The Pentagon’s top watchdog has launched an investigation into money that former national security adviser and retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn received from foreign groups and whether he failed to obtain proper approval to do so, lawmakers and defense officials said Thursday.

The Pentagon has in the past advised retiring officers that because they can be recalled to military service, they are subject to the Constitution’s rarely enforced emoluments clause, which prohibits top officials from receiving payments or favors from foreign governments.

On Thursday, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (Md.), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, released an Oct. 8, 2014, letter in which a Defense Department lawyer warned Flynn upon his retirement from military service that he was forbidden from receiving payments from foreign sources without receiving permission from the U.S. government first.

Flynn received $45,000 to appear in 2015 with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a gala dinner for RT, a Kremlin-controlled media organization. He also worked as a foreign agent representing Turkish interests for a Netherlands-based company, Inovo BV, which paid his company $530,000 in the fall.

[Trump campaign’s Russia ties: Who’s involved]

Flynn was fired as national security adviser in February after revelations that he misled Vice President Pence about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States. The pugnacious retired officer, who last year led “lock her up” chants about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, filed paperwork as a foreign agent for Turkish interests about three weeks later, on March 7.

Defense Department guidelines warn that the department’s top financial officer, the comptroller, “may pursue debt collection” if a retired officer does not seek permission to accept foreign payments before doing so. Any debt collection due to an emoluments clause violation is capped at no more than what an individual makes in retirement pay during a period of unauthorized employment. In Flynn’s case, that is more than $35,000 for the three months of the Inovo project.

[Pentagon weighs response to Flynn working on behalf of Turkish interests without U.S. permission]

Flynn was fired as national security adviser in February after revelations that he misled Vice President Pence about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States. The pugnacious retired officer, who last year led “lock her up” chants about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, filed paperwork as a foreign agent for Turkish interests about three weeks later, on March 7.

Flynn’s lawyer, Robert K. Kelner, has argued that the retired general met requirements for his trip to Russia by briefing the Defense Intelligence Agency, from which he retired in 2014, before and after that trip. DIA confirmed that he did so in a letter it sent to to the House committee this month, but added that it had no record of Flynn seeking permission or approval to accept money for going.

Kelner released a statement on Twitter that noted that the letter sent by DIA to the House committee this month shows that Flynn communicated with the agency about his trip to Moscow both before and afterward. It also mentions that Flynn submitted a thumb drive with information about a presentation he made in Russia through his speakers bureau.

A media statement in response to the release of documents today by Representative Cummings concerning General Mike Flynn. pic.twitter.com/zS3XpLJj2h

— Robert Kelner (@robkelner) April 27, 2017

“General Flynn provided two briefings to the Department — one before and one after the event,” Kelner said. “The Department was fully aware of the trip. We urge DIA and the Committee to release the full, unredacted letter, along with the documents that Flynn provided to DIA during the briefings and details concerning the in-person briefings provided by General Flynn to DIA.”

Flynn did not seek permission from the U.S. government to work as a paid foreign agent for Turkish interests, U.S. defense officials said last month, raising the possibility that the Pentagon could dock his retirement pay. Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said then that the Defense Department was reviewing the issue. The Army had no record of Flynn seeking permission for that arrangement, military officials said.

The issue involving Turkey emerged after Flynn retroactively registered in March with the Justice Department as a foreign agent for work that his company, Flynn Intel Group, carried out on behalf of Inovo BV. It is owned by Turkish businessman Ekim Alptekin, who is not a part of the Turkish government but has links to it.

Flynn’s company received three payments between September and November from Inovo BV before Trump was elected president and the arrangement was discontinued, according to Flynn’s filings. Flynn is the majority owner and chief executive officer of the Flynn Intel Group.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer, asked about the inspector general investigation said Thursday that he thinks it is “appropriate.”
“If they think that there’s wrongdoing, then the department’s inspector general should look into that,” he said.

But the White House deflected any criticism that it failed to properly vet Flynn to be Trump’s top security adviser. Spicer said any improper actions by Flynn also flew under the radar of the Obama administration: The Department of Defense issued Flynn a new security clearance in 2016, and Flynn took his trip to Russia in 2015.

“All of the clearance was made during the Obama administration, and apparently with knowledge of the trip that he took,” the press secretary said.

Flynn’s security clearance at the time, though, would have been granted by career civil servants, not political appointees in the Obama administration. And Spicer indicated that beyond checking that Flynn had a security clearance, the Trump administration did not do much vetting of him — something that new administrations typically do.

When asked by reporters if the president had any regrets about bringing Flynn on in the first place, Spicer said: “I think the president made the right decision at the right time, and it’s been pretty clear.”

Bruce Anderson, a spokesman for the Defense Department inspector general, said the investigation into Flynn began April 4. The watchdog’s office did not discuss the investigation publicly until after the House Oversight Committee released documents about it, and it typically does not disclose what it is reviewing while an investigation is underway.

“These documents raise grave questions about why Gen. Flynn concealed the payments he received from foreign sources after he was warned explicitly by the Pentagon,” Cummings said. “Our next step is to get the documents we are seeking from the White House so we can complete our investigation.  I thank the Department of Defense for providing us with unclassified versions of these documents.”

Cummings also alleged that the White House was covering up f0r Flynn by not willingly releasing all documents associated with his case. Spicer disputed that later in the day, saying that it was “not true” and he was “taken aback” by the accusation.

The latest revelations from the Pentagon came as congressional Democrats put more pressure on Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to make good on vows to investigate the Flynn matter.

Democrats on the panel reminded Chaffetz that for years he has warned witnesses that complying with committee requests “is not an optional exercise.”

“Your decisions on this investigation will have a profound impact on the faith that the American people have in Congress to act in an even-handed manner and fulfill our duty under the Constitution to exercise robust oversight of the Executive Branch, regardless of who occupies the White House,” the Democrats added.

Chaffetz announced Wednesday that he is planning to take a medical leave of up to four weeks to repair screws implanted in his foot years ago after an accident. It is likely that House GOP leaders will appoint an interim chairman in his absence.

Two Republican members who emerged Thursday from the room with the documents about Flynn brushed off questions from reporters. But a group of Democrats on the committee addressed the media.

“The information that we received this morning was quite troubling. Actually, it left us with more questions, I would say, than answers,” said Rep. Val Butler Demings (D-Fla.).

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said they just came from a classified briefing and could not discuss the material they reviewed. She said the material ought to be declassified so that the American people can “read it and judge for themselves.”

The Democrats demanded further documents from the White House.

“They have already told us they have documents with respect to General Flynn. And we’ve received zero documents,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.). “So they’ve told us we have these documents, and they’ve been widely reported in the press that they have the documents, yet they refuse to give it to Congress.”

Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) said that after reviewing the documents, he believes lawmakers should “keep digging” on Flynn.

Cartwright declined to share specifics about what the documents entail, but he said Republican members of the oversight panel should be pushing the White House to release more information about what top administration officials knew about Flynn during the presidential campaign, transition and in the early days of Trump’s presidency.

Amber Phillips contributed to this report.

Related stories:
He was one of the most respected generals of his generation. Then he started leading ‘lock her up’ chants.

Commentary: Michael Flynn’s star burns out

The fall of Michael Flynn: A timeline

SEOUL —  The United States military started installing a controversial anti-missile defense system in South Korea overnight Tuesday, triggering protests and sparking criticism that it was rushing to get the battery in place before the likely election of a president who opposes it. 

The sudden and unannounced move came only six days after U.S. Forces Korea secured the land to deploy the system, known as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD.  

Moon Jae-in, a liberal candidate who has a strong lead in the polls ahead of the May 9 presidential election, has promised to review South Korea’s decision to host the anti-missile battery. 

“There’s a sense in Seoul that THAAD deployment has been rushed based on the timetable of South Korea’s presidential election, rather than North Korea’s threats,” said John Delury, a professor of international relations at Yonsei University in Seoul.

“To some extent, the acceleration of THAAD deployment has ‘worked,’ limiting the next South Korean leader’s room for maneuver,” Delury said. “But there’s the danger of a backlash among the South Korean public feeling like a pawn in the game of ‘America First.’ ” 

[ Trump summoned all 100 senators to the White House to discuss North Korea. Why? ]

U.S. Forces Korea did not make any statement about the deployment and did not immediately respond to a request for comment about why the installation was started in the dead of night.  

But South Korea’s Ministry of National Defense said that South Korea and the United States had been working “to secure the swift operational capability of the THAAD system against North Korea’s nuclear and missile threat.”

“South Korea’s military plans to secure full capability of the THAAD system operation within the year,” the ministry said in a statement. 

A spokesman for Moon, the Democratic party’s candidate for president, criticized the sudden moves overnight. 

“Moon Jae-in has been consistent in his position on the THAAD deployment: that it must be decided by the next administration after enough public discussion and by national consensus,” Park Kwang-on said in a statement. 

“Any deployment that completely ignores appropriate processes must be suspended now and the final decision should be made after consultation between South Korea and the U.S.” he said.

Moon has a solid 10-point lead over his closest rival in the most recent polls and political scientists expect him to be South Korea’s next president, barring any dramatic developments. 

After equivocating for years, the South Korean government — led by former president Park Geun-hye — decided last July to allow the deployment of the system to guard against the North Korean threat.  

Each THAAD battery includes at least six truck-mounted launchers that carry up to eight missiles each. They are designed to shoot down enemy ballistic missiles like the ones that North Korea has been launching at a steady clip over the past year. 

North Korea, itself, has bolstered the case for the system, with dozens of missile launches over the last year, all of which have South Korea easily within range. 

[ Trump gets on the phone to Asia as another North Korea flash point looms ]

Wednesday’s moves to install the battery come at a particularly tense time on the peninsula, with the United States moving warships to the region and warning that “all options are on the table,” while North Korea is vowing the counter any American strike and conducting large-scale military drills Tuesday. 

But Beijing has protested vehemently against the deployment, apparently concerned that the system’s powerful radar could be used to keep tabs on China, and has imposed painful economic boycotts on South Korean companies in response. 

“The deployment of THAAD in South Korea will destroy the strategic balance in the region and bring about a further increase in tensions,” Geng Shuang, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry, told reporters in Beijing Wednesday. “The Chinese side strongly urges the U.S. and South Korea to cancel the deployment and withdraw the equipment.”

Residents in the Seongju area, where the battery will be deployed, have also been protesting, worried that the system’s presence will make them a target for North Korea’s missiles. 

According to local reports, six trailers carrying the X-band radar, mobile launchers and other parts of the system were seen entering the site about midnight. 

A group of residents protested against move and tried to stop the equipment from being taken onto the site, clashing with police, the Yonhap news agency reported from Seongju, in the southeast of South Korea.

They waved placards saying “No THAAD, No War” and “Hey, U.S.! Are you friends or occupying troops?”

“Police let THAAD equipment pass through (protesters) by repressing them,” Kang Hyun-wook, a religious leader who was leading the protest, told Yonhap. “The THAAD deployment is illegal and should be nullified.”

Yoonjung Seo contributed to this report.

Read more:

Nervous over North Korea, Japan issues guidelines for missile attack

Twenty-five million reasons the U.S. hasn’t struck North Korea

Trump’s ‘armada’ finally heading to Korea

Today’s coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

When a long list of comments from President Trump, his surrogates and his spokespersons shows up in a federal court ruling, it’s fair to say it can only mean one thing: a constitutionally questionable executive order is about to get a judicial smackdown.

That was true in March, when federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland suspended Trump’s travel ban, saying the administration had showed a clear animus toward Muslims, despite government lawyers’ claims to the contrary.

And it was true on Tuesday, when U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick of California temporarily froze Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities, ruling that it likely violated the Constitution.

Trump’s order, signed Jan. 25, threatens to cut off funding from local governments that refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities. Santa Clara County and the city of San Francisco challenged the order arguing, among other things, that the president doesn’t have the power to withhold federal money. Orrick found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on all their claims, as The Washington Post reported.

The 49-page ruling focused largely on an all-to-familiar theme for the young administration: bragging and bluster by Trump and top administration officials.

Just like the judges who ruled on Trump’s travel ban, Orrick homed in on the vast discrepancies between what government lawyers defending the sanctuary cities order argued in court and what administration officials said about it in public.

The government tried to make the case that the order doesn’t actually do anything, at least not at the moment, because the administration has yet to define what exactly a sanctuary city is. It was their way of convincing the judge to toss out the lawsuit on the grounds that no city or county has yet suffered any harm.

But in public, administration officials boasted about how the order would force sanctuary cities to their knees. The order described in court as essentially an empty shell was portrayed in news conferences and television interviews as a powerful tool to protect the public from dangerous undocumented immigrants being shielded by wayward cities and counties.

It was that gap that disturbed Orrick.

In his ruling, the judge pointed to a February interview between Trump and former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, in which Trump called the order “a weapon” to use against cities that tried to defy his immigration policies.

“I don’t want to defund anybody. I want to give them the money they need to properly operate as a city or a state,” Trump said in the interview. “If they’re going to have sanctuary cities, we may have to do that. Certainly that would be a weapon.”

The judge also cited news conferences in which Attorney General Jeff Sessions threatened to “claw back any funds” awarded to a city that violated the order.

And the judge brought up remarks by White House press secretary Sean Spicer, who said in no uncertain terms that “counties and other institutions that remain sanctuary cities don’t get federal government funding.”

On top of that, the judge said, Trump and Sessions had repeatedly held up San Francisco as an example of the supposed dangers sanctuary cities pose to ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

It was more than enough to show the intent of Trump’s order, Orrick wrote.

But government lawyers sang an entirely different tune.

According to Orrick, the government contended that the order was merely an example of Trump using the “bully pulpit” to “highlight a changed approach to immigration enforcement” — in essence, something much more benign than what Trump and company had described.

The argument was lost on the judge, who ridiculed the government’s position as “schizophrenic.”

“If there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments,” Orrick wrote.

“Is the Order merely a rhetorical device,” he added, “or a ‘weapon’ to defund the Counties and those who have implemented a different law enforcement strategy than the Government currently believes is desirable?”

The ruling continued: “The statements of the President, his press secretary and the Attorney General belie the Government’s argument in the briefing that the Order does not change the law. They have repeatedly indicated an intent to defund sanctuary jurisdictions in compliance with the Executive Order.”

If all that sounds familiar, it’s because other federal judges reached similar conclusions about the administration’s credibility in lawsuits challenging Trump’s travel ban.

In March, judges in Hawaii and Maryland issued rulings that temporarily halted parts of the executive order, which seeks to bar new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries. In both cases, judges found that what government lawyers said in court didn’t line up with remarks from Trump and some of his closest advisers, who had previously called for a “Muslim ban.” The administration’s intent was obvious, the judges said.

“Plainly-worded” statements by Trump and his surrogates “betrayed the Executive Order’s stated secular purpose,” one judge wrote, using language strikingly similar to Orrick’s.

As long as the administration continues to issue broad executive orders, it should expect to have statements by its top officials to come up in court, said Jayashri Srikantiah, an immigration law professor at Stanford.

“It’s hard to imagine not seeing more of these kinds of legal challenges,” she said. “The president is the president and the attorney general is the attorney general, and we have to take seriously what they say about an executive order with such sweeping implications.”

The Trump administration has vowed to fight rulings in the travel ban and sanctuary cities cases all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

In a statement Tuesday, it called Orrick’s decision “one more example of egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge.” The ruling puts the order on hold while the judge weighs the full evidence in the case.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said the government’s lawyers were reviewing their options.

“It’s the 9th Circuit going bananas,” he told reporters Tuesday. “The idea that an agency can’t put in some reasonable restriction on how some of these monies are spent is going to be overturned eventually, and we’ll win at the Supreme Court level at some point.”

More from Morning Mix

With self-deprecation on menu for presidents at correspondents’ dinner, it’s no wonder Trump is skipping it

More lawsuits aimed at Fox News — this time for race discrimination

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/25/texas-lawmaker-on-four-day-hunger-strike-in-protest-of-sanctuary-city-bill/

When he was struggling in polls during the campaign, the pollsters behind the numbers were regularly disparaged as biased or wrong or both. And when he’s asked how he measures up to past presidents on the (admittedly arbitrary) 100-days-in-office standard, Trump tells the Associated Press that it’s “an artificial barrier” that is “not very meaningful.”

This is not an indication that he is confident in how he stacks up.

Nonetheless, Trump insisted in that same interview that he has “done more than any other president in the first 100 days.” And to help make that case, the White House website now features a page detailing “President Trump’s first 100 days.” In three big buckets — “Building American Prosperity,” “Keeping Americans Safe and Strengthening Security Abroad” and “Making Government Accountable to the People” — the site details some of Trump’s wins.

Here are the six points under “Building American Prosperity.”

• Over 500,000 new jobs — with a surge in female employment last month
• Approved the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Keystone XL pipeline
• Promoting America’s energy independence
• President Trump has rolled back job-killing coal regulations
• Buy American, Hire American executive order
• Putting the American worker first, President Trump has taken immediate action on trade

Caveats should be applied to several of those bullet points: The job-killing coal regulations, for example, may have created as many jobs in compliance as were lost, and the Keystone XL pipeline is projected to create only a small number of long-term jobs. But to the broader point here, let’s focus on that first one.

More than 500,000 new jobs — with a surge in female employment last month. There are two claims being made. The first is that there were 500,000 new jobs in Trump’s administration. The second is that female employment “surged.” These are claims central to Trump’s claims of 100-day success; they’re the first claims on the page. So, how do they stack up?

Here’s the number of new jobs — that is, the change in the number of people employed — month over month since the beginning of Barack Obama’s first presidential term.