This week, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller revealed the opening blows in his investigation into potential collusion between members of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and operatives working for or on behalf of Russia. On Monday, things kicked off with Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort turning himself in to the Justice Department after being indicted on 12 counts stemming from his financial dealings, including with pro-Russian Ukrainian entities. While the indictments allege a wide range of criminal activity, they do not cite anything related to the Trump campaign and Russia. In fact, the indictment overwhelmingly deals with shady deals Manafort allegedly made throughout an extended period of years before he joined the Trump campaign. But that, of course, does not mean Manafort is not implicated in potential attempts by Trump officials to work with Russian sources to obtain damaging information on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee, or other unknown offers from Russia to help Trump. The investigation has not provided the public of evidence of that, but it may well exist.
Perhaps more significant than Manafort’s actual charges is the fact that Mueller revealed to the public that a Trump foreign policy adviser named George Papadopoulos had pled guilty to lying to the FBI in an interview about his contacts with a professor who claimed to have links to Russian sources closely connected to the Kremlin or Vladimir Putin. Papadopoulos’s plea agreement portrays him as a first-class imbecile on multiple fronts. First, someone clearly told him that he was going to be hooking up with Russians closely connected to Putin — including someone he believed was a relative of Putin. Turns out, that part was false. It is clear from the indictment and his guilty plea about lying that Papadopoulos thought he could get dirt on Clinton in the form of stolen emails in the possession of his contact’s Russian sources. Maybe that professor had good connections to Moscow, or maybe he didn’t. We don’t know. It is possible that Papadopoulos was also trying to make himself seem more connected and valuable to Trump’s senior people than he actually was and inflated his connections and his ability to deliver. Papadopoulos has a track record of dishonesty regarding his resume and past work. Papadopoulos hardly seems to be the criminal mastermind of some grand plot to get the Russians to hack the elections. But it is still significant.
Papadopolous’s guilty plea and the fact that he is cooperating in the investigation could mean serious trouble for actual senior members of the Trump campaign, including but not limited to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr., Sam Clovis, Paul Manafort, and possibly Trump himself. The key question in all of this is what Trump and his senior officials believed Russia had to offer, what they tried to do to get it, what they did with it if they did get it, and on and on. But both Papadopoulos and Manafort could also provide testimony that alleges that Trump and others lied about a whole range of issues, including what they knew and when. For someone like Sessions who testified under oath about his knowledge of or involvement in dealings with Russia, this could be extremely bad news. Papadopolous and Manafort could testify that Sessions was lying to Congress or made intentionally misleading statements. So that could be a big deal.
Trump may have lied about a whole series of things, but Trump didn’t say any of it under oath, so Trump can fall back on his well-worn “fake news” defense with no legal consequence.
What is clear at this point is that Mueller is just getting started. Papadopolous’s plea agreement and the Manafort indictment should cause serious concern for Trump just based on what they know and the fact that they are under tremendous high stakes, legal pressure from an aggressive prosecutor who has threatened to make Manafort’s life a living hell. But neither Papandopolous nor Manafort have pled guilty to or been charged with conspiracy or espionage related to Russian election interference. All of this matters because the only relevant legal point on any of this was: Did Trump or his campaign break the law? The new term du jour “collusion” has no real, widely accepted legal definition. Details about such collusion could come out that make it very clear there was a plot here, but it might just be condemned in public opinion and not the courts. So that is what a lot of this boils down to: Was there criminal conduct or simply what many people seem to believe should be criminal conduct but isn’t under the law?
There will almost certainly be more indictments coming down the pike. And other cooperating witnesses. We know there are some sealed indictments filed in sequential order with the Manafort and Papadopolous filings. It will be interesting to see what they say and who the defendants are. Remember, we have Gen. Mike Flynn, Trump’s short-lived national security adviser, floating around. He definitely knows where some bodies are buried. Is he cooperating? Wearing a wire? Or is he going to be charged with a crime? Same questions apply to his son, Mike Flynn Jr.
Lying to the FBI and being a corrupt businessman are not what this investigation is really about. It is a probe into possible links between the Trump camp and Russia in an effort to influence the election. The government may never prove there was criminal activity by Trump’s people related to this election, but rather that they engaged in activity many Americans find offensive, immoral, unpatriotic. But to prove it is criminal is a totally different beast.
Many investigations into a major issue often produce indictments that have little to no relation to the bigger probe. They were crimes uncovered during the course of the probe or, in the case of lying, as a result of the investigation. Catching people in lies can lead to bigger things, and that is why Papadopolous ultimately matters. What passes as fact in the court of public opinion doesn’t necessarily hold up in the court of law. And none of us can simply will something to be true. That’s what the courts are supposed to do, including in cases involving cartoonish villains like Donald Trump. Now maybe this will lead to indictments showing a criminal conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Or maybe it will simply uncover non-criminal activities that are offensive to a lot of Americans. Time and evidence will tell.
This week on Intercepted, we spoke to two people closely monitoring these developments. Ken White is a criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles and a former assistant U.S. attorney. He is the main force behind the blog, Popehat. And Charlie Savage is an investigative reporter at The New York Times. He is the author of two great books, “Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy” about the Bush era and “Power Wars” about the Obama administration’s wars.
Subscribe to the Intercepted podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher, and other platforms. New to podcasting? Click here.
What follows is the complete transcript of our conversation:
Jeremy Scahill: Ken White, Charlie Savage, welcome to Intercepted.
Ken White: Thank you. Happy to be here.
Charlie Savage: Thank you.
JS: What is the strategy that Robert Mueller is engaging in here with this indictment and also the plea agreement of Papadopoulos?
CS: Of course Mueller is not talking to me, although if he’s out there listening, I’m happy to talk to you. But I would speculate that what he’s trying to do very hard is persuade Paul Manafort to flip and start cooperating and provide information about the Trump campaign’s interactions with the Russian government in exchange for leniency on these otherwise unrelated charges he was indicted with yesterday regarding his failure to register as a foreign agent, as lobbyist for Ukraine, and money laundering, and various other financial crimes related to that matter.
It looks like he’s putting a lot of pressure on Manafort, saying “Now is the time to flip, like Papadopoulos did, and you may get yourself, if not out of hot water into more tepid water in exchange for cooperation.”
JS: What would make what people keep referring to as collusion illegal or a criminal conspiracy and not just trying to get opposition research in a way that many Americans certainly would find distasteful, maybe even immoral. But like what would they need to find in order to prove that there was actual criminal activity regarding working with Russian agents or people connected to Russia regarding the election?
KW: It depends, I mean, they could use sort of generic statutes to the extent that anyone involved in communications with Russia made false statements to the United States government, made false statements to them in the course of the investigation. And you see those elements in both the Manafort indictment and Papadopoulos plea. And, to the extent they engaged in transactions that were concealing the nature of their relationship with the government, that could be it. But there’s no sort of general, broad definition of collusion. It would have to be — it’s not enough they just work with the Russians. They would have to demonstrate that they were affirmatively engaging with them and assisting them in making donations of something of value to a United States campaign.
JS: Charlie, if a political campaign, such as the Trump campaign learns that there are e-mails or communications that have been hacked or illicitly obtained by a foreign government and they’re aware that that is how this information was obtained, is it a crime for them to take possession of it and use it in their campaign to try to damage or score points against their political opponent?
CS: I mean all this is a very unprecedented territory, right? And so, I think a lot of legal commentators who have been trying to analyze where Mueller may be going or what certain facts would then lead to, if those facts turn out to be true, have been trying to reason by analogy without a lot of prior precedents to look to for guidance about what would fly in a courtroom, what wouldn’t.
And so, for example the theory that this could be a conspiracy to violate the law against foreign contributions to a domestic political campaign is definitely one of the ones that has been around. You see Bob Bauer, the former White House counsel to Obama who’s an election law specialist has been I think the principal proponent of that. What you’re getting at is another variant that you’ve heard kicked around out there which is — “Well, stealing of these emails is unlawful.” If the theft appears to have taken place before Trump campaign people were told that the Russians had e-mails related to Hillary Clinton but also, they seem to have learned that before the e-mails were disseminated via WikiLeaks. And so, if they coordinated that in some way or took some sort of step to conceal it, could that implicate Americans involved in the Trump campaign in the crimes of the Russians? There’s not a super easy way to see that.
One theory though that people have explored is there certain privacy violation crimes that are completed only at the point in which the public is shown private information. Perhaps then the crime was ongoing up to the point in which the, you know, the private emails were disseminated. But the whole thing is really sort of sui generis and, which means to say, we don’t have a lot of guidance from historical events to say “Clearly it would fit into this box neatly which has been tested over time.”
JS: Now, Ken, you currently are a defense attorney. You, at one other point in your career were an assistant United States attorney. I’m wondering your read on what was made public about the Papadopoulos guilty plea and the plea agreement in the fact that he’s cooperating. Was there anything in the documents that were made public this week on his case that indicate to you any other criminal activity outside of lying to the FBI?
