New details of 2016 meeting with Trump dossier author conflict with Dems’ timeline

New details contained in congressional transcripts and emails about a July 2016 meeting involving the author of the anti-Trump “dossier,” Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, and his wife, Nellie, appear to conflict with claims from Democrats -- and the co-founder of the firm behind the dossier -- that significant contacts did not occur until after the election.
According to the records, the little-known breakfast meeting was held on July 30, 2016 at Washington, D.C.’s Mayflower Hotel.
Congressional transcripts, confirmed by Fox News, showed Nellie Ohr told House investigators last year that Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who compiled the dossier, wanted to get word to the FBI at the time.
“My understanding was that Chris Steele was hoping that Bruce (Ohr) could put in a word with the FBI to follow-up in some way,” Nellie Ohr testified in response to a Republican line of questioning, regarding the purpose of the meeting. Bruce Ohr did just that, almost immediately contacting then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
Asked by House investigators what they talked about at the breakfast meeting, Nellie Ohr said: “[Steele’s] suspicions that Russian Government figures were supporting the candidacy of Donald Trump.”
The transcripts came from closed-door interviews conducted last year by the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees when they were under Republican control. The transcripts are undergoing an FBI and DOJ review and are not public.
Nellie Ohr was of interest to investigators since she conducted opposition research on then-candidate Donald Trump for the firm Fusion GPS – the same company that commissioned the dossier. Her husband, meanwhile, is a senior official at the Justice Department who became a back channel between Steele and the FBI, after Steele was fired by the bureau on the eve of the 2016 presidential election over his contacts with the media.
In her testimony, Nellie Ohr also said that pieces of the unverified dossier – which later would be used to secure a surveillance warrant for Trump campaign aide Carter Page – may have been shared during the meal.
In response to a committee Democrat's line of questioning, Ohr stated, "At the breakfast, I – if I recall correctly, they may have shown pieces ..." of the document.
Ohr said she never saw the entire body of opposition research, later dubbed the "dossier," until it was published by BuzzFeed in January 2017.
Question: "Okay. And you hadn't seen it or its portions during the time that you were employed, correct?"
Ohr: "I -- if I recall correctly, I may have seen a -- maybe a page or something of it at the breakfast."
Email traffic, reviewed by Fox News, indicated that Steele broached the possibility of a meeting with Bruce Ohr as early as July 1, 2016.
He emailed Ohr at the time: "I am seeing [redacted] in London next week to discuss ongoing business but there is something separate I wanted to discuss with you informally and separately. It concerns our favourite business tycoon!"
Subsequent emails between Ohr and Steele also confirmed the July 30 meeting in Washington.
Nellie Ohr’s testimony regarding Steele and the FBI would appear to align with her husband’s.
Fox News recently reported that Bruce Ohr told House investigators as part of the Republican-led probe that shortly after the July 30, 2016 meeting, his “first move” was to reach out to senior FBI officials.
Fox News recently confirmed the Bruce Ohr transcript said: “Andy McCabe, yes and met with him and Lisa Page and provided information to him. I subsequently met with Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, and eventually [an FBI agent]. And I also provided this information to people in the criminal division specifically Bruce Swartz, Zainab Ahmad, Andrew Weissmann.” (Strzok and Page left the bureau last year after their anti-Trump texts emerged. Swartz was a deputy assistant attorney general. Weissmann was chief of the DOJ Criminal Division’s Fraud Section before becoming a senior prosecutor on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team. Ahmad worked at the DOJ and is also now assigned to Mueller’s team.)
However, congressional Democrats have asserted many of the contacts occurred later in the year.
In February, in response to a Republican report on the surveillance-warrant process, Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee accused Republicans of overstating Bruce Ohr’s role.
"The Majority mischaracterizes Bruce Ohr's role, overstates the significance of his interactions with Steele, and misleads about the time frame of Ohr's communication with the FBI. In late November, Ohr informed the FBI of his prior professional relationship with Steele and information that Steele shared with him (including Steele's concern about Trump being compromised by Russia)," the Democrats' statement said. “He also described his wife’s contract work with Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Steele separately. This occurred weeks after the election and more than a month after the Court approved the initial FISA application.”
There appeared to be another discrepancy.
The emails showed Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson was in contact with Ohr in August 2016. However, Simpson's November 2017 transcribed interview before the House Intelligence Committee showed him saying he worked through Bruce Ohr "sometime after Thanksgiving."
Fox News recently asked the FBI, Justice Department and special counsel's office whether the meetings with Ohr over Steele and the dossier were consistent with -- or in conflict with -- existing DOJ or FBI rules, including chain-of-custody procedures for handling evidence. In addition, the special counsel's office was asked whether Weissmann and Ahmad had fully disclosed their contacts with Bruce Ohr and others over the dossier.
The FBI and special counsel declined to comment; the DOJ did not immediately respond.
An attorney for Nellie Ohr did not respond to a request for comment. An attorney for McCabe did not respond.
Fox News also reached out to the office of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the current chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, for comment.

Starbucks Schultz Cartoons

U.S.-Backed Coalition Continues Final Offensive Against Islamic State

FILE – In this Wednesday, April 4, 2018 file photo, a U.S. soldier, left, sits on an armored vehicle behind a sand barrier at a newly installed position near the front line between the U.S-backed Syrian Manbij Military Council and the Turkish-backed fighters, in Manbij, north Syria. An American military official said Friday, Jan. 11, 2019 that the U.S.-led military coalition has begun the process of withdrawing troops from Syria. (AP Photo/Hussein Malla, File)

 

A U.S.-led coalition is cracking down on the remnants of the Islamic state in Syria, ahead of the planned troop withdrawal from the country.
According to the Syrian Democratic Forces, the ongoing U.S.-backed offensive is focusing on the last outposts of ISIS on the Syrian-Iraqi border.
Officials say ISIS only controls two small villages on the east bank of the Euphrates River.
SDF fighters believe ISIS will lose its last remaining territories over the upcoming weeks.
The ongoing military operation is expected to end the existence of the ISIS caliphate on the ground in Syria.
The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights said at least 42 people–including 13 civilians–were killed in a recent series of airstrikes against the Islamic state.

NBC News' Tom Brokaw apologizes after comments on Hispanics spark backlash

Tom Brokaw, right, backtracked from remarks he gave on "Meet the Press." (William B. Plowman/NBC/NBC NewsWire via Getty Images)

NBC News special correspondent and former "NBC Nightly News" anchor Tom Brokaw apologized Sunday evening for remarks he made on "Meet the Press" earlier in the day about Hispanic assimilation, after the comments triggered backlash.
During a panel discussion about the fight for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, Brokaw said: "On the Republican side, a lot of people see the rise of an extraordinary, important new constituent in American politics, Hispanics, who will come here and all be Democrats."
He continued, "Also, I hear, when I push people a little harder, 'Well, I don’t know whether I want brown grandbabies.' I mean, that’s also a part of it. It’s the intermarriage that is going on and the cultures that are conflicting with each other." He did not explain who had told him this.
Brokaw went on to say: "I also happen to believe that the Hispanics should work harder at assimilation. That’s one of the things I’ve been saying for a long time. You know, they ought not to be just codified in their communities but make sure that all their kids are learning to speak English, and that they feel comfortable in the communities. And that’s going to take outreach on both sides, frankly."
PBS correspondent Yamiche Alcindor replied: "I grew up in Miami, where people speak Spanish, but their kids speak English. And the idea that we think America can only speak English, as if Spanish and other languages wasn’t always part of America, is, in some ways, troubling."
The backlash was stronger online.
Sunday evening, Brokaw tweeted: "i feel terrible a part of my comments on Hispanics offended some members of that proud culture."
He also wrote, "i’ve worked hard to knock down false stereo types... i said ALL sides [have] to work harder at finding common ground."
He wrote later: "i am sorry, truly sorry, my comments were offensive to many. the great enduring american tradition of diversity is to be celebrated and cherished. yamiche, thank u for your comments. let’s go forward together."
However, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists said the apology wasn't nearly enough. "To assert that the U.S. is not the melting pot that the country prides itself on being, is disinformation as the U.S. has always had immigrants and a mixture of races, religious beliefs and languages in its history. It is these values in fact that makes the country fascinating and has spread the 'American Dream,'" the group said. "The 'sorry some Hispanics were offended' apology tweeted by Tom Brokaw earlier this evening is not an apology at all. It only further demonstrates Brokaw’s lack of understanding of what forced assimilation does to communities."
NBC News did not respond to Fox News' request for comment.
Brokaw anchored the long-running "NBC Nightly News" from 1982-2004.

Ex-Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz 'seriously' mulls presidential run, bashes Trump as 'not qualified'

Howard Schultz says he is considering running for president as a 'centrist independent.' (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File)

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz told CBS News' "60 Minutes" Sunday that he is "seriously thinking" of making a run for the White House in 2020 as a "centrist independent," decrying what he called "revenge politics" by both mainstream political parties.
"We're living at a most fragile time, not only the fact that this president is not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what's necessary on behalf of the American people," said Schultz, who specifically cited the spiraling national debt as "a reckless example, not only of Republicans, but of Democrats, as well, as a reckless failure of their constitutional responsibility."
Late Sunday, The New York Times reported that Schultz would spend the next three months traveling around the country promoting his new book "From the Ground Up: A Journey to Reimagine the Promise of America" before he makes a final decision about whether or not to run. He has stops this week in New York; Tempe, Arizona; Seattle; and San Francisco — but no dates listed for the early voting states of Iowa or New Hampshire.
Hours before the "60 Minutes" interview aired, Schultz sent his first message on Twitter, where he's had an account since September 2012.
"It feels good to be here," he wrote. "My hope is to share my truth, listen to yours, build trust, and focus on things that can make us better."
Schultz tweeted again after the interview aired, writing: "This moment is like no other. Our two parties are more divided than ever. Let’s discuss how we can come together to create opportunities for more people."
The prospect of an independent run by Schultz, who described himself as a "lifelong Democrat" and has given approximately $150,000 to Democratic campaigns over the years, has caused consternation among the party's establishment who fear he might siphon votes from whoever the Democrats nominate to challenge President Trump.
"Howard Schultz running as an independent isn’t about bringing people together," said Tina Podlodowski, the Democratic Party chair in Schultz's adopted home state of Washington, in a statement late Sunday. "It’s about one person: Howard Schultz."
Neera Tanden, the president of the liberal Center for American Progress, tweeted Saturday that she would boycott Starbucks if Schultz threw his hat into the presidential ring.
"Vanity projects that help destroy democracy are disgusting," she wrote. " ... I’m not giving a penny that will end up in the election coffers of a guy who will help Trump win."
On "60 Minutes," Schultz deflected a question from interviewer Scott Pelley about the possibility of playing spoiler for a Democratic nominee.
"I wanna see the American people win," he said. "I wanna see America win. I don't care if you're a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Republican. Bring me your ideas. And I will be an independent person, who will embrace those ideas. Because I am not, in any way, in bed with a party."
No third-party or independent candidate has won over five percent of the popular vote since Ross Perot in 1996, but Schultz said far more people than that have had it with both parties.
"What we know, factually, is that over 40 percent of the electorate is either a registered Independent or currently affiliates themselves as an Independent," Schultz said, "because the American people are exhausted. Their trust has been broken. And they are looking for a better choice."
Schultz criticized Trump for pulling out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, which he called a "tremendous mistake" and slammed the administration's aggressive trade policy and outwardly ambivalent stance toward multinational alliances.
"Is it in our national interest to have a fight with Mexico, Canada, the EU, China, NATO? Is it in our interest?" he said. "Give me a break. No, it's not in our interest. These are our friends. These are our allies. We are much better, as a country, being part of the world order."
On paper, Schultz offers a number of qualities that might appeal to voters. He grew up in public housing in Brooklyn, N.Y., and became the first person in his family to graduate from college.
He took over Starbucks when it sold only coffee beans, not cups — it had 11 stores and fewer than 100 employees at the time — and grew it into a global behemoth that now has close to 30,000 stores in 78 countries. Along the way he adopted an ethos of corporate responsibility, making Starbucks one of the earliest U.S. companies to offer stock options and health insurance even to part-time employees, and more recently partnering with Arizona State University to cover tuition for workers who want to earn their bachelor's degree online.
He's waded into contentious social issues. In 2013, Starbucks asked customers not to bring guns into stores following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, and in 2015, Schultz drew anger and ridicule after he urged baristas to write "Race Together" on cups to spark conversations amid tension over police shootings of black men. Last year, after two black men were arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks while waiting for a business meeting, Starbucks closed 8,000 U.S. stores early so employees could take anti-bias training.
However, some of his views might clash with a Democratic Party gearing up to unseat Trump. While some potential nominees, including Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and California Sen. Kamala Harris, have endorsed single-payer health care, heavily taxing the rich or free tuition at public colleges, Schultz has criticized some such proposals as unrealistic and instead emphasized expanding the economy and curbing entitlements.
"It concerns me that so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left," Schultz told CNBC last June. "I ask myself, 'How are we going to pay for all these things?' in terms of things like single-payer or people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a job. I don't think that's realistic."

Trump doubts he'd accept any deal Congress strikes for border wall

President Trump said Sunday he doubted he could accept any agreement struck by congressional negotiators that would give him less than his requested $5.7 billion for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border as White House officials dangled the possibility of another partial shutdown next month.
The president also cast doubt on the prospect of lawmakers reaching any agreement before funding for most government agencies runs out on Feb. 15, telling The Wall Street Journal: "I personally think it’s less than 50-50, but you have a lot of very good people on that board."
On Friday, Trump signed legislation ending the 35-day shutdown without any funding for his long-promised border barrier, a reversal from last month when he refused to sign any funding legislation that did not provide wall money.
"I have to do it right," Trump insisted to the Journal on Sunday, adding that another partial shutdown was "certainly an option." The president also cast doubt on any deal that would trade wall funding for increased protections or citizenship for Dreamers, a group of immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children, calling it "a separate subject to be taken up at a separate time."
When asked on CBS News' "Face The Nation" if Trump was prepared to wage another shutdown fight over the wall, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney answered: "Yeah, I think he actually is."
"This is a serious humanitarian and security crisis," Mulvaney said. "And, as president of the United States, [Trump] takes the security of the nation as his highest priority."
Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Mulvaney said "the right way" to fund the wall would be through legislation passed by Congress.
"But at the end of the day," he added, "the president is going to secure the border one way or another."
The White House has directed the Army Corps of Engineers to "look at possible ways of funding border security," including possibly using the president's emergency powers and unspent disaster relief money.
"I think the president wants his $5.7 billion," Mulvaney said. "Keep in mind –  why is that number? It’s not a number that’s made up. It’s what the experts have told him. He’s listened to DHS. I’ve been in on the meetings. He’s listened to CBP [Customs and Border Patrol], he’s listened to ICE."
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, a member of the Democratic leadership in the House, said his colleagues are looking for "evidence-based" legislation.
"Shutdowns are not legitimate negotiating tactics when there's a public policy disagreement between two branches of government," he told NBC News' "Meet The Press." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said repeatedly that congressional Democrats would not support any legislation that finances the wall.
The president kept up the case for the wall on social media, tweeting: "BUILD A WALL & CRIME WILL FALL!" On Sunday morning, he pegged the number of illegal immigrants at "25,772,342 ... not the 11,000,000 that have been reported for years." Trump also tweeted that the cost of illegal immigration so far this year was nearly $19 billion. He did not cite a source for either figure.
"I'm not exactly sure where the President got that number this morning," Mulvaney told "Face The Nation." "But I think what you see him trying to do is point out how silly this debate is. This is not that much money in the greater scheme of things the United States of America ... This should have been resolved a long time ago, and we do hope it gets resolved in the next twenty-one days."

The Camel Harris Cartoons

President Trump: Only fools or those with a political agenda don’t want a wall

FILE- In this Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2019, file photo seen from a window outside the Oval Office, President Donald Trump gives a prime-time address about border security at the White House in Washington. With the standoff over paying for his long-promised border wall dragging on, the president’s Oval Office address and visit to the Texas border over the past week failed to break the logjam and left aides and allies fearful that the president has misjudged Democratic resolve and is running out of negotiating options. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

OAN Newsroom
8:59 PM PT – Sat. January 26, 2019

President Trump suggests opposition to his proposed barrier at the southern border is either unintelligent or politically motivated.
The President, in a tweet today, said only “fools or people with a political agenda don’t want a wall or steel barrier to protect our country from crime, drugs, and human trafficking.”
This comes as the Trump Administration and GOP lawmakers seek to negotiate border wall funding with democrats.
The President has also left open the possibility he will declare a National Emergency to build the wall if a funding deal cannot be reached.