SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: carranza2 who wrote (185237)10/19/2020 11:47:35 AM
From: Sam5 Recommendations

Recommended By
bentway
CentralParkRanger
combjelly
John Koligman
Wharf Rat

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362564
 
That is ridiculous. You are just trying to deflect from the incompetence of the Liar in Chief who has cost the country hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in wealth. And continuing.

You want to learn about real corruption, look at Jared and Donnie. And this is only one example of many. And this one doesn't rely on doctored hard drives and corrupt Ukrainian officials showing up in October (gee, what coincidence--too late to actually conduct a thorough investigation).

Timeline on Jared Kushner, Qatar, 666 Fifth Avenue, and White House Policy

by Ryan Goodman and Julia Brooks

March 11, 2020

The heart of the case involving President Donald J. Trump and Ukraine was the claim that the president pressured a U.S. ally, weakening the security of that country, to extract a personal benefit for himself. Several commentators have said that the president’s action toward Ukraine fit a pattern of his calling on foreign governments to interfere in US elections. But does it also fit a pattern of trading off the security interests of the United States and foreign partners for personal benefit to himself and his family? We don’t answer that question here. We instead provide a timeline of events surrounding an earlier incident at the Trump White House involving Qatar and the Kushner Companies. We leave it to readers and further investigation to reach any conclusions — whether this was a shakedown of a foreign partner motivated or clouded by personal financial interests or something quite innocent. At a minimum, we believe it raises important questions and concerns that deserve further scrutiny. When the Kushner Companies purchased 666 Fifth Avenue in midtown Manhattan in early 2007 for a record-breaking price of $1.8 billion, it was supposed to be a center of their real estate portfolio. Instead, the Kushners have struggled to cover their debt on the troubled building since shortly after its purchase on the eve of the financial crisis. As Jared Kushner’s father-in-law, Donald J. Trump, was running for President, the Kushners were pitching Qatari investors to help bail out the building. And just weeks after his father Charles reportedly failed to reach a deal with Qatar’s minister of finance, Jared Kushner, in his capacity as a senior adviser to President Trump, reportedly played a central role in supporting a blockade of Qatar by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Kushner never disclosed his meeting with Saudi Arabia and the UAE on the blockade to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at the time. Later, a financial company tied to Qatar brokered an especially valuable deal to rescue the Kushner Companies’ property at 666 Fifth Avenue.

The following is a timeline of events related to the Kushners’ pursuit of funding from Qatar for 666 Fifth Avenue and the Trump-Kushner support for the Saudi-UAE blockade of Qatar.

The timeline will be updated as new information becomes available. We invite readers to email us any information we may be missing by sending suggestions to lte@justsecurity.org, whether favorable or unfavorable to President Trump and Jared Kushner. Our goal is to provide an objective, full description of the publicly available record.

Significant credit is due to Mohamad Bazzi who provided a detailed account of several of these activities in an opinion piece for The Guardian in July 2019.

January 2007: Kushner Companies purchases 666 Fifth Avenue for record price on eve of financial crisis

The Kushner Companies purchases, at Jared Kushner’s urging, 666 Fifth Avenue, an office tower in Midtown Manhattan, for $1.8 billion at the height of the real estate market. They invest $500 million, and cover the remaining amount with debt. Even before the financial crisis hits, there are signs that they paid too high a price and took on too much debt for the purchase. It was, at the time, the highest purchase price ever paid for a New York office tower.

2007 – 2008: Global financial crisis and early troubles for 666 Fifth Avenue

As the global financial crisis unfolds, Citigroup announces in December 2007 that it will not renew its lease on about 75,000 square feet of space in 666 Fifth Avenue. In 2008, the Kushners sell a 49 percent stake in the building’s retail space to the Carlyle Group and Crown Acquisitions for $525 million, using part of the proceeds to cover debt on the building.

2010: Kushners’ financial troubles with 666 Fifth Avenue

Kushner Companies’ $1.2 billion loan on 666 Fifth Avenue is transferred to a special servicer to try to restructure the debt after the Kushners reported difficulties in paying the loan. The building is appraised at $820 million, less than half of what the Kushners paid for it in 2007 and less than the debt they owe to banks.

2011

The Kushners sell nearly 50% of the building’s office space to Vornado as part of a refinancing deal on the loan for the building.

2015-2016 and transition to White House: The Kushners negotiate with Qataris

In June 2015, Donald J. Trump formally announces his candidacy for President of the United States.

Throughout 2015 and 2016, Jared and Charles Kushner negotiate with Qatari investor Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani (known as “HBJ”) to refinance the building. HBJ is a former Prime Minister of Qatar who manages the country’s $250 billion sovereign wealth fund. One of the meetings Kushner reportedly holds with HBJ is in Trump Tower during the transition in December 2016. He agrees to invest at least $500 million. The deal ultimately falls through when the Kushners fail to raise the rest of the funding from other sources, and the potential investors reportedly worry about public scrutiny from Kushner’s role in the Trump White House.

Tom Barrack told the Washington Post that he tried to use his Qatar connection to help Kushner with 666 Fifth Avenue. “Barrack said he told the former prime minister of Qatar to consider investing in the Kushner Cos. property,” according to the Post. In a subsequent Post story, Barrack says that Kushner’s move to the White House, “just about completely chilled the market, and [potential investors] just said, ‘No way — can’t be associated with any appearances of conflict of interest,’ even though there was none.”

(Note: Barrack says it was the perceived conflict of interest that dissuaded these investors, yet they do, in fact, subsequently invest.)

Note: Steve Bannon’s FBI interview (Feb. 12, 2018):

Bannon reviewed a document Bates stamped SB_00003977 and said the second bullet point was not true. The bullet point said: ‘During transition you had an IT guy do email search of trump servers and discovered Jared met with Anbang and Qataris to raise money for 666 Fifth. You viewed the email that connected the dots. Those meetings left Jared exposed to Comey’” ( Steve Bannon FBI 302, p. 166). Anbang Insurance Group has close ties to the Chinese government. (See March 2017 entry below for evidence of Kushner negotiations with Anbang to raise funds for 666 Fifth Avenue.)

Late October, early November 2016: Saudis reach out

A week before the election, candidate Trump meets with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at Trump’s private residence, according to Rick Gates’ FBI proffer (p. 99).

Kushner is the main point of contact for foreign governments during the campaign.

    According to Gates, “Kushner and Sessions were designated to deal with any requests by foreign officials to the campaign. This decision was made fairly early on as a result of request from Papadopoulos in or around April 2016 about requests from foreign officials. This request was made to Manafort. Manafort and Kushner then made the decision to designate Kushner and Sessions to deal with this.” (Gates FBI proffer, p.99)“One of Kushner’s main responsibilities was to have relationships with foreign governments, while Priebus coordinated everyone’ s efforts.” (Gates FBI proffer, p.145)
Post election: Saudi assessment of Trump-Kushner team

Soon after the election, Prince Mohammad Bin Salman sends a delegation of Saudi officials to meet with Kushner and other Trump advisers. They subsequently write an unflattering assessment that later leaks. It says that Trump’s “inner circle is predominantly deal makers who lack familiarity with political customs and deep institutions, and they support Jared Kushner.” The Saudi delegation “brought back a report identifying Mr. Kushner as a crucial focal point in the courtship of the new administration,” according to the New York Times. “He brought to the job scant knowledge about the region, a transactional mind-set and an intense focus on reaching a deal with the Palestinians that met Israel’s demands, the delegation noted.”

January 2017: Jared Kushner officially joins the Trump Administration

Jared Kushner joins the Trump administration as a senior adviser, and formally resigns as chief executive of Kushner Companies. He sells some assets to a family trust, including his stake in 666 Fifth Avenue. However, he retains the vast majority of his interest in the Kushner Companies, and transfers a small portion of his stake in the company to a trust overseen by his mother. He maintains real estate and other holdings worth around $800 million.

From early 2017 onward: Kushner-MBS private communications

Since the early months of the administration, senior officials were worried about Jared Kushner’s having private, informal conversations with Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a practice he continued even after Chief of Staff John Kelly imposed new protocols, according to the New York Times (December 2018 report). “The private exchanges could make him susceptible to Saudi manipulation, said three former senior American officials,” according to the Times. “There was a risk the Saudis were playing him,” one former White House official said. Intelligence briefers told Kelly that virtually all of the conversations that U.S. officials had with the Saudis on sensitive policy matter had been between Kushner and MBS, according to the Washington Post. “Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster expressed early concern that Kushner was freelancing U.S. foreign policy. … McMaster was concerned there were no official records kept of what was said on the calls,” the Post reported. McMaster also “learned that Kushner had contacts with foreign officials that he did not coordinate through the National Security Council or officially report,” according to another Post report.

[Note: See entries on December 2017, February 2018, and May 2018 concerning Kushner’s security clearances.]

March 2017: The Kushners negotiate with Chinese financers

After financial talks between the Kushners and the Chinese conglomerate Anbang Insurance Group, which has close ties to the Chinese government, become public, Democratic lawmakers raise concerns to the White House Counsel and Treasury Secretary that a deal could violate federal ethics regulations. Several days later, negotiations end without a deal to finance the building.

April 2017: The Kushners directly approach Qatari government for financing

Charles Kushner and associates meet with Qatari Finance Minister Sharif Al Emadi and aides in New York to seek investment in 666 Fifth Avenue from Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund. No deal is reached.

Following a report by The Intercept on March 2, 2018 on the meeting, a spokeswoman for Kushner Companies, Chris Taylor, denied that such negotiations occured, stating: “To be clear, we did not meet with anyone from the Qatari government to solicit sovereign funds for any of our projects […] To suggest otherwise is inaccurate and false” (Newsweek, March 2, 2018)

Two weeks later, Kushner Companies acknowledged the meeting. Charles Kushner told the Washington Post that he refused the proposal to avoid a conflict of interest for his son.

Note: In his interview with the Washington Post, Charles Kushner also referred to not taking funds directly from Qatar specifically through a sovereign wealth fund. He told the Post: “Before the meeting, Kushner Companies had decided that it was not going to accept sovereign wealth fund investments. We informed the Qatar representatives of our decision and they agreed. Even if they were there ready to wire the money, we would not have taken it.” The Post reports that, on the contrary, according to Tom Barrack, Charles Kushner was “crushed” when the earlier deal with Qatar on 666 Fifth Avenue fell through during the presidential transition.

Charles Kushner later told CNN that he accepted the invitation to the meeting only “out of respect” for the Qataris and to tell them there was no way “we could do business.” He also said taking the meeting was “stupid,” given how it might be perceived publicly. ( CNN, April 25, 2018).

Dexter Filkins reported that Charles Kushner’s explanation was false, according to a financial analyst with knowledge of the meeting:

Kushner pitched a huge renovation of the property, which included bringing in retail stores and converting offices to residences, and hosted a follow-up meeting the next day at 666 Fifth Avenue. “He asked for just under a billion dollars,” [the financial analyst] told me. The Qataris declined, citing dubious business logic. “They could have bought the building—believe me, they have the money,” the analyst said. “They just didn’t think it would ever pay off.” The analyst worried that refusing the deal had a political cost. “Here’s a question for you: If they had given Kushner the money, would there have been a blockade? I don’t think so.”

CNN’s Vicky Ward corroborated Filkins’ account citing a person who was in the meeting.

May 20, 2017: Kushner’s “Shadow” Meeting Prior to Blockade of Qatar

President Trump makes his first foreign trip to Saudi Arabia, including in the delegation Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Jared Kushner, and Steve Bannon. During the trip, Kushner and Bannon meet for a private dinner with top leaders of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, who lay out their plan to impose a blockade on Qatar. Secretary Rex Tillerson is neither present for the meeting, nor informed of the meeting. He never learns of the meeting during his time in office (he departed in March 2018). After leaving office, Tillerson testifies before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and says it makes him “angry” to learn of Kushner’s meeting:

Q: A couple of weeks later on May 20th, 2017, you were in Riyadh with the President in advance of the Middle East summit. And you again gave public remarks with the Saudi Foreign Minister. […]
So that same night as we understand it, so on or about May 20th, 2017, there was apparently a private dinner that was hosted between Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, and the rulers of Saudi Arabia and UAE, respectively. Were you aware of that dinner?
A: No.
[…]
Q: Okay. What’s your reaction to a meeting of that sort having taken place without your knowledge?
A: It makes me angry.
Q: Why is that?
A: Because I didn’t have a say. The State Department’s views were never expressed.

– Tillerson Interview Transcript (May 21, 2019), p. 84-85.

A White House spokesperson, Hogan Gidley issues a denial saying, “Jared consistently follows proper protocols” with the National Security Council and State Department, the “alleged ‘dinner’ to supposedly discuss the blockade never happened,” and no one in the White House was “involved in the blockade.”

June 1, 2017: Congressional concerns raised about Kushner’s links to EB-5 visas for Kushner Companies including for 666 Fifth Avenue

On June 1, 2017, Democratic members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees write to the Kushner Companies, seeking answers on their use of EB-5 foreign investor visas “especially in light of Jared Kushner’s role in the Trump administration and the potential for conflicts of interest” and that the Kushner Companies “may be seeking to benefit from the Kushner family’s connections to the White House.”

June 5, 2017: Blockade of Qatar begins

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain sever diplomatic and economic relations with Qatar. They accuse Qatar of financing terrorism, supporting Islamist groups, and undermining efforts to isolate Iran. They impose a land, sea, and air blockade on Qatar.

Secretary of State Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis are both caught by surprise by the blockade, according to Tillerson’s testimony before Congress (p. 92). Tillerson and Mattis both publicly call for calm to deescalate the situation. (See also Dexter Filkins’ reporting.)

In a shock to Qatar, Trump initially expresses support for the blockade, in contradiction to the official U.S. government position of neutrality.

continues at justsecurity.org



To: carranza2 who wrote (185237)10/19/2020 12:04:05 PM
From: Sam2 Recommendations

Recommended By
bentway
Eric L

  Respond to of 362564
 
This whole thing is so obviously an orchestrated setup--who do you think will believe the Liar-in-Chief and his merry band of Little Liars? Aside from those who already believe anything they claim, that is. Oh yeah, the virus is disappearing any day now, soon, it will disappear soon.

What to Make of the Johnson-Grassley Report on Biden and Burisma
By Jacob Schulz, Margaret Taylor
Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 3:59 PM

Seven months into a crippling pandemic and with wildfires ablaze across the West Coast, the majority of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Commitee (HSGAC) has its attention focused squarely on the most pressing issues: five-year-old financial transactions by Joe Biden’s son and stray WhatsApp messages from Democratic lobbyists.

On Sept. 23, Sens. Ron Johnson and Chuck Grassley, the chairmen of the HSGAC and the Senate Finance Committee, respectively, released a majority staff report entitled “Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns.”

The 87-page document draws from months of document subpoenas, 50 hours of witness interviews—and disclosures from a Kremlin-aligned Ukrainian politician. The same day, Johnson and Grassley’s Democratic counterparts—Sens. Gary Peters and Ron Wyden—released a rebuttal of sorts, “Election Interference: Majority Investigation Amplifies Russian Attack on 2020 Election.”

The end result is dueling reports that each accuse the other side of propagating Russian disinformation—although only one side has any ground to stand on. What gives?

The reports retread familiar ground for those who followed the 2019 impeachment inquiry. And it’s hard to read these reports and not come to the same conclusion as those proceedings indicated: Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma had no impact on the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy decisions.

But regardless of the substance of the reports, the episode paints a bleak picture of the demise of a key vehicle for congressional oversight. The years spent under Johnson’s leadership chasing unfounded conspiracies have sucked away the HSGAC’s credibility and atrophied the committee’s ability to conduct credible oversight.

Johnson’s report was no surprise: He’s been talking about the investigation for months. On various occasions, he has said the quiet part out loud and openly talked about his desired outcome for the investigation—to influence the 2020 presidential election. The most recent example was on Sept. 15, when Johnson explained in a radio interview that “I would think [the investigation] would certainly help Donald Trump win reelection and certainly be pretty good, I would say, evidence about not voting for Vice President Biden.” In case anyone missed his point, he later said, “What our investigations are uncovering, I think, will reveal this is not somebody we should be electing president of the United States.”

Putting aside Johnson’s motives, what does this report tell us?

On one level, not much. The headline chapter—Hunter Biden and Burisma—repackages largely known facts related to how U.S. government employees dealt with Hunter Biden’s position on the board of the Ukrainian company but offers no evidence that his role had any impact on U.S. foreign policy or the anti-corruption advocacy of Vice President Biden. As Andrew Desiderio and Kyle Cheyney of Politico wrote, the report “is largely a compilation of previously public information—some of it rehashed anew by witnesses who already testified during the House’s impeachment inquiry last year.” It spills a lot of ink, for example, to end up at the same place that multiple witnesses testified publicly to nine months ago during the impeachment inquiry: U.S. officials viewed former Burisma head Mykola Zlochevsky as a corrupt bad actor, and officials within the State Department had expressed concerns about Hunter Biden’s role at the company. But Johnson and Grassley dug up no evidence of malfeasance on the elder Biden’s part.

The rest of the report reads like a compilation of loosely connected short stories, none of which really makes all that much sense. One section describes various financial transactions by members of the Biden family but provides no evidence linking those transactions to corruption or otherwise providing evidence-based context for what they mean. Another is composed largely of spreadsheets cataloging Hunter Biden’s use of Secret Service protection. A later bit fixates on a one-off New Hampshire town hall given by John Kerry in 2019. And the report spends many pages incoherently defending against criticisms in the minority staff report.

On a textual level, therefore, the majority report is a bit of a head-scratcher.

But perhaps the point of the report is not to present a coherent narrative. Think back to the behavior that got the president impeached in the first place. Trump was impeached for holding back U.S. military aid for Ukraine in exchange for public announcements by the Ukrainian government of investigations into Hunter Biden and Burisma— “I would like you to do us a favor, though.” Trump came close to succeeding—Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky almost appeared on CNN to make the big reveal—but the Ukrainians never made such an announcement. So it makes sense that Johnson and Grassley, both ardent supporters of President Trump, would pick up that ball and run with it.

The report appears intended to give the president what he couldn’t squeeze out of Zelensky. It asserts that the investigation will remain open, saying “there remains much work to be done.” The chairmen’s hope, it seems, is that the existence of an open Senate investigation into the younger Biden will be enough to achieve the sought-after damage to candidate Biden.

The report serves another function too. Its scattershot nature seems designed to offer just enough contextless facts, with the requisite window dressing, to generate buzz in the right-wing media ecosystem. Take, for example, the 18-page section about “Hunter Biden’s and his family’s financial transactions with Ukrainian, Russian, Kazakh, and Chinese nationals.” Johnson and Grassley list hundreds of transactions but never really bother to give much context to them and don’t appear to have investigated the transactions. Why would the committee, which is supposedly conducting an investigation, not do much in the way of looking into these transactions? Dropping in such financial information without context offers fodder for conspiracies, giving room to make a wider range of salacious allegations—particularly as Trump allies are fishing for fuel for unfounded conspiracies about Biden and China. Leaving things vague does more damage than if the committee majority had done the work to try to uncover evidence about what the transactions mean.

So far, though, it seems like the report has succeeded in capturing the attention of the Trump media world. The night after the report’s release, Johnson earned a prime-time invitation to talk with Fox News’s Sean Hannity, who opened the interview by saying, “Senator, I don’t get shocked very often….” And Trump himself glommed onto the report hours after it went public:

Since then, he has retweeted a New York Post story about the report and continued to push claims made in the report:

Back in November 2019, Ryan Broderick of BuzzFeed News wrote that the House Intelligence Committee’s impeachment inquiry hearings were basically two entirely different events happening at once: one Democratic hearing focused on the details of the Ukraine affair, and a Republican hearing unbothered with the truth and “seek[ing] to create not just a counternarrative but a completely separate reality” that aimed largely to create “Fox News segments” and other material for online right-wing mouthpieces. An eerily similar dynamic reemerges here; the chairmen’s report is targeted at an entirely separate information ecosystem than Peters and Wyden’s reply.

The Peters-Wyden report decries the majority’s report as “based on conspiracy theories with roots in Russian disinformation efforts” and notes that the chairmen released it with “the explicit intention of tarnishing Vice President Biden’s reputation and his candidacy for President of the United States.” In its 56 pages, the minority’s report is part analysis of the available materials and part meta-text—a report about a report.

How do the ranking minority members make the argument that the majority is laundering disinformation through a congressional report? Media scholar Whitney Phillips has conceptualized disinformation as “pollution,” and the minority report attacks Johnson and Grassley’s report largely by showing how bad sourcing polluted it.

The ranking minority members argue that “Chairmen Johnson and Grassley’s allegations against former Vice President Biden rely primarily on sources promoting Russian interests.” One of these sources is Andriy Derkach—a man recently flagged by multiple federal agencies as a Russian agent. The minority notes that Derkach “has favorably identified Chairmen Johnson and Grassley as part of a group of those uncovering an international conspiracy of corruption spearheaded by Vice President Biden and George Soros” and that the Russian “has further claimed to have provided information to the Chairmen’s Committees.” (Johnson and Grassley deny getting any information straight from Derkach.)

The minority report also notes that Ukrainian political consultant Andrii Telizhenko—whom the majority cites 42 times in its report—has “extensive ties to Mr. Derkach,” “traffics in the same debunked conspiracy theories as Andrii Derkach” and “has helped produce Russian disinformation for an American audience.” The minority report stresses that Johnson and Grassley also relied on defective information from domestic sources, namely the widely debunked articles from John Solomon in The Hill that undergirded many of the initial Burisma-related conspiracy theories.

And the minority’s conclusions about the available evidence are straightforward. Minority staff reviewed the testimony and documents and assessed that “Vice President Biden did not alter U.S. policies toward Ukraine in any way to benefit Burisma or his son.” In the view of Peters and Wyden, “the evidence unanimously shows that the normal interagency policy process was driven solely by the national interest.” The minority cites a number of government officials to support that conclusion. The former ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, for example, told the committee that the younger Biden’s Burisma position “had zero impact on my work” and that “there was no time at which Hunter Biden’s employment in any way compromised my ability to do my job effectively.” More than anything else, Peters and Wyden make a process argument: The public can have confidence in the propriety of the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy because, in Pyatt’s words, it “was formulated by the interagency process in all of its glory,” not the personal whims of the vice president.

The minority report may well preempt some of the damage of Johnson and Grassley’s fishing expedition (though that remains an open question). But on a deeper level, the majority report is a reminder of the deep cynicism that animates certain quarters of Congress. Lawmakers have demonstrated a willingness to use taxpayer resources not in the pursuit of legitimate oversight to identify threats or wrongdoing and fix governance challenges but, rather, to damage political opponents. And Johnson’s openness about those intentions shows that he need not fear criticism from the Republican base or Republican brass for his actions.

Fortunately, there seems to be at least something of a split within the Republican Party on whether such efforts should be pursued so brazenly. Although most Republicans on the committees went along with Johnson and Grassley’s efforts, Sen. Mitt Romney was less agreeable. On Sept. 16, Johnson pulled a vote on a subpoena related to this probe, and Romney criticized the investigation, saying: “It’s not the legitimate role of government, for Congress, or for taxpayer expense to be used in an effort to damage political opponents.”

It also seems that acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Marco Rubio, has not been overly eager to assist with Johnson’s efforts. Rubio, together with ranking minority member Mark Warner, rejected a request earlier in the month from Johnson and Grassley to obtain access to the Intelligence Committee’s transcripts related to the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The contrast between the rollout of Johnson’s report and the Intelligence Committee’s release of its own report last month on Russian interference could not have been starker. The Intelligence Committee’s report was received as a serious, solid body of bipartisan work, even if some Republicans tried to spin its contents publicly in order to avoid President Trump’s wrath. Johnson and Grassley’s report, by contrast, comes off as incoherent, useless and a waste of government resources—and it has been received as such. Nicholas Fandos of the New York Times, for example, noted that the majority report “contained no evidence that the elder Mr. Biden improperly manipulated American policy toward Ukraine or committed any other misdeed” and lambasted the document as “little more than a rehashing of unproven allegations that echoed a Russian disinformation campaign.”

Based on this performance, it seems that the HSGAC will not be taken seriously anytime soon as a legitimate tool for effective government oversight. In some ways this demise is fitting—the committee has as part of its history Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s chairmanship of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that led to the Army-McCarthy hearings. But this episode also highlights the decline of the committee that, in 1978, was reorganized as the Committee on Governmental Affairs and issued such monumental bipartisan legislation as the Watergate Reorganization and Reform Act and the Ethics in Government Act. Further, after the Sept. 11 attacks, the committee broadened its title to include homeland security and was responsible for the Homeland Security Act, implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, the Hurricane Katrina investigations, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (which revamped the intelligence community and created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in 2004). Now, it’s the committee that, as the minority notes, “spent more than twice as much time on the record in [the Biden] investigation than it has devoted to all of its COVID hearings, combined.”

In theory, a Biden presidency or Democratic control of the Senate could present new opportunities to reinvigorate the HSGAC as a credible committee. Only time—and new leadership—will determine whether the committee has been poisoned beyond repair as a tool of Congress to serve as a legitimate check on the presidency.

lawfareblog.com

As these authors note, Ron Johnson has been talking about his goal with this report for many months now: to affect the 2020 election. What a surprise that he released it now, lol, too late to actually investigate the final product. It is a slanted hit job. But of course folks like you and LB's crew will swallow it whole. Because that is what you do. And ignore the incompetence and the corruption of the Trump crime family. If Joe Biden really was so corrupt, he wouldn't have been one of the poorest senators in Congress while he served.