Tag Archive for: Bill Barr
On Joshua Schulte and Julian Assange's 10 Year Old Charges
June 11, 2019 /19 Comments/in Leak Investigations, WikiLeaks /by emptywheel
The WaPo has confirmed what Natasha Bertrand earlier reported: the extradition package for Julian Assange will only include the 10 year old charges related to the publication of Chelsea Manning's leaks, not any of WikiLeaks more controversially handled charges. I've been meaning to write a post on how this is the stupidest available approach, which will satisfy neither those who regard him as a villain, will expose other journalists to similarly dangerous charges, and possibly even fuck up the security establishment's entire effort to exact some revenge against Assange. I hope to return to that when I get some deadlines and travel done, but suffice it to say this is a big hot mess.
To be clear, I actually think it's not eleven-dimensional chess on the part of Bill Barr to save Trump some embarrassment once Roger Stone's trial reveals the extent to which Trump's campaign tried to "collude" with WikiLeaks (though it will not only have that effect, but make it harder for DNC to sustain its lawsuit against the GOP and WikiLeaks for their actions in the 2016 election). Rather, I think this is an attempt to prosecute Assange with the least cost on the security establishment, being run by people who are utterly tone deaf to the costs it will incur elsewhere.
But I do want to say several things about why and how DOJ is not charging Assange in the Vault 7 leak.
Bertrand noted that I thought that the EDVA charges would be related to Vault 7.
Still, just several months ago, numerous experts felt confident that prosecutors would also hit Assange with charges over Vault 7. Prominent national security journalist Marcy Wheeler predicted in Februarythat DOJ would "very clearly go after Assange" for the Vault 7 disclosure, and that a sealed indictment against him in the Eastern District of Virginia was likely related to that leak — the CIA is, after all, headquartered in Virginia, as ABC noted. Assange himselfreportedly expressed concern that prosecutors would charge him with crimes related to Vault 7.
She didn't provide even the full context of my tweet, much less my post, arguing that Assange's efforts to extort a pardon using the Vault 7 files would be something obviously unconnected to journalism. The superseding indictment does mention Assange's use of "insurance files" to ensure his ability to publish documents in his possession, but no charges were attached to that, which later uses of the tactic and the Vault 7 pardon effort would have supported.
Which is to say the government could have charged Assange for something specifically excluded from Bartnicki's protection of the publication of stolen materials, but did not. Again, the government has chosen to go about this in the stupidest way possible.
That said, I'm not surprised they're not going after Assange for the Vault 7 leak itself.
As it is, the CIA has been inexcusably uncooperative with Joshua Schulte's discovery efforts. At times. some pretty aggressive prosecutors have seemed almost apologetic about it. Schulte has staked a lot on trying to expose details of his initial warrants, and while his later behavior seems to suggest there was something to their targeting of him (or, at the very least, his post-indictment behavior has been self-destructive), at the very least the CIA may have participated in some epically bad parallel construction. They may be trying to hide that as much as the actual details of CIA's hacking program.
Meanwhile, the government and Schulte have been discussing severing his charges from last year — which include one charge of contempt and a charge of attempted leak of classified information — from everything else.
As the Court is aware, trial in this matter is currently set for April 8, 2019. (See Minute Entry for August 8, 2018 Conference). To afford the parties sufficient time to prepare the necessary pretrial motions, including suppression motions and motions pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act ("CIPA"), the parties respectfully request that the Court adjourn the trial until November 4, 2019. The parties are also discussing a potential agreement concerning severance, as well as the order of the potentially severed trials. The parties will update the Court on severance and a pretrial motion schedule at or before the conference scheduled for April 10, 2019.
That might be something they tried to base a plea off of: they'd have video evidence to back their case, so it might avoid the CIPA process CIA is unwilling to engage in.
Back in May, Schulte's team submitted a motion to vacate his SAMs (Special Administrative Measures limit a prisoner's communication with others). It was based off the case the government made prior to his superseding indictment and left out all the allegations the government made about the 13 email and social media accounts Schulte was allegedly running from his jail cell, and as such deliberately understated why the government wanted the SAMs. The government asked for and got an extension to respond until Monday — notably, after all decisions about Assange would have had to have been made. Any response (unless it's sealed) will have to provide more details about what happened last fall, so if they're trying to get a plea deal, it might come this week in lieu of that SAMs response.
But the question would be what that plea agreement would look like.
Finally, the government is going to have to provide some explanation for why Chelsea Manning remains in jail for contempt. Unless they can claim they're going after other people related to WikiLeaks, they should not be able to keep her jailed.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-07-at-10.05.25-AM.png 246 487 emptywheel https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png emptywheel2019-06-11 03:39:092019-06-11 03:50:55On Joshua Schulte and Julian Assange's 10 Year Old Charges
Mike Flynn Assumed the FBI Agents Interviewing Him Would Be Trump Supporters
June 6, 2019 /28 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe /by emptywheel
Several times in the interview recounting the early aspects of the Russia investigation, Peter Strzok made it clear that Flynn felt comfortable with FBI Agents. Strzok said Flynn was "unguarded" and "relaxed and jocular." He "clearly saw the FBI agents as allies." That's consistent with a guy who — according to his own sentence memo — "had for many years been accustomed to working in cooperation with the FBI on matters of national security."
But there's a part of the newly unsealed 302 that makes clear an assumption Flynn clearly had. In describing what he should be pretty ashamed being caught in — clandestine meetings with foreign leaders — he explains why he and Jared Kushner had a meeting at which Kushner asked for a back channel to the Russians.
Flynn explained that other meetings between the TRUMP team and various foreign leaders took place prior to the inauguration, and were sensitive inasmuch as many countries did not want the then-current administration to know about them. There were no personal relationship between the leaders of many countries and the prior administration. FLYNN stated that he and personnel from the incoming administration met with many countries "to set expectations for them, and the expectations were set very high."
This is a campaign speech, not an interview with the FBI. In it, he implicitly badmouths the guy whom he had worked for for six years (though who, of course, fired Flynn).
More tellingly though, he assumed he could give this campaign speech to FBI Agents who were interviewing him about being caught undercutting the prior Administration's efforts to hold an adversarial government accountable. He appears to have assumed they'd be cool with that.
In short, Flynn assumed he was being interviewed by partisan Republicans.
That's telling, not just because the current Attorney General is certain that any bias in 2016 went against Trump (when there's abundant evidence that FBI agents, including those investigating Hillary, were none too fond of her). It's ironic because it means Mike Flynn regarded Peter Strzok — accused endlessly of anti-Trump bias — of someone who'd sympathize with his snide comments about the Obama Administration.
Update: Finally fixed the prior/incoming problem in my transcription. Thanks for your patience!
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/michael-flynn.jpg 403 605 emptywheel https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png emptywheel2019-06-06 16:55:142019-06-07 09:41:47Mike Flynn Assumed the FBI Agents Interviewing Him Would Be Trump Supporters
On Nine Different Occasions, Bill Barr Was Unable to Offer Any Evidence of Irregularity in Russia Investigation
May 31, 2019 /260 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe /by emptywheel
Bill Barr says a lot of things in his softball interview with CBS that are factually incorrect. He repeatedly states that counterintelligence activities were directed at the Trump Campaign.
People have to understand, you know, one of the things here is that these efforts in 2016, these counter-intelligence activities that were directed at the Trump Campaign, were not done in the normal course and not through the normal procedures as a far as I can tell.
WILLIAM BARR: Well, I just think it has to be carefully look at because the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed.
JAN CRAWFORD: [1] Did that happen?
WILLIAM BARR: There were counterintelligence activities undertaken against the Trump Campaign.
I think it's important to understand what basis there was for launching counterintelligence activities against a political campaign, which is the core of our second amendment- I'm sorry, the core of our first amendment liberties in this country.
The fact that today people just seem to brush aside the idea that it is okay to you know, to engage in these activities against a political campaign is stunning to me especially when the media doesn't seem to think that it's worth looking into. [my emphasis]
Counterintelligence activities were directed at three people the campaign itself fired because of their suspect ties to Russia, and a fourth guy who was secretly acting as a paid agent of a foreign country even while serving as the primary advisor for Trump's campaign intelligence briefings. And the only known counterintelligence activities, as opposed to predicated criminal investigative techniques, were directed at people after they had been ousted from the campaign.
He claims, falsely and in contradiction to what Mueller said the other day, that there was "no" evidence of a conspiracy.
WILLIAM BARR: Well it might be legit under certain circumstances but a lot of that has to do with how good the evidence was at that point. And you know Mueller has spent two and half years and the fact is there is no evidence of a conspiracy. So it was bogus, this whole idea that the Trump was in cahoots with the Russians is bogus. [my emphasis]
He makes an absolutely hilarious comment about how, if there were evidence that FBI agents investigating — say — Hillary Clinton were biased or leaking, we'd be hearing about it. He even mentions the conspiracy theories about Obama that were fed, at a national level, by a guy named Donald Trump.
JAN CRAWFORD: But it seems like you have a concern that there may have been a bias by top officials in the FBI as they looked at whether to launch and conduct this investigation?
WILLIAM BARR: Well it's hard to read some of the texts with and not feel that there was gross bias at work and they're appalling. And if the shoe were on the other–
JAN CRAWFORD: Appalling.
WILLIAM BARR: Those were appalling. And on their face they were very damning and I think if the shoe was on the other foot we could be hearing a lot about it. If those kinds of discussions were held you know when Obama first ran for office, people talking about Obama in those tones and suggesting that "Oh that he might be a Manchurian candidate for Islam or something like that." You know some wild accusations like that and you had that kind of discussion back and forth, you don't think we would be hearing a lot more about it?
We're not hearing about it precisely because Barr is treating the investigation into people who had loose ties to Trump's campaign as unprecedented as if the investigation into Hillary by FBI Agents who were leaking about it wasn't happening at the same time. These are all things that he should have been corrected on air — as well as the fact that the public record shows that the investigation into Trump's former campaign aides was slower than it normally would have been.
In general, Jan Crawford was utterly supine in this interview, letting the Attorney General state one falsehood after another, without correction.
The one place where she did commit some journalism was in asking repeatedly for evidence that something went wrong that justifies his investigation into the investigation. Nine times, Crawford asks the Attorney General for actual evidence that there's reason for an investigation into the investigation.
JAN CRAWFORD: [2] So I guess in making this turn can you help us understand, I mean what's- what is the concern? What have you seen, what's the basis for that?
WILLIAM BARR: Well I don't want to get you know, too much into the facts because it's still under review.
JAN CRAWFORD: [3] What have you seen? What evidence? What makes you think, I need to take a look at this? I mean, what have you seen in the summer of 2016?
WILLIAM BARR: Well, I'll say at this point is that it, you know, I- like many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities, I had a lot of questions about what was going on. I assumed I'd get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions, and that some of the facts that- that I've learned don't hang together with the official explanations of what happened.
JAN CRAWFORD: [4] What do you mean by that?
WILLIAM BARR: That's all I really will say. Things are just not jiving, and I'm not saying at this stage that–
JAN CRAWFORD: I mean, [5] there's a concern that this may have happened before we realized that the investigation was initiated in July. I mean, what…
WILLIAM BARR: I don't want to get into those details at this point. I would just say that, you know…
JAN CRAWFORD: [6] But you said there's a timeline concern.
WILLIAM BARR: Well I won't, I won't confirm that, but I'll just say that, you know, there's some questions that I think have to be answered, and I have a basis for feeling there has to be a review of this.
JAN CRAWFORD: You've said, you've said the time frame between the election and the inauguration, you've said this publicly, was kind of strange. Some strange things may have happened. [7] What concerns you there? Specifically, the meeting at Trump Tower.
WILLIAM BARR: I don't want to- I don't want to get into that.
JAN CRAWFORD: [8] What suggests to you there was a failure in the upper echelon at the FBI?
WILLIAM BARR: Because I think the activities were undertaken by a small group at the top which is one of the- probably one of the mistakes that has been made instead of running this as a normal bureau investigation or counterintelligence investigation. It was done by the executives at the senior level. Out of head quarters–
JAN CRAWFORD: [9] And you think that happened even with the investigation into the campaign, potentially?
WILLIAM BARR: I am concerned about that.
To each of those nine questions, he responds by making false claims about what happened, speaking about his feelings, or simply dodging.
That should be the takeaway of this interview. The Attorney General has launched an investigation without having any basis on which to do so, even while exhibiting either ignorance or outright deliberate false statements about what happened.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Screen-Shot-2019-03-26-at-2.35.58-PM.png 553 1011 emptywheel https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png emptywheel2019-05-31 11:48:542019-05-31 12:45:02On Nine Different Occasions, Bill Barr Was Unable to Offer Any Evidence of Irregularity in Russia Investigation
Ted Stevens, The "Toobz", And The Idiocy Of The Internet
May 27, 2019 /44 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, 2020 Presidential Election, Department of Justice, Law, Press and Media, Trump Administration, We Are All Fucked /by bmaz
Alright, this will be a fairly short post, but I would like to remind people of some things. Namely, regarding Ted Stevens. As background, Marcy wrote a serious, and important, post on the Trumps Organization's curious, and semi-hilarious, use of Microsoft. And, yes, Marcy is right, it was amazingly stupid. From clackers whining that Hillary Clinton had insecure internet. If it was not so stupid, it would be extra laughable.
But I want to cut back to something different. In comments, Rayne Loled at Ted Stevens and, then, a relatively new commenter (like just today as far as I can tell), "CJ" chimed in with:
Bizarrely, it's not an entirely bad metaphor, though that's probably accidental on his part. See, e.g., Andrew Blum's "Tubes: A Journey to the Center of the Internet".
This is bunk. Blum, and his book, tried to make hay off of Stevens, and at his expense, but without giving him much of his due, nor acknowledging how the "tubes" of the internet falsely allowed the demonization of Stevens and cheerleader his prosecution. A prosecution that turned out to be false and craven. In a review in the New York Times in 2012, Dwight Garner noted:
Reading this, you wish Mr. Stevens, who died in an airplane crash in 2010, were here to savor it. "Inside those tubes (by and large) are glass fibers," the author continues. "Inside those fibers is light. Encoded in that light is, increasingly, us."
That is exactly right, although Blum never really went deeper into the fraud by the Department of Justice that took Ted Stevens down before his untimely demise by plane crash.
So, as a bit of retrospective:
Say what you will about Ted Stevens, and much of that may be fair. But what was done to him at the end was wrong and a travesty. And the DOJ could not even deal with that then. Much less the pervasive and consuming wrong that is at hand today with Bill Barr and the DOJ he now administers.
For anybody that does not remember just how egregious and blatant the government/DOJ action against Ted Stevens was, here is one of my takes from 2008, and yet another in followup, from 2012.
You can joke about Toobz Stevens, and we have here before, but what happened to him was a complete travesty of justice. And there are serious lessons from that to keep in mind today. Without the "toobz" of the internet, I am not sure the reckless and false case against Stevens could have ever made it as far as it did. There is great irony in that, and it is a lesson that ought remain remembered, not just joked about.
That was a different, and in popular lore, more benevolent and honest era. So, what do you think are the odds for far worse from Trump and Barr? Somewhere, Ted Stevens has an idea.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/220px-Ted_Stevens-1.jpg 279 220 bmaz https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png bmaz2019-05-27 13:58:002019-05-27 14:02:06Ted Stevens, The "Toobz", And The Idiocy Of The Internet
The Logic of Assange's EDVA Indictment Is Inconsistent with Mueller's Apparent Logic on Assange's Declination
May 24, 2019 /32 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe, WikiLeaks /by emptywheel
As Emma Best has noted, shortly before GRU targeted John Podesta in a spear-phishing attack, WikiLeaks offered a reward for Hillary's speech transcripts like the excerpts that were released as part of the John Podesta release.
Hours before Russian hacking operations targeted Hillary Clinton's campaign in the spring of 2016, WikiLeaks discussed offering a monetary reward for transcripts of her speeches at Goldman Sachs. Soon after, Russian hackers launched a spear phishing campaign that resulted in John Podesta's email account being compromised. Emails containing excerpts from the speeches were included in the first day of the Podesta email releases. A week later, emails containing the transcripts themselves were released. WikiLeaks heralded these transcripts as their "holy grail."
The story began on March 9, 2016, when WikiLeaks sent a tweet with a poll asking if they should add Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs speeches to their "Most Wanted" page for six figure rewards for materials. When the poll completed twenty four hours later, 93% of respondents said that WikiLeaks should offer a reward for the speeches. The Russian hackers at Fancy Bear may have been listening and been inspired by WikiLeaks' comment. Unpublished targeting data collected by Secureworks shows the hacking campaign began earlier than the Mueller indictment reveals. A week and a half later, after dozens of attempts to penetrate the accounts of Podesta and other Clinton staffers and associates, Fancy Bear sent the phishing email that successfully tricked Podesta into compromising his account and the Goldman Sachs speeches along with it.
Secureworks' unpublished breakdown of the Russian spear phishing and hacking effort, which AP described last year, shows that the campaign to penetrate the account began hours after WikiLeaks teased the possibility of offering a reward for the information. The tweet first mentioning the potential of a reward for the Goldman Sachs transcripts was sent at 8:16 P.M. Moscow time. At 11:56 AM the next day, less than sixteen hours later, Russian hackers began a campaign that would target "over 300 individuals affiliated with the Clinton Campaign, DCCC, and DNC." Podesta's emails accounts were targeted in the days that followed and successfully compromised a week later, resulting in the exfiltration of nearly 60,000 emails.
Under what I've called Theory One of the superseding Julian Assange indictment, WikiLeaks' publication of a wish list that was subsequently fulfilled would qualify it (or Julian Assange) for a conspiracy charge. Given what we've seen of Roger Stone's actions, it might qualify him for a conspiracy charge as well (though we still don't know via what means he contacted WikiLeaks).
But this 2.5 page redaction in the Mueller Report appears to explain why they didn't charge WikiLeaks (and so by association, Stone) in that conspiracy.
We don't know what that redaction says, though the unredacted footnote makes it clear that in the case of emails stolen from Hillary, DOJ determined that sharing of stolen property does not constitute a crime.
We do, however, have a sense of how the Attorney General understands this declination, because he used it to exonerate Trump, even in spite of Trump's active role in pushing Roger Stone to optimize the WikiLeaks releases for the campaign. In one of his explanations for the WikiLeaks declination — one that may more directly allude to Stone's involvement — Bill Barr said that publication of stolen emails would not be criminal "unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy."
The Special Counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts. Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. Here too, the Special Counsel's report did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials.
In the case of election interference, then, Barr does not consider the publication of documents identified on a wish list that hackers subsequently steal to amount to joining a conspiracy.
But in the case of Chelsea Manning's leak, his DOJ does.
There's obviously a distinction: John Podesta's risotto recipes are not classified, whereas much of the stuff (but not all) Manning leaked was. But the role of a wish list is not functionally different, and Russian officers were charged both for hacking and dissemination.
I'm still working on a post describing how unbelievably stupid the EDVA case is, both for the press and for DOJ's hopes to lay a precedent.
But at least at a structural level, the prosecution is also inconsistent with the decisions DOJ made about WikiLeaks on the election year operation.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Screen-Shot-2019-03-18-at-9.06.32-AM.png 263 324 emptywheel https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png emptywheel2019-05-24 18:00:152019-05-24 19:31:13The Logic of Assange's EDVA Indictment Is Inconsistent with Mueller's Apparent Logic on Assange's Declination
For Three of the Four Early FBI Subjects Tied to the Trump Campaign, the Campaign Agreed with the Mueller Report Conclusions
May 24, 2019 /23 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe /by emptywheel
Of the first four people tied to Trump's campaign who were investigated by the FBI — Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and Paul Manafort — the Mueller Report came to remarkably similar conclusions as the campaign did when all three were fired in 2016. As I'll show in a follow-up post, the FBI's concerns about the fourth — Mike Flynn — have proven even better founded.
This shows how ridiculous it is for Bill Barr to go after the origins of the investigation. The Trump campaign itself, institutionally, agreed in real time with the conclusion of the investigation.
On August 19, 2016, Trump forced his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to resign. Sources told the press he was ousted because of his "involvement with Russia" and the fact that "he hadn't been entirely forthright about his activities overseas."
In recent days, Manafort had lost the confidence of Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and one of his closest advisers, and other members of Trump's family, according to a source close to the campaign. Kushner had once been a major backer of Manafort and was instrumental in his elevation — and the downfall of Corey Lewandowski, Trump's former campaign manager.
The family was particularly troubled by reports of Manafort's involvement with Russia and felt he hadn't been entirely forthright about his activities overseas, the source said. Family members were also unhappy about changes made to the GOP platform that were seen as beneficial to Russia, which they felt Manafort played a role in, the source added.
On February 13, Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that Paul Manafort had lied — both to the FBI and to the grand jury — about his interactions and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik. Among the things Manafort lied about, according to the Mueller Report, was an August 2, 2016 meeting where Manafort told Kilimnik how the campaign planned to win Michigan and two other swing states, Kilimnik pitched Manafort on a plan to carve up Ukraine, and also told ways he could be paid by his Ukrainian and Russian paymasters. Mueller ultimately, "could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing internal polling data with Kilimnik during the campaign period" and raised his lies to question whether he spoke to people on the campaign about the plan to carve up Ukraine.
In other words, the Trump family members who ousted Manafort came to precisely the same conclusion Mueller did: Manafort was lying about his suspicious ties to Russia.
On September 24, 2016, the Trump campaign severed all ties with unpaid foreign policy advisor Carter Page. The next day, Hope Hicks sent out an email instructing that, "Page was announced as an informal adviser in March. Since then he has had no role or official contact with the campaign. We have no knowledge of activities past or present and he now officially has been removed from all lists etc."
It was untrue that the campaign had no knowledge of Page's activities. After all, on July 9, 2016, he wrote Sam Clovis about his activities in Moscow.
Russian Deputy Prime minister and NES board member Arkady Dvorkovich also spoke before the event. In a private conversation, Dvorkovich expressed strong support for Mr. Trump and a desire to work together toward devising better solutions in response to the vast range of current international problems. Based on feedback from a diverse array of other sources close to the Presidential Administration, it was readily apparent that this sentiment is widely held at all levels of government.5
That said, even after surveilling Page for at least a year, the Mueller investigation likewise only gained limited understanding of Page's activities. "Page's activities in Russia–as described in his emails with the Campaign–were not fully explained." And a redaction explaining why Page wasn't charged as a foreign agent suggests it had been a close call.
In other words, Mueller came to the same conclusion that the Trump campaign did when they severed all ties with Page.
The Mueller Report is more circumspect about why George Papadopoulos got fired.
Papadopoulos was dismissed from the Trump Campaign in early October 2016, after an interview he gave to the Russian news agency Inter/ax generated adverse publicity.492
492 George Papadopoulos: Sanctions Have Done Little More Than to Turn Russia Towards China, Interfax (Sept. 30, 2016).
But a recent profile reveals that Papadopoulos has been lying about the campaign response to his Interfax column.
The book claims that Trump headquarters informed him of an interview request from Russian news service Interfax and gave him instructions about what to say, complimenting him afterward. In reality, Interfax contacted Papadopoulos directly, and though the campaign okayed the interview, the feedback afterward apparently wasn't positive. Papadopoulos wrote to campaign official Michael Glassner to ask if he was, as others had told him, "off the campaign because of an interview I gave."
This is the column that Papadopoulos shared with Joseph Mifsud (though that is not discussed in the report), and then lied about to the FBI.
On or about October 1, 2016, PAPADOPOULOS sent Foreign Contact 1 a private Facebook message with a link to an article from Interfax.com, a Russian news website. This evidence contradicts PAPADOPOULOS's statement to the Agents when interviewed on or about January 27, 2017, that he had not been "messaging" with Foreign Contact 1 during the campaign while "with Trump."
