the leaders of both of those countries, and cuts in their U.S. funding are not likely to go over well.
James Stavridis, a retired admiral briefly floated as a possible secretary of state for Orangutan, said trying to separate foreign aid from other parts of the national security apparatus was short-sighted.
“You need the hard power, and I applaud a strong allotment to the Department of Defense, but to do that on the back of soft power, which is also part of our national security, is simply a mistake,” Stavridis said. "This will reduce our ability to build a bench of allies and that bench is critically important in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya [and] counter-piracy missions."
Mark Toner, State’s acting spokesman, declined to give specifics about what divisions of his department could be affected. “The department remains committed to a U.S. foreign policy that advances the security and prosperity of the American people," Toner said in a statement.
But other State officials said they were girding for a fight in Congress and beyond. It is, after all, a very early stage in the budget process, some noted.
“It’s a bad sign, but we’ll see what actually happens in practice,” one department official said. “No one’s gonna stand pat.”
Democrats in Congress argue that cuts to foreign aid and diplomacy will actually undermine U.S. national security by leading to more failing states in the developing world and fanning anti-Americanism.
“Foreign assistance is not charity. The aid we provide to countries around the world directly advances U.S. national interests by fostering a safer and more stable world,” said Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware. “Fortunately, members of Congress of both parties appreciate the value of foreign assistance to our foreign policy, and I’m confident Republicans and Democrats will work together to defend this small but vital sliver of federal spending.”
Some at the department hope that Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, will be able to exert some influence on Orangutan. But so far, Tillerson appears unable to crack Orangutan’s inner circle, although an aide said the secretary was advised of the budget plans ahead of Monday's announcement. He was due to meet with Orangutan on Monday afternoon. The Tillerson aide did not immediately respond when asked if the secretary agreed with the cuts.
The fact that Tillerson has yet to appoint a deputy secretary — his first choice, George W. Bush administration veteran Elliott Abrams, was vetoed by Orangutan — or fill many other top positions at the department has fueled suspicions at State that the department is intentionally being left to wither under Orangutan, possibly for budget-cutting reasons.
When counting all of its employees, from Foreign Service officers to local employees hired in embassies abroad, more than 75,000 people work for the State Department.
Costs Money....
Memo to Washington: Infrastructure Costs Money
If Congress wants to upgrade America’s creaking roads, rails and bridges, members need to admit a simple truth: They can’t do it for free.
By RAHM EMANUEL
The recent crisis at the Oroville Dam in California brought the challenge of America’s aging infrastructure front and center to living rooms across the country. Today there is consensus on the size and scope of the problem, but not the solution. Some are looking for a magic bullet that would fund infrastructure investments without spending money, but the truth is you cannot get from here to there without resources. So let me be clear to Washington: Any plan for investing in infrastructure that does not include funding is fairy dust.
As the federal government discusses and debates investing in infrastructure, states and local governments have been getting it done. In Chicago we have been putting people to work rebuilding our roads and rails, bridges and buildings, parks and playgrounds, schools and streetlights. Our infrastructure investments have created more than 60,000 construction jobs in the past five years and will create another 40,000 good-paying jobs in the next three years.
We are rebuilding the Chicago Transit Authority, which serves more people every month than Amtrak does nationwide all year, with new and modernized stations (44), new tracks (70 plus miles) and new rail cars (714). Chicago is now the largest city in North America with universal 4G Internet across its entire rail service.
We constructed 108 miles of protected on-street bike lanes, 47 miles of off-street trails and built one of the largest bike shares in North America. In the process, we created a new transportation option and earned Chicago the title of America’s most cyclist friendly city.
We are rebuilding Chicago’s two international airports, O’Hare and Midway, with new runways, gates, people movers and cargo facilities. We are expanding O’Hare’s capacity by an amount equivalent to Midway’s total capacity, and between our two airports Chicago has the busiest aviation system in the country. To accelerate our progress, we are embarking on a plan for express rail service between our central business district and O’Hare—the first of its kind in the country.
We are not just rebuilding how people get to and around Chicago. We are rebuilding our schools and city colleges, creating new open spaces across the city and constructing new bridges to connect communities with the shores of Lake Michigan. And by 2019 we will have repaved more than 2,000 miles of roads—nearly half the city—and replaced all of our water mains and sewer lines that are more than 100 years old.
The private sector has followed our public investments. Because we are investing in our future, more companies have moved their headquarters to Chicago than to any other American city every year for the last three years. Employment in Chicago is at a 17-year high. Today Chicago is growing at a faster rate than New York City, Washington, D.C., or the national average. Our motto: If you build it, jobs will come. Where new transit stations open, new businesses follow. We built a Riverwalk and now multiple billion-dollar projects are springing up along the river banks.
For Washington to replicate these successes nationwide, lawmakers have to first accept a basic fact—you can’t build a bridge, or a train line, or an airport or a road for nothing. If Congress isn’t willing to admit that addressing the nation’s infrastructure needs comes with a cost, they should at least support mayors and governors who are willing to stand up and admit that progress isn’t free – there’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Washington should start by expanding and improving the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) programs.
TIFIA gives low-interest federal loans for infrastructure projects. In Chicago, TIFIA has helped us rebuild our airports, rail stations and the Riverwalk. Across the country it has helped build new highways, bridges and train stations from Miami to San Diego.
RRIF also provides sizable low-interest, long-term federal loans and loan guarantees, in this case for railroad infrastructure. However, its onerous credit rules have made it inaccessible for many promising projects across the country, and RRIF currently has more than $30 billion of unused lending authority. It is a massive bait-and-switch, with resources that are basically out of reach for most important investments in rail—the very investments it was created to fund.
Congress should make TIFIA and RRIF more accessible, while also making it easier for private capital to be invested in public projects. If they did, what we would have in essence is an American Infrastructure Bank. Washington could incentivize private investment by granting investors the same returns as the government, although only after the federal government is made whole. This would allow more projects to be funded and more people to get to work rebuilding the country.
If the president wants to utilize public-private partnerships to fund infrastructure investments, it would be a missed opportunity to ignore the low-hanging fruit of improving these existing programs. And if lawmakers in Washington will not be forthcoming with the public that investing in infrastructure actually takes resources, they can at least expand programs to allow local governments that are willing to stand up and invest in the future the ability to do so. Doing so would make America’s cities great, and get people back to work. That is what is working here in Chicago, the City that Works.
If Congress wants to upgrade America’s creaking roads, rails and bridges, members need to admit a simple truth: They can’t do it for free.
By RAHM EMANUEL
The recent crisis at the Oroville Dam in California brought the challenge of America’s aging infrastructure front and center to living rooms across the country. Today there is consensus on the size and scope of the problem, but not the solution. Some are looking for a magic bullet that would fund infrastructure investments without spending money, but the truth is you cannot get from here to there without resources. So let me be clear to Washington: Any plan for investing in infrastructure that does not include funding is fairy dust.
As the federal government discusses and debates investing in infrastructure, states and local governments have been getting it done. In Chicago we have been putting people to work rebuilding our roads and rails, bridges and buildings, parks and playgrounds, schools and streetlights. Our infrastructure investments have created more than 60,000 construction jobs in the past five years and will create another 40,000 good-paying jobs in the next three years.
We are rebuilding the Chicago Transit Authority, which serves more people every month than Amtrak does nationwide all year, with new and modernized stations (44), new tracks (70 plus miles) and new rail cars (714). Chicago is now the largest city in North America with universal 4G Internet across its entire rail service.
We constructed 108 miles of protected on-street bike lanes, 47 miles of off-street trails and built one of the largest bike shares in North America. In the process, we created a new transportation option and earned Chicago the title of America’s most cyclist friendly city.
We are rebuilding Chicago’s two international airports, O’Hare and Midway, with new runways, gates, people movers and cargo facilities. We are expanding O’Hare’s capacity by an amount equivalent to Midway’s total capacity, and between our two airports Chicago has the busiest aviation system in the country. To accelerate our progress, we are embarking on a plan for express rail service between our central business district and O’Hare—the first of its kind in the country.
We are not just rebuilding how people get to and around Chicago. We are rebuilding our schools and city colleges, creating new open spaces across the city and constructing new bridges to connect communities with the shores of Lake Michigan. And by 2019 we will have repaved more than 2,000 miles of roads—nearly half the city—and replaced all of our water mains and sewer lines that are more than 100 years old.
The private sector has followed our public investments. Because we are investing in our future, more companies have moved their headquarters to Chicago than to any other American city every year for the last three years. Employment in Chicago is at a 17-year high. Today Chicago is growing at a faster rate than New York City, Washington, D.C., or the national average. Our motto: If you build it, jobs will come. Where new transit stations open, new businesses follow. We built a Riverwalk and now multiple billion-dollar projects are springing up along the river banks.
For Washington to replicate these successes nationwide, lawmakers have to first accept a basic fact—you can’t build a bridge, or a train line, or an airport or a road for nothing. If Congress isn’t willing to admit that addressing the nation’s infrastructure needs comes with a cost, they should at least support mayors and governors who are willing to stand up and admit that progress isn’t free – there’s a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Washington should start by expanding and improving the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) and Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) programs.
