Quantcast
Connect with us

Trump adviser’s transition email about Flynn’s Russian contacts contradicts sworn Congressional testimony

Published

on

An email former Donald Trump deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland sent during the presidential transition contradicts testimony she gave before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July, the New York Times reports.

McFarland sent the email on Dec. 29, 2016, regarding Russian sanctions imposed by former president Barrack Obama. In it, the Trump adviser suggested the Obama administration’s move would make it difficult for Trump’s relationship with Russia, “which has just thrown the U.S.A. election to him.” She also told another Trump official that former national security adviser Michael Flynn would be meeting with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

ADVERTISEMENT

As part of her sworn testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, McFarland was asked, in writing, “ “Did you ever discuss any of General Flynn’s contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak directly with General Flynn?”

“I am not aware of any of the issues or events as described above,” she replied.

Sen. Corey Booker (D-NJ), who asked McFarland the question about Flynn, expressed concern over McFarland’s email.

“Recent developments suggest that Ms. McFarland gave false testimony to the United States Senate on a matter as significant as communications between the Russian government and the Trump transition team,” Booker told the Times. “If this is the case, this is an alarming development, and another example of a pattern of deception on the part of Trump’s closest associates regarding their connections and communications to Russian government officials.”

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Republicans asked for a witness to undermine impeachment — but she wants to call their ‘bluff’

Published

on

Devin Nunes

Since Republicans have no substantive defense of President Donald Trump’s effort to extort political investigations out of the Ukrainian government, their big hope in protecting the White House from the impeachment inquiry relies on kicking up enough dirt and throwing up red herrings to distract voters and keep Republicans united.

As part of this effort, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) proposed nine witnesses from the GOP side for the forthcoming impeachment hearings, many of whom aren’t relevant to the central questions of the inquiry.

One of those names is likely unknown the vast majority of the American public: Democratic National Committee consultant Alexandra Chalupa. But Politico revealed Tuesday with a new interview that Chalupa is actually willing to testify — and wants to call the Republicans’ “bluff.”

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Nikki Haley’s plan to defend Trump is accidentally backfiring — and cratering her own credibility

Published

on

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations has launched an effort to become relevant again as she promotes her new book, and in the process, she’s dashing the hopes of those who believed she could be the reasonable Republican alternative to President Donald Trump. She’s embracing the president and casting herself as one of his brave defenders — but her effort is actually just diminishing them both.

Her big bombshell tease from the new book, “With All Due Respect,” is that former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — both chosen by Trump — approached her while she was serving as ambassador to “save the country” from the president.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

Impeachment is necessary to ‘deter presidential misconduct’ — even if Republicans let Trump off: Adam Schiff

Published

on

On Tuesday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) sat for an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep. And one of his key messages was that whether President Donald Trump is actually convicted and removed by the Senate is not even the whole point of impeachment — the point is to make an example that will make future presidents hesitate to abuse their power.

"I've always thought that the strongest argument for impeachment was also the strongest argument against it, which is if you don't impeach a president who commits conduct of this kind, what does that say to the next president about what they can do and to the next Congress?" said Schiff. "At the same time, if you do impeach, but the president is acquitted, what does that say to the next president? The next Congress? There's no good or simple answer to those that conundrum."

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image