Connect with us

Europe

Trump’s longtime rage at Obama roars back amid Epstein furor

Published

on



CNN
 — 

President Donald Trump and his predecessor Barack Obama have met for a substantive conversation exactly once: November 10, 2016, two days after Trump won his first election. It was Trump’s first time in the Oval Office. By most accounts, it was a little awkward.

Eight years and eight months later, the meeting cropped up again this week in a very different context. On Sunday, Trump posted an AI-generated video using footage from the session to depict FBI agents bursting into the office, pulling Obama from his chair and handcuffing him as he falls to his knees.

In the video, Trump watches on with a grin. His campaign anthem “Y.M.C.A.” blares in the background.

For years — since well before he launched a bid to become president himself — Trump has marinated in a singular fixation on the 44th president, whom he almost always refers to as “Barack Hussein Obama.”

This week, Trump’s preoccupation with Obama — and specifically his role in probing Russia’s role in the 2016 election — reemerged in dramatic fashion, drawing a rare rebuke from Obama’s office and reigniting the bitterest feud inside the rarified club of presidents.

Trump revived his old — but never forgotten — grievance as questions swirl about his own handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, pivoting quickly from a reporter’s question Tuesday about an Epstein associate to a lengthy diatribe in which accused his predecessor of treason.

Critics saw in Trump’s response a clear attempt to divert attention from a controversy that has put him at odds with influential members of his own base. Yet his resentments toward Obama predate any one effort at deflection, and aides say Trump has been as animated about his new accusations in private as he’s been this week in front of cameras.

His enmity has alternated between strategic attempts to erode Obama’s legacy and what advisers have described as more visceral disdain for someone Trump views as both unwarrantedly popular and the root of many of his troubles since entering politics a decade ago.

“Whether it’s right or wrong, it’s time to go after people,” Trump said from the Oval Office on Tuesday. “Obama’s been caught directly.”

During his first term, Trump’s gripes ran the gamut, from complaints about Obama’s handling of foreign policy to outlandish accusations he spied on Trump Tower.

Since retaking office in January, however, Trump had mostly been directing his ire toward his more immediate predecessor, Joe Biden, whom he portrays as a largely comatose bystander to his Democratic advisers’ radical agenda.

Obama and Trump even appeared to have a friendly conversation in the pews at Washington National Cathedral in January when they both attended the late President Jimmy Carter’s funeral. Trump invited Obama for a round of golf at one of his clubs, a person familiar with the conversation said.

“Boy, they look like two people [who] like each other,” Trump said a few days later when asked about the footage. “And we probably do.”

Now, probably not.

“He’s guilty,” Trump said Tuesday of Obama, sitting alongside the Philippine president. “This was treason. This was every word you can think of.”

The basis for Trump’s claims came via a report, issued last week by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, that sought to undermine an assessment made in 2017 that Russia sought to influence the election the year earlier in favor of Trump.

That assessment was later backed up by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report that was endorsed by every Republican on the panel, including then-Sen. Marco Rubio, who is now Trump’s Secretary of State and acting national security adviser.

But Gabbard and Trump came to a different conclusion, and have accused Obama and top officials in his administration of manipulating intelligence to support a theory that Russia swung the results of the election.

Their findings appear to conflate Russia’s attempts to sow dissent through leaks and social media campaigns with efforts to hack election infrastructure and change vote totals, which intelligence officials have said did not happen in the 2016 contest.

Nonetheless, Trump framed the new report Tuesday as the “biggest scandal in the history of our country.”

“Obama was trying to lead a coup,” Trump said. “And it was with Hillary Clinton.”

Former President Barack Obama welcomes President-elect Donald Trump to the White House before the inauguration on January 20, 2017, in Washington, DC.

A few hours later, a spokesman for Obama dismissed the accusations, making sure to note that ordinarily the former president ignores Trump’s “constant nonsense and misinformation” but could not, in this case, remain silent.

“These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,” said the spokesman, Patrick Rodenbush.

Trump has long viewed the Russia investigation as a cloud over his first presidency, one cooked up by his political rivals to subvert his legitimacy and undermine his ability to win an election.

In his second term, Trump has prioritized retribution against those who led investigations into him — and, in his mind, made his first term miserable.

Even though Obama was out of power by the time a special counsel was appointed and Congress began probing, Trump has singled out the former president as the “ringleader” of the effort.

“This is, like, proof — irrefutable proof — that Obama was seditious,” Trump said, adding a few seconds later that assigning blame on lower-level officials was a mistake: “I get a kick when I hear everyone talks about people I never even heard of,” he said. “No, no, it was Obama. He headed it up. And it says so right in the papers.”

