Trump, Russia, and Illegal Surveillance

Candidate Donald Trump proposed, and President Donald Trump has pursued, two policy issues which are clearly detrimental to the Russian government of Vladimir Putin.

The first is the proposal to allow exploitation of energy resources within federal lands. The Russian economy is heavily dependent on energy sales. Increasing the supply of oil or gas causes prices to drop, and hobbles the Russian economy.

The second is the strengthening of the U.S. armed forces. After eight years of neglect under the Obama Administration and the Sequester, the American military has reached its lowest point, in many cases, in a century, particularly in relation to the growing forces of Russia and China. Moscow relies heavily on military strength for international influence, since it possesses neither financial or cultural assets that are influential on a global scale. A return to full strength by the U.S. military limits the Kremlin’s influence.

Despite these two policies which Moscow considers serious threats to its power and well-being, Democrats are attempting to make the case that there are hidden ties between Trump and Putin. In reply, President Trump alleges that the former Obama Administration used this charge to engage in surveillance of his campaign.

The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, popularly called the FISA court, is a federal tribunal consisting of 11 federal judges who serve on a weekly rotating basis, It was established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against international intelligence agents working within the United States. It convenes in an undisclosed but highly protected courtroom not far from the White House.

While those who disagree with President Trump’s allegation that he was unlawfully spied upon point out that there was no FISA authorization to do so, it does not mean that surveillance didn’t take place. The Obama Administration has a history of abusing federal assets and agencies for partisan political purposes. The Department of Justice intentionally turned a blind eye towards offenses having to do with voting, the Internal Revenue Service clearly was employed in partisan attacks against the Tea Party, and even agencies such as NASA, NOAA, and the EPA were manipulated for political or ideological gain.

As scandal after scandal erupted having to do with misuse of federal agencies, the Obama White House repeatedly claimed that it had no idea what its own agencies were doing.

It has been maintained that the entire allegation against Trump regarding contact with Russians was a cover-up, used as an excuse to justify the unlawful surveillance.

As Trump began to explode in popularity, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on what may have been artificial concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions.

Heatstreet describes the allegation:

“An initial request to place surveillance on Trump Tower was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October on flimsy evidence that a server in Trump Tower hay have had links to two Russian banks. ‘Sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.’ It turned out there was nothing amiss. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation.”

That the FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Department’s initial request, is notable, according to RealClearPolitics “The FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national-security surveillance. Not taking no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department evidently returned to the FISA court in October 2016, the critical final weeks of the presidential campaign. This time, the Justice Department submitted a narrowly tailored application that did not mention Trump. The court apparently granted it, authorizing surveillance of some Trump associates. The New York Times has identified – again, based on illegal leaks of classified information – at least three of its targets: Paul Manafort (a former Trump campaign chairman), and two others whose connection to the Trump campaign was loose at best, Manafort’s former political-consulting business partner Roger Stone, and investor Carter Page. The Times ultimately concedes that the government’s FISA investigation may have nothing to do with Trump, the campaign, or alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S. election by hacking e-mail accounts.”

Several salient questions must be answered by those pushing the Trump-Russia connection story. First, why would Moscow seek to assist a candidate who was clearly detrimental to their interests? This issue is particularly relevant when the other candidate, Hillary Clinton, engaged in policies that proved significantly helpful to the Kremlin, either personally or in supporting the policies of the Obama Administration. Those policies included:

Her advocacy of the New START treaty, which gave Moscow the lead in nuclear weaponry for the first time in history;
Her facilitation of the sale of uranium, the basic ingredient in nuclear weapons, to Russia;
The slowdown in the deployment of anti-ballistic missiles;
The slashing of U.S. defense spending;
The restriction against using energy resources on federal lands;
The failure to enact significant sanctions in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine; and
The failure to respond to the growing Russian military presence in the western hemisphere.

In short, drinking simply one or viagra brand online two cups of coffee a day noticed about 42 percent reduction in the occurrence of erectile dysfunction. The preferred form of the supermodels http://icks.org/n/bbs/content.php?co_id=SPRING_SUMMER_2014&mcode=40&smcode=40b0 viagra cost in canada is Acai Capsules. In this condition you could look here generic levitra a person tends to have some sexual issues which bring his relationships on stake. Sexual problems are different in nature but most of the blood will be present during erection, thereby curing erectile dysfunction. commander cialis continue reading now
The second issue is, why did the FISA Court, which is very amenable to surveillance requests, turn down the Obama government’s bid for covert surveillance in June? The response, of course is that the evidence may have far too flimsy—in essence, a poorly concealed justification for illegal, partisan surveillance of a rival campaign.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.