The New Norm: Today's News for June 7th

When even Fox News is leading with a New York Times story bashing President Trump, it is a bad sign for his administration:

New York Times:

Comey Told Sessions: Don’t Leave Me Alone With Trump

The day after President Trump asked James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, to end an investigation into his former national security adviser, Mr. Comey confronted Attorney General Jeff Sessions and said he did not want to be left alone again with the president, according to current and former law enforcement officials.

Mr. Comey believed Mr. Sessions should protect the F.B.I. from White House influence, the officials said, and pulled him aside after a meeting in February to tell him that private interactions between the F.B.I. director and the president were inappropriate. But Mr. Sessions could not guarantee that the president would not try to talk to Mr. Comey alone again, the officials said.

Mr. Comey did not reveal, however, what had so unnerved him about his Oval Office meeting with the president: Mr. Trump’s request that the F.B.I. director end the investigation into the former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, who had just been fired. By the time Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey last month, Mr. Comey had disclosed the meeting to a few of his closest advisers but nobody at the Justice Department, according to the officials, who did not want to be identified discussing Mr. Comey’s interactions with Mr. Trump and Mr. Sessions.

The problem?

F.B.I. officials were also unsure whether what Mr. Trump had done was a crime or how the conversation could be corroborated. So Mr. Comey kept the circle of officials at the F.B.I. who knew about his interactions with Mr. Trump small because he did not want agents and analysts working on the case to be influenced by what the president wanted.

Mr. Comey’s decision to keep his interactions with Mr. Trump a secret from the Justice Department were the latest example of how he set himself apart from the department throughout his tenure as F.B.I. director.

Aside from the fact this looks bad for Trump, what happened wasn't illegal based on the evidence presented so far (the other shoe may still drop). No, the real news is Fox News has turned on him.

Et tu, Fox?

Speaking of Attorney General Sessions...

ABC News:

Exclusive: Jeff Sessions suggested he could resign amid rising tension with President Trump

As the White House braces for former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony Thursday, sources tell ABC News the relationship between President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions has become so tense that Sessions at one point recently even suggested he could resign.

The friction between the two men stems from the attorney general's abrupt decision in March to recuse himself from anything related to the Russia investigation -- a decision the president only learned about minutes before Sessions announced it publicly. Multiple sources say the recusal is one of the top disappointments of his presidency so far and one the president has remained fixated on.

Trump’s anger over the recusal has not diminished with time. Two sources close to the president say he has lashed out repeatedly at the attorney general in private meetings, blaming the recusal for the expansion of the Russia investigation, now overseen by Special Counsel and former FBI Director Robert Mueller.

But sources say the frustration runs both ways, prompting the resignation offer from Sessions.

 One thing is clear: Trump and lawyers don't mix.

In other news...

CNN:

CNN Exclusive: US suspects Russian hackers planted fake news behind Qatar crisis

US investigators believe Russian hackers breached Qatar's state news agency and planted a fake news report that contributed to a crisis among the US' closest Gulf allies, according to US officials briefed on the investigation.

The FBI recently sent a team of investigators to Doha to help the Qatari government investigate the alleged hacking incident, Qatari and US government officials say.

Intelligence gathered by the US security agencies indicates that Russian hackers were behind the intrusion first reported by the Qatari government two weeks ago, US officials say. Qatar hosts one of the largest US military bases in the region.

The alleged involvement of Russian hackers intensifies concerns by US intelligence and law enforcement agencies that Russia continues to try some of the same cyber-hacking measures on US allies that intelligence agencies believe it used to meddle in the 2016 elections.

That last sentence makes one key error: It uses the word "believe" when it should use the phrase "are of the opinion that". While it is a more awkward wording, it is also more accurate. A "belief" is something that someone thinks that can never be challenged, no matter what evidence is presented. Intelligence agents could change their mind if the evidence changed. Hypothetically speaking, what if it was Chinese agents using Russian IP addresses and/or code?

Another potential rephrasing for that last sentence would be to add "attempt to" before "meddle". One thing that has not been proven is that an actual hacking succeeded to change vote counts. Making the attempt and actually succeeding are two different things.

Back to the Qatar incident, the question here is whether Qatar was actually hacked, as they claim, along with U.S. officials? I tend to believe them on this incident. At the very least, they regret the incident that led to this and are trying to cover it up.

If the TRUTH is that the Russians were behind this, it is even more reason Qatar needs to be forgiven post haste.

Finally, from Bruce Riedel at Brookings:

Brookings:

The $110 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia is fake news

Last month, President Trump visited Saudi Arabia and his administration announced that he had concluded a $110 billion arms deal with the kingdom. Only problem is that there is no deal. It’s fake news.

I’ve spoken to contacts in the defense business and on the Hill, and all of them say the same thing: There is no $110 billion deal. Instead, there are a bunch of letters of interest or intent, but not contracts. Many are offers that the defense industry thinks the Saudis will be interested in someday. So far nothing has been notified to the Senate for review. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the arms sales wing of the Pentagon, calls them “intended sales.” None of the deals identified so far are new, all began in the Obama administration. 

In addition:

Moreover, it’s unlikely that the Saudis could pay for a $110 billion deal any longer, due to low oil prices and the two-plus years old war in Yemen. 

Now if we could just get rid of those "letters of interest or intent". Arming the Middle East seems like questionable thing to do.