Thursday, October 1, 2020

CALIFORNIA IN BURNDOWN - SENATORS FEINSTEIN AND HARRIS NO WHERE TO BE FOUND - PELOSI SAYS SHE MAY HAVE TO GET NEW ILLEGALS TO WORK HER ST. HELENA WINERY

OF COURSE FEINSTEIN IS SUCKING OFF RED CHINA AND KAMALA IS SUCKING OFF BANKSTERS AND FOR THAT MATTER ANYONE WHO WILL PAY A BRIBE (google it!).


California Wildfires Continue to Ravage; Devastating Damage to the State’s Wine Country

TOPSHOT - The remains of a golf cart burned by the Glass Fire sits next to a vineyard at Calistoga Ranch in Calistoga, Napa Valley, California on September 30, 2020. - Two California wildfires that ravaged Napa's famous wine region and killed three people exploded in size Tuesday as firefighters …
SAMUEL CORUM/AFP via Getty Images
2:45

The statistics of the wildfire season in the western United States are grim: 7.4 million acres have been charred and 40 people have perished. And this year, California’s premier wine industry is also a victim.

The Wall Street Journal interviewed winemaker Alexander Eisele, whose winery is in the state’s Napa Valley. For the first time in 46 years, his vineyard won’t turn the grapes into wine this season. 

“Losing the entire year for a family operation, it’s devastating,” Eisele, who evacuated on Monday for the second time in a month, said in the Journal report.

The Journal reported on the destruction and economic impact on the industry:

As oak trees still smolder on his property, Mr. Eisele said he is beginning to tally the losses at his vineyard, which range from melted hoses to Cabernet vines that burned after decades of bearing fruit. Grape vines can cost up to $40,000 an acre to replace, and wine produced from the grapes of newer vines is usually lower quality and less valuable than that of older fruit.

At least 14 wineries have reported damage to vineyards or buildings in this week’s 48,440-acre Glass Fire, according to social-media posts.

Stephanie Honig, whose family vineyard and winery produce Honig wines, said the fires that began Sunday forced the winery to cancel plans to produce a Cabernet for the first time in 40 years.

“We’re not going to take the chance of being smoke-tainted,” Honig, who sells wine to restaurants and supermarkets including Amazon.com Inc.’s Whole Foods Market and Albertsons Cos.’s Safeway, said.

“Even before this year’s wildfires, an oversupply of grapes from a bumper harvest in 2018 had pressured prices for the fruit, and the coronavirus pandemic has slashed wine sales to restaurants and shut down tasting rooms,” the Journal reported. “Wine-industry consultant Jon Moramarco estimated that smoke from wildfires could cost vineyard owners in Napa up to half of their red-wine crops.”

The vineyards’ destruction also affects workers who harvest the grapes and who can earn twice as much as other farmworkers, according to the United Farm Workers labor union.

The U.S. Department of Labor reported on Thursday that the advance seasonally adjusted insured unemployment rate in California was 8.1 percent for the week ending September 19.

California has the fifth highest overall unemployment rate of any U.S. state at 11.4 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter.

RUSSIAN DISSIDENT ALEXEI NAVALNY ACCUSES PUTIN OF POISONING HIM - BUT HOW COULD HE? TRUMP IS ALWAYS LAP DANCIN' PUTIN!

 Russian Dissident Alexei Navalny Accuses Vladimir Putin of Poisoning Him

In this file photo taken on Saturday, Feb. 29, 2020, Russian opposition activist Alexei Navalny takes part in a march in memory of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov in Moscow, Russia. As Russia's most determined and durable opposition figure, Alexei Navalny has employed an astute understanding of social media and an …
AP Photo/Pavel Golovkin
4:23

Russian dissident Alexei Navalny, who fell ill on a flight to Moscow in late August, has accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of orchestrating his assassination, the UK Guardian reported Thursday.

Navalny argued that only Putin could have authorized the use of the nerve agent novichok, a regular fixture of Russian political killings. German doctors found traces of novichok in Navalny’s system while treating him for his illness after the opposition leader’s team arranged for his departure from Russia.