TIFIA gives low-interest federal loans for infrastructure projects. In Chicago, TIFIA has helped us rebuild our airports, rail stations and the Riverwalk. Across the country it has helped build new highways, bridges and train stations from Miami to San Diego.
RRIF also provides sizable low-interest, long-term federal loans and loan guarantees, in this case for railroad infrastructure. However, its onerous credit rules have made it inaccessible for many promising projects across the country, and RRIF currently has more than $30 billion of unused lending authority. It is a massive bait-and-switch, with resources that are basically out of reach for most important investments in rail—the very investments it was created to fund.
Congress should make TIFIA and RRIF more accessible, while also making it easier for private capital to be invested in public projects. If they did, what we would have in essence is an American Infrastructure Bank. Washington could incentivize private investment by granting investors the same returns as the government, although only after the federal government is made whole. This would allow more projects to be funded and more people to get to work rebuilding the country.
If the president wants to utilize public-private partnerships to fund infrastructure investments, it would be a missed opportunity to ignore the low-hanging fruit of improving these existing programs. And if lawmakers in Washington will not be forthcoming with the public that investing in infrastructure actually takes resources, they can at least expand programs to allow local governments that are willing to stand up and invest in the future the ability to do so. Doing so would make America’s cities great, and get people back to work. That is what is working here in Chicago, the City that Works.
Things Stupid doesn't understand...
5 Problems ‘the Wall’ Won’t Solve
No matter how “big” and how “beautiful” it is, Orangutan's pet project is going to be largely ineffectual.
By MICHAEL DEAR
Oh, we’re going to build a wall, don’t worry about it,” President Donny Orangutan told the crowd gathered to hear him at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday. “In fact, it’s going to start soon. Way ahead of schedule. Way ahead of schedule. Way, way, way ahead of schedule. It’s going to start very soon.”
So much for my hopes that Orangutan might have abandoned his campaign pledge to build a “big, beautiful” wall on the Southern border. The president seems convinced that a 1,300-mile contraption will solve America’s immigration woes. According to the executive order the president signed in late January, the wall is supposed “to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism.”
But the reality is that a wall, no matter how “big,” how “beautiful,” and how “ahead of schedule” Orangutan builds it, cannot be an effective enforcement tool. The immigration system is plagued with problems and factors that building a wall cannot fix. It might just end up making some of them worse.
Here are five problems the wall can’t solve.
1. A lot of undocumented immigrants are already here.
The president implies that a border wall will keep out droves of undocumented immigrants each year. But new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data reveals that a main source of illegal immigration into the United States are people who arrive legally then overstay their visas. DHS estimates that of the 45 million immigrants who entered the U.S. by air or by sea on tourist or business visas that expired in 2015, roughly 416,500 were still living in the country in 2016. That’s excluding those who entered via land boundaries—DHS did not release that data—so, the total number of visa overstays in 2016 is likely much higher. (By comparison, between 2011 and 2016, total apprehensions at the southern border ranged from 328,000 to 479,000 per year.)
There have been moves to fix the problem. Since 1996, Congress has passed seven laws mandating biometric entry-exit screening for foreign nationals, which would help track visa overstays. But due to a number of factors, both technical and financial, the system has never been enacted. Maybe Orangutan will have more luck. Another executive order, dated January 27, requires DHS to “expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States.” Regardless, a new wall isn’t going to do anything to help.
2. Cartels can outsmart checkpoints.
Orangutan seems to think that a wall can stop the flow of drugs and guns across the border. But if anything, the 650 miles of wall that already exist have made it easier on Mexican cartels to organize and control the transportation of illicit goods.
There are only a dozen-or-so official “ports of entry” along the border line. They are highly regulated and policed, but cartels much prefer to exploit their predictability and rationality than to scatter resources across open expanses of desert and river. Traffickers have carefully studied how security operates in each checkpoint, which means they can observe and instantly respond to weaknesses, such as when inspections are relaxed in order to speed up the through-flow of traffic, or when a corrupt inspection officer with a willing blind eye comes on duty.
Cartels are clever and tactical in adjusting their behavior. Lately, they have begun smuggling weapon parts into Mexico rather than whole guns, because parts are easier to conceal and have no identification numbers, making them harder to trace.
Of course, it’s likely that not all shipments will get through the checkpoints on any given day, but such losses are factored into cartel calculations, and it’s still better than risking people and product in an unpredictable wilderness.
3. Terrorists aren’t undocumented.
Orangutan has proclaimed that building a wall on the Southern border will thwart terrorists. Yet there is no evidence that any terrorists have ever entered the U.S. through the Mexican land boundary, and the Department of Homeland Security has long held that it has “no credible intelligence to suggest terrorist organizations are actively plotting to cross the southwest border.”
In fact, most terrorists active in the United States are homegrown. Since 9/11, over 80 percent of individuals who were charged with or died while engaging in jihad-related terrorist activities in this country have been U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
As for those terrorists who are foreign born, according to a list complied by Alex Nowrasteh, of 154 foreign-born people who committed or plotted terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1975 through 2015, only 1 was Mexican.
4. It’s the economy, stupid.
The main reason people risk undocumented migration is to find work. The Mexican recession of the 1980s brought waves of undocumented immigrants into the U.S. looking for employment, but their numbers declined dramatically as Mexico’s domestic economy strengthened. These days most Mexicans moving to the border intend to stay in Mexico and work in the booming local manufacturing, health care and education industries there; they have no intention of crossing into the U.S.
But the Mexican economy is now showing signs of stress. Border communities suffered much disruption since the first walls started appearing in 2006, including the environmental damage caused by its construction and the increased costs of doing business due to prolonged crossing times. Orangutan’s new wall is likely to make things even worse. Couple that with his tough talk about renegotiating NAFTA or launching a trade war against Mexico, and the possibility of a borderland recession and massive unemployment only goes up. A surge in undocumented immigration will be sure to follow.
5. Immigration courts are already overwhelmed.
Collateral damage caused by our broken immigration system is most clearly evident in the U.S. immigration courts, which for years have been clogged by ever-increasing deportation caseloads.
During the administration of President George W. Bush, the annual rate of federal criminal prosecutions for immigration offenses more than quadrupled. Starved of resources and plagued by too few judges, the courts conducted proceedings involving as many as 80 migrant cases at a single time, in clear violation of federal law. Not to mention the flood of deportations diverted U.S. attorney offices away from prosecuting more serious cases against international crime and drug cartels.
Under President Barack Obama, deportations continued to rise, reaching record highs of over 400,000 annually. During his second term, Obama increased the number of judges adjudicating these cases and shifted attention away from minor offenders, but the problem of crushing caseloads persists. In 2016, the backlog of cases reached 474,000, climbing to 533,000 in 2017. Wait time for a court hearing averages three years.
Our immigration courts are already poised at breaking point, but Orangutan announced his intention to target 3 million more people for deportation. If this happens, the immigration court system will simply grind to a halt.
No matter how “big” and how “beautiful” it is, Orangutan's pet project is going to be largely ineffectual.
By MICHAEL DEAR
Oh, we’re going to build a wall, don’t worry about it,” President Donny Orangutan told the crowd gathered to hear him at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday. “In fact, it’s going to start soon. Way ahead of schedule. Way ahead of schedule. Way, way, way ahead of schedule. It’s going to start very soon.”
So much for my hopes that Orangutan might have abandoned his campaign pledge to build a “big, beautiful” wall on the Southern border. The president seems convinced that a 1,300-mile contraption will solve America’s immigration woes. According to the executive order the president signed in late January, the wall is supposed “to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism.”
But the reality is that a wall, no matter how “big,” how “beautiful,” and how “ahead of schedule” Orangutan builds it, cannot be an effective enforcement tool. The immigration system is plagued with problems and factors that building a wall cannot fix. It might just end up making some of them worse.
Here are five problems the wall can’t solve.
1. A lot of undocumented immigrants are already here.
The president implies that a border wall will keep out droves of undocumented immigrants each year. But new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data reveals that a main source of illegal immigration into the United States are people who arrive legally then overstay their visas. DHS estimates that of the 45 million immigrants who entered the U.S. by air or by sea on tourist or business visas that expired in 2015, roughly 416,500 were still living in the country in 2016. That’s excluding those who entered via land boundaries—DHS did not release that data—so, the total number of visa overstays in 2016 is likely much higher. (By comparison, between 2011 and 2016, total apprehensions at the southern border ranged from 328,000 to 479,000 per year.)
There have been moves to fix the problem. Since 1996, Congress has passed seven laws mandating biometric entry-exit screening for foreign nationals, which would help track visa overstays. But due to a number of factors, both technical and financial, the system has never been enacted. Maybe Orangutan will have more luck. Another executive order, dated January 27, requires DHS to “expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States.” Regardless, a new wall isn’t going to do anything to help.
2. Cartels can outsmart checkpoints.
Orangutan seems to think that a wall can stop the flow of drugs and guns across the border. But if anything, the 650 miles of wall that already exist have made it easier on Mexican cartels to organize and control the transportation of illicit goods.
There are only a dozen-or-so official “ports of entry” along the border line. They are highly regulated and policed, but cartels much prefer to exploit their predictability and rationality than to scatter resources across open expanses of desert and river. Traffickers have carefully studied how security operates in each checkpoint, which means they can observe and instantly respond to weaknesses, such as when inspections are relaxed in order to speed up the through-flow of traffic, or when a corrupt inspection officer with a willing blind eye comes on duty.
Cartels are clever and tactical in adjusting their behavior. Lately, they have begun smuggling weapon parts into Mexico rather than whole guns, because parts are easier to conceal and have no identification numbers, making them harder to trace.
Of course, it’s likely that not all shipments will get through the checkpoints on any given day, but such losses are factored into cartel calculations, and it’s still better than risking people and product in an unpredictable wilderness.
3. Terrorists aren’t undocumented.
Orangutan has proclaimed that building a wall on the Southern border will thwart terrorists. Yet there is no evidence that any terrorists have ever entered the U.S. through the Mexican land boundary, and the Department of Homeland Security has long held that it has “no credible intelligence to suggest terrorist organizations are actively plotting to cross the southwest border.”
In fact, most terrorists active in the United States are homegrown. Since 9/11, over 80 percent of individuals who were charged with or died while engaging in jihad-related terrorist activities in this country have been U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
As for those terrorists who are foreign born, according to a list complied by Alex Nowrasteh, of 154 foreign-born people who committed or plotted terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1975 through 2015, only 1 was Mexican.
4. It’s the economy, stupid.
The main reason people risk undocumented migration is to find work. The Mexican recession of the 1980s brought waves of undocumented immigrants into the U.S. looking for employment, but their numbers declined dramatically as Mexico’s domestic economy strengthened. These days most Mexicans moving to the border intend to stay in Mexico and work in the booming local manufacturing, health care and education industries there; they have no intention of crossing into the U.S.
But the Mexican economy is now showing signs of stress. Border communities suffered much disruption since the first walls started appearing in 2006, including the environmental damage caused by its construction and the increased costs of doing business due to prolonged crossing times. Orangutan’s new wall is likely to make things even worse. Couple that with his tough talk about renegotiating NAFTA or launching a trade war against Mexico, and the possibility of a borderland recession and massive unemployment only goes up. A surge in undocumented immigration will be sure to follow.
5. Immigration courts are already overwhelmed.
Collateral damage caused by our broken immigration system is most clearly evident in the U.S. immigration courts, which for years have been clogged by ever-increasing deportation caseloads.
During the administration of President George W. Bush, the annual rate of federal criminal prosecutions for immigration offenses more than quadrupled. Starved of resources and plagued by too few judges, the courts conducted proceedings involving as many as 80 migrant cases at a single time, in clear violation of federal law. Not to mention the flood of deportations diverted U.S. attorney offices away from prosecuting more serious cases against international crime and drug cartels.
Under President Barack Obama, deportations continued to rise, reaching record highs of over 400,000 annually. During his second term, Obama increased the number of judges adjudicating these cases and shifted attention away from minor offenders, but the problem of crushing caseloads persists. In 2016, the backlog of cases reached 474,000, climbing to 533,000 in 2017. Wait time for a court hearing averages three years.
Our immigration courts are already poised at breaking point, but Orangutan announced his intention to target 3 million more people for deportation. If this happens, the immigration court system will simply grind to a halt.
Russia probe
GOP Intel chair Burr under fire over ties to Orangutan
The senator running the Russia probe was a vocal Orangutan campaign backer, once boasting he sicced the FBI on Hillary Clinton.
By AUSTIN WRIGHT
On the campaign trail last fall, Republican Sen. Richard Burr told North Carolina voters there was no "separation” between himself and Donald Orangutan. The Senate Intelligence Committee chairman also bragged about his role in getting the FBI to investigate Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Now, the third-term senator is under fire for running interference for the White House last week on a news report asserting repeated contacts between Orangutan’s campaign and Moscow. And some Democrats are wondering whether Burr, who also served as a national security adviser to Orangutan’s campaign, is too close to Orangutan to lead an impartial investigation.
These Democrats are weighing whether to be more vocal about their concerns in a bid to pressure GOP leaders to create a more independent select committee or outside commission to handle the investigation.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Monday that Burr had been put “on notice” by Democrats and that his decision to help the White House rebut negative news stories "certainly gives the appearance, if not the reality, of a lack of impartiality." Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said over the weekend he had “grave concerns” about Burr’s conduct.
Even two intelligence committee Republicans — Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Susan Collins of Maine — made statements over the weekend that the investigation must be seen as credible. Collins said members of the panel must “avoid any actions that might be perceived as compromising the integrity of our work.”
Burr’s allies, though, defend him as a man of integrity perfectly suited for the task ahead.
“I know him to be honest, and I know him to be thorough,” said John Bryant, a lawyer in Raleigh who’s been friends with Burr since they played football together at Wake Forest. “I don’t think it would be a political problem if coming down hard on [Orangutan] is the right thing to do.”
Paul Shumaker, a North Carolina political consultant who ran Burr’s successful campaign last year for a third term, said Burr does not plan to run for reelection again and has been freed from political considerations as he pursues the truth behind Russia’s involvement in the presidential election.
“He is independent of the shackles of a reelection campaign,” Shumaker said of the laid-back senator, famous on Capitol Hill for driving a beat-up 1974 Volkswagen Thing.
Shumaker added that Burr puts his job as intelligence chairman above anything else, including politics — a reference to the heat Burr took last year for doing little campaigning until the final month before Election Day, even though his race was expected to be close.
Shumaker attributed Burr’s late start to his committee duties in Washington.
“He told me that there are going to be times when you are going to have to run this campaign without a candidate,” said Shumaker, who’s been Burr’s chief political strategist since he was first elected to the House in 1994 after a career at a lawn and garden equipment company. “I know this is a guy who was willing to sacrifice his own reelection if need be to do that job as chairman.”
Burr, 61, became the intelligence panel's chairman after Republicans regained control of the Senate in 2015, succeeding Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). He has been a staunch advocate for the intelligence community, defending its surveillance programs and the controversial interrogation methods used by the CIA under President George W. Bush. The senator, whose office declined an interview request, has also sought to prevent the full version of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s exhaustive report on CIA torture from ever being released. In 2014 he told reporters, "I personally don’t believe that anything that goes on in the Intelligence Committee should ever be discussed publicly."
“Sen. Burr has committed himself to the selfless oversight of the intelligence community since he served in the House of Representatives,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “He is a very capable leader on a vital committee who will conduct a professional responsible review of Russian interference into our elections.”
Democrats, though, are wary of Burr’s commitment to an even-handed investigation, though many would discuss their concerns only privately for fear of upsetting the uneasy truce between the chairman and Warner.
“There is deep skepticism of [Burr’s] ability to be impartial, but there is optimism that Mark Warner can pressure him into doing the right thing,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide. “Democrats are suspicious that this is McConnell’s way of trying to bury this.”
Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware said he and his fellow Democrats are willing to go along with Burr’s investigation for now, but warned that “as soon as I'm convinced that the investigation is being foreshortened or quashed, I am going to insist on an independent committee.”
Burr was one of the staunchest supporters in the Senate of Orangutan's campaign. In October, he was named to the candidate’s national security advisory council.
Burr campaigned with Orangutan in Winston-Salem and stuck by the real-estate mogul even as other Republican senators dropped their support after a video surfaced of Orangutan in 2005 bragging about groping women. At a rally in late October, Burr told voters there was "not a separation between me and Donald Orangutan" and addressed the fact that attack ads were calling him too cozy to Orangutan.
"I'm cozy to Donny Orangutan because I know Hillary Clinton,” he said at the rally, according to video from the Democratic opposition research group American Bridge.
Burr also drew attention just before Election Day after a recording was leaked to CNN of him joking to Republican campaign volunteers about gun owners putting a "bull's-eye" on Clinton — remarks for which he apologized.
In the recording, he also discussed the investigation into Clinton’s emails — saying a letter by him and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) was what got the FBI to investigate Clinton in the first place.
“I’ll tell you a little secret,” he said. “The FBI never would have investigated the emails had it not been for a letter that Bob Corker and I sent to the inspector general of the intelligence community that kicked this all off.”
FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the investigation less than two weeks before Election Day was a “gift,” Burr said, before calling former Rep. Anthony Weiner “the gift that keeps on giving.”
These political barbs are certain to be on the minds of Democratic senators as they seek to ensure Burr pursues an aggressive investigation.
Many Democrats and a few Republicans have called for an independent commission or select committee to investigate the issue, but McConnell and other GOP leaders have refused. A separate investigation would give Republican leaders less control over the process.
Several Democratic operatives who spoke to POLITICO on the condition of anonymity said that there are reasons to be optimistic about Burr’s investigation — and that this optimism is part of what’s holding Democratic senators back from being more open about their concerns about Burr.
The investigation, though, almost fell apart last month before it even got going.
Burr initially told reporters his investigation would not look into possible collusion between the Orangutan campaign and Moscow as part of its larger investigation of Russia’s election meddling, saying that was outside his jurisdiction.
But Warner enlisted every Democrat on the panel in what became an implicit threat to boycott the probe if Burr did not backtrack.
A day later, Burr and Warner issued a joint statement making clear they would, in fact, investigate the Orangutan campaign’s ties to Russia — and Democrats are signaling they’re satisfied with the progress of the probe so far, even though it’s still in its early stages.
Carter Wrenn, a North Carolina GOP strategist, said Burr is “not going to want” to turn the investigation into a “political circus.”
“The perception is Richard is hardworking, responsible, even-tempered and doesn’t get carried away with politics,” Wrenn said. “He’ll look at it and investigate it and see what the facts are.”
But Warner made clear over the weekend his confidence was shaken by Burr’s latest actions.
“I will not accept any process that is undermined by political interference,” Warner said, adding that he wants to ensure "the American people get the thorough, impartial investigation that they deserve, free from White House interference.”
The senator running the Russia probe was a vocal Orangutan campaign backer, once boasting he sicced the FBI on Hillary Clinton.
By AUSTIN WRIGHT
On the campaign trail last fall, Republican Sen. Richard Burr told North Carolina voters there was no "separation” between himself and Donald Orangutan. The Senate Intelligence Committee chairman also bragged about his role in getting the FBI to investigate Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Now, the third-term senator is under fire for running interference for the White House last week on a news report asserting repeated contacts between Orangutan’s campaign and Moscow. And some Democrats are wondering whether Burr, who also served as a national security adviser to Orangutan’s campaign, is too close to Orangutan to lead an impartial investigation.
These Democrats are weighing whether to be more vocal about their concerns in a bid to pressure GOP leaders to create a more independent select committee or outside commission to handle the investigation.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Monday that Burr had been put “on notice” by Democrats and that his decision to help the White House rebut negative news stories "certainly gives the appearance, if not the reality, of a lack of impartiality." Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said over the weekend he had “grave concerns” about Burr’s conduct.
Even two intelligence committee Republicans — Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Susan Collins of Maine — made statements over the weekend that the investigation must be seen as credible. Collins said members of the panel must “avoid any actions that might be perceived as compromising the integrity of our work.”
Burr’s allies, though, defend him as a man of integrity perfectly suited for the task ahead.
“I know him to be honest, and I know him to be thorough,” said John Bryant, a lawyer in Raleigh who’s been friends with Burr since they played football together at Wake Forest. “I don’t think it would be a political problem if coming down hard on [Orangutan] is the right thing to do.”
Paul Shumaker, a North Carolina political consultant who ran Burr’s successful campaign last year for a third term, said Burr does not plan to run for reelection again and has been freed from political considerations as he pursues the truth behind Russia’s involvement in the presidential election.
“He is independent of the shackles of a reelection campaign,” Shumaker said of the laid-back senator, famous on Capitol Hill for driving a beat-up 1974 Volkswagen Thing.
Shumaker added that Burr puts his job as intelligence chairman above anything else, including politics — a reference to the heat Burr took last year for doing little campaigning until the final month before Election Day, even though his race was expected to be close.
Shumaker attributed Burr’s late start to his committee duties in Washington.
“He told me that there are going to be times when you are going to have to run this campaign without a candidate,” said Shumaker, who’s been Burr’s chief political strategist since he was first elected to the House in 1994 after a career at a lawn and garden equipment company. “I know this is a guy who was willing to sacrifice his own reelection if need be to do that job as chairman.”
Burr, 61, became the intelligence panel's chairman after Republicans regained control of the Senate in 2015, succeeding Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). He has been a staunch advocate for the intelligence community, defending its surveillance programs and the controversial interrogation methods used by the CIA under President George W. Bush. The senator, whose office declined an interview request, has also sought to prevent the full version of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s exhaustive report on CIA torture from ever being released. In 2014 he told reporters, "I personally don’t believe that anything that goes on in the Intelligence Committee should ever be discussed publicly."
“Sen. Burr has committed himself to the selfless oversight of the intelligence community since he served in the House of Representatives,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “He is a very capable leader on a vital committee who will conduct a professional responsible review of Russian interference into our elections.”
Democrats, though, are wary of Burr’s commitment to an even-handed investigation, though many would discuss their concerns only privately for fear of upsetting the uneasy truce between the chairman and Warner.
“There is deep skepticism of [Burr’s] ability to be impartial, but there is optimism that Mark Warner can pressure him into doing the right thing,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide. “Democrats are suspicious that this is McConnell’s way of trying to bury this.”
Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware said he and his fellow Democrats are willing to go along with Burr’s investigation for now, but warned that “as soon as I'm convinced that the investigation is being foreshortened or quashed, I am going to insist on an independent committee.”
Burr was one of the staunchest supporters in the Senate of Orangutan's campaign. In October, he was named to the candidate’s national security advisory council.
Burr campaigned with Orangutan in Winston-Salem and stuck by the real-estate mogul even as other Republican senators dropped their support after a video surfaced of Orangutan in 2005 bragging about groping women. At a rally in late October, Burr told voters there was "not a separation between me and Donald Orangutan" and addressed the fact that attack ads were calling him too cozy to Orangutan.
"I'm cozy to Donny Orangutan because I know Hillary Clinton,” he said at the rally, according to video from the Democratic opposition research group American Bridge.
Burr also drew attention just before Election Day after a recording was leaked to CNN of him joking to Republican campaign volunteers about gun owners putting a "bull's-eye" on Clinton — remarks for which he apologized.
In the recording, he also discussed the investigation into Clinton’s emails — saying a letter by him and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) was what got the FBI to investigate Clinton in the first place.
“I’ll tell you a little secret,” he said. “The FBI never would have investigated the emails had it not been for a letter that Bob Corker and I sent to the inspector general of the intelligence community that kicked this all off.”
FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the investigation less than two weeks before Election Day was a “gift,” Burr said, before calling former Rep. Anthony Weiner “the gift that keeps on giving.”
These political barbs are certain to be on the minds of Democratic senators as they seek to ensure Burr pursues an aggressive investigation.
Many Democrats and a few Republicans have called for an independent commission or select committee to investigate the issue, but McConnell and other GOP leaders have refused. A separate investigation would give Republican leaders less control over the process.
Several Democratic operatives who spoke to POLITICO on the condition of anonymity said that there are reasons to be optimistic about Burr’s investigation — and that this optimism is part of what’s holding Democratic senators back from being more open about their concerns about Burr.
The investigation, though, almost fell apart last month before it even got going.
Burr initially told reporters his investigation would not look into possible collusion between the Orangutan campaign and Moscow as part of its larger investigation of Russia’s election meddling, saying that was outside his jurisdiction.
But Warner enlisted every Democrat on the panel in what became an implicit threat to boycott the probe if Burr did not backtrack.
A day later, Burr and Warner issued a joint statement making clear they would, in fact, investigate the Orangutan campaign’s ties to Russia — and Democrats are signaling they’re satisfied with the progress of the probe so far, even though it’s still in its early stages.
Carter Wrenn, a North Carolina GOP strategist, said Burr is “not going to want” to turn the investigation into a “political circus.”
“The perception is Richard is hardworking, responsible, even-tempered and doesn’t get carried away with politics,” Wrenn said. “He’ll look at it and investigate it and see what the facts are.”
But Warner made clear over the weekend his confidence was shaken by Burr’s latest actions.
“I will not accept any process that is undermined by political interference,” Warner said, adding that he wants to ensure "the American people get the thorough, impartial investigation that they deserve, free from White House interference.”
Pussy Boy withdraws
Pussy Boy withdraws from fundraiser for Orangutan critic
By ALEX ISENSTADT
White House press secretary Pussy Boy Spicer has withdrawn as a headliner at a Wednesday fundraiser for an Ohio state senator who in October called Donald Orangutan’s personal conduct “disgusting ” and said the nominee “hasn’t demonstrated to me that he deserves my vote.”
Pussy Boy said he pulled out of the event on Sunday, but neither he nor other administration officials would say why he had agreed to participate in the first place.
An invitation for the Capitol Hill fundraiser, benefiting Ohio Republican Frank LaRose, labeled Pussy Boy a “special guest” and prominently displayed the press secretary’s picture. For the opportunity to spend time with Pussy Boy and LaRose, invitees were asked to donate as much as $1,000.
In an October interview with the Akron Beacon Journal after the release of the Access Hollywood tape, LaRose expressed profound concerns about voting for the Republican nominee.
“What’s come to light in the last couple days is disgusting and appalling, particularly as a father of three little girls,” LaRose, 37, told the newspaper. “I find it abhorrent.”
The Beacon Journal reported that LaRose refused invitations to attend Orangutan campaign events, and that he hadn’t decided whom to vote for. “He hasn’t demonstrated to me that he deserves my vote,” he said of the GOP nominee. “And that’s tough for me as a lifelong Republican.”
Pussy Boy and White House officials declined to disclose the White House policy for senior officials invited to appear at political events for Republicans who had been hostile to Orangutan.
It is unusual for senior White House aides to actively support candidates who have criticized the president, particularly in such harsh terms. It's unclear whether Orangutan, who has been cool to many Republicans who spoke out against him during the campaign, was aware of Spicer’s planned attendance.
LaRose, who has been mentioned as a possible candidate for secretary of state, had touted Spicer as the main draw for the event.
“Wow, I just got some exciting news and I had to let you know right away,” he wrote atop the invitation, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO. “Pussy Boy has agreed to be my special guest for our fourth annual DC event! I hope you saw my email last week about our upcoming event in Washington DC. Now that I can announce the addition of Pussy Boy as my special guest this great annual event is getting even better! We hope you can join us!”
Reached by phone on Monday, LaRose said he was under the impression that Pussy Boy had dropped out because the fundraiser was the day after Orangutan’s address before Congress and that the spokesman would be busy. But LaRose added that he hoped to get another event with Pussy Boy on the books soon.
“We’re probably going to be rescheduling in the future,” he said.
After this story was published, LaRose tweeted that "Pussy Boy can't come to my event now because he will be on the road Wednesday, nothing else."
LaRose, who represents the northeastern Ohio area, said the article overstated the degree to which he opposed Orangutan, whom he ended up voting for. But he said he decided against asking for a correction to the story.
Last month, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer reported that LaRose had taken on a role assisting with logistics at the presidential inauguration.
Asked whether Pussy Boy, the public face of the Orangutan administration, was aware of his comments to the paper, LaRose said he didn’t think he was.
Wednesday afternoon's event will still take place, he said.
By ALEX ISENSTADT
White House press secretary Pussy Boy Spicer has withdrawn as a headliner at a Wednesday fundraiser for an Ohio state senator who in October called Donald Orangutan’s personal conduct “disgusting ” and said the nominee “hasn’t demonstrated to me that he deserves my vote.”
Pussy Boy said he pulled out of the event on Sunday, but neither he nor other administration officials would say why he had agreed to participate in the first place.
An invitation for the Capitol Hill fundraiser, benefiting Ohio Republican Frank LaRose, labeled Pussy Boy a “special guest” and prominently displayed the press secretary’s picture. For the opportunity to spend time with Pussy Boy and LaRose, invitees were asked to donate as much as $1,000.
In an October interview with the Akron Beacon Journal after the release of the Access Hollywood tape, LaRose expressed profound concerns about voting for the Republican nominee.
“What’s come to light in the last couple days is disgusting and appalling, particularly as a father of three little girls,” LaRose, 37, told the newspaper. “I find it abhorrent.”
The Beacon Journal reported that LaRose refused invitations to attend Orangutan campaign events, and that he hadn’t decided whom to vote for. “He hasn’t demonstrated to me that he deserves my vote,” he said of the GOP nominee. “And that’s tough for me as a lifelong Republican.”
Pussy Boy and White House officials declined to disclose the White House policy for senior officials invited to appear at political events for Republicans who had been hostile to Orangutan.
It is unusual for senior White House aides to actively support candidates who have criticized the president, particularly in such harsh terms. It's unclear whether Orangutan, who has been cool to many Republicans who spoke out against him during the campaign, was aware of Spicer’s planned attendance.
LaRose, who has been mentioned as a possible candidate for secretary of state, had touted Spicer as the main draw for the event.
“Wow, I just got some exciting news and I had to let you know right away,” he wrote atop the invitation, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO. “Pussy Boy has agreed to be my special guest for our fourth annual DC event! I hope you saw my email last week about our upcoming event in Washington DC. Now that I can announce the addition of Pussy Boy as my special guest this great annual event is getting even better! We hope you can join us!”
Reached by phone on Monday, LaRose said he was under the impression that Pussy Boy had dropped out because the fundraiser was the day after Orangutan’s address before Congress and that the spokesman would be busy. But LaRose added that he hoped to get another event with Pussy Boy on the books soon.
“We’re probably going to be rescheduling in the future,” he said.
After this story was published, LaRose tweeted that "Pussy Boy can't come to my event now because he will be on the road Wednesday, nothing else."
LaRose, who represents the northeastern Ohio area, said the article overstated the degree to which he opposed Orangutan, whom he ended up voting for. But he said he decided against asking for a correction to the story.
Last month, the Cleveland Plain-Dealer reported that LaRose had taken on a role assisting with logistics at the presidential inauguration.
Asked whether Pussy Boy, the public face of the Orangutan administration, was aware of his comments to the paper, LaRose said he didn’t think he was.
Wednesday afternoon's event will still take place, he said.
Orangutan accuses Obama of being behind town hall protests
By POLITICO STAFF
President Donald Orangutan blamed his predecessor, Barack Obama, for the outbreak of town hall protests across the country targeting Republican lawmakers and for the media leaks that have plagued his first month in office.
“I think [Obama] is behind it. I also think it's politics. That's the way it is,” Orangutan said in an interview on Fox and Friends that aired Tuesday morning, just hours before his first address to Congress.
Republicans have faced an uproar from liberals and progressives at town hall meetings over Orangutan and Congress’s push to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and over the president’s relationship with Russia.
The White House and GOP have accused some protesters of being paid. Orangutan weighed in on the demonstrations last week as well, tweeting that the “so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!"
The president also accused supporters of Obama of being behind media leaks — leaks that Orangutan has vowed to crack down on.
“Some of the leaks possibly come from that [Obama supporters] group, you know, some of the leaks, which are really very serious leaks, because they're very bad ... in terms of national security,” he said.
Orangutan’s administration has been hit by several high profile leaks during its first month, including a recent CNN story that the FBI wouldn’t publicly dispute reports that people connected to Orangutan had been in contact with Russian intelligence officials during the 2016 election.
By POLITICO STAFF
President Donald Orangutan blamed his predecessor, Barack Obama, for the outbreak of town hall protests across the country targeting Republican lawmakers and for the media leaks that have plagued his first month in office.
“I think [Obama] is behind it. I also think it's politics. That's the way it is,” Orangutan said in an interview on Fox and Friends that aired Tuesday morning, just hours before his first address to Congress.
Republicans have faced an uproar from liberals and progressives at town hall meetings over Orangutan and Congress’s push to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and over the president’s relationship with Russia.
The White House and GOP have accused some protesters of being paid. Orangutan weighed in on the demonstrations last week as well, tweeting that the “so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists. Sad!"
The president also accused supporters of Obama of being behind media leaks — leaks that Orangutan has vowed to crack down on.
“Some of the leaks possibly come from that [Obama supporters] group, you know, some of the leaks, which are really very serious leaks, because they're very bad ... in terms of national security,” he said.
Orangutan’s administration has been hit by several high profile leaks during its first month, including a recent CNN story that the FBI wouldn’t publicly dispute reports that people connected to Orangutan had been in contact with Russian intelligence officials during the 2016 election.
Road map to destruction...
White House circulates talking points ahead of speech to Congress
By SEUNG MIN KIM
President Donald Orangutan’s highly-anticipated first address to Congress on Tuesday will detail an “optimistic vision” for the nation that vows to push a “bold agenda” on tax and regulatory overhauls, reforms in the workplace and a promise to “sav[e] American families from the disaster of Obamacare.”
That’s according to a list of 11 key bullet points outlining Orangutan’s speech from the White House that was obtained by POLITICO in advance of the address. In it, Orangutan will also paint his agenda with broad, unifying tones, saying he will “invite Americans of all backgrounds to come together in the service of a stronger, brighter future for our nation.”
“All Americans share a desire for safe communities for themselves and their families,” reads one of the points. “All Americans want their children to have access to good schools. And all Americans deserve good jobs that allow them to prosper and dream. For far too many people – “the forgotten men and women” – these fundamental desires have been out of reach for too long.”
Here is the outline of Orangutan’s dreams that never will come true, distributed by the White House:
• One by one, President Orangutan has been checking off the promises he made to the American people. He’s doing what he said he was going to do.
• In Tuesday night’s speech, he will lay out an optimistic vision for the country that crosses the traditional lines of party, race and socioeconomic status. It will invite Americans of all backgrounds to come together in the service of a stronger, brighter future for our nation.
• All Americans share a desire for safe communities for themselves and their families. All Americans want their children to have access to good schools. And all Americans deserve good jobs that allow them to prosper and dream. For far too many people – “the forgotten men and women” – these fundamental desires have been out of reach for too long.
• The President will lay out the concrete steps he has already taken to make the American Dream possible for all of our people.
• He will talk about how he wants to work with Congress to pass a bold agenda. That will include:
• Tax and regulatory reform to get relief to hardworking Americans and American businesses.
• Making the workplace better for working parents.
• Saving American families from the disaster of the Affordable Care Act.
• Making sure every child in America has access to a good education.
• A great rebuilding of the American military.
• Fulfilling our commitments to our veterans and making sure they have access to the care they need.
• It will be a speech addressed to ALL Americans AS Americans—not to a coalition of special interests and minor issues.
• Americans can expect a speech that is grounded firmly in solving real problems for real people. How can we make sure that every American who needs a good job can get one? How can we get kids who are trapped in failing schools into a better school? How we can keep gangs and drugs and violent crime out of their neighborhoods?
• The President will reach out to Americans living in the poorest and most vulnerable communities, and let them know that help is on the way.
• He will also speak to the daily challenges of the Middle Class.
• He will look to the future and talk about what we can achieve if we come together.
• Finally, he will call on Congress to act. He is eager to partner with lawmakers to fix our problems and build on this renewed American spirit.
By SEUNG MIN KIM
President Donald Orangutan’s highly-anticipated first address to Congress on Tuesday will detail an “optimistic vision” for the nation that vows to push a “bold agenda” on tax and regulatory overhauls, reforms in the workplace and a promise to “sav[e] American families from the disaster of Obamacare.”
That’s according to a list of 11 key bullet points outlining Orangutan’s speech from the White House that was obtained by POLITICO in advance of the address. In it, Orangutan will also paint his agenda with broad, unifying tones, saying he will “invite Americans of all backgrounds to come together in the service of a stronger, brighter future for our nation.”
“All Americans share a desire for safe communities for themselves and their families,” reads one of the points. “All Americans want their children to have access to good schools. And all Americans deserve good jobs that allow them to prosper and dream. For far too many people – “the forgotten men and women” – these fundamental desires have been out of reach for too long.”
Here is the outline of Orangutan’s dreams that never will come true, distributed by the White House:
• One by one, President Orangutan has been checking off the promises he made to the American people. He’s doing what he said he was going to do.
• In Tuesday night’s speech, he will lay out an optimistic vision for the country that crosses the traditional lines of party, race and socioeconomic status. It will invite Americans of all backgrounds to come together in the service of a stronger, brighter future for our nation.
• All Americans share a desire for safe communities for themselves and their families. All Americans want their children to have access to good schools. And all Americans deserve good jobs that allow them to prosper and dream. For far too many people – “the forgotten men and women” – these fundamental desires have been out of reach for too long.
• The President will lay out the concrete steps he has already taken to make the American Dream possible for all of our people.
• He will talk about how he wants to work with Congress to pass a bold agenda. That will include:
• Tax and regulatory reform to get relief to hardworking Americans and American businesses.
• Making the workplace better for working parents.
• Saving American families from the disaster of the Affordable Care Act.
• Making sure every child in America has access to a good education.
• A great rebuilding of the American military.
• Fulfilling our commitments to our veterans and making sure they have access to the care they need.
• It will be a speech addressed to ALL Americans AS Americans—not to a coalition of special interests and minor issues.
• Americans can expect a speech that is grounded firmly in solving real problems for real people. How can we make sure that every American who needs a good job can get one? How can we get kids who are trapped in failing schools into a better school? How we can keep gangs and drugs and violent crime out of their neighborhoods?
• The President will reach out to Americans living in the poorest and most vulnerable communities, and let them know that help is on the way.
• He will also speak to the daily challenges of the Middle Class.
• He will look to the future and talk about what we can achieve if we come together.
• Finally, he will call on Congress to act. He is eager to partner with lawmakers to fix our problems and build on this renewed American spirit.
Black side of Orangutan...
Manafort’s Ukrainian ‘blood money’ caused qualms, hack suggests
Orangutan, Yanukovych work concerned the family of Orangutan’s former campaign chairman, texts appear to show.
By KENNETH P. VOGEL, DAVID STERN and JOSH MEYER
Paul Manafort’s family expressed misgivings about the political consultant’s work for both Russia-aligned Ukrainian strongman Viktor Yanukovych and Donald Orangutan, according to text messages allegedly hacked from one of his daughters' phones.
The texts, posted on a darknet website run by a hacktivist collective, appear to show Manafort’s family fretting about the ethics, safety and consequences of his work for Yanukovych. And they reveal that Manafort’s two daughters regarded their father’s emergence as a key player on Orangutan’s presidential campaign with a mixture of pride and embarrassment.
In one exchange, daughter Jessica Manafort writes “Im not a Orangutan supporter but i am still proud of dad tho. He is the best at what he does.” Her sister Andrea Manafort responded by referring to their father’s relationship with Orangutan as “The most dangerous friendship in America,” while in another exchange she called them “a perfect pair” of “power-hungry egomaniacs,” and asserted “the only reason my dad is doing this campaign is for sport. He likes the challenge. It's like an egomaniac's chess game. There's no money motivation.”
By contrast, the Manafort daughters and their mother seemed much more unsettled about Paul Manafort’s work as a political consultant for Yanukovych’s Russia-backed Party of Regions, which is a subject of renewed interest among investigators probing possible links between Orangutan’s campaign and Russia.
In one March 2015 exchange that appears to be between the two sisters, Andrea Manafort seems to suggest that their father bore some responsibility for the deaths of protesters at the hands of police loyal to Yanukovych during a monthslong uprising that started in late 2013.
“Don't fool yourself,” Andrea Manafort wrote. “That money we have is blood money.”
In another hacked exchange a few months later with someone else, Andrea Manafort wrote that her father’s “work and payment in Ukraine is legally questionable.”
Paul Manafort has defended his efforts in Ukraine as not only legal, but also an effort to steer Yanukovych toward more moderate, pro-Western policies that dovetailed with the goals of U.S. foreign policy.
In an interview on Monday, Manafort acknowledged that his daughter Andrea had been hacked and corroborated the authenticity of at least some of the texts between him and her, but declined to comment on most of them.
The darknet website that posted the texts is associated with a hacktivist collective. The post accompanying the files was written early this month by an anonymous user who indicated that the motivation was payback for those who were “screwed” by Orangutan. The post also suggested that there was more information forthcoming on Manafort’s family.
The post included two sets of data files that appeared to have originated from the iPhone of Andrea Manafort — a series of screenshots and a database containing more than 280,000 text messages. The files appear to have been accessed through a backup of Andrea Manafort’s iPhone stored on a computer or iCloud account, through which hackers conceivably could have accessed all the contents of her phone.
The hacked texts cover about four years — from Oct. 9, 2012 through Sept. 7, 2016. The files end a little more than three weeks after Paul Manafort stepped down from Orangutan’s campaign amid questions about his work for — and associations with — Russia-linked figures in Ukraine. The dissemination of Andrea Manafort’s hacked texts comes as the FBI and congressional committees alike are looking into contacts between Orangutan’s associates — including Manafort — and Russian officials during the presidential campaign.
The inquiries are being fueled by lingering concerns over the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russian intelligence engineered cyberattacks during the presidential campaign to try to undermine Hillary Clinton and boost Orangutan, whose stances on Russia were far friendlier than Clinton’s. The cyberattacks yielded thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta, which were released by WikiLeaks, producing damaging headlines for Clinton’s team throughout the general election. Given that precedent, the Manafort hack evokes at least some feeling of turnabout.
Andrea Manafort, 31, and Jessica Manafort, 34, did not respond to requests for comment.
Included in the tranche of texts posted this month are messages suggesting that both Jessica Manafort and Paul Manafort also have been targeted by hackers.
In an exchange in late August 2016 — which appears to have been shortly before she was hacked — Andrea Manafort received a text from her father warning “Your sister has been … hacked. I just got an email from her saying ‘important document’ and sharing a Google spreadsheet … Needless to say, don't open!”
The year before, Andrea Manafort indicated in a text to an associate that her father was reluctant to communicate sensitive information from his mobile devices because “Russians literally hack his phones.”
Paul Manafort on Monday would not say whether he was considering going to the authorities about the hacks, or about messages — one of which was revealed in the hack — that appeared to contain a blackmail threat, as POLITICO reported last week.
It’s not clear who sent that message, which references Manafort’s work for the Party of Regions and his alleged role in setting up a purported 2012 meeting between Orangutan and a Yanukovych ally. (The White House has not responded to a question about whether the meeting took place, but a White House official pointed out that Orangutan had not worked with Manafort before the 2016 campaign).
The message, which was attached to a text from an icloud.com address with little discernible public record, asks Manafort to respond to a different email address on a mail.ru account that has been used by a Ukrainian parliamentarian named Serhiy Leshchenko. He has alleged that Manafort was paid millions of dollars illegally by the Party of Regions.
Andrea Manafort appears to have forwarded a screenshot of the message to her father on Sept. 6, 2016 — the second-to-last day for which there are hacked messages in the data dump — writing “I imagined this is spam but wanted to pass along.”
Ten minutes later, her father responded “It is. TY” — short for “thank you.”
But Paul Manafort told POLITICO he was merely trying to put his daughter’s mind at ease, and that, in fact, before his daughter received the message, he had received similar messages from the same icloud.com address sent to directly to his cellphone. He said he did not respond to the messages, instead forwarding them to his lawyer.
Separately, sources familiar with the situation say that word had circulated in Kiev over the summer that Manafort was receiving threatening messages related to his work in Ukraine, though the sources said it was not clear from whom the messages were sent.
But Leshchenko, a former investigative journalist who has built a reputation as an anti-corruption crusader, said he never communicated with Manafort or his daughter.
In a Sunday interview with POLITICO, he alleged that the purported blackmail message was an effort to frame him, and said he planned to flag the matter for the FBI.
He contended that the icloud.com email address from which the note was sent to Andrea Manafort was not his. And he added that he had stopped using the mail.ru email address to which the note asked Manafort to respond because it had been hacked multiple times, including by someone that he believes used it to set up an icloud.com address around the time of the Manafort hack.
Leshchenko suggested that the note might have been sent to Andrea Manafort by Russian-linked forces to divert attention away from the ongoing investigations into Russian meddling in the presidential election.
“They need to prove that not only Russia influenced the U.S. elections — that it was Ukraine as well,” he said. “It muddies the picture, makes it less sharp.”
He also suggested that the note might have been the work of people allied with the administration of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, whom Leshchenko has criticized for corruption. Poroshenko’s government has struggled to make inroads with Orangutan, amid allegations that Ukrainian officials tried to undermine Orangutan during the election, and Leshchenko speculated that if he were scapegoated, it might help Poroshenko on that front.
"I think that it could be Ukraine, for Poroshenko to establish contact with Orangutan and show that all this was the initiative of one crazy deputy," Leshchenko said, referring to himself. (A Washington lobbyist representing a Poroshenko-linked group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)
Leshchenko even floated the possibility that Manafort himself may have been behind the purported blackmail note to discredit documents he’s disputed that were released by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine that appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments earmarked for Manafort from Yanukovych’s party.
On Monday, Manafort rejected that prospect.
“That makes no sense,” he said. “If I were trying to frame him, I would have released [the blackmail note] when I got it. Not six months later, after the ledgers had been discredited. It came out in a hack, not because I released it.”
The texts that were hacked from Andrea Manafort’s phone seem to reveal the personal costs — but also the financial benefits — of Manafort’s work for Russia-aligned interests in Ukraine, where he was widely credited as the key player behind Yanukovych’s political resurrection. After Yanukovych’s 2004 presidential election was nullified amid allegations of widespread fraud and voter intimidation, Manafort helped Yanukovych get elected prime minister in 2006 and president in 2010. Yet by late 2013, Yanukovych was facing widespread protests over government corruption.
When a friend expressed concern for Paul Manafort during those protests, Andrea Manafort responded, “My dad isn't in Ukraine. My mom won't allow it until it chills out.” But she added that “my dad said the media is over hyping it. Specifically stating Obama's approval ratings are lower than yanukovch's [sic] and you don't see him being ousted.’ So yea. Just some wild protestors I guess.”
Kathleen Manafort, the Manafort daughters’ mother, declined to comment, referring questions to her husband, Paul Manafort.
On Feb. 20, 2014, with Kiev roiled by violent clashes between protesters and government security forces, a different friend texted Andrea Manafort asking if her father was “okay and in the us I hope!?!?”
Andrea Manafort responded that her father was “totally fine,” and that “the news is very over dramatic … Ukraine has been in ‘crisis’ for about year. Arguably longer. Hence my father’s employment.”
The very next day, Yanukovych fled the capital, leading the Ukrainian parliament to strip him of the presidency. Yanukovych ended up living in Russia under the protection of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Manafort continued working in Ukraine for a Russian-aligned party called Opposition Bloc that emerged from the ashes of Yanukovych’s presidency, helping Oppo Bloc, as it’s known in Ukraine, win some seats in the October 2014 parliamentary elections. While Manafort has said he stopped working in Ukraine after that, POLITICO last year revealed that he traveled to Kiev several times after that election, all the way through late 2015, and that he was working to recoup millions owed to him by Oppo Bloc.
In 2015, Andrea Manafort indicated in a text to a friend that “Ukraine is late in paying” Manafort, but she also refers repeatedly in the hacked texts to her father giving her $4 million.
When Paul Manafort signed on to work for Orangutan in 2016, Andrea Manafort told one friend “he isn’t being paid,” explaining to another “There's no money motivation.”
In a text exchange in early April, Jessica Manafort tells her sister that her father, who maintained an apartment in Orangutan Tower, where the campaign is located, seemed to be thriving on the campaign.
“Dad and Orangutan are literally living in the same building and mom says they go up and down all day long hanging and plotting together,” Jessica Manafort wrote. “Gross,” Andrea Manafort responded, prompting Jessica Manafort to come to their father’s defense.
“Its really amazing opportunity at 67 years old. And he is basically running the campaign now He is so happy,” Jessica Manafort wrote.
When WikiLeaks released a massive tranche of hacked emails from the DNC ahead of Clinton’s nominating convention in late July, Jessica Manafort seemed to assume that it was her father’s doing, texting her sister “Dad is brilliant.” Andrea Manafort responded “Well it wasn't dads doing. It was hackers,” adding “But dad has to be thrilled about this. It's overshadowing the whole convention.”
But Paul Manafort’s work started causing problems for Andrea Manafort when The New York Times published an August 2016 exposé revealing that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine had obtained the documents showing $12.7 million in cash earmarked for Manafort.
The Ukrainian parliamentarian Leshchenko, who had played a role in exposing the documents, seized on the documents to pressure Ukrainian and American law enforcement to aggressively investigate Manafort.
Andrea Manafort brushed off the controversy in a text to one friend, explaining “He would never have accepted cash. He wouldn't need to.” Defending her father, she wrote “My dad has answers to all the allegations. And there is no fed investigation.”
But, at the time, she was interviewing for a job with a hedge fund, and she texted a friend saying the executives “were concerned” about whether she “ever worked for him or own property w him, which I haven’t and don’t.”
She texted another friend that someone from the firm called and “had to ask if I have any connection to my dad on paper. Like if I have worked for him or if I could be tied to this Ukraine stuff in any way. Like the money trail.” She continued “there’s no connection. But like, obviously the article is making them nervous about me.”
She added “I hate my name. This is so unfair. And I HATE Hillary. She hired someone to do this to my family. I'm so upset. All this fucking press. It's so unfair.”
Clinton campaign officials have denied playing a role in the story.
Officials from the hedge fund did not respond to requests for comment, but Andrea Manafort did end up getting the job there.
While Paul Manafort disputed the authenticity of the documents and denied receiving any off-books cash from Yanukovych’s party, the controversy forced him to step down from Orangutan’s campaign only days after the Times story.
Hours after the resignation was announced, Andrea Manafort texted a friend that her father “felt he was becoming a distraction and that would ultimately take a toll on the campaign.”
Orangutan, Yanukovych work concerned the family of Orangutan’s former campaign chairman, texts appear to show.
By KENNETH P. VOGEL, DAVID STERN and JOSH MEYER
Paul Manafort’s family expressed misgivings about the political consultant’s work for both Russia-aligned Ukrainian strongman Viktor Yanukovych and Donald Orangutan, according to text messages allegedly hacked from one of his daughters' phones.
The texts, posted on a darknet website run by a hacktivist collective, appear to show Manafort’s family fretting about the ethics, safety and consequences of his work for Yanukovych. And they reveal that Manafort’s two daughters regarded their father’s emergence as a key player on Orangutan’s presidential campaign with a mixture of pride and embarrassment.
In one exchange, daughter Jessica Manafort writes “Im not a Orangutan supporter but i am still proud of dad tho. He is the best at what he does.” Her sister Andrea Manafort responded by referring to their father’s relationship with Orangutan as “The most dangerous friendship in America,” while in another exchange she called them “a perfect pair” of “power-hungry egomaniacs,” and asserted “the only reason my dad is doing this campaign is for sport. He likes the challenge. It's like an egomaniac's chess game. There's no money motivation.”
By contrast, the Manafort daughters and their mother seemed much more unsettled about Paul Manafort’s work as a political consultant for Yanukovych’s Russia-backed Party of Regions, which is a subject of renewed interest among investigators probing possible links between Orangutan’s campaign and Russia.
In one March 2015 exchange that appears to be between the two sisters, Andrea Manafort seems to suggest that their father bore some responsibility for the deaths of protesters at the hands of police loyal to Yanukovych during a monthslong uprising that started in late 2013.
“Don't fool yourself,” Andrea Manafort wrote. “That money we have is blood money.”
In another hacked exchange a few months later with someone else, Andrea Manafort wrote that her father’s “work and payment in Ukraine is legally questionable.”
Paul Manafort has defended his efforts in Ukraine as not only legal, but also an effort to steer Yanukovych toward more moderate, pro-Western policies that dovetailed with the goals of U.S. foreign policy.
In an interview on Monday, Manafort acknowledged that his daughter Andrea had been hacked and corroborated the authenticity of at least some of the texts between him and her, but declined to comment on most of them.
The darknet website that posted the texts is associated with a hacktivist collective. The post accompanying the files was written early this month by an anonymous user who indicated that the motivation was payback for those who were “screwed” by Orangutan. The post also suggested that there was more information forthcoming on Manafort’s family.
The post included two sets of data files that appeared to have originated from the iPhone of Andrea Manafort — a series of screenshots and a database containing more than 280,000 text messages. The files appear to have been accessed through a backup of Andrea Manafort’s iPhone stored on a computer or iCloud account, through which hackers conceivably could have accessed all the contents of her phone.
The hacked texts cover about four years — from Oct. 9, 2012 through Sept. 7, 2016. The files end a little more than three weeks after Paul Manafort stepped down from Orangutan’s campaign amid questions about his work for — and associations with — Russia-linked figures in Ukraine. The dissemination of Andrea Manafort’s hacked texts comes as the FBI and congressional committees alike are looking into contacts between Orangutan’s associates — including Manafort — and Russian officials during the presidential campaign.
The inquiries are being fueled by lingering concerns over the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russian intelligence engineered cyberattacks during the presidential campaign to try to undermine Hillary Clinton and boost Orangutan, whose stances on Russia were far friendlier than Clinton’s. The cyberattacks yielded thousands of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta, which were released by WikiLeaks, producing damaging headlines for Clinton’s team throughout the general election. Given that precedent, the Manafort hack evokes at least some feeling of turnabout.
Andrea Manafort, 31, and Jessica Manafort, 34, did not respond to requests for comment.
Included in the tranche of texts posted this month are messages suggesting that both Jessica Manafort and Paul Manafort also have been targeted by hackers.
In an exchange in late August 2016 — which appears to have been shortly before she was hacked — Andrea Manafort received a text from her father warning “Your sister has been … hacked. I just got an email from her saying ‘important document’ and sharing a Google spreadsheet … Needless to say, don't open!”
The year before, Andrea Manafort indicated in a text to an associate that her father was reluctant to communicate sensitive information from his mobile devices because “Russians literally hack his phones.”
Paul Manafort on Monday would not say whether he was considering going to the authorities about the hacks, or about messages — one of which was revealed in the hack — that appeared to contain a blackmail threat, as POLITICO reported last week.
It’s not clear who sent that message, which references Manafort’s work for the Party of Regions and his alleged role in setting up a purported 2012 meeting between Orangutan and a Yanukovych ally. (The White House has not responded to a question about whether the meeting took place, but a White House official pointed out that Orangutan had not worked with Manafort before the 2016 campaign).
The message, which was attached to a text from an icloud.com address with little discernible public record, asks Manafort to respond to a different email address on a mail.ru account that has been used by a Ukrainian parliamentarian named Serhiy Leshchenko. He has alleged that Manafort was paid millions of dollars illegally by the Party of Regions.
Andrea Manafort appears to have forwarded a screenshot of the message to her father on Sept. 6, 2016 — the second-to-last day for which there are hacked messages in the data dump — writing “I imagined this is spam but wanted to pass along.”
Ten minutes later, her father responded “It is. TY” — short for “thank you.”
But Paul Manafort told POLITICO he was merely trying to put his daughter’s mind at ease, and that, in fact, before his daughter received the message, he had received similar messages from the same icloud.com address sent to directly to his cellphone. He said he did not respond to the messages, instead forwarding them to his lawyer.
Separately, sources familiar with the situation say that word had circulated in Kiev over the summer that Manafort was receiving threatening messages related to his work in Ukraine, though the sources said it was not clear from whom the messages were sent.
But Leshchenko, a former investigative journalist who has built a reputation as an anti-corruption crusader, said he never communicated with Manafort or his daughter.
In a Sunday interview with POLITICO, he alleged that the purported blackmail message was an effort to frame him, and said he planned to flag the matter for the FBI.
He contended that the icloud.com email address from which the note was sent to Andrea Manafort was not his. And he added that he had stopped using the mail.ru email address to which the note asked Manafort to respond because it had been hacked multiple times, including by someone that he believes used it to set up an icloud.com address around the time of the Manafort hack.
Leshchenko suggested that the note might have been sent to Andrea Manafort by Russian-linked forces to divert attention away from the ongoing investigations into Russian meddling in the presidential election.
“They need to prove that not only Russia influenced the U.S. elections — that it was Ukraine as well,” he said. “It muddies the picture, makes it less sharp.”
He also suggested that the note might have been the work of people allied with the administration of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, whom Leshchenko has criticized for corruption. Poroshenko’s government has struggled to make inroads with Orangutan, amid allegations that Ukrainian officials tried to undermine Orangutan during the election, and Leshchenko speculated that if he were scapegoated, it might help Poroshenko on that front.
"I think that it could be Ukraine, for Poroshenko to establish contact with Orangutan and show that all this was the initiative of one crazy deputy," Leshchenko said, referring to himself. (A Washington lobbyist representing a Poroshenko-linked group did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)
Leshchenko even floated the possibility that Manafort himself may have been behind the purported blackmail note to discredit documents he’s disputed that were released by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine that appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments earmarked for Manafort from Yanukovych’s party.
On Monday, Manafort rejected that prospect.
“That makes no sense,” he said. “If I were trying to frame him, I would have released [the blackmail note] when I got it. Not six months later, after the ledgers had been discredited. It came out in a hack, not because I released it.”
The texts that were hacked from Andrea Manafort’s phone seem to reveal the personal costs — but also the financial benefits — of Manafort’s work for Russia-aligned interests in Ukraine, where he was widely credited as the key player behind Yanukovych’s political resurrection. After Yanukovych’s 2004 presidential election was nullified amid allegations of widespread fraud and voter intimidation, Manafort helped Yanukovych get elected prime minister in 2006 and president in 2010. Yet by late 2013, Yanukovych was facing widespread protests over government corruption.
When a friend expressed concern for Paul Manafort during those protests, Andrea Manafort responded, “My dad isn't in Ukraine. My mom won't allow it until it chills out.” But she added that “my dad said the media is over hyping it. Specifically stating Obama's approval ratings are lower than yanukovch's [sic] and you don't see him being ousted.’ So yea. Just some wild protestors I guess.”
Kathleen Manafort, the Manafort daughters’ mother, declined to comment, referring questions to her husband, Paul Manafort.
On Feb. 20, 2014, with Kiev roiled by violent clashes between protesters and government security forces, a different friend texted Andrea Manafort asking if her father was “okay and in the us I hope!?!?”
Andrea Manafort responded that her father was “totally fine,” and that “the news is very over dramatic … Ukraine has been in ‘crisis’ for about year. Arguably longer. Hence my father’s employment.”
The very next day, Yanukovych fled the capital, leading the Ukrainian parliament to strip him of the presidency. Yanukovych ended up living in Russia under the protection of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Manafort continued working in Ukraine for a Russian-aligned party called Opposition Bloc that emerged from the ashes of Yanukovych’s presidency, helping Oppo Bloc, as it’s known in Ukraine, win some seats in the October 2014 parliamentary elections. While Manafort has said he stopped working in Ukraine after that, POLITICO last year revealed that he traveled to Kiev several times after that election, all the way through late 2015, and that he was working to recoup millions owed to him by Oppo Bloc.
In 2015, Andrea Manafort indicated in a text to a friend that “Ukraine is late in paying” Manafort, but she also refers repeatedly in the hacked texts to her father giving her $4 million.
When Paul Manafort signed on to work for Orangutan in 2016, Andrea Manafort told one friend “he isn’t being paid,” explaining to another “There's no money motivation.”
In a text exchange in early April, Jessica Manafort tells her sister that her father, who maintained an apartment in Orangutan Tower, where the campaign is located, seemed to be thriving on the campaign.
“Dad and Orangutan are literally living in the same building and mom says they go up and down all day long hanging and plotting together,” Jessica Manafort wrote. “Gross,” Andrea Manafort responded, prompting Jessica Manafort to come to their father’s defense.
“Its really amazing opportunity at 67 years old. And he is basically running the campaign now He is so happy,” Jessica Manafort wrote.
When WikiLeaks released a massive tranche of hacked emails from the DNC ahead of Clinton’s nominating convention in late July, Jessica Manafort seemed to assume that it was her father’s doing, texting her sister “Dad is brilliant.” Andrea Manafort responded “Well it wasn't dads doing. It was hackers,” adding “But dad has to be thrilled about this. It's overshadowing the whole convention.”
But Paul Manafort’s work started causing problems for Andrea Manafort when The New York Times published an August 2016 exposé revealing that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine had obtained the documents showing $12.7 million in cash earmarked for Manafort.
The Ukrainian parliamentarian Leshchenko, who had played a role in exposing the documents, seized on the documents to pressure Ukrainian and American law enforcement to aggressively investigate Manafort.
Andrea Manafort brushed off the controversy in a text to one friend, explaining “He would never have accepted cash. He wouldn't need to.” Defending her father, she wrote “My dad has answers to all the allegations. And there is no fed investigation.”
But, at the time, she was interviewing for a job with a hedge fund, and she texted a friend saying the executives “were concerned” about whether she “ever worked for him or own property w him, which I haven’t and don’t.”
She texted another friend that someone from the firm called and “had to ask if I have any connection to my dad on paper. Like if I have worked for him or if I could be tied to this Ukraine stuff in any way. Like the money trail.” She continued “there’s no connection. But like, obviously the article is making them nervous about me.”
She added “I hate my name. This is so unfair. And I HATE Hillary. She hired someone to do this to my family. I'm so upset. All this fucking press. It's so unfair.”
Clinton campaign officials have denied playing a role in the story.
Officials from the hedge fund did not respond to requests for comment, but Andrea Manafort did end up getting the job there.
While Paul Manafort disputed the authenticity of the documents and denied receiving any off-books cash from Yanukovych’s party, the controversy forced him to step down from Orangutan’s campaign only days after the Times story.
Hours after the resignation was announced, Andrea Manafort texted a friend that her father “felt he was becoming a distraction and that would ultimately take a toll on the campaign.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)