Trump initially launched into the lengthy screed when asked a question about the Justice Department’s plans to interview Ghislaine Maxwell, the Epstein associate who is serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison for conspiring with the late sex offender to sexually abuse minors.

That Trump pivoted almost immediately — and without a great deal of explanation — from answering the Epstein question to his diatribe on Obama did little to dispel the impression he was using the issue to deflect from a scandal now entering its third week. Trump has been explicit that he believes the Epstein case is getting too much attention.

“We had the Greatest Six Months of any President in the History of our Country, and all the Fake News wants to talk about is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax!” he wrote on social media Tuesday.

But his anger toward Obama, voiced repeatedly over the course of his meeting, spoke to something deeper than a diversion tactic. It was a glimpse into a lingering grudge that appears unlikely to ever entirely disappear.

The resentments stretch back more than a decade, to the “birther” conspiracy Trump fueled years before vying for the presidency himself. His indignation appeared to deepen when Obama made fun of him during a 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner speech and television cameras found Trump scowling in the audience.

By the time Obama was handing off power to Trump, the seeds of suspicion had been planted, even if the two men put on a show of comity in the Oval Office.

Trump’s aides now look back on that period as a moment of deception.

“I watched a clip of (Obama) this weekend saying, you know, I’m going to do everything I can to help Donald Trump come in. That’s how our country will be successful. He said that to President Trump’s face in the Oval Office during that transition period,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said this week on the “Ruthless Podcast.”

“Meanwhile, he was holding secret meetings in the White House with top law enforcement and intelligence officials to put out this fake intelligence and mislead the American public,” she went on.

It’s all a distant cry from the mostly cordial — at least in public — relations between presidents that had been the norm for decades. That standard mostly died during Trump’s first term.

Since their single meeting in 2016, Trump and Obama have barely spoken, except for pleasantries at state occasions.

Former first lady Michelle Obama has taken to skipping any event where Trump might also appear.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Europe

Gabbard releases more Russia documents to accuse Obama of ‘manufacturing’ intelligence

Published

on


One day after President Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of treason over the intelligence assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and sought to help Trump, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified a highly sensitive congressional report she claimed was more evidence of a “treasonous conspiracy.”

The release of the redacted report, written during the first Trump term by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, was the latest step in a multi-faceted effort from Gabbard and other Trump allies to attack the FBI’s Russia investigation and the intelligence community’s assessment on Russian election interference.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Wednesday evening that the Justice Department was creating a strike force to assess the evidence released by Gabbard and “investigate potential next legal steps which might stem from DNI Gabbard’s disclosures.”

Speaking from the White House podium on Wednesday, Gabbard stopped short of accusing Obama of treason, deferring to Justice Department lawyers. But she alleged that “the evidence that we have found and that we have released directly point to President Obama leading the manufacturing of this intelligence assessment.”

“They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump win, selling it to the American people as though it were true,” she said.

Gabbard insisted the Russian goal in 2016 was to sow distrust in American democracy — not to help Trump, a key judgment of the 2017 assessment that Republicans have long challenged.

But her claims that the Obama administration “manufactured” the assessment are not supported by the newly redacted House report — or CIA Director John Ratcliffe’s own review of the intelligence assessment, which he released earlier this month.

Ratcliffe’s review argued the assessment that Russian President Vladimir Putin “aspired” to help Trump win the 2016 election should not have been a so-called high confidence judgment, which indicates the intelligence community’s level of certainty, and it took issue with some of the analytic procedures underpinning the assessment. But Ratcliffe’s review found that “the overall assessment was deemed defensible.”

The House report — which involved intelligence so sensitive it was kept in a so-called “turducken,” or a safe within a safe, at CIA headquarters — took a similar stance on the key judgment that Russia sought to help Trump, arguing that the assessment made analytical leaps based on relatively thin sourcing and failed to weigh contradictory intelligence highly enough, but neither argued that it was “manufactured.”

Still, the release of the House Intelligence Committee review, led by former Rep. Devin Nunes when now-FBI Director Kash Patel was a top aide, was a long-sought victory for Trump — in large part because it pushes back against a similar review conducted by the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020, which found the intelligence supported the conclusions that Putin interfered to help Trump and there were no “significant tradecraft issues” in the preparation of the assessment.

Gabbard’s decision to publicize the report when multiple predecessors had declined to do so, including Ratcliffe during Trump’s first term, comes at a moment when her standing within the Trump administration had been in question. In June, Trump publicly undermined Gabbard’s assessment on Iran’s nuclear capabilities and she was absent from at least one major national security meeting to discuss Israel and Iran. CNN reported at the time that the president viewed her as “off-message.”

Democrats accused Gabbard of jeopardizing intelligence community sources and methods by releasing the report.

“The desperate and irresponsible release of the partisan House intelligence report puts at risk some of the most sensitive sources and methods our Intelligence Community uses to spy on Russia and keep Americans safe,” Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. “And in doing so, Director Gabbard is sending a chilling message to our allies and assets around the world: the United States can no longer be trusted to protect the intelligence you share with us.”

One Democratic congressional source said intelligence agencies were still in the process of proposing redactions to the document ahead of its release, but that Gabbard declassified the report Wednesday before the process had been completed.

An ODNI official said the decision to declassify the document was made by Trump and “he has constitutional authority to declassify and is not under the same consultation obligations” normally required between intelligence agencies.

A former senior US intelligence official said they were alarmed by some of the material in the report that remained unredacted, warning it could alert Moscow to how intelligence was collected and potentially endanger sources.

The report includes an explanation from the classified assessment that some judgements are based on a human intelligence source with secondhand access for several specifics, including Putin’s order to pass collected material to WikiLeaks, Putin’s views on Hillary Clinton, and details about “specific, planned Russian Foreign Intelligence Service efforts.”

“It should also scare the crap out of any source we have who reports on politically inconvenient subjects,” the intelligence official said. “If I were them, I’d be going dark about now.”

In 2017, the US extracted from Russia one of its highest-level covert sources inside the Russian government.

Trump and his allies in Congress have sought to release the House Intelligence Committee report for years now. The material that was being scrutinized was so sensitive that the CIA would only let congressional staffers view it at CIA headquarters, requiring their work stay locked up at Langley. The committee brought in its own safe for its files — which became known as the “turducken” — that remained locked away at the CIA during the Biden administration.

It’s not clear whether the full extent of the classified House Intelligence Committee report was redacted, declassified and released on Wednesday.

In the lead-up to the 2020 election, Trump allies pushed Ratcliffe, who was then the director of national intelligence, to release a redacted version of the report. But Ratcliffe ultimately did not so do amid strenuous objections from CIA and NSA officials, who warned it would damage sources and methods and US relationships with allies.

Instead, the report was part of a large collection of documents brought to the White House in the final days of the first Trump administration, which were redacted so they could be declassified and released.

The redacted documents were not ultimately released before Trump left office in 2021, though he did so in March. But an unredacted copy of the documents — including the highly sensitive intelligence that was redacted from what was released Wednesday — went missing and was apparently never found.

US intelligence officials scrambled to assess the potential damage of the binder’s contents becoming public after it went missing at the end of the first Trump administration, according to a source with direct knowledge of the events.

There are hints at why the intelligence agencies were so concerned with the report in the declassified version released Wednesday. The report includes redacted lines that detail what signals intelligence the assessment had relied upon, as well as what Putin was being told and how it was obtained.

‘One scant, unclear and unverifiable fragment’

The House document provides one of the most detailed glimpses to date into the raw intelligence relied upon by analysts to produce the 2017 assessment — but one that is impossible to compare to the Senate review that reached the opposite conclusion on the judgment that Putin was aspiring to help Trump. Much of the documentation for that panel’s reasoning remains classified.

The House report accuses Obama administration intelligence leaders of relying on thinly sourced and uncorroborated intelligence to conclude that Putin preferred Trump, while alleging that the assessment suppressed intelligence that Putin did not care who won and that Russia’s intelligence services allegedly possessed damaging information about Clinton that was not released before the election.

The January 2017 assessment does note there was a disagreement on the level of confidence in that assessment: the CIA and FBI had high confidence, and the NSA had medium confidence.

But the GOP report argues that the conclusion was flawed, based upon previously unpublished intelligence reports, including three that were “substandard.” One report, based on a single human source the House panel said was biased against both Trump and Putin, contained a claim that Putin was “counting” on Trump’s victory, according to the committee. That claim was interpreted in different ways by different analysts but was ultimately used to reach the “aspire” judgment, the report said.

“One scant, unclear and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports constitutes the only classified information cited to suggest Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win,” the report states.

The Ratcliffe-led CIA in its review found that the “aspire” judgment was “plausible and sensible, but was an inference rather than fact sourced to multiple reporting streams,” noting that it also rested on an assessment of “the public behavior of senior Russian officials and state- controlled media, and on logic.” It said that the assessment authors had properly interpreted the sentence fragment.

The report also details what US intelligence knew about Russian intelligence material collected on Clinton that was not released before the election, including allegations about her health, which Republicans wrote “would have created greater scandals” than the hacked materials from John Podesta released by WikiLeaks. Republicans questioned why this information wasn’t released if Russia was trying to help Trump (CNN was unable to confirm the origin or veracity of any of the allegations).

CNN reached out to Clinton aides for comment.

The GOP report criticizes the assessment’s inclusion of the infamous and discredited dossier written by British intelligence official Christopher Steele, which was paid for by the Clinton campaign and alleged coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign.

A summary of the dossier was included as an annex in the January 2017 assessment, after CIA officials objected to including it in the report itself. The intelligence analysts who prepared the report told the Senate Intelligence Committee the dossier played no role in the analysis of Russia’s interference.

Special counsel John Durham, who was appointed by then-Attorney General Bill Barr during Trump’s first term, spent four years investigating a wide range of topics, including potential wrongdoing by the FBI and intelligence community during the 2016 post-election period. He never accused any US officials of any crimes related to the 2017 intelligence assessment.

This story has been updated with additional details.



Source link

Continue Reading

Europe

Live updates: Bryan Kohberger sentenced to life without parole for Idaho student murders

Published

on


Investigators said they conducted an extensive search for the knife they believe Bryan Kohberger used to kill four students in Idaho.

“There’s no evidence that we found that would lead us to any specific, even general, location as to where the murder weapon or the clothes have been,” Moscow police Cpl. Brett Payne said at a news conference today.

Idaho State Police Lt. Darren Gilbertson added that everywhere there was evidence indicating Kohberger’s whereabouts, “we searched that.”

He said authorities searched on the ground and in the water and even sent soil samples to determine if Kohberger had used a shovel.

“We searched everywhere that we possibly could but the reality is we were looking for a singular, small — it’s not that small — Ka-Bar knife,” Gilbertson said.

Some context: Several court documents unsealed in March, including a limited search warrant, revealed Kohberger had bought a Ka-Bar knife, a sheath and sharpener on Amazon eight months before the homicides.



Source link

Continue Reading

Europe

Russia-Ukraine: Third round of peace talks begin in Turkey

Published

on


Russian and Ukrainian delegates have begun their third set of direct talks in Istanbul, days after US President Donald Trump gave Moscow a 50-day deadline to make peace or face “very severe tariffs.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has not publicly acknowledged Trump’s ultimatum, and Moscow has continued to pummel Ukrainian cities with drones and missiles while its ground troops grind forward in the east.

The two previous rounds of talks in Istanbul, in May and June, helped facilitate the exchange of thousands of prisoners of war and the remains of dead soldiers, but made little progress toward a potential ceasefire agreement.

Before Wednesday’s latest round of talks, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov sought to downplay expectations, stressing that the two sides’ negotiating positions remain “diametrically opposed.”

“No one expects an easy path. It will be a very difficult discussion,” Peskov said Wednesday. A day earlier, he told reporters not to expect “any miraculous breakthroughs.”

Peskov confirmed that Moscow’s delegation is unchanged from the previous rounds of talks and will be headed by Vladimir Medinsky, a former culture minister and now a senior Putin aide.

Rustem Umerov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, is leading Kyiv’s delegation after heading the previous two.

Last month, Russian casualties hit a grim milestone, with the UK’s Ministry of Defence estimating that Putin’s war has likely cost Russia more than 1 million casualties since the start of its full-scale invasion in February 2022.

That number tracked with an assessment the same month from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington, DC, which put the number of casualties at 950,000 and predicted that “Russia will likely hit the 1 million casualty mark in the summer of 2025.”

Rustem Umerov, Ukraine's former defense minister, is heading Kyiv's delegation.

Despite those losses, the Russian president has shown little sign of compromising on his maximalist war aim of dismantling Ukraine’s sovereignty. In a long essay published months before the full-scale invasion, Putin falsely argued that Russia and Ukraine are one country; his comments suggesting to many that the war has been waged to make that a reality.

In addition to Trump’s fresh threat of new sanctions on Russia and other countries that purchase Russian oil if peace isn’t reached in 50 days, the US also secured a deal to funnel new weapons to Kyiv through European allies. The moves were in stark contrast with previous approaches the US leader has taken with the conflict.

Trump’s reversal came after the European Union unveiled a new package of sanctions proposing to lower the price cap on Russian oil exports and introducing a full transaction ban on Russian banks and financial institutions in third countries that help Russia dodge existing sanctions.

It is unclear whether Trump’s latest decisions will sway Moscow’s approach, but his about-face could provide a much-needed boost to Ukraine’s military coffers, and signals his growing frustration with Putin.

“My conversations with him are very pleasant, and then the missiles go off at night,” Trump explained last week.

Before the talks, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reiterated his call for a direct meeting with Putin, saying only a meeting of the two leaders can end the war.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending