FBI investigating Trump ties to Russia

WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI is investigating whether Donald Trump’s associates coordinated with Russian officials in an effort to sway the 2016 presidential election, Director James Comey said Monday in a public confirmation of a probe the president has dismissed as fake news and blamed on Democrats.

In a bruising five-hour session before a Congressional committee, the FBI director also refuted Trump’s claim that his predecessor had wiretapped his New York skyscraper, an assertion that has distracted White House officials and frustrated fellow Republicans who acknowledge they’ve seen no evidence to support it.

The revelation of the investigation of possible collusion with Russians, and the first public confirmation of the wider probe that began last summer, came in a House Intelligence Committee hearing examining serious allegations against the executive branch and the president’s 2016 election campaign.

Tight-lipped for the most part, Comey refused to offer details on the scope, targets or timeline for the FBI investigation. The director would not say whether the probe has turned up evidence that Trump associates may have worked with Russians.

“I can promise you,” the FBI director vowed, “we will follow the facts wherever they lead.”

Comey put himself publicly at odds with the president for the first time by contradicting a series of recent tweets from Trump that asserted his phones had been ordered tapped by President Barack Obama during the campaign.

“With respect to the president’s tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the FBI,” Comey said. The same was true, he added, of the Justice Department.

His confirmation of the Russian investigation was striking, given the FBI’s historic reluctance to discuss its work. Comey said the intense public interest in the matter — and permission from the Justice Department — made it appropriate to do so.

FBI Director James Comey, left, and National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, March 20, 2017, while testifying before the House Intelligence Committee hearing on allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Comey said the collusion inquiry began last July as part of a broader probe into Russian meddling in American politics.

Clinton allies on Monday contrasted Comey’s silence during Trump’s campaign with public comments he made last year when closing out an investigation into Clinton’s email practices and then, shortly before Election Day, announcing that the probe would be revived following the discovery of additional emails. Many Democrats blame Comey’s public updates for stoking worries about Clinton’s trustworthiness and turning voters against her.

Comey said that while some may want to make comparisons to past instances where he and other officials were more open about the bureau’s investigations,  those instances involved investigations that had been concluded.

In the current case, it’s not clear how long it will take for the FBI to decide if a crime was committed, but counterintelligence investigations are known for being complicated and time-intensive — and for frequently concluding without charges.

Comey would not commit to a timetable.

Regardless of the outcome, the investigation is unquestionably an unwelcome distraction for an administration that has struggled to move past questions about ties to Russia. The White House tried again on Monday to distance itself from two former senior members of Trump’s team: former campaign manager Paul Manafort and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, both who have been under scrutiny for foreign contacts.

Rep. Devin Nunes, the California Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, told Comey that revelations about the investigation had placed a “big gray cloud” over people trying to lead the country.

“The faster you can get to the bottom of this, it’s going to be better for all Americans,” he said.

Comey testified along with National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, who also disputed allegations that British intelligence services could have been involved in such wiretapping.

The hearing quickly divided along partisan lines. Democrats pressed for details on the status of the FBI’s investigation, while Republicans focused on news coverage and possible improper disclosures of classified information developed through surveillance.

Trump took to Twitter before Monday’s hearing began, accusing Democrats of making up allegations about his campaign associates. He said Congress and the FBI should be going after media leaks and maybe even Clinton instead.

“The real story that Congress, the FBI and others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!” Trump tweeted early Monday as news coverage on the Russia allegations dominated the morning’s cable news.

The president continued to tweet throughout the hearing, creating an unusual public conversation between the president and his FBI director.

After Trump tweeted that the FBI and NSA had told Congress that Russia did not influence the electoral process, Comey disputed that description. The president also claimed that Comey had said there was no evidence of collusion between his aides and Russia, though Comey said no such thing.

Trump suggested, without evidence, that Clinton’s campaign was in contact with Russia and had possibly thwarted a federal investigation. U.S. intelligence officials have not publicly raised the possibility of contacts between the Clintons and Moscow. Officials have said they believe Moscow had hacked into Democrats’ computers to help Trump’s election bid.

The House Intelligence Committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, outlined a chronology that he said suggested frequent and troubling contacts between Trump associates and Russian intermediaries.

“Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely

unrelated and nothing more than a entirely unhappy coincidence?” he asked rhetorically. “Yes, it is possible. But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated.”