KW: Well there was lying to the FBI and there was also deleting his Facebook account in what might have been a very clumsy effort to conceal its contents from the FBI. But no, there wasn’t anything in there that I think yet crossed the line into any other crimes. But bear in mind that what we’re seeing both in the complaint and in the statement of facts supporting the plea was what the special counsel warned to put in there and they didn’t necessarily put gratuitous things in there.
So, it’s possible they have more. But this move by the Special Counsel’s Office to go out and roust people and then wind up charging them not with a substantive crime but with lying during the rousting is classic for a federal grand jury investigation. And actually, I misspoke. It was the FBI that did the initial rousting before the special counsel was even appointed. But this sort of demonstrates, as does the Manafort indictment, just how broad and flexible federal criminal law is and how often prosecutors can give in something that they don’t like, stretch and find something that makes it a crime.
JS: As a defense attorney if you were sort of tasked with working on the defense in this case from the White House. Let’s say that it is proven that they had these meetings with Russians and that they knew that they were potentially going to be taking custody of stolen emails, whether they were actually stolen or not, we don’t know. But let’s say that that’s what they believe that they were — is there a criminal defense to justify taking that information and using it in your political campaign?
KW: The first element of the defense would be to get your clients to shut up.
JS: [Laughs] Good luck with that one.
KW: I mean because this is again a classic example of how people get themselves in trouble by lying to the FBI rather than by the underlying crime. Until you know what theory that the special counsel is going to go after, it’s a little difficult to say. I think that you would be watching for any indication that nothing of value was given by foreign nationals, which is one of the elements of the prohibition against foreign donations to a domestic campaign. I think you would be looking very carefully and policing all statements that have been made to any federal government entity in the course of the campaign to make sure that there were no false statements made that could be the hook for the criminal prosecution.
JS: Is there’s something inherently criminal about taking possession of illicitly obtained emails, like we believe happened with the Russia hack and Hillary Clinton or the DNC?
KW: Under federal law, probably not. Inherently just taking possession of them. There’s not like a “receiving stolen property” that’s generic to federal law like there is for many states.
However, you know, you could spin at some point a theory that they joined a conspiracy, a hacking conspiracy, under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act which is extremely broad and flexible. It really depends on what they say in the communication to the foreign nationals and what the communications demonstrate their intent is. But it’s certainly not a slam dunk, just because they knew it was stolen, that they took it. It really depends on what you can show their intent was and what they did with it, and especially if they did anything like encourage them to go back to the well and get more.
JS: Well, you did have Donald Trump openly calling on the Russians to find Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 deleted emails.
And that’s why if it is Russia, nobody even knows, it’s probably China, or it could be somebody sitting in his bed.
JS: That was political theater but I mean the timing of that, Charlie, was quite fascinating that you have Trump — it seems like he was aware that there was some degree of back channel communications or at least people very close to him, including his family members. And then he’s openly saying: Hey, Russia if you can find the 30,000 deleted emails, that would be great.
CS: Well, so what we don’t know yet is what he was aware of, versus what people around him were aware of, and may or may not have conveyed to him. Seems like that should be knowable information, but that’s also probably the sort of thing exactly that Bob Mueller’s hoping Paul Manafort for will flip and then provide, because he would be the one that in the best position to fill in those blanks. Part of what you’re talking about is the timeline here, that sort of we’re having more and more data points filled in of this very interesting period from sort of the spring of 2016 through the late summer of 2016, where now we know there is the Papadopoulos flirtation and offer, or at least a suggestion, that they had all these emails long before we had previously known people on the American side knew that.
Earlier that month we had the now-famous Trump Tower meeting on, I think, June 9, a couple days after that is when Julian Assange first reveals that he has just come into possession of Hillary-related emails that he finds fantastic. So, these things line up in a suspicious way, but Mueller is going to do more than just say, “Here’s some dots, why don’t we connect them with our intuitions.”
JS: And of course, Ken, Donald Trump is not under oath when he’s tweeting or when he’s speaking to the media, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions has testified under oath and has repeatedly said:
Well, let me just say this without hesitation that I conducted no improper discussions with Russians at any time regarding a campaign or any other item facing this country.
JS: At least in one case it shows that Sessions was in a meeting on March 31, 2016 at which Papadopoulos reportedly explained, “He had connections that could help arrange a meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin.”
Marcy Wheeler writing that it “shows that Papadopoulos kept a number of campaign officials in the loop on his efforts to set up a meeting between Trump and Putin, though they secretly determine that the meeting should be one low-level person in the campaign so as not to send any signal.” This issue of Sessions potentially being contradicted by Papadopoulos about what he knew and when he knew it.
KW: Well, sure, again, you’re off to the races. You’ve got false statements to the federal government and you’ve got potentially perjury. I think it would be at that point a difficult case depending on Sessions’s exact language in his testimony since it’s a little cloudy what collusion means. I mean collusion is sort of like the term we’re using to talk about this whole affair. It’s not really, in itself, a thing. There’s no federal law of “collusion” or something like that.
So, the trick would be to determine how precise Sessions’s language was and how precisely he said something that you can definitely contradict and, you know, prove that he knowingly told a lie.
JS: How would you describe to someone who knows nothing about this and is coming into it what has actually been proven about the relationship between Trump campaign officials and individuals connected to the Kremlin or working on behalf of the Kremlin?
CS: I mean it seems fairly clear and beyond reasonable dispute that there was an organized Russian effort to interfere with the 2016 election to help Trump, and hurt Clinton, through a variety of means and — ranging from these Facebook ads and so forth that were bought in rubles, to pretending to be, you know, Black Lives Matter, organizing rallies, and so forth, or just sort of taking existing tensions that might have the effect of suppressing leftwing turnout and ratcheting them up to the apparent theft of the emails and dissemination of them through WikiLeaks.
Your question is aimed more at sussing out what we know and don’t know about Trump campaign knowledge of, and coordination with, or lack there of. At this point the biggest indication of that in the public domain had been the Don Jr. emails that led to the Trump Tower meeting in June of 2016 where he was told that the meeting was about the Russian government’s efforts to help his father and he didn’t express surprise that there were such efforts, it’s always been sort of puzzling.
Now we learn that other elements of the campaign had already been in dialogue with people they believed at least were aligned to the Russian government, both in terms of setting up a meeting which doesn’t sound like collusion, that sounds like diplomacy or laying the grounds for diplomacy, but also that they knew that there was dirt and emails related to Clinton as early as April.
That still doesn’t get you to active participant in something, rather than passive beneficiary to something. But we don’t know what Mueller’s going to find, we don’t know what he’s already found. He keeps getting closer to that, but certainly this is a story that’s unfolding not a story that’s over.
JS: What is the evidence that is publicly available that you’ve seen as someone paying close attention to this that would stand up in a court of law and what does it show so far?
KW: I have to agree with Charlie. I think there’s evidence that people in the Trump campaign believed they were communicating with the Russians and believed that they were offering information about Hillary Clinton including emails. I don’t think that the evidence of coordination or of higher up in the Trump campaign is there yet, but it’s certainly enough for them to pursue. In terms of, you know, what I think is coming, I would only say that I am begrudgingly impressed with the competence of the special counsel’s office here. It’s quite a feat to keep that Papadopoulos arrest and plea confidential for the amount of time he did without it leaking.
And, he’s definitely going very methodically. I mean, everything that’s being done is the way that competent federal prosecutors roll up a case, just accelerated. He’s going at a much faster than usual pace. He’s being very aggressive in the things he’s asking for. So, for instance there was news he had successfully convinced a federal judge to force Manafort’s prior lawyer to testify before the grand jury on the basis of a finding that he could probably prove that Manafort consulted the lawyer for the purposes of fraud. That’s huge! It’s a very aggressive stance for a prosecutor to take and it’s unusual for a judge to agree to it. And it just shows how willing they are to use all the tools available to them and that the tools available to a federal prosecutor are formidable and all the avenues they are willing to go. My expectation is that we’re still going to see things dominated by sort of the throw off from the investigation rather than the investigation itself. In other words, we’re going to continue to see people getting tagged, not for something underlying they did that was against the law, but for something they did in reaction to the investigation.
JS: Right, I mean the cliche statement, you know, that the coverup is worse than the crime may be literally true here in terms of the consequences that people pay in their attempts to cover up activity that may not have even been illegal, but would have been wildly unpopular in the United States, because it showed that they were essentially working with foreign powers to try to influence a domestic presidential election.
KW: It’s a cliche because it’s perfectly true. It’s the primary way I would say that high-profile people get taken down by the feds.
CS: Remember that Mueller’s mandate is not just find whether there was a crime and you know prosecute it if there were, which might raise eyebrows about these, sort of, tangential crimes that then spin off that would not have happened but for the investigation. He’s also conducting an intelligence investigation to find out what happened, whether, or not, there was a crime. It’s sort of a counterespionage activity as much as it is a criminal prosecution and so he’s using these tools of perjury and lying to federal investigators and so forth in unrelated financial crimes that come to light because he’s scrutinizing these people so carefully, not just as an end to itself, but to try to get at the essence of what happened in 2016 and to what extent was that election tilted by a foreign power, which is something worth knowing, whether or not you can say it fits neatly within a standard federal criminal statute.
JS: General Michael Flynn, who, you know, we haven’t been hearing much about him lately. There’s questions swirling around whether he is cooperating already, whether there’s some kind of a sealed indictment against him, or if that’s yet to come. What are you hearing about General Flynn these days, Charlie?
CS: He’s gone awfully quiet and he was in a lot of hot water over a variety of things related to false statements on forms and his strange interactions with the Turkish government in his case, or that the parallel to a Manafort’s interactions with the Ukrainian government. People wonder what’s up with him and whether he’s cooperating or not and I’m sure the Trump White House would like to know as well.
KW: He’s got to be at a minimum extremely worried after yesterday though because the aggressiveness of the case theory in the Manafort indictment regarding registration as a foreign agent is something that if you moved it over to Flynn, I think would very easily support an indictment on a similar theory. I mean, it’s pretty clear that Flynn didn’t register as an agent for Turkey when he should have. He did it belatedly and often that would prevent prosecutors from charging based on it, but a prosecutor this aggressive, as aggressive as reflected in the Manafort indictment? I mean, I could see very easily them going after him, again, on a series of crimes arising out of the theory that he deliberately didn’t register when he should have.
JS: I mean it sounds like both of you are saying that one possible scenario here is that a number of people end up getting caught for crimes that they committed that are not necessarily about dealings with the Russian government, but maybe about their lobbying practices, their own financial dealings and that it doesn’t actually lead to a criminal charge regarding their involvement with Russia, but rather a series of criminal charges having to with a cover up, or other issues that were uncovered by the special prosecutor’s investigation. Is that accurate?
KW: Absolutely. And I think the important thing to note is that it’s not an exception, it’s the rule. So, you look, you know even as relatively recently as the Ken Starr investigation of then-President Clinton. The main action wound up being something that was completely collateral to what he was originally tasked to investigate. And, again, this is very typical of federal criminal investigations. Often the thing that they wind up getting people on, particularly in politics, particularly high profile people, are spinoffs from the investigation, not the original subject of the investigation.
CS: A difference between Ken Starr setting out to discover whether there was financial misdeeds in the Whitewater investigation and ending up with a perjury case related to a sexual affair is that there was no real connection between the two of substance at the end. It’s not like he was pressuring Bill Clinton to come clean about Whitewater. Here, I think you have to understand Mueller’s strategy as clearly being about putting pressure on Manafort, and maybe Flynn, and others, to tell him what they know about the Russia case, in exchange for leniency on these other apparent crimes he’s uncovered. There is an end goal to the effort.
JS: Charlie, Ken — thanks so much for joining us.
CS: My pleasure.
KW: Thank you for the opportunity.
Top photo: Special Counsel Robert Mueller in New York in 2009.
You ever think maybe trump interviewed mueller for special council, not F.B.I director(since he was termed out for that job, who better to investigate a bunch of crooked dems then a group of patriot dems,WHOPSIE, didn’t see that one did you chief, pedesta tomorrow, clinton by weekend, and good night obama, hard to bitch if mueller does it(liberals are dumb) your name is schill
I was really enjoying reading news articles on your site until I came upon this opinion piece lacking in facts and filled with conjecture.
I really enjoyed your interview on CANADALAND. Good stuff there!
“Papadopoulos hardly seems to be the criminal mastetmind behind a grand plan to get the Russians to hack the election …” Now there’s a term du jour that’s very ill defined, wouldn’t you say Scahill? Much more so than ‘collusion’. I love how it’s portrayed as incredibly sinister for a politician to obtain dirt on their rivals from a 3rd party rather than something that happens every other day.
So Israel influences U.S. elections in a very effective in an overt way.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/03/20123774029910326.html
Russia in a covert way.
If operatives working for or lobbying for Russia during campaigns etc would be required to sign up under FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act)
When will operatives for Israel lobbying in the halls of congress organized by Aipac etc be required to sign up under FARA?
Difference?
What “covert” way did you have in mind?
Remind me, remind us. Are you having a false memory?
“covert” exposed of course during campaign
Israel and the I lobby just walk through front doors of congress to influence U.S. elections.
Although even one of the Aipac officials caught for alleged espionage (and then Obama and Holder had the case dismissed upon taking office) said ” A lobby is like a night flower: It thrives in the dark and dies in the light.” – former AIPAC foreign policy director Steve Rosen
Rosen knew what lobby he was talking about.
My question again is what is the difference between Israel through Aipac/Jinsa (both should be required to sign up under FARA) influencing our elections and undermining U.S. National Security any different than what Russia did covertly (then exposed)”
Obama/Holder dismissed this investigation and 9 time delayed trial. Why?
https://fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/index.html
You replied, ‘“covert” exposed of course during campaign’ and ‘what Russia did covertly (then exposed)’
Nothing covert or otherwise relating to the Russians was exposed before or after the campaign. What are you thinking of?
0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0.004 + 0 + 0 equals nothing, except to those immersed in hysteria.
And you know what zombie answer would be given by a Washingtonian politician regarding Israel’s influence:
“We have a special relationship with Israel. Are you an anti-semite?”
Just reread my Nov 5, 1:57 pm post.
A line or two, for clarity, needed adding.
I had said:
“0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0.004 + 0 + 0 equals nothing, except to those immersed in hysteria.”
What I was referring to was all the events that have generated millions of words by the msm in print and talking heads. Each event was without substance. For example the “hack” of the DNC which was in fact a leak.
This event by itself has generated mountains of words, but it all amounts to zero. It has not “exposed” anything “covert” about the Russians. It was an internal matter. Zero
0
The meeting between Trump Jr and a Russian lawyer was a 0.
The use of Pokemon Go by the Russians was a 0.
And on and on.
A blizzard of millions of words over weeks and months has deluded people with the impression that there is something there worthy of note.
But if you stand back and look there is no substance there. It is 0 + 0 + 0 + 0
People have been worked up into a state of hysteria. They have lost all objectivity.
Clearly this whole Russia gate investigation is completely necessary. Although can anyone explain the difference between Russia trying to influence our elections covertly (not so covertly) and the way Israel influences our elections, foreign policy decisions in an overt way through lobbying our Reps via Aipac, Jinsa (both should be required to sign up under FARA/Foreign Agents Registration Act) or are actual Reps say former Congresman Jane Harman who actively interfered in a federal investigation into how U.S. National security had been jeopardized by officials at Aipac?
If BB can walk right into congress and undermine the Iran deal what is the difference between the way Israel undermines our election process and the way Russia just did?
Is the only difference that the I lobby has heavy influence on whether the msm calls a destructive influence a destructive influence?
Is one of the sealed indictments for Tony Podesta?
So if you want to see the bigger picture.
Russia is manipulating western MSM and western establishment politicians in order to increase Russiafobia and thus weakening the US Institutions and strenghtening Putin’s position as world leader. And the best thing about that is that the West has no clue it is putting salt on the self inflicted wounds !
People working in the career of sales know the saying, “You are
the message”. In other words, for example, if you show up at a
customer’s establishment looking like a bum and without your shoes
tied the customer will think the same of your product – for bums.
We want to promote and spread democracy around the world?
Really?!! Ha, ha, ha
We are bombing and destablizing more countries then you can shake
a stick at. Our politicians are liars and/or clowns and/or bought-off
stooges. What message do we send?
“You want to be like us? You want democracy?”
Really?!! Ha, ha, ha
Wow!
I just read an article that shows our Congress has been made insane by this Russia-fobia.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-04/washington-stomps-civil-liberty
//
Lawmakers Demand Tech Companies Censor Journalists and Conduct Mass Surveillance
Wednesday’s hearings by the House and Senate Intelligence committees on “extremist” political views served as the occasion for members of Congress to urge technology companies to flagrantly violate the US Constitution by censoring political speech, carrying out mass surveillance, and muzzling journalists in pursuit of the government’s geopolitical aims.
//
I hope these hearings are studied for generations as a warning.
They live in infamy with the McCarthy hearings.
Today 100 Clinton staffers (none displaying evidence of twisted or broken arms) issued a letter rebutting Donna Brazile’s recent charges against the DNC.
Unbelievably they fell back on the Manifest Hysteria of the day and
blamed the Russians !!
Ha!
Letter from 100 Clinton staffers:
“It is particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians and our opponent, about our candidate’s health.”
The American people could have informed themselves and then voted for someone who reflected their real interests; that would have been, Dr. Jill Stein or even Senator Bernie Sanders but they as always chose the crooked corporate candidate (look at trump’s cabinet if you think he is different). This is why people eat at McPimple instead of at home with family; it’s easier and you don’t have to think or work. Of course, you get Cardiovascular disease and Cancer but it was easier and in the political sphere; the rich get the gold mine and you get the shaft and the real middle class gets to continue screwing the workers.
” I mean it seems fairly clear and beyond reasonable dispute that there was an organized Russian effort to interfere with the 2016 election to help Trump, and hurt Clinton, through a variety of means and — ranging from these Facebook ads and so forth that were bought in rubles, to pretending to be, you know, Black Lives Matter, organizing rallies, and so forth, or just sort of taking existing tensions that might have the effect of suppressing leftwing turnout and ratcheting them up to the apparent theft of the emails and dissemination of them through WikiLeaks.” That is a bullshit statement–how about the opening line? And then the idiotic nonsense about the Facebook ads, etc. One would like to think Charlie Savage would know better. My God.
Didn’t Obama meddle in Netenyahu’s election ?
so scumhill and his accomplice greenwald are both accomplices of the US government and are keeping secret the SNOWDEN DOCUMENTS and not releasing them to the public.
and now scumhill also publishes COLD WAR propaganda
in other words, the intercept is a cesspool. Like anything american I suppose.
They mean it’s time for Glenn Greenwald to write another article here. To pull his colleagues back from the brink of the Russia scam. There was no collusion between Trump and Russia. The hack of the DNC was an insider, covered up by CrowdStrike. Muelller is just focusing on process crimes, since he has nothing.
If there is any Russian collusion it is with the bribe queen Hillary. As Secretary of State, Hillary received millions in bribes to approve the transfer of 20% of our uranium assets to Russia:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=1
Great article. Can’t wait for the next act of “La Trumpiata.”
Donald Trump does not swear to tell the truth. He does not affirm it to be the truth…. He does not say he is telling the truth. That leaves him an out – deniability
So he is a liar – that may be the only thing provable SO HE WAS ELECTED ON LIES….
282 CAMPAIGN PROMISES
So, next time he can run as a democrat because your
description fits both corporate owned parties.
Confidentiality agreements & sealed court records?.? SO who is going to flip?
Manafort – 18 million dollars money laundering – – but there is still 54 million dollars missing ….
Gates?? Sessions ? – Russian contacts & lying to Congress.. General Flynn took the 5th amendment also Russian contacts
And Donald Trump say he doesn’t know anything….liar, liar pant on fire…..the ring leader runs the show – – and the circus is in town
What is it with Amerika and these Frankenstein looking government freaks. Did you vote for these freaks Amerika? First, Madeleine Albright, then John Kerry and now Muller, imagine if these three got together and had a baby, my God what would that look like? I’m thinking an unspeakable, crossbreed genetically modified Harvey Weinstein and I don’t know what. Amerika doesn’t need a President, it needs Van Helsing.
Look, I LOVE JEREMY SCAHILL WITH ALL MY HEART, but if I want to hear this crap I’d watch CNN and I’d rather have my eyeballs pulled out by Frankenstein. I’m no Trump fan at all, can’t stand him, and I believe in every conspiracy there is, I believe 9/11 was an inside job, I believe in the Sandy Hook conspiracy, I might even believe in Big Foot, but I don’t believe this crap. So what, some people in Russia ran a few ads, big deal, so what, Russian media stretched the truth on some stories, that’s nothing compared to what CNN does. This crap is nothing but a distraction and that’s where the conspiracy is.
Here’s what I want to know. How many elections, democratic or otherwise, has the U.S. interfered with? That’s what I want to know. Or, with all the Trillions of dollars Saudi Arabia has in the U.S. how have they’ve influenced U.S. elections?
Why would Russian Intelligence release very high value information to Papadopolous ?
Answer – they wouldn’t. What they do release is disinformation.
Why would Russian Intelligence release very high value information to Christopher Steele – well known MI6 employee who would be tracked immediately he crossed the border ?
Answer – They wouldn’t. They would feed him disinformation.
It’s the one intelligence mantra shared – do not release the truth because the ‘truth’ has value. Release disinformation to sow discord, distrust and confusion. Making up stuff has no cost, takes little to no resources, financing or effort.
Papa was what’s known as a cutout, a low-level nobody who could be used as an unknown intermediary to pass on information, whether genuine or crap, who could then be disavowed in case he was caught. Which is exactly what they’re trying to do now. Except, nobodies generally don’t get to sit in on high-level meetings with the president and AG, who then claim to not remember him. Whether or not the info he was fed or would have been fed is irrelevant. What matters here is that Trump, Sessions et al not only knew about this attempt to get oppo dirt on Clinton from Russia, but approved of if not ordered it. Whether that was legal or not is still open to question, but the fact that they lied about this to the FBI is most definitely a crime.
As for Steele, he’s a pro who clearly didn’t just expect the Russians to dump useful intel in his lap. He surely cultivated secondary sources who spoke to him unofficially, and then determined what was genuine and what was disinformation. Two completely different situations. And he never lied about doing all this. Not that it matters, not being a US citizen.
To sum up, Papa was a useful idiot cutout who lied about it and whose bosses lied about it to the FBI, Steele was an intel pro who was paid to gather oppo research, by multiple entities, some of whom appear to have lied about it, but not necessarily to the FBI.
kovie, nice,
but you forgot to say you were speculating.
Actually, not just speculating, but speculating to seven degrees.
1) Speculating: “Papa was what’s known as a cutout, a low-level nobody who could be used as an unknown intermediary to pass on information”
Did you get the above from a CIA wastebasket? Careful of eyewash.
2) “nobodies generally don’t get to sit in on high-level meetings with the president and AG, who then claim to not remember him.”
From what I have read “Papa” only attended a photo op with Trump. Are you speculating there was a high level meeting with Trump? I am open, show us something to support your claim.
3) Ok, this one you *did* say you were speculating: “He **surely** cultivated secondary sources who spoke to him unofficially, and then determined what was genuine and what was disinformation.
4) How do you know everything that Steele did? (answer: you are speculating): “And he [Steele] never lied about doing all this.”
5) “To sum up”, should read, “To sum up the speculation”
Washington Post story dated 01/31/2016:
‘Eyewash’: How the CIA deceives its own workforce about operations
“Senior CIA officials have for years intentionally deceived parts of the agency workforce by transmitting internal memos that contain false information about operations and sources overseas, according to current and former U.S. officials who said the practice is known by the term “eyewash.”
Agency veterans described the tactic as an infrequent but important security measure, a means of protecting vital secrets by inserting fake communications into routine cable traffic while using separate channels to convey accurate information to cleared recipients.”
Creating disinformation is part of the craft, it is a constant. Just because something is sourced from a particular agency, CIA/MI6/ Mossad/Russian FSB, does not mean that agency believes it themselves.
Don’t forget, part of the skill set is to make information **appear** as though it came from the desk of an adversary.
All kinds of possibilities open up. MI6 itself could have produced the dossier intel, then transmitted it through a channel they knew to be compromised. The Russians had a good laugh when they read the intercepted intel and laughed even harder when they sold it back to a former MI6 agent, Christo Steele.
Ha !
Glad to see someone’s thinking.
Extremely disappointing that this piece of trash article with no evidence and only wishful thinking is on The Intercept. I may as well read CNN.
Is Jeremy Scahill trying out for a revival of Monte Python????
He is most assuredly
simultaneously,
ridiculous and absurdly serious.
**** “The investigation has not provided the public of evidence of that,
but it may well exist.”******
This quote is a classic, right up there with
“No one expects the Spanish inquisition!” or
“Bring us a shrubbery!”
This is a good article and podcast, thank you, and your commenters are equally incisve.
Unlike the commenters, the author never brings up the other side, the DNC’s part in all this mess. Specifically, the Podesta Group, the Clinton Fdn, et el, and their involvement in the Obama administration.
Sadly, there are not two parties in our country, only one, the Uniparty.
They put on their kabuki theatre to entertain the masses and continue with their behind-the-scenes corruption. They lie to us, and the MSM is complicit, on both sides.
This Mueller investigation is a warning shot to DC to either clean it up a bit, or become better at hiding their corruption and step up the entertainment. imo
I concur, in light of the .congressionial hearings” with Facebook, Google & Twitter, alongside the Moscow Mueller mania. .. it’s almost theatrical ..with Al Franken playing the congressional Jester.
How long this ruse can continue due to the currency of the Donna Brazile revelation about HRC campaign, with the president overseas for 2 weeks..will be interesting to watch and follow..
The coincidental timing of the Brazile revelation so close after the Mueller mania..causes one to wonder if this is all about selling books..
After all, she said herself, when she realized what was happening during the campaign, she “hesitated “ (waited ..in her words)..
like the dude in the Lionel Nation interview said..those in the know, knew the Brazile book was in the works..It was only a matter of time..meanwhile.,Seth Rich gets buried deeper and deeper
Mueller is an honorable man. Yeah, like when he tried to cover up 9-11 facts. He also tried to cover up the murders by Whitey Bulger when he was in Boston. Scum looking at scum?
Mueller , an honest man. Lololololololololololololololollolol
Lolololololololololololololololololololololololololoolololololo
Lmao
Lmao
Lmao
1. We know that the “Russia Collusion” story is a political strategy John Podesta and Robby Mook. That the communications team met in Brooklyn NY 24 hrs after the concession speech.
2. We aware that there is a strong bias to a Democrat position in the mainstream media . Reporters are failing to be objective in their reporting / opinions and softballing the Democrat this strategy.
3. Russian hacking whilst obviously something that happens – has not been objectively evidenced publicly by key intelligence services.
4. The most recent AP “investigation” of “Russian” Hacking once again shows details that indicate Eastern European hacker/s located in Ukraine or Romania. Other “investigations” / opinions are similarly flawed in their reasoning, logic and evidence.
5. Wikileaks denies Russian involvement.
6. The DNC did not turn over key IT equipment to the FBI
7. Russian hacking and Russian government sanctioned hacking are two distinct terms.
8. The DNC and Debbie Wssermann Schultz are currently involved in a real IT scandal. What links are being explored between that scandal and the current ‘Russia Hack” narrative.
9. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) has reported that the DNC emails was a clear “leak” ie physically removed from a computer , rather than a hack. This report is one o the few that actually appears backed by expertise in this area and objective.
10. Other major Democrat figures have been shown to have classified emails on their devices – some like Anthony Weiner are clearly high security risks.
11. How many Democrat staffers have been interviewed by the FBI into the Russia hacking ? How much physical evidence has been retained – laptops , servers, download / upload logs ?
12. What is Fusion GPS – whta substantial role have they played in this story – Have they been interviewed in this investigation under oath? Have their clients ?
13. What is the role of Christopher Steele and the British SIS (MI6) ?
14. Why in nearly every case “sources” low level with rather dubious links if any to the “Kremlin”.
Awww Brooklyn, GROUND ZERO (-200,000 votes) that changed the America’s faith in Party & Primary. Wonder in 2018 “games” how we are going to have an “election” with machines a high school hacker can get into. Oh, well, that disqualifies half the NSA/HS.
VIPS proved beyond a doubt that the DNC emails were not hacked, but leaked, virtually assuring that the release was an inside job. There’s at least as much to show it was done by a DNC staffer as a Russian mole, but that doesn’t fly with the official version, the one claiming that Russia stole the election from Clinton.
Now we’ve come to learn from the enlightening admission by Donna Brazile that Clinton made a deal with the DNC that gave her near-total control of its inner workings, including fund raising, finances, staffing and strategy and that’s how the DNC burned Bernie. Hillary was running the show from the start, so it’s not much of a mystery how and why the Russians ended up in the cross-hairs after Sanders had been neutralized.
After all this, I’ve finally found one thing–one thing–on which I agree with Donald Trump: Time to investigate Hillary Clinton.
DNC Lawsuit reignited – that will bankrupt the DNC. If state parties were actively involved and found to be so – that’s another big financial / political hit.
Just for laughs, I’m heading over to Hillary’s personal, online newsletter–known as Huffpost–to see how she has them framing Brazile’s stunning release of honesty.
This should be fun…
I checked HuffPost. Nada, except a little video at the bottom questioning whether Brazile’s revelation “will hurt Democratic chances in 2020.” You should “pay no attention to man behind the curtain.” The DNC rolls on to oblivion.
I agree with all your points.
I think the media needed Democratic blood in the water (Podesta) before they could pivot. I found it odd that Washington Post suddenly realized the DNC paid for Steele’s Dossier.
Draining the swamp seemed like a good idea at the time.
Swamps typically eat everything in them, one way or another.
I thought it was a good idea in 2008. .. at the time.
*too many reptile lizard-eyes rule the roost now.
Why does Jeremy Scahill work for The Intercept? Honestly, can’t Greenwald find some actual journalists to report on actual news?
This is a country where Howard Dean, Rudy Giuliani, and others can offer material support to terrorists (mujahadeen e-khalq) by lobbying for them and accepting money for speeches, yet not be charged with anything. With such blatant hypocrisy or selective prosecution from the DOJ, it seems irrational to focus on who they do choose to prosecute. For lobbying, and for money-laundering/tax-evasion, for lying to the FBI, etc.
It’s like if it were illegal to drink tea, coffee, or sody pop (yet all are still legal to buy). The DOJ gets to pick and choose who to prosecute (since nearly everyone is violating the law), often simply due to what religion or race the perp is, or how powerful they are, or what their politics are, whether they’re a journalist, drug-dealer, what kind of terrorist they are, which powerful people would benefit if they’re charged/found guilty, etc. etc. etc.
The Legislature and Executive (both parties) are both corrupt and entirely untrustworthy and completely non-objective. And SCOTUS’ composition or current justices aren’t helping, for example gutting the Voting Rights Act, Citizens United, etc.
And the US public has the memory of a goldfish (which actually have memories of months or longer, so no offense goldfish). I’d say the MSM also does, but hard to say whether they’re ignorant of the past so keep repeating it, or it’s just good business to repeatedly treat BS as fact, rabble-rouse for conflict, and so on.
In other words, is much too early to tell what the indictments and plea deals mean to Trump, because so far, he hasn’t been definitively linked to any crime. You wouldn’t know that by all the ruckus.
Personally, I’ve absolutely had it up to here with “may”, “may well”, “might”, “could”, “possibly”, “potentially”, “appears”, “could lead to”, “suggests”, “optics of” and the rest of the utterly meaningless words and phrases that must be used because not one, single motherfucking piece of solid evidence of any crime by Trump has been found.
Of course, that could change…
2nd, it all adds up to speculation, wishful thinking, or planted information— so far, more than a year later. Really? Would PresObama, leader of THE superpower allow such to happen on his watch? Pfffttt ;-)
They’re just covering all the bases early just in case something concrete actually hits Trump sometime down the line. I’m not holding my breath.
Haha, exactly…I like that word better. Did you read the Politico Brazile piece. It was a first person soap-operatic information-free “cry” for help. Translation: the ‘private club’ known as the Democratic National Committee is a sociopathic enterprise that has no purpose but to launder $ and cover for any psychopath that can garner the interest of big lobby $$’s. Gawd what a joke.
I haven’t seen the Politico piece, but I did see one on Vox suggesting that Brazile’s admission was somehow a fig leaf to Sanders’ supporters to bring them back into to the fold. Right. Just two weeks after the DNC purged some Ellison backers from the ranks. Jesus…That DNC is completely fubar and positioning itself for another monumental ass-kicking.
Key insights within this piece:
“The investigation has not provided the public of evidence of that, but it may well exist.”
We know a laptop exists that belongs to Seth Rich, also one that belongs to Imran Awan/Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Both are in the possession of the FBI. Why no “rousting” by FBI agents in the middle of the night to gain access to her personal links to her hired IT guy that took 5400 e-mails off site to private server? Awan’s have done work for 45 Congressman sometimes while working from PAKISTAN, on private servers. Why no equal justice or investigation? Senate/Congress can investigate more than one thing at a time, right?
Mueller was director of the FBI from 2001 to 2013. Might this not preclude him from investigating “misconduct” that he himself should have been instrumental in stopping? If he finds something particularly juicy, he can just stand down claiming conflict of interest. He was one of the highest law enforcement officers in the land during the Uranium One sale of preciously rare Uranium on United States soil.
Clinton Foundation IS a money-laundering scheme, and has yet to garner the interest of any FORMAL INQUIRY. Ask yourself why?
Meantime here is the “informal” highlights from Judicial Watch:
https://youtu.be/zTcnjFFSRzE
The Clinton Foundation, according to Charles Ortel, is the biggest international charity fraud in history. Add to this the “pay to play” regarding the Uranium One deal and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State with The Clinton Foundation getting $145 million in contributions and Bill getting $500k for a twenty minute speech in Moscow and now we are talking the REAL Russian scandal but crickets from The Intercept and the MSM (save Hannity and Carlson).
Consider all the illegal shenanigans with Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints going back to Little Rock and through destroying subpoenaed evidence in the server quagmire and now her campaigns takeover of the DNC and screwing Sanders out of a free and fair primary.
Hillary and Bill must be blackmailing Mueller and many others. What is any other plausible explanation of why she, Bill and Chelsea are all so Teflon coated??!
Psst….Jeremy….give Charles Ortel a call. He’d love to hear from either you or Glenn or ANYONE from The Intercept!
Well said. Things seem to be changing. CrookdClinton could have been VP, gave her a better chance and closer to the Potus. But she wanted the SOS because held the international keys to making the Foundation successful a and bringing in the donations for paytoplay. There is just too much adding up on all fronts, everywhere. And then not having the emails available to prove her innocence closes the deal!
Jeffrey Sachs, hardly a Trump supporter, warned about the Clinton Foundation in 2015.
https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/08/top-economist-sees-clinton-money-machine-as-problematic/
Here, Here, I concur.
I realize that Mr. Savage is only a reporter, but, “prior precedents…” Really?
So hasn’t Mueller talked to the intel agencies who have information on all of this shit? For all the “revelations” of the deep state to the NYTimes and WaPo over the last 10 months of so, this is the best the Mueller can do? Hit Papadopoulos with a “process crime”?
Great political theater.
DNC/Mueller Russia probe = GOP/Benghazi probe
Both involve(d) a serious problem: foreign interference in US policy making (Russia and the GCC). But both were/are turned into one sided partisan finger pointing instead of looking how in both cases the collusion involved both GOP and DNC operatives.
It’s time for an independent, non partisan serious investigation on how US foreign policy is sold.
To be completely frank (as opposed to Shirley, and please don’t call me that), many of us really aren’t that concerned about Trump, as we are not among the ‘tards who voted either for the Trump Crime Family nor the Clinton Crime Family, but given all these journalists who are forever claiming to be “investigative journalists” — it sure would be nice to see at least one or more stories by them on a backgrounder on that “exceptional prosecutor” Robert Mueller’s background?
Is Robert Swan Mueller III any relation to the fellow, Swan, who was head of the FRBSF back in 1963 when $16 million in securities went missing? Is it true that Mueller is the grandnephew of Richard Bissell, fired CIA deputy director — fired by President Kennedy?
Is his wife, whose maiden name is Cabell, any relation to another fired CIA deputy director, Gen. Charles Cabell, who was the brother at that time of the mayor of Dallas, when President Kennedy was murdered there, Earle Cabell?
What was Mueller’s prosecutorial record like when he was acting US Attorney in Boston, when he prosecuted four innocent men to jail, while allow Whitey Bulger to get away scott-free?
What was Mueller’s prosecutorial record like when he was chief of the DoJ’s criminal division during that serious investigation into the BCCI? (For anyone interested in that, but not interested in doing any serious reading, just view the film with Clive Owens called “The International” on DVD.)
These may very well be crucial questions as to why the former FBI director, who oversaw the bungled investigation into that Anthrax assassin (Stephen Hatfill would be rewarded $5.8 million for the publicity and problems generated by that investigation while Mueller was director — and those four innocents in Boston would be rewarded $105 million — all federal funds of course, further depleting the US tax base), was appointed?
In Buck v. Bell, the supreme court supported forced sterilization, on the grounds that “three generations of [i-slurs] are enough.”
I am multiply disabled, and I think ableist slurs, such as the i-slur used in the article, contribute to the discrimination, inaccessibility, endangerment, and violence that we can face for being disabled.
I think I have a right not to be blinded, unbalanced, and disoriented into the street by strobe lights and turn signals, or woken and left vomiting by strobe bombardment, or pain-beaten to the ground by backup beaters and sirens. I think everyone has a right to go outside without getting endangered or killed by dangerous safety signals.
That was 1927. It is not the worst idea in the face of some evils that men impose on other innocents. We all have adversity.
Buck v Bell has never been overturned.
Thanks.
What matters to all of these people? Money and power.
So mueller has found nothing and desperately tries to get something by putting pressure on some people who at one point were in the campaign. Sad day for USA justice system….
Well in the US it IS justice for the wealthy and powerful, law and order for everyone else. The people Muller is “after” are very well connected, high ranking, powerful, wealthy and essentially above the law because of it. it is really very hard in this country, if not impossible, to go after people like that and bring them to any kind of meaningful justice. If these had been average citizens they would be in jail by now with the key thrown away, but Manafort is politely escorted into the FBI building and doesnt even have to post bail. That is how this country works, which is why I think this entire Muller investigation is a distraction at best and a waste of time overall, mainly there to appease the public. Once things get heated up, Trump will just fire his a/ss.
Gee whiz, do you think that the very last place of employment for the Deep State-connected Mueller was a law firm whose chief clients are the Trump family might have had something to do with this entire scenario?????
This is just a big huge distraction that will likely not produce anything tangible in terms of criminal activity by either party. I mean look Manafort was politely escorted the FBI and not in handcuffs and he did not even have to post bail, unlike millions of Americans who currently sit in jails across the country without conviction because they cant post bail.
His indictment is being treated as a suggestion. Like “sorry Paul we have to do this but the public wants to see a head roll so play along buddie, ok?”
Anyway all this investigation does is lulling people into a false sense of “something is being done” mentality. And it will distract them and keep them at bay and from going rogue as long as they think something is being done. Getting criminal convictions and even the House to bring forth Articles of Impeachment against Trump seems extremely unlikely, which was the goal in all this but it seems like it will never happen.
Trump can lie under oath. As long as the House wont remove that immunity, Trump can do whatever the hell it wants. He is immune whether he lies under oath or engages in ANY criminal activity. It really doesnt matter, it all depends on the House.
Meanwhile, the GOP will keep forking through one devastating policy after another, starting with their early Christmas giveaway to the powerful and wealthy in this reverse Robin Hood scheme also known as Tax Reform.
I am worried that while people are busy with these indictment and what is clearly actions committed to mostly appease the public, the GOP will have all the time to push through their devastating agenda with as little public oversight and input as possible with late night votes on key issues etc.
And you know, if Trump chooses to fire Muller – and remember Muller is currently where he is at the sole discretion of Trump who could blow up at any minute – then what do we have? Trump can fire whoever is in his way, just like Nixon, only that this time and unlike during Nixon’s Watergate affair, the Democrats DONT have House majority. So then whatever he does, no one will be there to bring forth articles of impeachment against Trump. The House has made it clear that they are not going to go after Trump, even phonies like Flake and Corker have stated there is no reason to remove Trump.
We are stuck people. Breads and circuses politico style.
Mr Trump cannot fire Mr Mueller. Only the Dep AG, Rosenstein can.
I didn’t see Manafort, but he must have been handcuffed and he had to post $10mn bail. They think he’s a flight risk.
You are right about distractions, but many people think the distractions are to take our minds of this investigation.
We must be vigilant of the Republican congress every moment.
I didn’t listen/read the interview but I have to give my regards to Scahill for setting it up more or less neutrally compared with the red-scare-part-2 that the rest of the left wing media is pushing. No doubt he will face a backlash from people who are convinced Trump is Putin’s puppet.
Right now is a great opportunity to highlight the fact that when you shine a light on a wealthy politically-connected person you find dirt; a great opportunity to highlight white collar crime and how the gov’t agencies responsible for investigating/enforcing regulations for white collar crime get relatively little funding.
True, in speculating, he did offer alternatives where nothing of criminality happened. Most Russiagate propaganda takes suppositions to be true so we get inanities that Russia used Pokemon to stir racial unrest.
HEY now, copper mugs run $5 to $10 each on Amazon, damn it!
Kudos to whoever came up with “Moscow Mueller.” ;)
Also, as long as he’s not personally starting more stupid wars or launching nukes/ICBMs at anyone I might prefer Trump sticks around until January of 2019, embarrassing the shit out of the establishment. Though I won’t vote for the Ds any longer, and never voted R, I still think at least the House of Representatives will flip to Dem next year. A less perilous window out of Nero’s burning high-rise, if there is one, might be by the time Pence gets sworn in he’s already a permanent lame duck.
An obstruction of justice impeachment won’t ever happen though. That’s a broader discussion previous administrations in particular (but also Congress, the IC, the MIC, even DOJ and the FBI) do not want to have.
the task is not to prove a collusion, but to establish what happened. Your bias is showing
The efforts to rehabilitate Mueller are amusing – but here is a guy who:
(1) Refused to aggressively investigate the 2001 anthrax attacks, because the actual source was likely Dick Cheney’s office – instead overseeing a series of false and fraudulent political prosecutions, from Hatfill to Ivins.
(2) Refused to oppose the new COINTELPRO programs that GW Bush and Dick Cheney initiated and signed off on the unconstitutional domestic mass surveillance program.
(3) Refused to aggressively investigate and prosecute the criminal banksters who took down the global economy in 2008 (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America, HSBC, etc.) using the kind of strategy described here (i.e. prosecuting low-level offenders on unrelated charges, getting them to sign plea deals in exchange for cooperation, then having them rat out their superiors – that would have put Goldman Sachs CEOs like Gary Cohn in jail).
The real game here has little to do with Trump – it’s mostly about the corporate Clinton Democrats trying to find some excuse for their massive electoral losses since 2010 that doesn’t involve accepting the blame themselves and stepping down from power. Rather than stating the obvious – that neoliberal pro-Wall Street policies cost Democrats their base, especially across the Rust Belt – they’re trying to blame their losses on Russia. The corporate media and its billionaire owners have a vested interest in this narrative, as the Clinton Democrats, if they retain power, will continue to act as loyal slaves of Wall Street – just as the Republicans do.
Thank you for stating what all these so-called “investigative journalists” and so-called “reporters” should be stating — and you (no disrespect meant, just wish to convey the Big Picture) hardly scratched the surface of Mueller’s background, including the origin of his family fortune on the Truesdale side.
Agreed, the extent to which Sanders’ message resonated last year was a huge shock for Big Money. Since then, it’s been an urgent priority to manufacture some reason why the Dems shouldn’t ditch their pro-corporate agenda.
The last thing the establishment wants is for voters to be presented with a meaningful choice. That is not how 21st-century American democracy has been designed to work.
Well said Photosymbiosis. Mueller is ethically compromised. Not only did he not prosecute the Goldman Sachs Banksters, he took lucrative speaking fees from them and other financial institutions when he left office. See his Financial Public Disclosure form, OGE 278e
Some might not recall, but General Flynn resigned over questions regarding his conversations with Russian ambassador.
Violations of the Logan Act? Why would he be worried? Since it was created in 1799 there have been only 2 indictments.
That’s good news. It’s a garbage law, and should be unconstitutional on 1st amendment grounds. Its primary use has been to threaten progressive politicians and activists who have the temerity to talk to foreign officials and offer even mild public criticisms of the U.S. empire.
I’d be delighted to see Trump in legal trouble, but anyone who thinks of themselves as a dissenter from US war policy should think three times before applauding a Logan Act prosecution.
Jeremy,
In actuality, Mueller doesn’t have to prove 1 damned thing in regards to Russia. All he has to do is smear Trump and make him unelectable in2020. That sir, is what this is all about.
No, he has to be removed from power, and, ideally, prosecuted and convicted, although I doubt that will happen, at the federal level at least. But we can’t risk having him in office for 3+ years. But if all this helps Dems–and preferably progressive ones–retake congress and the presidency, all the better. And, already we see signs of both parties reconfiguring themselves in anticipation of the coming political realignment. That explains all the GOP resignations and the recent flap over Clinton’s allegedly having “colluded” with the DNC to “steal” the nomination (I’m using quotes because while I’m persuaded that this happened based on past Clinton behavior, I honestly haven’t looked much into it yet). To paraphrase (and butcher), a change is coming in the wind, and a hard rain’s goin’ a fall on the GOP and Trumpies.
Good luck with that pipe dream, kovie. I hope that I’m wrong but doubt it VERY seriously…
Comments like this, while perhaps likely true, are not helpful, as they pretty much claim that we’re fucked and there’s basically nothing we can do about it. In which case, why even bother to discuss and debate any of this as it’s just whistling past the graveyard? Hell, why even bother researching and writing substantive articles on all this, since, as you suggest, we’re fucked?
See where I’m going with this? So long as we’re not literally defeated, there’s a point in persevering and trying and keeping up hope, and all this defeatist thinking, while perhaps technically supported by the facts and odds, is simply not helpful. It’s like, if you get a cancer diagnosis with a 5-10% chance of surviving, do you just give up, or do you fight it?
In any case, lawful removal from office via impeachment or the 25th is but one avenue of approach (note that I’m NOT suggesting unlawful removal from office). A lot can be accomplished even if he stays in office. In some ways, him staying president actually helps–so long as he doesn’t blow up the world in the interim. It’ll do massive damage to the GOP in the midterms and beyond, as evidenced by Bush’s effect on the GOP in 2006-2008, both electorally and politically (it’s already dividing the GOP into its batshit and corrupt wings and the two HATE each other). And, the more damage this investigation does to him politically, the less able he is to do much of anything. Which is de facto impeachment–with reservations.
Game this out. We don’t need an ideal solution to have an acceptable solution.
Can’t believe anyone would think this behavior by the justice department is justified. I don’t care what your politics are. We need a non-partisan justice department that everyone can trust.
Don’t undermine that just because you hate Trump. God Bless principled liberals like Alan Dershowitz who speak out against stuff like this.
No, that’s not what’s going on here. The DoJ appointed a special counsel to look into possible federal crimes committed by Trump and/or his campaign and administration associates regarding their alleged collusion with Russia to illegally influence the election. That was a legal, not a political decision, as it should be–as opposed to the ridiculous witch hunt of the Clintons in the 90’s that the Trumpies are trying to gin up again. It clearly has political ramifications, but that’s not its intent or justification. But those of us who despise Trump are certainly hoping that it does have political implications. Surely you can see the distinction.
And Dershowitz is a disgusting hack for hire, going back to his defending a wife-murderer. And then doing it again years later. He is a poster boy for why people hate lawyers. He is the Geraldo Rivera of hack lawyers. And by hack I mean unethical, not bad. He’s clearly an excellent lawyer.
To sum up my points below, I think that there are, broadly, four interrelated but separate sets of potential crimes to be investigated and if merited prosecuted:
1 – The alleged “collusion” or conspiracy to throw the election
2 – The various alleged business and financial crimes committed by the various parties engaged in this alleged conspiracy, before, during and even after it, that had to do with Russia and such.
3 – Trump & his associates’ alleged attempts to return the favor to Russia, once in office, representing an abuse of power and such.
4 – The coverup, e.g. lying to authorities and congress, obstruction of justice, etc.
One might add to this an addition potential crime specific to Trump and the presidency, the violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. I can see Mueller possibly going after that as well, especially if it involved any of these other parties in the US or Russia.
I’d say that the water’s full of chum, if I’m using the expression properly. I.e. from an investigator’s pov, it’s a very target-rich environment. And, it should be added, many of these potential crimes took place at the state as well as federal level, and thus wouldn’t be subjected to Trump’s pardon power or ability to fire Mueller and end the investigation per executive order.
Put it this way, I wouldn’t want to be Trump & Co. Or Paul Ryan.
They could also be in trouble for this law:
18 U.S. Code § 953 – Private correspondence with foreign governments
which states the following:
Under this law, if they were promising sanctions relief (which by the way Congress seemed to think so because they passed a law disallowing FrankenTrump from removing them), then they would be guilty of having private correspondence with a foreign government to resolve a dispute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953
The law above is also known as the Logan Act.
Should read as follows, “So, if FrankenTrump and his minions were trying to negotiate some sort of sanctions relief, prior to taking his sworn oath of office, with Russian authorities or proxies, then they might be in violation of the Logan Act.
Any and all of which work for me, per my potential set of crimes #3 above. But, I’ll take any and all of the others too, and I’m fairly certain they’re coming. In fact already have, with the three unsealed indictments. My understanding is that there are likely other indictments already handed down but still sealed, dangling like the Sword of Damocles over everyone’s head.
Plus, literally every contact between present and past Trump campaign and/or transition team and/or administration officials, whether paid or not, potentially further imperils them legally. In fact, a good reason for removing him from power is that this situation makes it almost literally impossible for his administration to function because its staffers are unable to freely talk to each other. Pence and his people too. If we had a parliamentary system it would be a perfect example of a vote of no confidence situation. Alas, we do not. Instead, we have Mueller.
There are actually 4 other sealed indictments. (h/t Pedinska)
With more coming. Mueller’s a master chess player at this, as are his people. This is the investigatory and prosecutorial A Team. Trump’s is Plan 9 from Outer Space, directed by Ed Wood. Plus he’s got buy-in from at least one state AG, NY’s. Perhaps others. He realizes the stakes here that go WAY beyond allowing a set of loathsome lifetime criminals getting away with effectively (if not actually) stealing an election and harming a country and world. Whatever shred and hope of democracy we have left may well rest on his not letting them get away with this. It’s neither merely a criminal nor political matter, but an existential one. If Trump wins, we become Putin’s Russia.
Podesta Group not registered as a foreign agent whilst lobbying
Clinton campaign Ukraine
Clinton Campaign Christopher Steele (MI6)
Clinton Foundation
Although no one loathes Trump and wishes him booted out of office in the most humiliating and damaging was possible more than I do, I’ve never been convinced that his and his campaign’s “collusion” with Russia to help win the election was the big crime here, or even that it was a crime according to statute and case law. It was disgusting and deplorable and shameful, sure, and almost certainly helped throw the election his way (among many other things, including Clinton’s less than appealing nature to many voters and her don’t ever think about tomorrow campaign strategy, and, of course, voter suppression), but it may not have been illegal, even though it probably should be.
What I’ve always believed is that the big crimes here have nothing to do with winning the election, per se, but with Trump and his associates vast and deep history of being money-laundering, tax-evading and fraud-perpetuating international criminals who worked and did business with gangsters, mobsters, thugs and thieves, who therefore had no business running the country, not just in terms of qualifications and character, but plain old legality–felons who are actively engaged in mass felonies shouldn’t be president, period, for reasons needing no explanation.
I have always believed that THAT was the real crime and legally disqualifying aspect of all this, and what the investigation would ultimately have to go after and prove, to take Trump & Co. down. And Mueller has full authority to do so, because the two criminal streams are inextricably interwoven. He can’t investigate one without investigating the other. His political dealings with Russia and such overlapped with his business and financial dealings with them.
E.g. we’ll help you win the election and let you build your stupid Trump Moscow hotel (and keep that peepee tape carefully hidden), and then you lift those sanctions and call off your investigators and throw lots of dollars our way, and while you’re at it also try to damage US relations with the EU and rest of the non-Russia-aligned world.
Btw that whole quid pro quo that Trump is alleged to have been told to reciprocate with represents yet a third stream of potential investigation, although proving it would be a challenge. I don’t know if it’s technically treason but it reeks of it.
Basically, it’s the Al Capone approach. Focus on seemingly secondary charges that are far easier to prove, because the primary ones are slippery and elusive. But these “secondary” charges are massive, IMO, and in many ways dwarf any alleged sordid election-related misbehavior. And, I believe, far easier to prove, because there’s so much documentary evidence to support them, that Mueller is fully entitled to access via warrant and subpoena given the broad mandate of his office.
We’ll see. Mueller is not a stupid or reckless man, nor are his fellow investigators. Whereas Trump and most of his associates, clearly are. I can’t think of a single one who’s more brain than brawn.
We agree wholeheartedly on this.
The weird thing is though, the more time passes, the more Trump & Co and implicated in numerous, multiple, and by more people than I can count on fingers and toes having a substantial relationship with Russia.
I ignored this talk of collusion for a very, very long time.
I think obstruction is much easier to prove, with intent to harm (or be evil) as the driver.
They all act like rank amateurs.
After Trump is impeached and Pence is installed, let us hope the admin is not like the targeted terrorist program: the guy that comes after is inevitably worse & more evil in every way.
I’m not as worried about Pence as some others are. Not because he’s not loathsome himself and in certain ways more scary, but because if he does take over it will be with severely and probably irreparably curtailed powers, with a discredited predecessor and administration and politically damaged GOP whose less extreme members wish to distance themselves from all this.
I.e. he’s a lame duck on day one, and won’t win reelection. Bet on it. Even fewer people genuinely like him than Trump. Just as the people of Indiana. The VPship was a political lifeline to him.
I want these people taken down, if not legally then politically, and I want to avoid the worst of what they’re capable of until that happens. I’m guardedly optimistic on both counts. Even the loathsome Kelly doesn’t want a nuclear war, I bet.
“What is clear at this point is that Mueller is just getting started.”
“Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy”
I hope all of “Them” from both parties that committed sedition go to jail, the whole lot of them.
Do not believe all the fake news about the Trump Tower meeting. It was not a treasonous plot to have Russia put their man in the Oval Office. It was all about saving those Russian babies who do not have proper homes. President Trump says so and that is good enough for me.
So…why did Podesta resign?
The narative that Russia only worked against one side, against Clinton, and not manipulate both sides sounds like fake news to me. That’s not Russia’s MO.
Evidence shows they manipulated both sides, first cultivating the Clintons, with the uranium deal then compromising both them and Trump’s clumsy and naive team.
If Mueller does not examine all sides it becomes a partisan waste of time.
Just like the GOP Benghazi hearing, that failed to disclose that both sides, including GOP ex FBI Rogers, had their hands in the cookie jar, making money on illegal arms smuggling to Al Qeada affiliates.
I think Mueller has finished the investigation. He knows what was done or not done, who did what, when about whatever and why.
This isn’t a CSI:Washington episode. The outcome is in doubt even though almost all the facts are known. Mueller isn’t a scriptwriter with control over the characters. Instead, he must find a way to present evidence despite various nefarious plots that anyone can imagine (from defenestration to defunding) designed to prevent that presentation.
Nobody expects an associate mobster like Donald Trump to sit idly watching while they build his political scaffold. Mueller must prepare his case so that it cannot be interrupted by some clumsy Trump effort to subvert the legal process.
The unsealing of the indictments — and the revelation of an informer like Papadopoulos who surely played a significant role in gathering evidence — suggests that the investigators no longer need an informer.
Now the difficult work begins. Mueller must deliver the facts to the country in a way that upholds legal norms, openly presents the indisputable evidence he has gathered, and presents it in a way that the Congress and Fox News cannot dismiss as biased or political.
If I were Mueller, I’d always have a dog nearby to taste my food. I’d also have my bodyguards carry a geiger-counter.
Just in case.
You are fantasizing.
Levi Tate…You have established yourself as a ‘source’ of methane.
Cut down your contributions to global warming.
…and take a bath, you need it.
Well, I’m just glad the smart guys – and, afaict, they are the smart guys! – cleared that up.
It appears mewling Mueller may not be able to prove Turnip/Russina “collusion” (in a court of law . .. such as they are!) anytime soon (like before the next election!), but double parking in front of the court house may be a slam dunk.
[Iow, Mueller looked up “collusion” and the dog was using it. h/t Rod Dangerfield, RIP]
Well, allow me to retort. I’ve got the “collusion” smoking gun right here, from deep throat (the whistleblower … not the porn star) himself: Russia, if you’re listening, please collude with me and find Hillary Clintons’ 30,000 missing emails, pronto. Expedited yesterday. xo, donald
And so it was. Most likely listed on Tump’s (unclassified?) tax returns under expenses: Opposition Research, Lock Her Up.
It’s unclear if Trump actually said “please” (personally, I doubt it.), but if that’s not at least attempted “collusion”, by any definition, I don’t know what is?
*also, I’m confident if AG Sessions lied before congress under oath it was almost certainly unwittingly . .. so no big deal.
I see that you’re quite the lover of animals, huh Uncle Miltie?
I don’t hunt tigers, if that’s what you mean.
I also don’t poison my political opponents.
If this is true, then why does he bother still calling witnesses? Hope Hicks?
Why does he bother with her if he’s done? Could it be because he is actually not done? There is so many other witnesses to interview that I really find it laughable that you’d even suggest this. I guess you like half-*ss investigations with incomplete information.
Luckily, you’re not entrusted with any important decisions since you like coming to conclusions without reviewing or even finding all the evidence.
Do you ever contribute anything that isn’t half-assed?
A screen play isn’t a movie, a robin’s egg isn’t a robin, an order at a restaurant isn’t the meal, boarding a plane isn’t an arrival … geeze! Do you even comprehend the meaning of the sentence, “Now the difficult work begins.”
Knowing what happened isn’t the same as proving what happened — and then proving in court sufficient for a conviction. Between the knowing and the proving, new evidence, revisions of evidence, presentations, recanting, and a thousand other “details” emerge that significantly influence the result. You might as well say a baby human might become an adult hippopotamus because DNA doesn’t mean anything. You could say that if that baby is overweight, it will become a hippopotamus.
Not only are you completely wrong, you’re stupid at being completely wrong.
Some have suggested the evidence lies in coordinating data on FB and Twitter. That divisive propaganda disseminated from the Russian troll farm will be matched with identical data being spread from Trump campaign and or supporters. Look to people like Flynn’s son, who was quick to jump on the Trump troll train. For these Trumpers have itchy Twitter fingers to malign and slander their opponents any way they can.
Witch hunt.
But people have been hung as witches.
Stockman Slams Mueller’s Mugging Of America: The Case Of Baby George Papadopoulos
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-01/stockman-slams-muellers-mugging-america-case-baby-george-papadopoulos
always easier to be a critic when the obvious is the other way,,,,I guess its hard to be a troll for Trump these days but Republicans today are that way until they are over taken by the truth and or loss of their majority in house and senate
I didn’t vote for Trump.
So easy for you to give over your mind to hysteria in the cause of imperialism, banksterism, the security state and the warfare state.
So easy for you to click your heals and salute.
Well said, Mr. Tate. Well said indeed!
Zerohedge is REAL fake news. Such tripe is better suited for fiction and russian trolls. Sure I do not follow big media, but I can sure differentiate between CNN propaganda and the desperation of trolls. Ahh, Magnitsky Act or how to freeze Putin’s billions so people like ‘Levi Tate’ cannot get paid.
Here is what you get from this The Intercept article:
“George Papadopoulos had pled guilty to lying to the FBI in an interview about his contacts with a professor who claimed to have links to Russian sources closely connected to the Kremlin or Vladimir Putin. ”
Oh my!
The above is worded to sound rather onerous .
Why did the author avoid telling us what he supposedly lied about?
Why?
Because the author wants to mislead you? Not hard as so many *want* to be misled.
Here is what you get from “REAL fake news”:
“So finding no contacts, no meetings, no”collusion” or anything else validly related to Mueller’s mandate, the latter’s legal gunslingers came up with the usual default “crime” when a criminal investigations comes up empty. To wit, Papadopoulos allegedly perjured himself by telling the FBI early this year that he had met the no count London professor before beginning his service as a Trump advisor.
And that was true enough—except by the lights of the hair-splitting Torquemadas on Team Mueller.
It seems young George met the London Professor on March 14, about a week before the Trump campaign’s official announcement of its Team of Five. But in the kind of twisted gotcha that only jerks with a badge and gun can come up with, Papadopoulos stands guilty of perjury by his own (coerced) plea.
That’s because at the time of the meeting he had already been recruited from the sandbox and “knew” he would be appointed to an advisory committee.
So what!”
You won’t get the above from The Intercept. The FBI came up empty handed so they hair-splitted about dates to coerce a “confession”.
And now that the FBI had a “confession” the likes of The Intercept could run with it.
No mention of dates from The Intercept. None.
The Intercept:
“lying to the FBI in an interview about his contacts with a professor who claimed to have links to Russian sources closely connected to the Kremlin or Vladimir Putin. ”
Because we don’t know of any links whatsoever that the professor had
it becomes **”significant”** to The Intercept:
“Maybe that professor had good connections to Moscow, or maybe he didn’t. We don’t know”
…
“But it is still significant.”