Back to Russia: Today's news for March 2nd

Washington Post:

Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose

Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spoke twice last year with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Justice Department officials said, encounters he did not disclose when asked about possible contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign and representatives of Moscow during Sessions’s confirmation hearing to become attorney general.

One of the meetings was a private conversation between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak that took place in September in the senator’s office, at the height of what U.S. intelligence officials say was a Russian cyber campaign to upend the U.S. presidential race.

And Sessions meeting with a Russian ambassador helped the Russians with their cyber campaign how? Unless he gave them the password to John Podesta's email account, this is a huge reach.

On the other hand:

When Sessions spoke with Kislyak in July and September, the senator was a senior member of the influential Armed Services Committee as well as one of Trump’s top foreign policy advisers. Sessions played a prominent role supporting Trump on the stump after formally joining the campaign in February 2016.

At his Jan. 10 Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) what he would do if he learned of any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of the 2016 campaign.

“I’m not aware of any of those activities,” he responded. He added: “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

Officials said Sessions did not consider the conversations relevant to the lawmakers’ questions and did not remember in detail what he discussed with Kislyak.

“There was absolutely nothing misleading about his answer,” said Sarah Isgur Flores, Sessions’s spokeswoman.

In January, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) asked Sessions for answers to written questions. “Several of the President-elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?” Leahy wrote.

Sessions responded with one word: “No.”

In a statement issued Wednesday night, Sessions said he “never met with any Russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. I have no idea what this allegation is about. It is false.”

Justice officials said Sessions met with Kislyak on Sept. 8 in his capacity as a member of the armed services panel rather than in his role as a Trump campaign surrogate.

While Sessions' meetings with Kislyak were most likely innocent, he should have mentioned them. Now that the meetings have come out anyway, he looks guilty as sin. It is the Nixon rule of politics: It isn't the scandal that takes you down, but rather the cover-up.

On the third hand:

New York Times:

Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking

In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.

American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.

...Mr. Trump has denied that his campaign had any contact with Russian officials, and at one point he openly suggested that American spy agencies had cooked up intelligence suggesting that the Russian government had tried to meddle in the presidential election. Mr. Trump has accused the Obama administration of hyping the Russia story line as a way to discredit his new administration.

At the Obama White House, Mr. Trump’s statements stoked fears among some that intelligence could be covered up or destroyed — or its sources exposed — once power changed hands. What followed was a push to preserve the intelligence that underscored the deep anxiety with which the White House and American intelligence agencies had come to view the threat from Moscow.

It also reflected the suspicion among many in the Obama White House that the Trump campaign might have colluded with Russia on election email hacks — a suspicion that American officials say has not been confirmed. Former senior Obama administration officials said that none of the efforts were directed by Mr. Obama.

There is absolutely NOTHING the Trump campaign could have told the Russians to help them hack Democratic Party computers better. in fact, it is probably a safe bet the Russians could teach anyone else a thing or two about hacking.

So what exactly was the point of what the Obama administration did, by planting all this information around the government?

This is a clear case of confirmation bias from the Obama administration. They were in disbelief over losing the election, not believing that Hillary Clinton could have lost to Donald Trump. In the minds of the Obama administration, there had to be something illegal going on there, aside from the arrogance of the Clinton campaign, Democratic Party, and the mainstream media. So they saw the contacts between Trump's campaign and the Russians as something illegal (even though there was no possible way Trump's campaign could have enabled or assisted the Russian hacking).

On top of this, it is not unheard of for presidential campaigns to have discussions with foreign government officials. Remember when Obama's campaign had overseas speeches during the 2008 election? Those didn't happen without contacts with foreign governments. But even without the speeches, those kinds of contacts are made.

In spite of the fact the Obama administration knew these kinds of contacts are made, they created a scandal story in their minds, and then spread information around the government to prove it, even though the dots don't connect in this illogical story.

On the fourth hand, this could also be a case of the MSM pushing the "election hack" story, when the truth is possibly a different kind of sordid connection between Trump and the Russians. Considering how there is historical precedent, specifically between Bill Clinton and China in 1996, there could be something illicit involving campaign donations and backdoor deals between Trump and the Russians, but this is pure speculation.  

But illicit campaign donations probably aren't as sexy as an "election hack".

And now onto news of the 2020 presidential election...

Daily Mail:

President Winfrey? Oprah says in the age of Trump that she could run for the White House despite being unqualified for the job

The improbable political rise of Donald Trump has led Oprah Winfrey to think about whether or not she could become the second TV entertainer to work in the Oval Office.

Oprah told Bloomberg interviewer David Rubenstein that before Trump won the November election, she thought she was unqualified to be president.

But not anymore.

'I actually never thought that that was – I never considered the question, even a possibility,' she said. 

But when reality-show icon Trump beat longtime politician Hillary Clinton, she said, 'I just thought, "Oh! Oh!"'

That flushing sound you hear is the quality of future presidents. Thanks Donald! Now every rich loon with name recognition will think they can be president.

But it isn't necessarily all bad:

The Hollywood Reporter:

Will Disney's Bob Iger Run for President in 2020? Hollywood Friends Are Nudging

Iger told THR in June that "a lot of people have urged me to seek political office," and now he's considering the prodding for him to lead the Democratic ticket.

Disney CEO Bob Iger already runs the world's most successful media company. But could his impeccable mogul credentials carry him to the Oval Office?

Sources say Iger has told friends he is considering their nudges that he make a run for president in 2020 as a Democrat. There’s a hitch. Any political future would hinge on Iger, 66, finding a Disney successor, of course. (Complicating matters, in February, he told financial analysts he would be "open" to remaining as CEO after his contract ends in June 2018.)

...Iger has plenty of friends in high places within the Democratic party. Former Vice President Al Gore told THR in January that he counts fellow Apple board member Iger among his closest Hollywood friends. A number of politically plugged-in industryites say they would welcome an Iger-led Democratic ticket. Others point out that President Trump, though wildly unpopular in Hollywood, has paved the way for a businessman who has never held public office to become the leader of the free world.

Disclaimer: I own shares of Disney stock. I have nothing but respect for Iger as a CEO over Disney. He has shown an incredible knack for accumulating the best intellectual properties, and then leveraging them for profit.

That said, being expert at overseeing an intellectual property portfolio doesn't make someone good presidential material. Then again, neither does real estate investing, although the jury is still out on Trump. But we do know that community organizers and rich boys from political families suck as presidents.