Navalny, Russia’s foremost anti-Putin opposition figure, spent 32 days in Berlin’s Charite hospital after allegedly ingesting the Russian nerve agent on his flight from Tomsk to Moscow in August, the Associated Press (AP) reported. Russian doctors initially treated Navalny in a Siberian hospital and were hesitant to move him to Germany for better care, despite the urgings of European governments.

In his first interview since his release from the hospital, Navalny told the German newspaper Der Spiegel that Putin must have ordered his assassination, saying, “I assert that Putin was behind the crime, and I have no other explanation for what happened.”

Navalny said that only Putin could have given final approval for the use of novichok in any operation, insisting, “Only three people can give orders to put into action ‘active measures’ and use novichok. Those who know Russian states of affairs also know: FSB director Alexander Bortnikov, foreign intelligence service head Sergey Naryshkin and the director of GRU cannot make such a decision without Putin’s orders.”

Speaker of the Russian Duma Vyacheslav Volodin responded to the interview by claiming the poisoning was a Western intelligence operation and that Navalny had Putin to thank for his survival, according to the Guardian.

“Putin saved his life. If what happened to him was a specially directed operation by Western security services then this accusation fits with the logic. He was saved by everyone, from the pilots and doctors to the president,” he said.

The Kremlin vociferously denied Navalny’s accusations. Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov described them as “insulting and unacceptable.” He went on to accuse Navalny of cooperating with the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Novichok, a military-grade nerve agent, is believed to have been developed by Russia during the Cold War. It famously failed to kill former Russian intelligence agent Sergei Skripal in 2018 in another instance widely considered an attempted assassination by the Putin regime. The German government announced in early September it had obtained “unequivocal proof” that Navalny had ingested novichok, a claim the Russians denied.

Navalny’s chief of staff, Leonid Volkov, responded to the novichok announcement via Twitter, saying, “To poison Navalny with Novichok in 2020 would be exactly the same as leaving an autograph at a crime scene, like this one.” The image attached showed Vladimir Putin’s signature.

The Russian government claims third parties are able to replicate novichok and use it in “false-flag” operations with the aim of discrediting the Kremlin. Outside of Russia, the chemical agent was produced in a Soviet-era lab in Uzbekistan, but the government reached a deal to dismantle it with U.S. assistance in 1999, the New York Times reported.

Though initially unwilling to investigate the alleged poisoning, the Russian government announced in early September that Russian police were doing so, attempting to build a “timeline of events” leading up to Navalny’s flight; they still dismissed the German allegations of novichok poisoning.

The Russian government continues to deny any involvement in the incident. Last month, Peskov claimed the Navalny team’s story included “absurd inconsistencies” in the allegations surrounding the affair, specifically pointing to the absence of the bottle through which Navalny supposedly ingested the novichok.

“We cannot explain this, because this bottle, if it ever existed, had been taken somewhere in Germany or elsewhere. This means that an object that could serve as evidence of poisoning has been shipped away. This is yet another question: why and so on,” Peskov claimed.


Why Trump was never investigated as a Russian agent

David Cay Johnston

Donald Trump never was investigated to determine if he is a Russian agent or asset according to an explosive book published Tuesday by a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter.

In Trump v. The United States, Michael S. Schmidt reports Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III's team was barred from investigating whether Trump, who has many known connections to Russian criminals and who says he trusts Putin over American intelligence agencies, was a Russian agent.

Mueller's team was allowed to look into obstruction of justice by Trump, Schmidt writes in the e-book that went on sale today. Team Mueller found numerous examples but was barred by Justice Department policy from indicting the president.

The Mueller team tried, unsuccessfully, to get Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to allow a counterintelligence investigation into Trump's Kremlin dealings. Rosenstein refused, Schmidt reports.

A counterintelligence investigation into Trump as a possible Russian agent was ordered in spring 2017 by Andrew G. McCabe when he was acting FBI director.

McCabe told 60 Minutes that he ordered an investigation in May 2017 into whether Trump "had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests." He also said he feared that without his written formal record in FBI files the case would be made to disappear.

FBI shut down

The FBI counterintelligence investigation was shut down before any substantial inquiry was made, Schmidt reports.

These and many more stunning revelations, along with new evidence indicating that Trump is a continuing threat to American national security, are based on extensive interviews with those involved and more than a thousand pages of government documents that reporter Schmidt says no one else outside of the government has read.

The book raises serious questions about how and why Rosenstein, as deputy attorney general, shielded Trump. Why did Rosenstein not want law enforcement and counterintelligence officials to know the full extent of Trump's relationship with Russians, especially Russian President Vladimir Putin?

It is a question Schmidt does not answer. If there is a non-nefarious answer it may that human vulnerability was the cause. Rosenstein had long experience as a federal prosecutor, little as a counterintelligence lawyer.

Russian money

Moscow has courted Trump since at least 1987 and Trump has done numerous deals with Russian oligarchs that make no sense in business terms but make perfect sense when viewed as money laundering and payoffs.

Russian money is suspected to be behind the massive loans which Deutsche Bank made to Trump when no other major bank would do business with him. Deutsche Bank has been fined more than $622 million for laundering money for Russians.

Schmidt paints a portrait of a president with no understanding of or regard for our Constitution, federal laws or limits on his authority, a portrait consistent with my own Trump books. Schmidt shows that in the Oval Office Trump often took the side of Russia against American interests.

Trump insensitivity

"Trump had a profound insensitivity to how his actions would be perceived," Schmidt writes, "and was often indifferent to law or precedent."

Candidate Trump said he didn't trust American intelligence agencies.

As president, standing next to Putin in Helsinki in 2018, he declared that he takes Putin at his word.

One day later, in a formal White House statement, Trump walked back his remarks, though I and many other Trump watchers took that as only one of his many attempts to muddy clear waters so people would be unsure about his conduct.

Trump has made clear he believes there is nothing wrong with conspiring with a hostile foreign power if it helps keep him in office. In June this year, Trump told ABC News, in a lengthy interview, that he would accept help from foreign governments such as the Kremlin in the current election.

Accepting election help of any kind from any foreign government or person is a criminal offense.

Author's background

Reporter Schmidt has solid credentials. He has broken numerous stories that relied on law enforcement, political and intelligence sources. While Team Trump denounced many of those stories when they broke, the reporting held up as future events unfolded.

In 2016, Schmidt broke the story that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email account for official business (as did several of her predecessors).

He won a Pulitzer Prize for revealing that James Comey, the FBI director Trump fired in 2017, created contemporaneous memos of his one-on-one meetings with Trump. Comey's memos include the story of Trump demanding a pledge of personal loyalty, which Comey refused.

Schmidt also shared in a Pulitzer Prize for exposing sexual predator Harvey Weinstein and broke major stories about sexual harassment and secret financial settlements with victims that resulted in Bill O'Reilly losing his job as a Fox News host.

The revelations in Schmidt's book completely recast the 418-page Mueller report and destroy Trump's already noxious claims that the Mueller report vindicated him. It also helps explain the mendacious declaration by Attorney General William P. Barr in March 2019 that the Mueller report cleared Trump. Barr also wrote a four-page memo that turned out to be highly misleading, guiding people away from understanding the serious wrongdoing Mueller's team uncovered, especially in obstructing justice.

A question never asked

A significant theme of the Schmidt book is that investigators were not only blocked from investigating whether Trump is disloyal to America, but that at times the Mueller investigators didn't ask the right questions of witnesses.

One example involves John Kelly, the retired general who became Trump's second White House chief of staff.

The president asked Kelly to pledge personal loyalty to Trump, Schmidt reveals. Kelly said he would be loyal to our Constitution, pretty much what Comey also said, Schmidt writes.

Mueller's team never learned of this, Schmidt writes, because they didn't ask.

That such an obvious question – were you asked to pledge personal loyalty to Donald Trump the way FBI Director Comey was? – was not posed raises questions about what else within the restricted purview of the Mueller team also was missed.

Did Team Mueller ask Rosenstein, whose actions shielded Trump, whether he was asked for a pledge of personal loyalty? Who else was asked to pledge personal loyalty, something we expect of dictators but never in American presidents? Who did pledge to Trump? Who refused? We don't know.

These are questions that should now be pursued by the House Intelligence Committee, which you can be sure will inquire about many things in the Schmidt book.

Kremlin interests

There was reason aplenty for the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation of Trump and those around him, extraordinary as that would be.

One reason was the retention of Michael Flynn, another retired general, after Trump was warned by Sally Yates, who briefly served as acting attorney general, that he was subject to blackmail and unfit to know sensitive secrets. Trump then fired Yates, a career federal prosecutor with a distinguished record.

Another concern involved the Trump campaign enthusiastically accepting a written offer of help from the Kremlin in June 2016. For the next 13 months, Trump's oldest son Don Jr., who received the emailed offer, lied and denied. He said, falsely, that no help was ever offered or provided by Moscow. Why did Don Jr. lie then and, when The New York Times got the emails forcing his hand, did he mischaracterize their nature?

The emails resulted, just days later, in a Trump Tower meeting of Kremlin agents, at least one with deep ties to Russian intelligence agencies, and Don Jr., Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and campaign manager Paul Manafort. The Mueller Team never was able to learn exactly what happened in part because Don Jr.'s lawyers indicated that the president's son would assert his Fifth Amendment right to avoid testifying because he might incriminate himself.

Just the fact that Manafort, now a convicted felon, was paid 10s of millions of dollars by a Kremlin-friendly Ukraine leader and that Manafort managed the Trump campaign for free at a time when he was in serious financial trouble, would have justified a major FBI counterintelligence investigation into Trump and his campaign.

McGahn role

Schmidt devotes a lot of words to Don McGahn, who as White House counsel was there to serve the Office of the President, not the man himself. McGahn, either directly or through intermediaries, appears to be a key Schmidt source.

Schmidt writes that McGahn apparently knows a secret that could "drive Trump from the White House." McGahn is trying to avoid testifying before Congress about what went on behind closed doors at the White House.

McGahn, Schmidt writes, was "one of the few Trump advisers… who regularly stood up to the president, telling him when his ideas were harebrained and screaming back at him when he unloaded nasty digs on senior staff."

Schmidt says what was missing from the Mueller report about Trump and Russia sparked his interest. He writes that people who have seen the full report – the public version is heavily redacted – told him there is nothing about Trump's possible allegiance to Russia or other improper associations. That knowledge made Schmidt even more curious about the lack of a counterintelligence investigation when there was abundant reason to undertake one.

The Trump attacks on McCabe, Comey's deputy at the FBI, raise questions about what the White House knew and when about McCabe initiating an intelligence inquiry. That is an issue sure to be investigated by the House Intelligence Committee led by Rep. Adam Schiff of California.

Before he himself was fired, Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe two days short of eligibility for a full pension. That was seen by many as a sign that anyone in government who crossed Trump was fair game and crossing Trump could be costly. It came out later that McCabe also had ordered a criminal investigation into whether Sessions lied during his Senate confirmation hearing, which may also have influenced Sessions in such a petty action of firing McCabe on a day that would deny him his full pension.

Getting rid of McCabe and dirtying him up in public on specious grounds takes on new significance with the publication of the Schmidt book. Only by neutralizing McCabe, removing him and discrediting him could Trump evade the greatest risk he faced — a counterintelligence investigation into his Russian dealings.

The truncated FBI investigation  needs to be resumed unimpeded immediately.

TRUMP AND HIS RUSSIANS.

ARE THEY HIS FINANCIAL LIFELINE?

September 7, 2020

Heather Cox Richardson

Sep 8

I have been holding off for a calm news day to examine exactly what the fifth volume of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s bipartisan report on Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 election said, and why it is important. The report came out on August 18 and, in the storm of other news, has gotten less attention than it should have.

While Special Counsel Robert Mueller marshaled a team to look into potential crimes committed by members of the Trump campaign and by Russian actors in the 2016 election, the Senate Intelligence Committee also conducted an investigation. The Senate committee was not limited, as Mueller was, by a directive from the acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. It looked more widely at the contacts between members of the 2016 Trump campaign and Russian operatives. Because Republicans control the Senate, the Senate Intelligence Committee is chaired by a Republican, first by Richard Burr (R-NC) and then, after Burr stepped down under allegations of insider trading, by Marco Rubio (R-FL).

The first volume of the committee’s report established that Russians successfully breached U.S. election systems in 2016. According to the Intelligence Community, “Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple U.S. state or local electoral boards,” but the Department of Homeland Security “assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.” Interestingly, the section on Russian attacks on voting machines is almost entirely redacted.

The second volume explained that Russian operatives “sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton's chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin.” It concluded that “in 2016, Russian operatives… used social media to conduct an information warfare campaign designed to spread disinformation and societal division in the United States. Masquerading as Americans, these operatives used targeted advertisements, intentionally falsified news articles, self-generated content, and social media platform tools to interact with and attempt to deceive tens of millions of social media users in the United States. This campaign sought to polarize Americans on the basis of societal, ideological, and racial differences, provoked real world events, and was part of a foreign government's covert support of Russia's favored candidate in the U.S. presidential election.”

The third volume examined how the U.S. government responded to the Russian attacks. The fourth reviewed and defended the methods and findings of the Intelligence Community.

And, on August 18, the committee released the fifth volume. The committee reviewed about a million documents and interviewed more than 200 witnesses. Its 966 pages establish extensive connections between Russian operatives and Trump campaign officials in 2016.

They established that Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort worked closely during the campaign with his longtime business associate in Ukraine, Konstantin Kilimnik, whom the report identifies as a “Russian intelligence officer.”

This means that, according to Republicans—as well as the Democrats on the committee—in 2016, Trump’s campaign manager was actively working with a Russian intelligence officer.

Paul Manafort’s backstory matters.

Manafort cut his political teeth in Richard Nixon’s 1972 campaign, along with his friend Roger Stone, whom he had met in the Young Republicans organization, a social and political network of young professionals. Manafort worked for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and George H. W. Bush in 1988. In 1980, he and Roger Stone were two of the three principals who formed a lobbying firm in Washington, D.C., that brought under one roof lobbying and political consulting as well as public relations. Bundling these functions was groundbreaking: they would get their clients elected, and then help clients lobby them. One of their first clients was a friend of Stone’s: Donald J. Trump.

Quickly, Manafort began to look to foreign countries for his clients. He took advantage of the anti-communist focus of foreign policy after Reagan, cleaning up shady clients to look good enough to U.S. lawmakers that they could get U.S. dollars to shore up their political interests. Touting his connections to the Reagan and Bush administrations, Manafort racked up clients. He backed so many dictatorial governments—Nigeria, Kenya, Zaire, Equatorial Guinea, Saudi Arabia, and Somalia, among others—that a 1992 report from the Center for Public Integrity called his firm “The Torturers’ Lobby.”

In 1995, Manafort started his own firm and, a decade later, he began working for a young Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska, who was eager to prove useful to Vladimir Putin. At the time, Putin was trying to consolidate power in Russia, where oligarchs were rising to replace the region’s communist leaders and were monopolizing formerly publicly held industries. In 2004, American journalist Paul Klebnikov, the chief editor of Forbes in Russia, was murdered as he tried to call attention to what the oligarchs were doing.

In 1991, Ukraine had declared its independence from the USSR, and threats of Ukrainian freedom soon worried Deripaska, who had business interests there. In 2004, it appeared at first that a Russian-backed politician, Viktor Yanukovych, was elected president of Ukraine. But Yanukovych was rumored to have ties to organized crime, and the election was so full of fraud—including the poisoning of a key rival who wanted to break ties with Russia and align Ukraine with Europe—the government voided the election and called for a do-over. Yanukovych needed a makeover fast, and for that he called on a political consultant with a reputation for making unsavory characters palatable to the media: Deripaska’s friend Paul Manafort.

For ten years, from 2004 to 2014, Manafort worked for Yanukovych and his party, trying to make what the U.S. State Department called a party of “mobsters and oligarchs” look legitimate. He made a fortune thanks to his new friends, especially Deripaska. In 2010, Yanukovych finally won the presidency on a platform of rejecting NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization through which Europe joined together to oppose first the USSR, and then the rising threat of Russia. Immediately, Yanukovych turned Ukraine toward Russia. In 2014, after months of popular protests, Ukrainians ousted Yanukovych from power in what is known as the Revolution of Dignity. Yanukovych fled to Russia.

Shortly after Yanukovych’s ouster, Russia invaded Ukraine’s Crimea and annexed it, prompting the United States and the European Union to impose economic sanctions on Russia itself and also on specific Russian businesses and oligarchs, prohibiting them from doing business in United States territories. These sanctions crippled Russia and froze the assets of key Russian oligarchs.

Now without his main source of income, Manafort owed about $17 million to Deripaska. By 2016, his longtime friend and business partner Roger Stone was advising Trump’s floundering presidential campaign, and Manafort was happy to step in to help remake it. He did not take a salary, but reached out to Deripaska through one of his Ukrainian business partners, Konstantin Kilimnik, immediately after landing the job, asking him “How do we use to get whole? Has OVD [Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska] operation seen?”

Manafort began as a campaign advisor in March 2016, and became the chairman in late June, after the June 9 meeting between Don Jr., Jared Kushner, and Manafort with a number of people, including a Russian lawyer associated with Putin’s intelligence services, in Trump Tower. (Remember that Trump tried to explain away that meeting as being about “adoptions,” because the Russian response to sanctions was to shut down American adoptions of Russian children.)

The fifth volume of the Senate Intelligence Report establishes that Kilimnik is a “Russian intelligence officer,” and that he acted as a liaison between Manafort and Deripaska while Manafort ran Trump’s campaign. On several occasions, Manafort passed the campaign’s sensitive internal polling data to Kilimnik, although because their communications were encrypted, the committee could not determine what became of the information. (Such polling might well dovetail with the information in volume 2.)

The report says Kilimnik may have been directly involved in hacking Democratic National Committee emails and handing the stolen files to WikiLeaks. The committee also found “significant evidence” that WikiLeaks was “knowingly collaborating with Russian government officials.” The report also establishes that Trump repeatedly discussed the WikiLeaks document dumps with operative Roger Stone, then lied about those discussions with investigators.

The report says Manafort lied consistently about his interactions with Kilimnik, and has chosen to go to jail rather than change his story. It also notes that it is Kilimnik who launched the story that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the U.S. election.

According to the report: "Taken as a whole, Manafort's high level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat."

The report also established that the White House “significantly hampered” the investigation.

The Manafort story is only one of the issues covered in Volume 5.

—-

Notes:

Rosenstein limited Mueller: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/politics/trump-russia-justice-department.html

Overview: https://www.lawfareblog.com/collusion-reading-diary-what-did-senate-intelligence-committee-find

Yanukovych: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-did-ex-trump-aide-paul-manafort-really-do-ukraine-n775431

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/paul-manafort-roger-stone/

Manafort: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/10/30/paul-manafort-what-we-know-he-did-and-why-he-might-have-been-ensnared-by-the-investigation/

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/29/politics/russian-former-spy-paul-manafort-trump-campaign/index.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/11/roger-stones-long-history-in-trump-world/581293/

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/paul-manafort-american-hustler/550925/

Black ledger: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/21/why-is-rudy-giuliani-trying-drag-my-countrys-president-into-trumps-reelection-campaign/

Russia: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/senate-intelligence-trump-russia-report/2020/08/18/62a7573e-e093-11ea-b69b-64f7b0477ed4_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/08/19/yes-there-was-collusion/

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/81820

volume 5: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/senate-russia-report-proves-trump-was-wrong-mueller-was-right-ncna1237743

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512613-five-takeaways-from-final-senate-intel-russia-report

Senate Report:

Vol 1: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf

Vol 2: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf

Vol 3; https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume3.pdf

Vol 4: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4.pdf

Vol 5: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf