Those who have been following the Russia Hoax, having suffered through periods of information drought, are now in danger of suffering information overload. With more and more transcripts being released and more of the central players giving interviews, researchers are going back to connect previously unconnected dots (for one example).
Readers of this blog will know that I've long advocated for the absolute centrality of the famous Trump Tower meeting of June 9, 2016. That was the meeting between the Trump campaign (represented by Don Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort) and a gaggle of Russians, including the lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. The meeting was supposed to be about "dirt on HIllary" but turned out to be Veselnitskaya advocating for a relaxation or elimination of the sanctions imposed on Russia by the Magnitsky Act.
As is now well known, Veselnitskaya was only present in the US courtesy of the Obama Administration--she had been excluded from entry but DHS decided, “in concurrence with the U.S. Attorney’s Office of Southern District of New York,” then headed by Preet Bharara, to allow her in just that one time. Also well known is the fact that Veselnitskaya had dinner with Clinton oppo research supremo Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS both before and after the Trump Tower meeting. Further, other Clinton activists were in close communication with both Simpson and Russian participants in the meeting.
DC Whispers has a fascinating big picture view of the entire Russia Hoax, based off an original at Big League Politics. What I particularly like about his presentation is its emphasis on the centrality of the Trump Tower meeting. That centrality is borne out by the reports that have noted that this was a topic virtually always touched upon by Team Mueller's inquisitors, as well as by the fact that Congressional Dems have carped on it for the last two years.
My oft repeated view has been that the whole purpose of the meeting was to try to create at least an appearance of a corrupt quid pro quo between Trump and Russia: on Trump's side, a promise of relaxation of sanctions in return for (on the Russian side) help against Hillary. That would, IMO, almost certainly violate the federal bribery statute (and possibly other laws), which applies to those who are prospective members of the government, not just current members.
DC Whispers quotes an "FBI insider" who describes what the Trump Tower meeting was originally all about--and I find it persuasive:
Showing posts with label Veselnitskaya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Veselnitskaya. Show all posts
Friday, April 5, 2019
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Trump Tower Narrative Laid To Rest?
For the better part of the past two years Russia Hoax partisans have been hyperventilating over the famous Trump Tower meeting, between top members of the Trump campaign (Don Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort) and the Russian lady lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya. Now comes news from an unlikely source--the Senate Intelligence Committee--that blows all those theories out of the water.
Recall, President Trump has maintained that he knew nothing about the meeting, and his haters have insisted that he must have. Proof, in their eyes, that Trump had been caught in a lie lay in the fact that Don Jr. had made three calls to blocked phone numbers in the days surrounding the meeting. Team Mueller has also consistently focused on the Trump Tower meeting in its interviews of Trump associates. Don Jr., however, has maintained that he couldn't remember who the calls were to, but that they weren't to his father. CNN has the details released today by the Senate Intel Committee: Exclusive: Trump Jr.'s mysterious calls weren't with his father:
UPDATE: sundance has the news that the people that Don Jr. called were "two family friends — NASCAR CEO Brian France and real estate developer Howard Lorber, according to the sources."
While this puts to rest claims of perjury--or at least of lying--against Trump and Don Jr., many questions remain concerning the Trump Tower from my point of view. Readers of this blog will be aware that I've long considered the Trump Tower meeting to be central to the entire Russia Hoax, as I wrote in Crossfire Hurricane: The Theory Of The Case:
Recall, President Trump has maintained that he knew nothing about the meeting, and his haters have insisted that he must have. Proof, in their eyes, that Trump had been caught in a lie lay in the fact that Don Jr. had made three calls to blocked phone numbers in the days surrounding the meeting. Team Mueller has also consistently focused on the Trump Tower meeting in its interviews of Trump associates. Don Jr., however, has maintained that he couldn't remember who the calls were to, but that they weren't to his father. CNN has the details released today by the Senate Intel Committee: Exclusive: Trump Jr.'s mysterious calls weren't with his father:
Senate investigators have obtained new information showing Donald Trump Jr.'s mysterious phone calls ahead of the 2016 Trump Tower meeting were not with his father, three sources with knowledge of the matter told CNN.
Records provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee show the calls were between Trump Jr. and two of his business associates, the sources said, and appear to contradict Democrats' long-held suspicions that the blocked number was from then-candidate Donald Trump.
...
Trump Jr.'s phone records included calls with two blocked phone numbers the same day he exchanged calls with Russian pop star Emin Agalarov, the son of a Russian oligarch who spearheaded the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. The calls came three days before the Trump Tower meeting, and an additional call with a private number occurred several hours after the meeting.
UPDATE: sundance has the news that the people that Don Jr. called were "two family friends — NASCAR CEO Brian France and real estate developer Howard Lorber, according to the sources."
While this puts to rest claims of perjury--or at least of lying--against Trump and Don Jr., many questions remain concerning the Trump Tower from my point of view. Readers of this blog will be aware that I've long considered the Trump Tower meeting to be central to the entire Russia Hoax, as I wrote in Crossfire Hurricane: The Theory Of The Case:
Sunday, December 9, 2018
UPDATED: More On Mueller's Theory Of The Case
In the week since I wrote Crossfire Hurricane: The Theory Of The Case the conservative commentariate has continued to deny that Mueller is investigating any Trump crimes. As I stated earlier, I agree in that overall assessment of the Russia Hoax--that any crimes are fictional or ... trumped up--but I disagree in this respect: I believe that Team Mueller does have a theory of the case and is continuing to work to find proof for that theory.
As an example of the type of conservative commentary I'm referring to, Paul Mirengoff at Powerline Blog published two blogs, one last night and one this morning, regarding the Mueller "probe": Report: Mueller Pressing Hard on Trump Tower Meeting and Mueller’s theory: Trump defrauded voters. In fact, Mirengoff touches on some central issues that deserve more attention and which, when properly understood, reveal the scope and aim of the highly secretive Mueller operation.
A lot of clarity can be gained by looking at the whole Mueller operation in light of the Steele Dossier. The central allegation of the Dossier boils down, quite explicitly, to the simple proposition: Trump entered into a corrupt quid pro quo arrangement with "Russians": a bribery scheme. This is the aspect of the Mueller case theory I examined in the blog that's linked above, the bribery statute: 18 US Code 201(b)(2). The Dossier's version of this general proposition is that, in exchange for the release of DNC emails by the Russians through Wikileaks--"a thing of value," in that the release of emails could lead to Trump's election--Trump agreed to grant sanctions relief to Russia.
But "dirt on Hillary" works just as well as "a thing of value" to be exchanged for sanctions relief, for purposes of the bribery statute.
As an example of the type of conservative commentary I'm referring to, Paul Mirengoff at Powerline Blog published two blogs, one last night and one this morning, regarding the Mueller "probe": Report: Mueller Pressing Hard on Trump Tower Meeting and Mueller’s theory: Trump defrauded voters. In fact, Mirengoff touches on some central issues that deserve more attention and which, when properly understood, reveal the scope and aim of the highly secretive Mueller operation.
A lot of clarity can be gained by looking at the whole Mueller operation in light of the Steele Dossier. The central allegation of the Dossier boils down, quite explicitly, to the simple proposition: Trump entered into a corrupt quid pro quo arrangement with "Russians": a bribery scheme. This is the aspect of the Mueller case theory I examined in the blog that's linked above, the bribery statute: 18 US Code 201(b)(2). The Dossier's version of this general proposition is that, in exchange for the release of DNC emails by the Russians through Wikileaks--"a thing of value," in that the release of emails could lead to Trump's election--Trump agreed to grant sanctions relief to Russia.
But "dirt on Hillary" works just as well as "a thing of value" to be exchanged for sanctions relief, for purposes of the bribery statute.
Monday, June 4, 2018
A Guide To Spygate, Informants, FISA
What follows is a reworked version of So, What's A "Threat To National Security"? which contains a difference in emphasis.
Kim Strassel raised an interesting question, Friday, in her regular weekly column--The Curious Case of Mr. Downer: His story about the Papadopoulos meeting calls the FBI’s into question. Alexander Downer was the Australian ambassador to the UK in 2016. As the title indicates, Strassel finds the FBI's claim that their probe of the Trump campaign was based on Downer's contact with George Papadopoulos to be ... less than credible. Strassel concludes by raising some very pointed questions:
Indeed--since when does "something that might be 'damaging' to Hillary ... justify a counterintelligence probe into a presidential campaign, featuring a spy and secret surveillance warrants?"
The fact is, there is an answer to Strassel's question, and I think we'll find--in fact, recent talking points floated by James Clapper and others point in this direction--that the justification will rely on provisions of the Attorney General Guidelines. To understand and evaluate this defense, however, and to avoid the pitfalls of speculating with a firm grasp of the controlling guidelines and statutes, we'll need to explore the nature of FBI investigations, because the type of investigation controls, to some extent, the type of investigative techniques that are authorized. All this is set out in detail in the Attorney General Guidelines For Domestic FBI Operations (AGG) and the FBI Domestic Investigations And Operations Guide (DIOG).
Basically, there are three types of FBI investigations that involve opening an investigative case file: 1) Assessments, 2) Preliminary Investigations, and 3) Full Investigations. The latter two are grouped as "Predicated Investigations" because, unlike in the case of an Assessent, an agent will need to present some degree of factual predication before he can open one of these types of investigation. The type of investigation that is opened will depend upon the factual situation, and if additional facts are developed in the course of the investigation the type of investigation may be upgraded.
As far as investigative techniques go, the Assessment serves as a baseline--any technique that can be used in an Assessment can also be used in a Preliminary or Full Investigation. For our purposes, the important point is that the use of existing informants (Confidential Human Sources/CHS) or the recruitment of new informants is authorized for ALL three types of investigations. There has been some confusion recently regarding the use of informants before a "formal" case has been opened. The confusion arises because Assessments are sometimes confused with the informal initial checking of investigative leads conducted to determine whether or not to open an investigative case file. That type of informal checking can only be conducted using public information, not through the use of informants.
Kim Strassel raised an interesting question, Friday, in her regular weekly column--The Curious Case of Mr. Downer: His story about the Papadopoulos meeting calls the FBI’s into question. Alexander Downer was the Australian ambassador to the UK in 2016. As the title indicates, Strassel finds the FBI's claim that their probe of the Trump campaign was based on Downer's contact with George Papadopoulos to be ... less than credible. Strassel concludes by raising some very pointed questions:
For months we’ve been told the FBI acted because it was alarmed that Mr. Papadopoulos knew about those hacked Democratic emails in May, before they became public in June. But according to the tipster himself, Mr. Papadopoulos said nothing about emails. The FBI instead received a report that a far-removed campaign adviser, over drinks, said the Russians had something that might be “damaging” to Hillary. Did this vague statement justify a counterintelligence probe into a presidential campaign, featuring a spy and secret surveillance warrants?
Unlikely. Which leads us back to what did inspire the FBI to act, and when? The Papadopoulos pretext is getting thinner.
Indeed--since when does "something that might be 'damaging' to Hillary ... justify a counterintelligence probe into a presidential campaign, featuring a spy and secret surveillance warrants?"
The fact is, there is an answer to Strassel's question, and I think we'll find--in fact, recent talking points floated by James Clapper and others point in this direction--that the justification will rely on provisions of the Attorney General Guidelines. To understand and evaluate this defense, however, and to avoid the pitfalls of speculating with a firm grasp of the controlling guidelines and statutes, we'll need to explore the nature of FBI investigations, because the type of investigation controls, to some extent, the type of investigative techniques that are authorized. All this is set out in detail in the Attorney General Guidelines For Domestic FBI Operations (AGG) and the FBI Domestic Investigations And Operations Guide (DIOG).
Basically, there are three types of FBI investigations that involve opening an investigative case file: 1) Assessments, 2) Preliminary Investigations, and 3) Full Investigations. The latter two are grouped as "Predicated Investigations" because, unlike in the case of an Assessent, an agent will need to present some degree of factual predication before he can open one of these types of investigation. The type of investigation that is opened will depend upon the factual situation, and if additional facts are developed in the course of the investigation the type of investigation may be upgraded.
As far as investigative techniques go, the Assessment serves as a baseline--any technique that can be used in an Assessment can also be used in a Preliminary or Full Investigation. For our purposes, the important point is that the use of existing informants (Confidential Human Sources/CHS) or the recruitment of new informants is authorized for ALL three types of investigations. There has been some confusion recently regarding the use of informants before a "formal" case has been opened. The confusion arises because Assessments are sometimes confused with the informal initial checking of investigative leads conducted to determine whether or not to open an investigative case file. That type of informal checking can only be conducted using public information, not through the use of informants.
Sunday, February 4, 2018
My Theory of the Carter Page FISA Fraud
One of the major mysteries of the whole Russia Hoax is: what's all the fuss about Carter Page? Why a FISA on him, of all persons? Bill Jacobson at Legal Insurrection sums up the view of skeptics well:
First, a bit of background on Carter Page's recent activity as it relates to Russian intelligence activity. Back in March to June of 2013 the FBI learned, through its ongoing FISA coverage of Russian nationals in the US, that Carter Page was in contact with Russians in whom the FBI had a particular interest. Did the FBI run out and seek a FISA on Carter Page upon discovering his contacts? Of course not. Like any sensible and professional counterintelligence agency, the FBI opened a preliminary investigation of Carter Page to get an better handle on who he was and where he was coming from, then they interviewed him. He apparently was fully cooperative, and you can read an entertaining account of it all in the FBI's court filing in the case against the Russians (Page is definitely "Male 1" in paragraphs 32-34 and I'm guessing he may also be CS 1--Confidential Source 1--in paragraphs 66-74.)
The point is that, after this high profile fiasco, the Russian SVR would certainly have conducted a damage assessment and they would have had to have been brain dead not to realize that Carter Page had cooperated with the FBI. The idea that they would turn around and try to make Page into a master spy in the Trump campaign three short years later strains credulity--to put it mildly. So keep that in mind as we take a look at the 2016 presidential campaign.
Carter Page was so important the FBI went out on a limb to use a questionable document in court to convince a judge to surveil him? I’m not buying it. ...
The surveillance of Carter Page was not about Carter Page. He’s a bit player in a larger drama, and that larger drama is what we need to understand.We already know what the larger drama is--the attempt to prevent a Trump presidency or, failing that, to abort it. At this point it may not be possible to determine exactly how Carter Page fits into that larger drama, but while awaiting further developments we can at least advance a theory. After all, that's how science progresses, right? You advance a theory and let others try to knock it down or refine it. So, in the spirit of good, clean fun, let's have a go at it.
First, a bit of background on Carter Page's recent activity as it relates to Russian intelligence activity. Back in March to June of 2013 the FBI learned, through its ongoing FISA coverage of Russian nationals in the US, that Carter Page was in contact with Russians in whom the FBI had a particular interest. Did the FBI run out and seek a FISA on Carter Page upon discovering his contacts? Of course not. Like any sensible and professional counterintelligence agency, the FBI opened a preliminary investigation of Carter Page to get an better handle on who he was and where he was coming from, then they interviewed him. He apparently was fully cooperative, and you can read an entertaining account of it all in the FBI's court filing in the case against the Russians (Page is definitely "Male 1" in paragraphs 32-34 and I'm guessing he may also be CS 1--Confidential Source 1--in paragraphs 66-74.)
The point is that, after this high profile fiasco, the Russian SVR would certainly have conducted a damage assessment and they would have had to have been brain dead not to realize that Carter Page had cooperated with the FBI. The idea that they would turn around and try to make Page into a master spy in the Trump campaign three short years later strains credulity--to put it mildly. So keep that in mind as we take a look at the 2016 presidential campaign.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)