Trump Administration Hired Assistant Chief Accused of Sexual Assault

An employee in President Trump’s State Department was hired despite previous accusations that he sexually assaulted up to five students.

The allegations against Steven Munoz from his time at The Citadel in South Carolina had previously surfaced after he worked for Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign.

But despite numerous articles about the claims easily searchable online, ProPublica reported Wednesday that Munoz was hired by the State Department as assistant chief of visits and joined on Jan. 25.

The first accusation was made after an April 2009 incident when a freshman who had fallen asleep spooning with Munoz said that he woke up to the then-sophomore grabbing his penis.

Munoz received only a warning from the Citadel after a mediation with the accuser, though four other younger students made allegations of sexual mistreatment against him after he graduated in 2011.

The claims involved alleged incidents where Munoz, a class president at the school, put his hand in a fellow Republican Society member’s underwear and jumped on a fellow student in a sexual manner.

Other claims in a 2012 police report include Munoz saying “it was more okay for guys to be with guys sexually before marriage than to be with girls and that God would be less angry at the two guys messing around than a guy and a girl.”

In response, The Citadel banned Munoz from campus.

Police forwarded their findings to prosecutors, who declined to indict the budding GOP operative and said there was not probable cause to charge him.

The campus ban was partially reversed in 2014 to allow Munoz to attend some events, though the school said that it “concluded that certain assaults likely occurred,” ProPublica reported Wednesday.

Munoz and his attorney Andy Savage have forcefully denied any allegations of wrongdoing, with the lawyer telling the Post and Courier in 2012 that they are like writing on a bathroom wall.

He added that the information was an attempt by a Citadel staffer who wanted to embarrass Munoz because of his politics.

Savage told the Daily News Wednesday that he believes the allegations’ resurfacing stem from someone wanting “to discredit his boss or bosses.”

He added that the claims were “thoroughly investigated by law enforcement” at the time, and he believes Citadel’s actions towards his client were an overreaction to previous stories about harassment and hazing.

Since graduating from the college where cadets are given military as well as academic training, Munoz has worked largely as president of the consulting firm American Southern Group, according to his LinkedIn.

ProPublica’s investigation showed that the group received at least $13,000 in September from Trump’s campaign for “event consulting,” and the LinkedIn shows that Munoz also worked for the inauguration.

Munoz does not list his State Department work on his LinkedIn, though ProPublica says that he is running an office of up to 10 employees.

A State Department spokesperson confirmed to the Daily News that Munoz was hired in January as the Assistant Chief of Visits in the Office of the Chief of Protocol.

The department cannot give information about the employee’s security clearance because of privacy concerns, according to the spokesperson.

It added that “many aspects of an individual’s life” are examined when determining security clearances, but that “access to classified information shall only be granted following an appropriate investigation and the determination that the applicant’s personal and professional history affirmatively indicates, among other factors, loyalty, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, and reliability.”

(h/t New York Daily News)

Kushner Left Russian Meetings Off Security Clearance Forms

President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, failed to disclose dozens of meetings and contacts with foreign officials in the months before inauguration while he was seeking a top-secret security clearance, The New York Times reported Thursday.

Among the meetings that Kushner omitted from his national security questionnaire were one with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and another with Sergey Gorkov, the CEO of the Russian state-owned bank Vnesheconombank.

Kushner’s lawyer told the Times that the omissions were an error and that the top White House aide’s office notified the FBI the day after he submitted the questionnaire that he would provide supplemental information. He is now using a temporary security clearance, according to his aides.

“During the presidential campaign and transition period, I served as a point-of-contact for foreign officials trying to reach the president-elect,” Kushner reportedly told the FBI after learning of the omissions, according to a statement provided to the Times by his lawyer.

“I had numerous contacts with foreign officials in this capacity. … I would be happy to provide additional information about these contacts.”

Congressional investigators as well as the FBI are probing Russian election meddling and potential ties between Trump’s team and Moscow. The Senate Intelligence Committee is planning to interview Kushner on his meetings with Kislyak and Gorkov as part of its probe.

The revelation is the latest in a series of ongoing controversies regarding the Trump administration and Russia. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn resigned in February amid reports that he discussed sanctions with Kislyak before Trump took office, and misled top White House officials about the discussions.

Later that month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was revealed to have met with Kislyak during Trump’s presidential campaign, during which time Sessions was a top surrogate for Trump.

Icahn Raises Ethics Flags With Dual Roles as Investor and Trump Adviser

Since Carl Icahn, the billionaire investor, was named by President Trump as a special adviser on regulatory matters, he has been busy working behind the scenes to try to revamp an obscure Environmental Protection Agency rule that governs the way corn-based ethanol is mixed into gasoline nationwide.

It is a campaign that fits into the charge Mr. Trump gave Mr. Icahn, to help the nation “break free of excessive regulation.” But there is an additional detail that is raising eyebrows in Washington: Mr. Icahn is a majority investor in CVR Energy, an oil refiner based in Sugar Land, Tex., that would have saved $205.9 million last year had the regulatory fix he is pushing been in place.

Mr. Icahn, known internationally for his pugnacious and persistent approach to activist investing, has brought that same technique to his new role. He quizzed Scott Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general, about the ethanol rule when Mr. Icahn helped interview Mr. Pruitt for the E.P.A. job. Mr. Icahn later reached out to Gary D. Cohn, Mr. Trump’s top economic adviser, to raise the issue. Mr. Icahn said he even had a telephone conversation in February with Mr. Trump himself.

The blitz has already generated at least one clear outcome: Since Mr. Trump was elected president with Mr. Icahn’s very vocal support and nearly $200,000 in political contributions to Republican causes — the stock price of CVR Energy has soared. By late December, it had doubled. It is still up 50 percent from the pre-election level, generating a windfall, at least on paper, of $455 million as of Friday.

The merging of private business interest with government affairs — aspects of which have previously been reported by Bloomberg, but which The New York Times has found further evidence of — has generated protests from ethics experts in Washington, as well as certain Senate Democrats. They consider Mr. Icahn’s dual roles perhaps the most troubling conflict of interest to emerge so far in the new administration.

“This is a mile out of bounds by any standard,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who, along with other Democrats, sent a letter Monday to Mr. Icahn, the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Justice to object to Mr. Icahn’s dual roles, and to ask new questions. “Were the shoe on the other foot, Republicans would be having fits about any Obama relationship like this.”

Mr. Icahn, 81, in a series of interviews in the last week, was unapologetic. He said he was not subject to conflict of interest rules because he is an informal, unpaid adviser to Mr. Trump, not an official government employee.

“I’m not making any policy,” Mr. Icahn said. “I am only giving my opinion.”

Kelly Love, a White House spokeswoman, also dismissed the criticism. She pointed to the December news release when Mr. Trump first named Mr. Icahn “special adviser to the president” on regulatory matters. “He is simply a private citizen whose opinion the president respects and whom the president speaks with from time to time,” Ms. Love said in a written statement. “Mr. Icahn does not have a position with the administration nor a policy-making role.”

Both compared Mr. Icahn’s role to corporate executives serving on federal advisory commissions, who are expected to argue for changes in federal policies while remaining corporate officers. But CVR Energy, of which Mr. Icahn owns 82 percent, is just one entry on a growing list of potential conflicts that have surfaced since his December appointment.

Mr. Icahn has provided input to the White House on the selection of the new head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He is a major investor in companies that have recently been targeted for enforcement action or investigation by the S.E.C., including CVR Energy and Herbalife, the nutritional beverage company, of which he owned about 24 percent at the end of last year.

Mr. Icahn has also pressed Freeport-McMoRan, the global mining company he helps run as a result of his large investment, to more aggressively fight back against the government of Indonesia, the company’s chief executive, Richard Adkerson, said in an interview Friday. Indonesia is challenging Freeport’s contract to extract gold and copper from one of the world’s largest mines.

The company, as that pressure from Mr. Icahn and other investors has intensified, has been asking for help from the State Department, Commerce Department and White House, Mr. Adkerson said.

Mr. Icahn is “very concerned about what is happening in Indonesia,” Mr. Adkerson told reporters in Indonesia last month, adding that he was “confident the U.S. government will want to see Freeport treated fairly.” (Both Mr. Adkerson and Mr. Icahn said that Mr. Icahn, who controls two of eight seats on the company’s board, had not directly intervened with the Trump administration on this matter.)

And while the Trump administration imposed a broad freeze on the adoption of new regulations — holding up dozens of new rules affecting everything from hybrid cars to furniture manufacturing — it surprised industry officials by allowing one Internal Revenue Service rule to go into effect in late January. The rule expands a special kind of oil and gas business organization with tax advantages, known as a master limited partnership, that Mr. Icahn cited as a primary reason he first made his big investment in CVR Energy back in 2012.

What is clear is that Mr. Icahn has an unusual position in the Trump administration. During his campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly boasted of his ties to Mr. Icahn — calling him “my very dear friend” and citing Mr. Icahn’s support as a sign that “many of the great businesspeople are endorsing me.”

His fortune, $16.6 billion, according to a Forbes estimate, is greater than those of all the other members of Mr. Trump’s cabinet combined, with investments in companies as diverse as Hertz, Xerox and PayPal, as well as A.I.G., the multinational insurance company, and most recently Bristol-Myers Squibb, the global biopharmaceutical company.

Mr. Trump’s cabinet appointees, many of whom are very rich, had to undergo stringent reviews by the Office of Government Ethics that negotiated personalized asset sales agreements for each of them to help them avoid conflicts of interest. But Mr. Icahn is not required to take any such steps, given that he is an unpaid adviser rather than a formal government employee.

Mr. Icahn has long fought against the ethanol rule, known more formally as the Renewable Fuel Standard. In August he wrote an unusually personal 11-page letter to Gina McCarthy, who served as President Barack Obama’s head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and one of Ms. McCarthy’s top deputies, with an all-capital-letter headline: “PROGRAM IS BROKEN AND NEEDS TO BE FIXED IMMEDIATELY.”

He pushed the federal government, in this letter and other appeals, to eliminate the requirement that refiners be held responsible for ensuring that ethanol is blended into gasoline, given that the actual blending is often done by gas station owners, closer to the point of sale. Other merchant refiners like the San Antonio-based Valero Energy joined Mr. Icahn in pressing the E.P.A.

“This is a terrible, flawed rule,” said LeAnn Johnson Koch, a lawyer representing a group of smaller refiners, who joined the effort.

Major oil companies, like Exxon Mobil, own both the refineries and service stations, so they can handle this requirement. But CVR Energy and other so-called merchant refiners no longer handle the gasoline once it leaves their refineries. So they must buy renewable fuel credits — nicknamed RINs — to prove to the E.P.A. that they have complied with the blending of the ethanol and gasoline, a requirement that cost CVR $637.5 million over the last four years.

“You are robbing refineries so that gas station owners and other players can make windfall profits,” Mr. Icahn said in an interview Friday, barely able to contain his anger at the arrangement.

But the Obama administration, in November, moved to reject the request to revamp the system.

“We were not persuaded that the program would be appreciably better at accomplishing its goals, with the approach that he was advocating,” said Janet McCabe, the E.P.A. administrator who oversaw the program.

So after Mr. Trump won, Mr. Icahn took up the campaign again, this time gaining much higher access. First, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Icahn to help him screen candidates for the E.P.A. job, so when Mr. Icahn interviewed Mr. Pruitt, he asked him specifically about his position on the ethanol rule.

“The E.P.A., in my opinion, has gone way too far, has sort of run amok with these crazy regulations,” Mr. Icahn said in an interview with Bloomberg television in early December, explaining why he supported Mr. Pruitt for the job. Mr. Icahn then added that Mr. Pruitt had made clear to him that “he feels pretty strongly about the absurdity of these obligations, and I feel that this should be done immediately,” referring to the ethanol rule.

In February, Mr. Icahn set up a telephone call with Mr. Trump. The conversation, which took place in the lobby of Mr. Icahn’s New York apartment building as he was returning from walking his dog, involved a plan he had hatched to force the E.P.A. to revamp the rule, details of which were confirmed by Mr. Icahn, after being first reported by Bloomberg.

Mr. Icahn confirmed in an interview Friday that he had follow-up conversations with Mr. Cohn, Mr. Trump’s top economic adviser, and Mike Catanzaro, a top Trump White House aide on energy policy (and a former oil industry lobbyist).

But Mr. Icahn’s plan has run into intense opposition from other industry players, including the powerful American Petroleum Institute, and a trade association that represents major ethanol producers like Iowa-based Poet. In an interview last week, Poet’s chief executive, Jeff Broin, called the plan a “back-room” deal. “It seems like self-dealing to me and a clear conflict of interest,” he said.

The White House, in a statement, said no policy change was imminent.

But Mr. Icahn’s actions have already generated calls for investigations, including a complaint filed this month with congressional officials by Public Citizen, a liberal nonprofit group.

Not uncharacteristically for Mr. Icahn, he shows no sign that he intends to back down in his push for the policy change.

“All my life I have fought the establishment — from U.S. Steel, to eBay, to Apple,” he said last week, listing some of his famous battles to force management changes at companies in which he has invested. “I have never shied away from it. I am not going to now.”

(h/t New York Times)

Former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort ‘Offered to Help Putin’

Paul Manafort is said to have proposed a strategy to nullify anti-Russian opposition across former Soviet republics a decade ago.

AP says documents and interviews support its claims about Mr Manafort.

Mr Manafort has insisted that he never worked for Russian interests.

He worked as Mr Trump’s unpaid campaign chairman from March until August last year, including the period during which the flamboyant New York billionaire clinched the Republican nomination.

He resigned after AP revealed that he had co-ordinated a secret Washington lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine’s ruling pro-Russian political party until 2014.

Newly obtained business records link Mr Manafort more directly to Mr Putin’s interests in the region, AP says.

It comes as Trump campaign advisers are the subject of an FBI investigation and two congressional inquiries.

Investigators are reviewing whether the Trump campaign and its associates co-ordinated with Moscow to interfere in the 2016 presidential election campaign to damage Mr Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton, a stern critic of Mr Putin.

Mr Manafort is said to have pitched the plans to aluminium magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Putin.

In a confidential strategy plan in 2005, AP reports, Mr Manafort proposed to influence politics, business dealings and news coverage in the US, Europe and the ex-Soviet republics to advance the interests of the Putin government.

At this time, US-Russia relations were deteriorating.

“We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success,” Mr Manafort is said to have written, adding that it would be offering “a great service that can refocus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government”.

Mr Manafort signed a $10m-a-year contract beginning in 2006, AP reports. How much work he did under this contract was unclear.

Mr Manafort and Mr Deripaska reportedly maintained a business relationship until at least 2009.

When Donald Trump picked Paul Manafort to be his campaign chair last March, the political operative was a relatively minor player in Washington, consigned to working for deep-pocketed foreign benefactors. That those benefactors have turned out to include Russian oligarchs and Ukrainian politicians with ties to Vladimir Putin is sure to cause growing concern in the Trump White House.

Now it appears increasingly likely that Mr Manafort is one of the “individuals associated with the Trump campaign”, in Director James Comey’s words, at the heart of an ongoing FBI investigation.

This would explain why White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer recently downplayed Mr Manafort’s connections to the Trump team, saying he “played a very limited role” in the campaign for “a very limited amount of time”.

Mr Manafort could face legal consequences if the FBI concludes that he did not properly disclose his work for foreign leaders. That would at the very least prove embarrassing for Mr Trump, given the power he delegated to Mr Manafort last summer.

If it turns out that Mr Manafort’s contacts with foreign interests continued during his time at the top of the Trump campaign, the situation for the White House could go from embarrassing to full-blown scandal.

In a statement to AP, Mr Manafort confirmed that he had worked for Mr Deripaska in several countries but insisted the work was being unfairly cast as “inappropriate or nefarious” as part of a “smear campaign”.

“I worked with Oleg Deripaska almost a decade ago representing him on business and personal matters in countries where he had investments,” Mr Manafort said in the statement.

“My work for Mr Deripaska did not involve representing Russian political interests.”

A spokesman for Mr Deripaska in Moscow declined to answer questions from AP.

Further allegations have been made in Ukraine about secret funds said to have been paid to Mr Manafort.

Lawmaker Serhiy Leshchenko said he had evidence that Mr Manafort had tried to hide a payment of $750,000 (£600,800) by a pro-Russian party in 2009.

Mr Manafort’s spokesman said the claim was “baseless”.

Mr Manafort was an adviser to Ukraine’s ex-President Viktor Yanukovych, but denies receiving any cash payments.

(h/t BBC)

Top Trump Aide Sebastian Gorka is a Sworn Member of a Nazi Group

Sebastian Gorka, President Trump’s top counter-terrorism adviser, is a formal member of a Hungarian far-right group that is listed by the U.S. State Department as having been “under the direction of the Nazi Government of Germany” during World War II, leaders of the organization have told the Forward.

The elite order, known as the Vitézi Rend, was established as a loyalist group by Admiral Miklos Horthy, who ruled Hungary as a staunch nationalist from 1920 to October 1944. A self-confessed anti-Semite, Horthy imposed restrictive Jewish laws prior to World War II and collaborated with Hitler during the conflict. His cooperation with the Nazi regime included the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Jews into Nazi hands.

Gorka’s membership in the organization — if these Vitézi Rend leaders are correct, and if Gorka did not disclose this when he entered the United States as an immigrant — could have implications for his immigration status. The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual specifies that members of the Vitézi Rend “are presumed to be inadmissible” to the country under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Gorka — who Vitézi Rend leaders say took a lifelong oath of loyalty to their group — did not respond to multiple emails sent to his work and personal accounts, asking whether he is a member of the Vitézi Rend and, if so, whether he disclosed this on his immigration application and on his application to be naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2012. The White House also did not respond to a request for comment.

But Bruce Einhorn, a retired immigration judge who now teaches nationality law at Pepperdine University, said of this, “His silence speaks volumes.”

The group to which Gorka reportedly belongs is a reconstitution of the original group on the State Department list, which was banned in Hungary until the fall of Communism in 1989. There are now two organizations in Hungary that claim to be the heirs of the original Vitézi Rend, with Gorka, according to fellow members, belonging to the so-called “Historical Vitézi Rend.” Though it is not known to engage in violence, the Historical Vitézi Rend upholds all the nationalist and oftentimes racial principles of the original group as established by Horthy.

Einhorn said these nuances did not relieve Gorka of the obligation, if he’s a member, to disclose his affiliation when applying for his visa or his citizenship.

“This is a group that advocates racialist nativism,” said Einhorn. If Gorka did not disclose his affiliation with it, he said, this would constitute “failure to disclose a material fact,” which could undermine the validity of both his immigration status and claim to citizenship.

“It’s a material fact that, if disclosed, would have provoked a significant inquiry into the specific post-war role of this organization and Gorka’s activities in it,” he said.

Before serving 17 years as an immigration judge, Einhorn was deputy chief at the Justice Department’s Office of Special Investigations. The unit, which has since been disbanded, was charged with finding and deporting Nazis and members of other extremist groups who entered America illegally by lying about or hiding their background. He noted that individuals who apply for both visas and citizenship are specifically asked to name all organizations they belong to due to the government’s interest in scrutinizing those affiliated with extremist groups, and in particular those on the State Department’s list.

If Gorka did not disclose his Vitézi Rend affiliation, said Einhorn, he thereby “foreclosed the opportunity for U.S. officials to pursue that inquiry with him.” No statute of limitations exists for such violations, he noted.

Einhorn stressed that Gorka would have defenses in such a case; he might argue the chances were small that immigration and naturalization officials — who are not extremism experts or historians — would have recognized the nature of the group and questioned him even if he disclosed his affiliation. “There would have to be clear and convincing evidence that had he told the truth… it would have led to a meaningful inquiry that could have kept him out of the country.”

But Einhorn stressed: “My view is that it would be a legitimate case — difficult and challenging, but I believe winnable.”

Gorka, who is a deputy assistant to the president, first provoked questions about his relationship to the Vitézi Rend after he publicly brandished its medal on his lapel at a presidential inauguration ball January 20. When questions were raised about this in February on the news website Lobelog and elsewhere, he explained it as a gesture of honor to his late father.

“In 1979 my father was awarded a declaration for his resistance to a dictatorship,” he told Breitbart News then. “Although he passed away 14 years ago, I wear that medal in remembrance of what my family went through and what it represents today, to me, as an American.”

But the Forward’s inquiry into Gorka’s relationship with the Vitézi Rend suggests that Gorka’s explanation is, at best, incomplete:

Gorka, who pledged his loyalty to the United States when he took American citizenship in 2012, is himself a sworn member of the Vitézi Rend, according to both Gyula Soltész — a high-ranking member of the Vitézi Rend’s central apparatus — and Kornél Pintér — a leader of the Vitézi Rend in Western Hungary who befriended Gorka’s father through their activities in the Vitézi Rend.

Soltész, who holds a national-level leadership position at the Vitézi Rend, confirmed to the Forward in a phone conversation that Gorka is a full member of the organization.

“Of course he was sworn in,” Pintér said, in a phone interview. “I met with him in Sopron [a city near Hungary’s border with Austria]. His father introduced him.”

“In today’s world it is rare to meet anyone as well-bred as Sebastian or his father, Pali,” he added.

If correct, Gorka’s membership in the order is notable because, as Pintér and other members explained, affiliation is possible only via a solemn initiation rite in which new members take an oath swearing undying allegiance to the Hungarian nation and the Vitézi Rend’s goals:

“I, Vitez [name], swear on the Holy Crown that I know the Order’s goals and code, and based on the orders of the Captain and Order Superiors will follow them for the rest of my life. I never betrayed my Hungarianness, and was never and am not currently a member of an anti-national or secret organization. So help me God.”

Several commentators also noted that in his 2008 doctoral dissertation at Hungary’s Corvinus University, Gorka presented his name as Sebastian L. v. Gorka. The “v.” is an initial used by members of the Vitézi Rend.

But Gorka did not use the initial only in academic papers.

In June 2011, Gorka testified in front of the House Armed Services Committee. His official testimony did not list his name as Sebastian L. Gorka, but rather as Dr. Sebastian L. v. Gorka.

“Of course, only after the oath,” György Kerekes, a current member of the Vitézi Rend, told the Forward when asked if anyone may use the initial “v.” without going through the Vitézi Rend’s application process and an elaborate swearing-in ceremony.

As the son of a member of the Vitézi Rend, Gorka is eligible to apply for membership. But membership is not bestowed automatically, and he cannot use the initial in his name without actively applying for membership and taking the formal oath to the organization.

Gorka’s self-identification to a congressional committee as Dr. Sebastian L. v. Gorka thus indicates that Gorka either misrepresented his identity to Congress in 2011 or is currently misrepresenting his affiliation with the Vitézi Rend, potentially having taken an oath to Hungarian nationalist and racist principles.

The Vitézi Rend, which was established in 1920 for Horthy’s loyal followers, is listed by the State Department as one of many groups in Germany and the countries it occupied as collaborationist “criminal organizations” with the Nazis as determined by the post-war International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. The group was among those Horthy rewarded with real estate taken from hundreds of thousands of Jews his government deported to Nazi concentration camps.

Dissolved in Hungary after World War II under the terms of the Allies’ armistice with Hungary, it was reconstituted by veterans’ groups in exile, including prewar members of the group appointed by Horthy. It was re-established inside Hungary after communism’s collapse in 1989. According to State Department guidelines, while Vitézi Rend membership “does not automatically render the alien ineligible for a visa, the applicant has the burden of establishing that, despite being a member of a designated criminal organization, he or she did not participate in activities that would fall within the purview of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The guidelines cite a provision of the act barring entry to the United States to “participants in Nazi persecution, genocide, or the commission of any act of torture or extrajudicial killing.”

Gorka, who is 46, could not have been part of any World War II killings. But the provisions reflect the State Department’s understanding of the Vitézi Rend’s historical nature.

The group’s mission emphasized not only loyalty to Hungary and nationalist ideas, but also an ideology of racial superiority. One of the original aims of the Vitézi Rend was to “ensure such might to the Hungarian race, which with tremendous power strikes every subversive state and anti-national movement,” Horthy said in a speech to new members in 1921.

The Hungarian dictator, whom Vitézi Rend members still lionize on their websites as the order’s founding leader and ideological guide, added, “Let the Vitézi Rend be the pride of the Turan race and our homeland, but if necessary, its sharp cutting sword.” “The Turan race” refers to Turanism, a theory popular among the country’s far-right and fascist groups whereby Hungarians are thought to be a race descended from tribes that migrated from Asia.

Members of the Vitézi Rend should practice “love of their race,” Horthy said in 1926, in a speech during a swearing-in ceremony for new members.

“Whoever lets another take his place is committing a crime against his race,” Horthy emphasized eight years later, in a June 1934 speech to members of the Vitézi Rend.

Nearly a century later, the Vitézi Rend has not left its legacy of racism behind. Horthy is revered among the organization’s members. His speeches are quoted on Vitézi Rend websites, and his original goals for the organization are highlighted.

As historian Eva S. Balogh notes, the organization’s formal slogan — “I believe in one God, I believe in one country, I believe in the divine everlasting truth, I believe in the resurrection of Hungary” — advocates a return to Hungary’s pre-World War I borders; a territory that includes parts of modern-day Romania, Ukraine, Slovakia and Serbia.

Today, the organization presents itself as a “conservative, right-wing” group independent of party politics. But some of the organization’s newer members also openly embrace racist and anti-Semitic views. Footage on YouTube of a 2012 swearing-in ceremony of new members reveals Zsolt Bayer, a publicist and writer known as one of Hungary’s most outspoken anti-Semites, being initiated as a member.

In 2013, Hungary’s highest court formally ruled that one of Bayer’s articles was anti-Semitic. In a 2016 article that earned the protest of Israel’s ambassador to Hungary, the Vitézi Rend member asked, “Why are we surprised that the simple peasant” didn’t interfere with the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Nazi concentration camps “when the ‘Jews’ broke into his village and beat the priests to death or hung them from lamp posts, the judge and everyone they didn’t like…?”

Though Gorka did not respond to inquiries about his relationship to the Vitézi Rend, when the Forward revealed in February that he had co-founded a political party together with former members of the Hungarian far-right Jobbik party and wrote articles for a Hungarian paper known for its anti-Semitism, the White House aide responded on Twitter by quoting a friend: “Sharing a room w Helen Keller does not make 1 blind; sharing a subway car w Albert Einstein does not make 1 a genius.”

But Einhorn, the immigration expert, stressed a larger moral principle was at stake.

“Gorka is part of an administration issuing travel bans against countries and people as a whole,” he said. “For someone who is part of this effort to not answer your question [about his membership] and yet support what’s gong on in the West Wing where he works is the height of hypocrisy. The administration that makes so much of protecting us from extremists while looping the guilty in with the innocent should at least require its officials tell the truth.”

Gorka’s inconsistent record on his affiliation with the Vitézi Rend is one of several ways in which the deputy assistant to the president may be misconstruing his past.

Adrian Weale, who served as a British Intelligence Corps officer in the 1980s, traced how Gorka’s claims to have worked on counter-terror issues for British Military Intelligence in Northern Ireland and on collecting evidence for the war crimes tribunal set up after the collapse of Yugoslavia are unlikely to be true. According to Weale, Gorka “has never been an operational practitioner of counter-terrorism.”

At the same time, Gorka’s credentials as an academic expert in terrorism have been widely questioned. His doctoral dissertation has been dissected by various academics who say he is not an expert in their field, has never lived in a Muslim-majority country, does not speak Arabic and has avoided publishing any serious, peer-reviewed academic research.

Gorka’s doctoral supervisor in Hungary, András Lánczi, is an expert on political philosophy and Hungarian politics, but has never worked on terrorism, counter-terror or Islam-related research.

Writing in Foreign Policy, Colin Kahl, a deputy assistant to former President Obama and national security adviser to his vice president, Joe Biden, noted that it appears Gorka does not currently possess Top Secret or a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information security clearance. Nevertheless, in his frequent appearances in the media Gorka presents himself as having insight into decision making and threat intelligence to which only someone with a clearance would legally have access.

Gorka, who worked in Hungary’s Ministry of Defense and served in the British military, became a U.S. citizen only five years ago.

Others before Gorka have become American naturalized citizens and have quickly taken on senior government roles. One example is Martin Indyk, who was born in London and raised in Australia but nevertheless became a special assistant to President Clinton and served on the National Security Council before becoming the U.S. ambassador to Israel.

But Gorka’s position is distinguished by his past work for foreign governments, involvement with nationalist and far-right groups and figures, and, perhaps most important, for security investigators, inconsistencies in how he portrays his own past.

(h/t Forward)

Mike Flynn Was Paid By Russia’s Top Cybersecurity Firm While He Still Had Top-Secret-Level Security Clearance

Retired Gen. Michael Flynn was paid $11,250 by Russia’s top cybersecurity firm, Kaspersky, in 2015, according to new documents obtained and published by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Thursday. Flynn was also paid $11,250 by the Russian charter cargo airline Volga-Dnepr Airlines, according to the documents.

Flynn was paid for his work with both companies while he still had top-secret-level security clearance, a year after he was fired as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, The Wall Street Journal’s Shane Harris reported.

Kaspersky said in a statement provided to Business Insider that the company had “paid Gen. Flynn a speaker fee for remarks at the 2015 Government Cybersecurity Forum in Washington, DC.”

Another keynote speaker, Rep. Michael McCaul, was not paid by Kaspersky to speak at the event, his representative confirmed to Business Insider on Thursday. Kaspersky said that was because Flynn was a member of a speakers bureau that required a speaking fee, whereas McCaul was not.

Chris Haddad, another keynote speaker at the forum, told Business Insider he can’t remember if Kaspersky paid him to speak at the event.

Flynn — who was forced to resign as national security adviser in early February after he misled Vice President Mike Pence about his phone calls with the Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak — was also paid $33,750 to speak at a gala celebrating the 10th anniversary of Russia’s state-sponsored news agency, Russia Today, in December 2015.

The oversight committee received the documents earlier this month from Flynn’s speakers bureau, Leading Authorities, after requesting information from the bureau relating to Flynn’s speaking engagements or appearances “in connection with RT, any agent or affiliate of RT, or any agent or instrumentality of the Russian government.”

Leading Authorities redacted information about Flynn’s other speaking engagements in 2015 that were presumably not connected to Russia.

The oversight committee had previously called on the Defense Department to investigate whether Flynn had run afoul of the US Constitution by being paid to speak at the RT gala. The lawmakers pointed to a report released in January by the US intelligence community concluding that RT, as part of Russia’s “state-run propaganda machine,” served as “a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.”

The conclusion was in the community’s report about Russia’s attempt to influence the US election.

Flynn told The Washington Post last year that he had been paid to speak at the gala, but he would not disclose the amount. He also did not disclose the paid work he had done for Kaspersky and Volga-Dnepr Airlines, which transports military aircraft, in the summer of 2015.

Email correspondences between RT employees and Leading Authorities reveal that RT wanted Flynn to talk about the “decision-making process in the White House — and the role of the intelligence community in it” with regard to US policy in the Middle East over the last decade.

An RT official wrote in an email on November 20, 2015, that RT wanted Flynn to speak about “the decision-making process in the White House” when it came to the “Middle East security situation.”

Russia intervened in the Syrian civil war on behalf of Syrian President Bashar Assad, who the Obama administration had said should step down, in the months before the gala.

The oversight committee’s findings come just over a week after Flynn registered as a foreign agent with the Justice Department for his lobbying work in the latter half of 2016 on behalf of a Turkish businessman connected to the Turkish government.

“I cannot recall any time in our nation’s history when the president selected as his national security advisor someone who violated the Constitution by accepting tens of thousands of dollars from an agent of a global adversary that attacked our democracy,” Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, wrote in a letter to President Donald Trump on Thursday.

“I also cannot recall a time when the president and his top advisers seemed so disinterested in the truth about that individual’s work on behalf of foreign nations — whether due to willful ignorance or knowing indifference.”

The White House did not immediately respond to request for comment.

(h/t Business Insider)

 

Ethics Documents Suggest Conflict Of Interest By Trump Adviser

Federal records indicate that a key adviser to President Trump held substantial investments in 18 companies when he joined Trump in meetings with their CEOs.

The investments of Christopher Liddell, the president’s director of strategic initiatives, totaled between $3 million and $4 million. Among the companies in Liddell’s portfolio, and whose CEOs were in the meetings: Dell Technologies, Dow Chemical, Johnson & Johnson, JPMorgan Chase, Lockheed Martin and Wal-Mart.

When Trump conferred with the chiefs of Ford, General Motors and Fiat-Chrysler last month, Liddell attended the session. He was invested in all three companies at the time.

Details of Liddell’s investments are contained in documents he filed with the White House ethics officer in preparation for divesting his holdings. He was seeking certificates of divestiture, which allow federal appointees to defer paying capital-gains taxes by reinvesting in a blind trust or similar arrangement.

The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint Tuesday with White House Counsel Donald McGahn, raising concerns that Liddell may have violated the federal conflict of interest law, a criminal statute.

The complaint states: “If Mr. Liddell personally participated in meetings with companies in which he held significant amounts of stock, he may have violated these rules.”

The White House responded with this statement: “Mr. Liddell has been working with the Office of the White House Counsel to ensure he is fully compliant with his legal and ethical obligations in connection with his holdings and his duties in the White House.”

Liddell was born in New Zealand and is a U.S. citizen. In the past he has worked as chief financial officer of Ford Motors, International Paper and Microsoft.

It’s not clear whether Liddell now has sold off his investments, but he apparently had not done so before the meetings in question. The meetings were held on Jan. 23, Jan. 24 and Feb. 3. On Feb. 9, the Office of Government Ethics issued four certificates of divestiture for Liddell and his wife. They would be worthless if the assets had already been sold.

The complaint is one of several actions by CREW on White House ethics issues. The group says in a lawsuit that Trump is violating the Constitution’s ban on foreign emoluments (gifts); it has questioned the ethics of presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway after she urged TV viewers to buy Ivanka Trump’s fashion merchandise; and it challenged the lack of transparency of two White House advisory committees.

CREW Director Noah Bookbinder said of the White House, “It seems nobody is concerned about people making decisions based on their personal interests and not the interests of the American people.”

(h/t NPR)

Sean Spicer Gets Confronted in Apple Store, Responds With Racism

White House spokesman Sean Spicer was accosted by an Indian-American woman — who peppered him with questions about committing “treason” and working for a “fascist” like President Trump — as he shopped in an Apple store over the weekend.

The encounter has since gone viral after the woman who filmed it, Shree Chauhan, 33, claimed online that Spicer had made a racist statement to her, saying: “It’s such a great country that allows you to be here.”

“Unlike this administration, I do not believe in ‘alternative facts.’ I believe in facts. I do not believe in accusing someone of this level of racism, when if in fact it was not,” Chauhan wrote Sunday in a lengthy post on Medium.

“So I watched the video over and over again,” she said. “And his words were clear…’Such a great country that allows you to be here.’ That is racism and it is an implied threat.”

Chauhan, who lives in Washington, D.C., filmed the interaction with Spicer on Periscope Saturday night after spotting the White House spokesman in the store. She had been there getting her iPhone fixed and said she ultimately felt the need to “speak truth to power.”

“It is customary to give public figures their space…However, given what Mr. Spicer and his boss are doing to this country, I do not believe they are entitled to these norms and customs,” Chauhan explained.

In the clip, the self-described “eternal optimist” can be heard asking Spicer a series of questions, including “How does it feel to work for a fascist” and “Have you helped with the Russia stuff?”

“We have a great country,” the press secretary replies, while appearing to try to ignore Chauhan.

“Have you committed treason too? Just like the president,” she asks. “What can you tell me about Russia?”

It is after this barrage that Spicer delivers his allegedly “racist” remark, saying: “It’s such a great country that allows you to be here.”

Chauhan wrote on Medium that the response left her disgusted.

“I am still stunned by the boldness of having my citizenship threatened on camera,” she said. “I was not polite. But when does being impolite mean that I should be thrown out of the United States of America? The country I was born in, the country I was raised in, the country I love despite its flaws.”

Speaking to the Daily Mail about the video on Sunday, Chauhan shot down claims that Spicer could have been referring to the First Amendment rights of all Americans to exercise free speech when he made the comment.

“He’s the press secretary for the president of the United States,” she said. “Don’t tell me what he probably meant because he also works for this administration that has done all of these things.”

Chauhan went on to note how Trump has signed executive orders temporarily banning refugees and asylum seekers from predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa.

“He could’ve said, ‘Such a great country that allows dissent,’” she told the Mail. “There’s a lot of way that could’ve been said. To have someone who speaks for the president of the United States tell me to my face that I shouldn’t be here and I was born here — that is a real thing.”

Chauhan added that she’s feared for her safety since the day Trump was elected.

“I woke up the day after the election in fear of what would happen to someone like me. And we’ve seen what happened,” she said. “We’ve seen what happened to Indians.”

Earlier this month, a 39-year-old Seattle resident of Sikh heritage was shot by a man who reportedly shouted “go back to your country” just before pulling the trigger.

Weeks before that incident, a pair of Indian engineers were targeted by a Navy veteran who told them the same thing before blasting away at them. One of the men ended up dying and the other was wounded.

“They’re gonna spin it however they want, but there is a palatable fear that people have in this country and it is warranted,” Chauhan said. “On a regular basis, Mr. Spicer consistently defends the actions — and I believe unconstitutional actions — and lies on behalf of this administration.

“Spicer has the protection of the podium when he’s in the press room,” she added. “I didn’t have time to sit there and ask questions I would ask if I was a reporter…Maybe having someone like a regular person ask those questions instead [of reporters] — that might work.”

(h/t New York Post)

Media

New Documents Show Paul Manafort Laundered Payments From Party With Moscow Ties

A Ukrainian lawmaker released new financial documents Tuesday allegedly showing that a former campaign chairman for President Trump laundered payments from the party of a disgraced ex-leader of Ukraine using offshore accounts in Belize and Kyrgyzstan.

The new documents, if legitimate, stem from business ties between the Trump aide, Paul Manafort, and the party of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who enjoyed Moscow’s backing while he was in power. He has been in hiding in Russia since being overthrown by pro-Western protesters in 2014, and is wanted in Ukraine on corruption charges.

The latest documents were released just hours after the House Intelligence Committee questioned FBI Director James B. Comey about possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Moscow. The hearing that also touched on Manafort’s work for Yanukovych’s party in Ukraine.

Comey declined to say whether the FBI is coordinating with Ukraine on an investigation of the alleged payments to Manafort.

Manafort, who worked for Yanukovych’s Party of Regions for nearly a decade, resigned from Trump’s campaign in August after his name surfaced in connection with secret payments totaling $12.7 million by Yanukovych’s party. Manafort has denied receiving those, listed in the party’s “black ledger.”

Serhiy Leshchenko, a lawmaker and journalist, released a copy of an invoice on letterhead from Manafort’s consulting company, based in Alexandria, Va., dated Oct. 14, 2009, to a Belize-based company for $750,000 for the sale of 501 computers.

On the same day, Manafort’s name is listed next to a $750,000 entry in the “black ledger,” which was considered a party slush fund. The list was found at the party headquarters in the turmoil after Ukraine’s 2014 revolution. The ledger entries about Manafort were released by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, a government law enforcement agency, last August.

Leshchenko alleges that Manafort falsified an invoice to the Belize company to legitimize the $750,000 payment to himself.

“I have found during this investigation that [Manafort] used offshore jurisdictions and falsified invoices to get money from the corrupt Ukrainian leader,” Leshchenko said during a news conference in downtown Kiev, where he provided a copy of the invoice to journalists.

He said he received the invoices and other documents in January from the new tenants of Manafort’s former offices in downtown Kiev. The documents were left behind in a safe, he said, adding that Manafort’s signature and his company seal were proof that the documents were authentic.

Leshchenko said he was not aware of any formal Ukrainian investigation of the documents. He declined to comment on whether he had discussed the documents with U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Nazar Kholodnytskyi, a deputy prosecutor general of Ukraine whose department specializes in corruption cases, said in an interview on Tuesday that the documents hadn’t been confirmed by law enforcement or, to his knowledge, submitted for examination. There is an ongoing investigation into the black ledgers, he said, but Manafort was not a target of that investigation.

Manafort has previously accused Leshchenko of blackmailing him by threatening to release harmful information about his financial relationship with Yanukovych. That correspondence between Leshchenko and Manafort’s daughter was released in February as the result of a purported cyberhack. Leshchenko has called the exchange a forgery.

Manafort was involved in crafting the political strategy that brought Yanukovych to power after a crushing defeat in the 2004 elections. Yanukovych’s party has been accused of ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, particularly through wealthy oligarchs from the country’s east with interests in both Russia and Ukraine.

(h/t Washington Post)

Flynn Attended Intel Briefings While Taking Money To Lobby for Turkey

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was attending secret intelligence briefings with then-candidate Donald Trump while he was being paid more than half a million dollars to lobby on behalf of the Turkish government, federal records show.

Flynn stopped lobbying after he became national security advisor, but he then played a role in formulating policy toward Turkey, working for a president who has promised to curb the role of lobbyists in Washington.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer on Friday defended the Trump administration’s handling of the matter, even as he acknowledged to reporters that the White House was aware of the potential that Flynn might need to register as a foreign agent.

When his firm was hired by a Turkish businessman last year, Flynn did not register as a foreign lobbyist, and only did so a few days ago under pressure from the Justice Department, the businessman told The Associated Press this week.

Attempts by NBC News to reach the Turkish businessman, Ekim Alptekin, were unsuccessful Friday.

Price Floyd, a spokesman for Flynn, said the retired general would have no comment.

Flynn was fired last month after it was determined he misled Vice President Mike Pence about Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States. His security clearance was suspended.

When NBC News spoke to Alptekin in November, he said he had no affiliation with the Turkish government and that his hiring of Flynn’s company, the Flynn Intel Group, had nothing to do with the Turkish government.

But documents filed this week by Flynn with the Department of Justice paint a different picture. The documents say Alptekin “introduced officials of the Republic of Turkey to Flynn Intel Group officials at a meeting on September 19, 2016, in New York.”

In the documents, the Flynn Intel Group asserts that it changed its filings to register as a foreign lobbyist “to eliminate any potential doubt.”

“Although the Flynn Intel Group was engaged by a private firm, Inovo BV, and not by a foreign government, because of the subject matter of the engagement, Flynn Intel Group’s work for Inovo could be construed to have principally benefited the Republic of Turkey,” the filing said.

The firm was paid a total of $530,000 as part of a $600,000 contract that ended the day after the election, when Flynn stepped away from his private work, the documents say.

During the summer and fall, Flynn, the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was sitting in on classified intelligence briefings given to Trump.

Spicer acknowledged Friday that Flynn’s lawyer called the Trump transition team inquiring about whether Flynn should amend his filing to register as a foreign agent.

“That wasn’t the role for the transition,” Spicer said. “This was a personal matter, it’s a business matter.”

He did not explain whether anyone in the Trump operation dug into Flynn’s lobbying work.

It was well known that on Election Day, Flynn authored an op-ed in the Hill, a Washington newspaper, in which he lambasted Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish cleric residing in Pennsylvania who is blamed by the Turkish government for fomenting a July coup attempt there.

Previously, Flynn had seemed to praise the coup attempt.

According to the Justice Department filing, Flynn’s firm was hired to gather information about Gülen, and to produce a short film about its investigation.

“Flynn Intel Group was tasked to perform investigative research for a specified scope of work using its laboratory team of senior defense, diplomacy, development, and intelligence professionals over a three-month period,” the filing said. “Flynn Intel Group was to retain an experienced filming and production crew in order to develop a short film piece on the results of its investigation, and a public affairs firm to utilize for public affairs as needed. Flynn Intel Group held weekly calls with the client to report engagement progress.”

Even some Republicans were wondering how the White House allowed Flynn to take one of the most sensitive jobs in the government.

“Makes you wonder if an adequate background check has been done,” Rep. Steve King of Iowa said on MSNBC. “I think we need to know a lot more.”

Ethics experts say more information is needed to know whether Flynn may have run afoul of any conflict of interest rules. His receipt of a large sum of money on behalf of the Turkish government may have meant he should have avoided specific decisions regarding Turkey, but the details would be crucial.

It wasn’t immediately clear Friday whether Flynn recused himself from any matter while he was national security advisor, or whether he directly participated in decisions that had an impact on Turkey.

(h/t NBC News)

1 21 22 23 24 25