Worthwhile investigations take time

I heard two award winning investigative reporters say that time is the single most important aspect of doing a full investigation into anything.   If you have the time to follow every lead, and go where that lead takes you, you will discover things that are impossible to learn if you’re working under a deadline.   To perfect any difficult thing, there is no substitute for time.   Robert Caro, the great biographer and historian, famously sometimes takes a year or longer to dig for the truth about a single disputed fact that troubles him.

Let’s take a moment to consider the gift of time itself, the single greatest gift we have, until we don’t have it any more.  Brother David Steindl-Rast gives a beautiful meditation on gratefulness for the gift of time and our ability to appreciate the wonders our senses provide us, if we take a few moments every day to pay attention.   He speaks midway through this beautifully illustrated TED talk by visionary nature photographer Louie Schwartzberg.   Well worth ten minutes to watch in its entirety, the monk’s inspirational short speech is cued up HERE (if you’re in a hurry).

 

 

Back to investigations, my own leisurely dive into my father’s life is a perfect example of the benefit of spending as much time as needed to gather something worthwhile.  Without any time limit, I carefully wrote out everything I know or could imagine about my father’s life.  I constructed this tricky puzzle, with many key pieces missing, in a darkened room, free from any thought that I had to rush.  In the end, after more than two years of doing this daily, I am finally able to truly understand my father’s motivations — in a way that was impossible for me to grasp as I was working toward it.   I don’t agree with every position he took, but I feel like I completely understand why he took each one.  That empathetic view was unimaginable to me as I was working over the sketchy puzzle in the dimness.

A long, thoughtful investigation will always be more fruitful than one done in a hurry.   We tend to miss details when we rush.  Sometimes these details can be very important.   The gift of time can cut both ways, as when it is extended or contracted for an unscrupulous purpose.

If, for example, A.G. Bill Barr empowers a federal prosecutor to launch a limitless, global exploration into the detailed investigation into Mr. Trump and associates that he calls “a travesty” based on the “flimsiest” of evidence, embarked on after illegal “spying” — after enough time and resources are invested something will likely be turned up about some irregularity or impropriety.    Something concrete to support Barr’s politically handy theory of partisan “presidential harassment” and baseless “spying” on a president who (in spite of massive proof to the contrary) took no help from Russia or anyone else.

As it turned out, in the case of “Russiagate,” there was incorrect information on two of the four original FISA warrants that began the surveillance and investigation into the Trump campaign’s coordination with Russian state actors who were later shown to have meddled directly in all fifty US states on behalf of Mr. Trump.  False information, perhaps a dozen instances of it, in at least two applications for the FISA warrants to wiretap Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page [1]. 

After enough digging by a team of prosecutors and investigators, a malefactor was found, an FBI lawyer who left out that Page had been an informant for the CIA at one time.    A smoking gun!    As announced a few days ago, this now unmasked traitor (who claims the mistake was inadvertent, not part of a Deep State coup d’etat against a duly elected American president) is going to plead guilty for this deliberate misstatement on an application for the original FISA warrant that got operation Crossfire Hurricane up and running.   

I’d always thought the standard of proof for a FISA warrant to be approved was fairly low.  I’d understood that something like 99% of them were approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.  Though 99% of them are granted, based on probable cause to reasonably suspect a national security threat, the standard of proof to submit a warrant is higher than I supposed.   Here is an article extensively quoting an FBI insider’s description of how high the bar for a FISA warrant actually is.

That said, the DOJ’s own Inspector General, like the DOJ’s Special Counsel Mueller before him, and the Republican majority Senate Intel Committee since [2], determined that there was adequate legal predicate for the investigation of what is now known to be widespread, high level cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia, an investigation that resulted in numerous prosecutions and guilty pleas.   The DOJ’s IG pointed out the errors and omissions in the paperwork to get the FISA warrant and concluded that ambiguities in FBI and DOJ policy need to be tightened up.   He also made a referral for prosecution, which was not publicized much at the time.

It turns out the FBI lawyer was referred for prosecution by DOJ Inspector General Horowitz, not by the Barr/Durham criminal investigation [3].   But that is not for lack of effort by Barr/Durham who are determined to have some dramatic criminal indictments for an October Surprise to help their candidate.

With enough time and effort, a dogged team of investigators can usually turn up some kind of wrongdoing, about something.  If not Whitewater, for example, incriminating, irrefutable DNA on a blue dress.   Contrast this kind of thorough long-game investigation with one conducted under a tight deadline.

The tight negotiated deadline in the FBI’s five-day investigation into the sexual impropriety charge against Brett Kavanaugh is an example of a  investigation starved for time to investigate.   Even within that tight time frame, if the intent had been to verify or dismiss the allegation against the judge, the FBI could easily have learned if there was a house among that small circle of people at the gathering nobody specifically recalled (except for the girl who was traumatized) that fit the description the witness gave.   You walk up the stairs, bathroom on the left, bedroom directly across.   Who owned the home during the summer in question?   Did the parents work late every day?   Were they in town during the month the event nobody remembered took place? 

The answers to those relatively straight-forward questions make it more likely than not that one or the other was telling the truth, based on a now verified (or not) recollection of place.  Confirm the place, confirm the time frame, re-interview everyone there with this new information, other leads emerge, in time.

Of course, some investigations are merely for show, to demonstrate a willingness to investigate the truth or falsity of the statements of those involved, even if, as in the case of the Kavanaugh/Blasey Ford controversy, the FBI spoke to neither Kavanaugh nor Blasey Ford, nor Kavanaugh’s high school best friend, who was allegedly also in the room, also drunk, laughing uproariously and finally throwing himself on top of the two teenagers struggling on the bed, allowing one to escape.

Time, the only gift any of us cannot do without.

 

[1]  Wikipedia

Carter William Page (born June 3, 1971) is an American petroleum industry consultant and a former foreign-policy adviser to Donald Trump during his 2016 presidential election campaign.[1] Page is the founder and managing partner of Global Energy Capital, a one-man investment fund and consulting firm specializing in the Russian and Central Asian oil and gas business.[2][3][4]

[2]  Wikipedia:

The Republican-controlled Committee released its final report on 2016 Russian election interference in August 2020, finding that despite problems with the FISA warrant requests used to surveil him, the FBI was justified in its counterintelligence concerns about Page. The Committee found Page evasive and his “responses to basic questions were meandering, avoidant and involved several long diversions.” The Committee found that although Page’s role in the campaign was insignificant, Russia may have thought he was more important than he actually was.[101]

[3] Wikipedia 

Horowitz did fault the FBI for overreaching and mistakes during the investigation. These included failing to disclose when applying for a FISA warrant to surveil Page in October 2016 that he had provided the Central Intelligence Agency details of his prior contacts with Russian officials, including the incident the FBI indicated made Page’s conduct most suspicious.[84] In addition, Horowitz found that Kevin Clinesmith, an attorney in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Office of General Counsel (OGC), intentionally altered an interagency email to exclude from the FISA warrant application that Page was a CIA source from 2008 to 2013.[84][92] According to the Horowitz Report, if the FISA court judges had been informed of Page’s CIA relationship, his conduct might have seemed less suspicious, although the Report did not speculate on “whether the correction of any particular misstatement or omission, or some combination thereof, would have resulted in a different outcome.”[84][93] Horowitz referred Clinesmith to prosecutors for potential criminal charges.[94] On August 14, 2020, Clinesmith pleaded guilty to a felony for making a false statement by altering the email.[95][96]

Horowitz attributed the warrant problems to “gross incompetence and negligence” rather than intentional malfeasance or political bias.[97] In a December 10, 2019, interview on Hannity, Page indicated that he had retained attorneys to review the Horowitz Report and determine whether he has grounds to sue.[98]

In December 2019, the Justice Department secretly notified the FISA court that in at least two of the 2017 warrant renewal requests “there was insufficient predication to establish probable cause” to believe Page was acting as a Russian agent.[99]

In a subsequent analysis of 29 unrelated FISA warrant requests, Horowitz found numerous typographical errors but just two material errors, which were determined not to impact the justifications for the resulting surveillance.[100]

Update on Trump 2020-RNC filing of evidence of vote-by-mail fraud!

In granting a motion in the case Trump 2020 and the RNC brought to restrict alternatives to live, in-person voting in Pennsylvania, Judge Ranjan ordered Trump’s lawyers to submit evidence of mail-in voting fraud or admit that it has no evidence.    Never ones to be put in a corner, or back down, or admit their claim was based on nothing but a desire to win at any cost, the Trump campaign chose a third option:   they submitted 524 pages of what purported to be evidence of fraud. 

Did they offer any actual evidence that allowing voters to submit mail-in ballots at drop boxes (to get around Trump mega-donor Louis DeJoy’s multi-pronged slowdown of US Postal Service mail delivery): “provides fraudsters an easy opportunity to engage in ballot harvesting, manipulate or destroy ballots, manufacture duplicitous votes, and sow chaos.”???

No.

Did they admit that they had no proof?

No.

524 pages, your honor, some of it redacted.   Read it and weep, chumps.  One of the parties in the lawsuit had this comment after reading it all.

“Not only did the campaign fail to provide evidence that voter fraud was a widespread problem in Pennsylvania, they failed to provide any evidence that any misconduct occurred in the primary election or that so-called voter fraud is any sort of regular problem in Pennsylvania,” said Suzanne Almeida, interim director of Common Cause PA, one of the parties in the lawsuit. The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story.

source

Beautiful NY Times nuance in arguable Trump perjury

You have to admire a newspaper that can report that Senate Republicans “rejected” Trump’s claim (under oath) that he did not recall talking to Roger Stone about the perfectly timed release of hacked DNC emails, while fairly pointing out that the Senate Intel Committee report did not state that Trump was lying.   They rejected his claim, yet didn’t claim he was lying, though they rejected the truth of what he submitted under oath.

A neat display of lawyerly Republican contortions and a nice bit of New York Times journalism, in an article that notes Trump and Stone spoke by phone at least 39 times (that are known) from March to November 2016, and that they spoke (on a Trump assistant’s phone, as the careful conspirators often did, for deniability) on the eve of the disclosure of hacked emails that was timed to knock the “you can grab ’em by the pussy” tape off of the news.

Let’s have a look at this neat bit of journalistic fairness:

The Republican-led committee rejected Mr. Trump’s statement to prosecutors investigating Russia’s interference that he did not recall conversations with his longtime friend Roger J. Stone Jr. about the emails, which were later released by WikiLeaks.

Senators leveled a blunt assessment: “Despite Trump’s recollection, the committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his campaign about Stone’s access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions.”

The senators did not accuse Mr. Trump of lying in their report, released on Tuesday, the fifth and final volume from a three-year investigation that laid out extensive contacts between Trump advisers and Russians.

source

Beautiful, no?   They rejected Trump’s claim under oath that he didn’t recall ever talking to Stone about the WikiLeaks dump, yet… they did not accuse Mr. Trump of lying.   

Both fair and balanced. 

Meanwhile, no Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee will talk to the New York Times.   You can’t blame them.  As Mr. Barr told Representative Swalwell in reply to his question about whether he was investigating Mr. Trump for commuting the sentence of Mr. Stone, who bragged about dummying up for Mr. Trump and not turning rat, “why should I?”

As for convicted perjurer Roger Stone, he dismissed the whole thing as a fabrication based on the sworn testimony of two fucking liars, two stinkin’ rats.

In fairness to the Grey Lady, the editorial board did publish this today, entitled The Trump Campaign Accepted Russian Help to Win in 2016.  Case Closed:

A bipartisan report released Tuesday by the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee cuts through the chaff. The simplicity of the scheme has always been staring us in the face: Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign sought and maintained close contacts with Russian government officials who were helping him get elected. The Trump campaign accepted their offers of help. The campaign secretly provided Russian officials with key polling data. The campaign coordinated the timing of the release of stolen information to hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

The editorial board takes a paragraph or two to debunk the narrative being spun by AG Barr that “Russiagate” was a transparent partisan attempt to persecute the president.   Then:

The committee documented that, on Oct. 7, 2016, Mr. Stone received advance notice of the impending release of the “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Mr. Trump brags about sexually assaulting women. In response, Mr. Stone made at least two phone calls arranging for WikiLeaks to release stolen internal emails from the Democratic National Committee.

it concludes:

There’s no way to sugarcoat it. In less than three months, the American people could re-elect a man who received a foreign government’s help to win one election and has shown neither remorse nor reservations about doing so again.

Case closed, voters?   Or, a second Civil War against the angry, violent hoards who hate the white Christian values typified by great men like Donald Trump, William Barr, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence and Michael Flynn?

 

Blood libel 2020 style

In recent centuries, whenever angry European peasants and other low paid workers, their masters’ foot on their necks, needed a reason to riot and rape and kill Jews in springtime, the Blood Libel was a handy rationale.   The idea was simple:  Jews kidnapped and killed young Christian children around Easter time because they needed young Christian  blood to make matzoh for Passover.

Matzoh, a crisp, very thin flatbread, is made of flour and water.   Of course we don’t list the secret ingredient, Christian child blood, on the box!  Proves the cunning of my accursed race, does it not?   There you go.

We have a similar conspiracy theory afoot in the United States at the moment.   QAnon believers are convinced, by a secret soothsayer named Q, that the “Democrat” party is run by a cabal of pedophiles who kidnap and traffic young children for sex and then kill and eat them.   These evil perverts seek something in the children’s blood, apparently to give them superpowers or something.

Naturally, when asked about this conspiracy theory point blank, a theory that many of the president’s most ardent supporters take as gospel, Mr. Trump had a nonchalant reply.    From the Grey Skank:

When told by a reporter about the central premise of the QAnon theory — a belief that Mr. Trump is saving the world from a satanic cult made up of pedophiles and cannibals connected to Democratic Party figures, so-called deep-state actors and Hollywood celebrities — Mr. Trump did not question the validity of the movement or the truth of those claims.
 

Instead, he offered his help.

“Is that supposed to be a bad thing or a good thing?” the president said lightly, responding to a reporter who asked if he could support that theory. “If I can help save the world from problems, I am willing to do it. I’m willing to put myself out there.”

Mr. Trump’s cavalier response was a remarkable public expression of support for conspiracy theorists who have operated in the darkest corners of the internet and have at times been charged with domestic terrorism and planned kidnapping.

In normal times, this would be very alarming.   But these are not normal times.   

I’m more interested in what unreported tissue of bullshit the president’s army of lawyers presented to Judge Ranjan in the Federal District of Western Pennsylvania almost a week ago.   You will recall they were ordered by the Trump-appointed judge to present evidence of mail-in voter fraud, or admit they have none, by close of business Friday, August 14.   Since then: crickets.

Of course, whatever that legal filing might or might not contain, or whatever its implications, it pales next to the horrific specter of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris gleefully sodomizing terrified white children and then drinking their blood.   You know what I’m sayin’?   

Paul Manafort — the spy who did not “collude”

“According to the report, Mr. Manafort was forthcoming: He briefed Mr. Kilimnik [Russian intelligence officer] on Mr. Trump’s path to victory and his strategy to win in battleground states.” 

source

Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign manager, a man fond of expensive jackets made out of things like ostrich, was a founding partner, with self-proclaimed “political dirty trickster” Roger Stone, of the longtime DC lobbying/campaigning firm Black, Manafort and Stone.   They were pioneers in campaigning for national elections (starting with Ronald Reagan’s presidential run) and then profiting as lobbyists by providing paid access to their candidates once in office.

Manafort later made millions grooming and helping Kremlin-backed Ukrainian politician Viktor F. Yanukovych become president of Ukraine.  Yanukovych’s successful presidential run, orchestrated by Manafort, was backed by pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs, as well as at least one Russian oligarch, Oleg V. Deripaska.   Would-be strongman Yanukovych was forced out of office for corruption and abuses of power by a popular uprising in 2014 and fled to Russia. 

Manafort felt he’d been stiffed out of millions in fees that were owed to him for his tireless efforts on behalf of Yanukovych and his pro-Putin backers.  The billionaire Deripaska believed Manafort owed him a small fortune on a business deal gone bad.   Manafort, needing money, volunteered to head Trump’s presidential campaign, working without a fee, for the promise of a big payday from his wealthy longtime associates in Russia and Ukraine.   

In the course of his work for the Trump campaign Manafort met with, communicated secretly with, and gave detailed, strategic voter and campaign information to, a Russian intelligence officer named Konstantin V. Kilimnik.   Manafort did this important but illegal work, with agents of a foreign adversary, to get his client Mr. Trump elected secretly, like a spy.   Thus concludes the Rubio-Cotton Report, volume five, released by the Senate Intel Committee yesterday.   The report Marco Rubio spins as proving once and for all that there was “no collusion” between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence.

Stone and Manafort are both convicted felons who lied under oath to the Mueller investigators, but the extent of Manafort’s direct ties to Putin’s intelligence service was revealed yesterday for the first time by the Senate report.

The following is from the New York Times article outlining what was revealed about Manafort’s extensive ties to, and communications with, a close longtime associate, Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik. 

The report portrayed Mr. Manafort as deeply compromised by years of business dealings with those oligarchs. Collectively, they had paid him tens of millions of dollars, lent him millions more and may also have owed him millions.

These complex financial entanglements apparently figured in Mr. Manafort’s decision to give Mr. Kilimnik inside campaign information, including confidential polling data and details of Mr. Trump’s campaign strategy. The report builds on other evidence suggesting that Mr. Manafort hoped that Mr. Kilimnik would open up lucrative business deals with the oligarchs in return or that they would consider the value of the information as its own form of payment.

and:

The report said Mr. Kilimnik was Mr. Manafort’s link to Oleg V. Deripaska, a Russian oligarch who is close to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and has acted “as a proxy for the Russian state and intelligence services” since at least 2004, when Mr. Manafort apparently met him.

Mr. Deripaska, who has worked to install pro-Kremlin governments around the globe, initially hired Mr. Manafort as a political consultant, the report said. A group of pro-Russia oligarchs in Ukraine later became the financiers of Mr. Manafort’s operations to help Viktor F. Yanukovych, a politician aligned with Russia, become Ukraine’s president.

Mr. Manafort recognized the Kremlin’s interests, the report said. “This model can greatly benefit the Putin government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitments to success,” he wrote in a memo to Mr. Deripaska.

The report called Mr. Manafort’s efforts for the oligarch “in effect, influence work for the Russian government and its interests.”

No collusion, baby!!!   Nothing to see here!   Liberal fascist lies, unwittingly abetted by Tom Cotton and Marco Rubio!    Traitors, devils and darkness!!!!

Of course, the president’s enemies will try to spin this to make Manafort look guilty of spying or treason.   The New York Times continues, citing the Cotton-Rubio report released yesterday:

Despite questions about who was behind Mr. Kilimnik — both financially and politically — Mr. Manafort increasingly depended on him. But by 2014, the Ukraine work had dried up.

Mr. Yanukovych had been forced out as president after a popular uprising and fled to Russia. Mr. Manafort claimed the Ukrainian oligarchs had stiffed him out of millions for his work for Mr. Yanukovych. And Mr. Deripaska was trying to collect from Mr. Manafort for a failed private equity deal in Eastern Europe.

Now broke, Mr. Manafort volunteered to work for the Trump campaign, which hired him in March 2016. In a memo, Mr. Manafort offered to brief Mr. Deripaska on “this development with Trump.”

Mr. Manafort also speedily passed along the news of his new job to Mr. Kilimnik, who traveled to the United States specifically to meet him in May and again in August 2016. According to the report, Mr. Manafort was forthcoming: He briefed Mr. Kilimnik on Mr. Trump’s path to victory and his strategy to win in battleground states.

After he rose to campaign chairman, Mr. Manafort also instructed his deputy, Rick Gates, to periodically share confidential Trump campaign polling data with Mr. Kilimnik, including surveys showing what voters most disliked about Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent. Mr. Gates “understood that Kilimnik would share the information with Deripaska,” the report said.

The transfer of internal campaign data to a known Russian agent is “about as clear a coordination or cooperation between two entities as could be established,” said Senator Angus King, a Maine independent on the Senate Intelligence Committee who votes with Democrats.

The president’s enemies try to make it sound like secretly meeting with a member of a foreign intelligence organization and sharing detailed election polling and voter information with a country that later is shown to have hacked into electronic elections in all fifty states, in order to give their chosen candidate victories by tiny majorities in each key swing state, is some kind of nefarious crime, something akin to treason.

We never get tired of slinging these kind of outrageous, slanderous, libelous allegations against the best people, do we?

“According to the report, Mr. Manafort was forthcoming: He briefed [Russian intelligence officer] Mr. Kilimnik on Mr. Trump’s path to victory and his strategy to win in battleground states.”

SO?

A Word to my Christian Brothers and Sisters

This guy really nails it with his test based on the Seven Cardinal Virtues and the Seven Deadly Sins.   

In deadly sins (Gluttony, Avarice, Pride, Sloth, Anger, Lust, Envy)  our president is seven for seven. 

In virtues — and this guy’s list is a little idiosyncratic (Truth, Love [agape type], Courage, Wisdom, Tolerance, Freedom, Creativity [1]) the president’s score is much lower.   

Check this guy out, he gives a pretty good test in about two and a half minutes. 

[1]  The president doesn’t fare much better in the virtue test with the traditional Christian Seven Cardinal Virtues

After Pope Gregory released his list of seven deadly sins in AD 590, the seven virtues became identified as chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility. Practicing them is said to protect one against temptation from the seven deadly sins.

Virtue Latin Gloss Sin Latin
Chastity Castitas Purity, abstinence Lust Luxuria
Temperance Temperantia Humanity, equanimity Gluttony Gula
Charity Caritas Will, benevolence, generosity, sacrifice Greed Avaritia
Diligence Industria Persistence, effortfulness, ethics Sloth Acedia
Patience Patientia Forgiveness, mercy Wrath Ira
Kindness Humanitas Satisfaction, compassion Envy Invidia
Humility Humilitas Bravery, modesty, reverence Pride Superbia

Flynn– from the Mueller witch hunt

While I was looking for something else (Mueller’s characterization of Trump’s evasive written statements under oath– I think it was “incomplete and inadequate”), I came across these paragraphs on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.  These are from the section, starting on page 191 of Mueller’s first volume, about obstruction of his investigation into Russian interference.

4. False Statements and Obstruction of the Investigation

The Office determined that certain individuals associated with the Campaign lied to investigators about Campaign contacts with Russia and have taken other actions to interfere with the investigation. As explained below, the Office therefore charged some U.S. persons connected to the Campaign with false statements and obstruction offenses.

 

Michael Flynn agreed to be interviewed by the FBI on January 24, 2017, four days after he had officially assumed his duties as National Security Advisor to the President. During the interview, Flynn made several false statements pertaining to his communications with the Russian ambassador.

First, Flynn made two false statements about his conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak in late December 2016, at a time when the United States had imposed sanctions on Russia for interfering with the 2016 presidential election and Russia was considering its response. See Flynn Statement of Offense. Flynn told the agents that he did not ask Kislyak to refrain from escalating the situation in response to the United States’s imposition of sanctions. That statement was false. On December 29, 2016, Flynn called Kislyak to request Russian restraint. Flynn made the call immediately after speaking to a senior Transition Team official (K.T. McFarland) about what to communicate to Kislyak. Flynn then spoke with McFarland again after the Kislyak call to report on the substance of that conversation. Flynn also falsely told the FBI that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which Kislyak stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to the U.S. sanctions as a result of Flynn’s request. On December 31, 2016, Flynn in fact had such a conversation with Kislyak, and he again spoke with McFarland within hours of the call to relay the substance of his conversation with Kislyak. See Flynn Statement of Offense ¶ 3. 194 U.S. Department of Justice Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)

Second, Flynn made false statements about calls he had previously made to representatives of Russia and other countries regarding a resolution submitted by Egypt to the United Nations Security Council on December 21, 2016. Specifically, Flynn stated that he only asked the countries’ positions on how they would vote on the resolution and that he did not request that any of the countries take any particular action on the resolution. That statement was false. On December 22, 2016, Flynn called Kislyak, informed him of the incoming Trump Administration’s opposition to the resolution, and requested that Russia vote against or delay the resolution. Flynn also falsely stated that Kislyak never described Russia’s response to his December 22 request regarding the resolution. Kislyak in fact told Flynn in a conversation on December 23, 2016, that Russia would not vote against the resolution if it came to a vote. See Flynn Statement of Offense ¶ 4.

Flynn made these false statements to the FBI at a time when he was serving as National Security Advisor and when the FBI had an open investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including the nature of any links between the Trump Campaign and Russia. Flynn’s false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on that ongoing investigation. Flynn Statement of Offense ¶¶ 1-2. They also came shortly before Flynn made separate submissions to the Department of Justice, pursuant to FARA, that also contained materially false statements and omissions. Id. ¶ 5. Based on the totality of that conduct, the Office decided to charge Flynn with making false statements to the FBI, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). On December 1, 2017, and pursuant to a plea agreement, Flynn pleaded guilty to that charge and also admitted his false statements to the Department in his FARA filing. See id.; Plea Agreement, United States v. Michael T. Flynn, No. 1:17-cr-232 (D.D.C. Dec. 1, 2017), Doc. 3. Flynn is awaiting sentencing.

source  at 194-195

Flynn is awaiting sentencing, the immediate dismissal of his case by Trump gunsel William Pelham Barr (who overruled Mueller and deemed Flynn’s lies innocently immaterial [1]), or, if all goes south, a pre-hearing — perfectly legal — pardon by the president.

USA!   USA!!!

 

[1]  From Mueller (above)   

Flynn’s false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on that ongoing investigation. Flynn Statement of Offense ¶¶ 1-2.

They also came shortly before Flynn made separate submissions to the Department of Justice, pursuant to FARA, that also contained materially false statements and omissions. Id. ¶ 5. Based on the totality of that conduct, the Office decided to charge Flynn with making false statements to the FBI, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).

Did Trump 2020 and the RNC submit evidence of mail-in voting fraud late Friday afternoon?

As the president throws bloody Trump steaks to his hungry base, calling moderate, longtime compromiser (sometimes in the worst sense of the word) Joe Biden a “puppet of the radical left” and fomenting against “left wing fascists” (why not just call us by our proper name — liberal cucks?) his reelection campaign filed papers Friday, as ordered by federal Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan, with evidence of mail-in voting fraud or an admission that they don’t have squat.

The papers were filed in the District Court of Western Pennsylvania where the Trump campaign and the RNC are trying to block the expansion of mail-in voting in one of a handful of swing states, a state whose 20 electoral votes Trump took last time by a whopping 0.7% of votes cast [1] — a state whose electoral votes went to the Democratic presidential candidate in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012. 

I know that Trump 2020 and the RNC filed papers late Friday only because someone at the Pittsburgh Public Radio station, WESA, returned my email to tell me so.   Otherwise, the news of what was filed remains unreported– anywhere.   THE FILINGS ARE APPARENTLY ON-LINE RIGHT NOW.  (More about that shortly — eh, I’ll drop a footnote [2])

I followed up with the guy at WESA just now (the only news service I contacted that got back to me):

Any update on this story?   It’s odd to me that there has been ZERO follow-up in the media, anywhere.   The outcome of this federal lawsuit could radically change the voting landscape in Pennsylvania and in every other “battleground” state.   I learned (from Wikipedia) that the case is scheduled for oral arguments on September 22, but not a peep about the Friday filing… whether Trump 2020 and RNC presented evidence of mail-in voting fraud or admitted they have none — a little disquieting.     I believe the documents should be currently available on PACER.

A few hours later, this update from the news director, Patrick:

There’s an entry in PACER suggesting exhibits were filed yesterday, but the link doesn’t have any materials. We’ll continue to follow.

to which I replied:

Thanks, Patrick.  

The plot thickens?  Does it strike you as odd that this is not a national story?

 

 

 

[1]

According to the final tallies, Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.7 percentage points (44,292 votes), Wisconsin by 0.7 points (22,748 votes), Michigan by 0.2 points (10,704 votes). If Clinton had won all three states, she would have won the Electoral College 278 to 260.     source

 

[2]  I haven’t used PACER for years, certainly not since retiring from the practice of law several years ago.   Don’t remember my log-in.   The PACER website did not send me the email it told me was on the way, a code that would only be active for 15 minutes.  Ten minutes on hold did not connect me to anyone at their live desk– a robot eventually came on to recite, in an uncanny impersonation of Stephen Hawking, the bit about experiencing longer than usual wait times. 

At a federal agency that only fields calls from people, who forgot their log-in info, looking for help getting on the federal database of court filings.   It is what it is.  

 

Meanwhile, as Bill Barr remains determined “to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus ‘Russiagate’ scandal.”

Today, in other breaking news, as Trump gunsel and body man Bill Barr continues to rail against what he strongly suggests was “likely” “criminal” “spying” on Trump and associates by the Obama administration:

Mr. Barr told a congressional committee last month that he was determined “to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus ‘Russiagate’ scandal.” He has appointed a criminal prosecutor, John H. Durham, to review the investigation and the actions of intelligence and law enforcement officials trying in 2016 to understand the Kremlin’s interference and possible links to Trump associates.   

source

the final, 966 page, volume of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Russian interference in the 2016 election (and the grounds for reasonable suspicions and the investigations into it) was released today. 

The Senate intel committee is made up of 9 Republicans and 6 Democrats (the chairman has recused himself, due to an investigation into possible pandemic-related insider trading, but he apparently endorsed the final report).   In spite of that majority, the report contained some very compromising information that Mr. Trump will find infuriating, for example: 

“While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those materials to aid Trump’s electoral prospects,” the report said. “To do so, the Trump campaign took actions to obtain advance notice about WikiLeaks releases of Clinton emails; took steps to obtain inside information about the content of releases once WikiLeaks began to publish stolen information; created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following their release; and encouraged further theft of information and continued leaks.”

… “Russia and other countries took advantage of the Transition Team’s inexperience, transparent opposition to Obama Administration policies, and Trump’s desire to deepen ties with Russia, to pursue unofficial channels through which Russia could conduct diplomacy,” the report said. “The lack of vetting of foreign interactions by Transition officials left the Transition open to influence and manipulation by foreign intelligence services, government leaders, and co-opted business executives.”

It added, “Russian officials, intelligence services, and others acting on the Kremlin’s behalf were capable of exploiting the Transition’s shortcomings for Russia’s advantage. Based on available information it is possible — and even likely — that they did so.”

The report’s “detailed review of Vladimir Putin’s campaign to elect then-candidate Donald Trump reveals damning and illuminating facts about the actions taken by President Trump, his family, and his most senior campaign advisors, and it goes beyond the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D.-N.Y., said in a statement. “It shows how much the Trump campaign relied on hacked Russian information for its own political gain, while courting multiple connections with Moscow’s operatives.”

The report portrays Stone as the campaign’s go-between with WikiLeaks, which was receiving the hacked emails from Russian intelligence officers. Trump, in written responses to the special counsel, said he did not remember discussing WikiLeaks with Stone, “nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks. with individuals associated with my campaign.”

The report says, “Despite Trump’s recollection, the committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his campaign about Stone’s access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions.”

This last reference to “Trump’s recollection” is in connection to the president’s sworn written answers to the Mueller “witch hunt”.  Answers drafted by Trump’s legal team that Mueller tactfully called “inadequate” (in one case, the final question, that inadequate answer was NO ANSWER WHATSOEVER [1]).

The majority Republican Senate Intelligence Committee, author of the report, is currently headed by acting chair Marco Rubio (R-Florida).   Its website contains a link to the report, as well as Marco Rubio’s cherry-picked partisan spin on Counterintelligence Threats and Vulnerabilities, volume five of its massive Russian Active Measures, Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 Election.  

The Grey Skank (NY Times) reported today:

The report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, provided a bipartisan Senate imprimatur for an extraordinary set of facts: The Russian government undertook an extensive campaign to try to sabotage the 2016 American election to help Mr. Trump become president, and some members of Mr. Trump’s circle of advisers were open to the help from an American adversary.

source

The president must be spitting mad today.   Traitors on all sides!!

On the other hand, his people on the committee stood up for him being a victim of liberal fascists (also from the failing NYT):

Senators split along partisan lines over whether to absolve or condemn the Trump campaign.

A Republican appendix to the report:

“After more than three years of investigation by this Committee, we can now say with no doubt, there was no collusion.”

A Democratic appendix:

“The committee’s bipartisan report unambiguously shows that members of the Trump campaign cooperated with Russian efforts to get Trump elected. … Paul Manafort, while he was chairman of the Trump campaign, was secretly communicating with a Russian intelligence officer with whom he discussed campaign strategy and repeatedly shared internal campaign polling data. … This is what collusion looks like.”

This on the same day that Trump mega-donor Postmaster General Louis DeJoy reversed his mail slowing policies including closing post offices and cutting all overtime (no word yet about restoring mailboxes taken off the streets or the hundreds of high-speed sorting machines taken off-line) until after the election.   DeJoy backed down in the face of concerted resistance by several state AGs who were initiating legal actions against DeJoy and Trump.  Trump’s new postmaster general be on the hot seat in front of the Senate and House next week.  Stay tuned.

[1]

SPECIAL COUNSEL’S OFFICE:

b. Following the Obama Administration’s imposition of sanctions on Russia in December 2016 (“Russia sanctions”), did you discuss with Lieutenant General (LTG) Michael Flynn, K.T. McFarland, Steve Bannon, Reince Priebus, Jared Kushner, Erik Prince, or anyone else associated with the transition what should be communicated to the Russian government regarding the sanctions? If yes, describe who you spoke with about this issue, when, and the substance of the discussion(s).

c. On December 29 and December 31, 2016, LTG Flynn had conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about the Russia sanctions and Russia’s response to the Russia sanctions.

i. Did you direct or suggest that LTG Flynn have discussions with anyone from the Russian government about the Russia sanctions?

ii. Were you told in advance of LTG Flynn’s December 29, 2016 conversation that he was going to be speaking with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, describe who told you this information, when, and what you were told. If no, when and from whom did you learn of LTG Flynn’s December 29, 2016 conversation with Ambassador Kislyak?

iii. When did you learn of LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak’s call on December 31, 2016? Who told you and what were you told?

iv. When did you learn that sanctions were discussed in the December 29 and December 31, 2016 calls between LTG Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak? Who told you and what were you told?

d. At any time between December 31, 2016, and January 20, 2017, did anyone tell you or suggest to you that Russia’s decision not to impose reciprocal sanctions was attributable in any way to LTG Flynn’s communications with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, identify who provided you with this information, when, and the substance of what you were told.

e. On January 12, 2017, the Washington Post published a column that stated that LTG Flynn phoned Ambassador Kislyak several times on December 29, 2016. After learning of the column, did you direct or suggest to anyone that LTG Flynn should deny that he discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak? If yes, who did you make this suggestion or direction to, when, what did you say, and why did you take this step?

i. After learning of the column, did you have any conversations with LTG Flynn about his conversations with Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016? If yes, describe when those discussions occurred and the content of the discussions.

f. Were you told about a meeting between Jared Kushner and Sergei Gorkov that took place in December 2016?

i. If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of the meeting.

g. Were you told about a meeting or meetings between Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev or any other representative from the Russian government that took place in January 2017?

i. If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of the meeting(s).

h. Prior to January 20, 2017, did you talk to Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner, or any other individual associated with the transition regarding establishing an unofficial line of communication with Russia? If yes, describe who you spoke with, when, the substance of the discussion(s), and what you understood was the purpose of such an unofficial line of communication.

TRUMP:

(No answer provided.)

source