It's unclear whether the campaign distanced itself from Papadopoulos because of the press coverage of this article or because of what he said (an earlier WaPo report on it reveals how enthusiastic the pre-approval for it was, including the promise that Trump would work with Russia on Syria). If they fired him because he misrepresented the campaign's friendliness with Russia, then it would support the Mueller Report's conclusion that there was evidence to investigate but not to charge.
In particular, the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian government-or at its direction, control, or request-during the relevant time period. 1282
If the campaign fired Papadopoulos because he said things that were inconvenient, it would support the worth of his obstruction charge, which he of course pled guilty to.
Given the seriousness of the lies and omissions and their effect on the FBI's investigation, the Office charged Papadopoulos with making false statements to the FBI, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Information, United States v. George Papadopoulos, No. l:17-cr-182 (D.D.C. Oct. 3, 2017), Doc. 8. On October 7, 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to that charge pursuant to a plea agreement.
In either case, the campaign didn't want to be associated with Papadopoulos' pro-Russian public comments.
Update, 5/27/19: Papadopoulos actually told HJC/OGR that he never left the campaign.
Mr. Ratcliffe. How did you leave the campaign? First of all, when did you leave the campaign?
Mr. Papadopoulos. I don't know if I ever really left the campaign. I think I was involved throughout the whole way in different ways. I mean, one — in one manner I'm helping edit the first foreign policy speech and I'm setting up, helping set up this meeting with the Egyptian President, and then I'm kind of just feeding information into the campaign from March until — all through the transition, quite frankly. So I don't think I really ever left the campaign, if that makes sense.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
Mr. Papadopoulos. I was considering leaving, but I don't think I ever submitted some sort of resignation to the campaign that would — that would suggest I would formally abdicate my duties on the campaign.
The Attorney General is carrying out an unprecedented investigation into a counterintelligence investigation targeting the suspected infiltration of a campaign by men working on behalf of Russia. In real time, the campaign acted to distance itself from all three men for precisely that reason.
In other words, Bill Barr is targeting the intelligence agencies for agreeing with the Trump campaign about the suspect ties of three of the initially predicated subjects of the investigation.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Paulie.jpg 600 476 emptywheel https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png emptywheel2019-05-24 12:44:212019-05-27 21:05:01For Three of the Four Early FBI Subjects Tied to the Trump Campaign, the Campaign Agreed with the Mueller Report Conclusions
The Mueller Report Redactions and the Claims about "Collusion"
On Volume II page 121 of the Mueller Report, a partial transcript of the call Trump's lawyer (WaPo says this is John Dowd) placed to Mike Flynn's lawyer on November 22, 2017 appears, along with even more damning details about a follow-up call from the following day.
In late November 2017, Flynn began to cooperate with this Office. On November 22, 2017, Flynn withdrew from a joint defense agreement he had with the President.833 Flynn's counsel told the President's personal counsel and counsel for the White House that Flynn could no longer have confidential communications with the White House or the President.834 Later that night, the President's personal counsel left a voicemail for Flynn's counsel that said:
I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't state it in starker terms. . . . [I]t wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with … the government. … [I]f . .. there's information that implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue, . . . so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests ifwe can …. [R]emember what we've always said about the ' President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains …. 835
On November 23, 2017, Flynn's attorneys returned the call from the President's personal counsel to acknowledge receipt of the voicemail.836 Flynn 's attorneys reiterated that they were no longer in a position to share information under any sort of privilege.837 According to Flynn's attorneys, the President's personal counsel was indignant and vocal in his disagreement.838 The President's personal counsel said that he interpreted what they said to him as a reflection of Flynn's hostility towards the President and that he planned to inform his client of that interpretation.839 Flynn's attorneys understood that statement to be an attempt to make them reconsider their position because the President's personal counsel believed that Flynn would be disturbed to know that such a message would be conveyed to the President.840
This is, of course, the call referenced in Flynn's less redacted cooperation addendum released last week. A whole slew of reporters who have claimed to have read the Mueller Report over the last month claimed that this passage had been redacted in the report, which is something that Quinta Jurecic and I had a bit of a laugh about on Chris Hayes' show Friday night.
In fact, there's likely to be very little of great interest submitted when the government complies with Judge Emmet Sullivan's order to submit an unclassified version of the Flynn passages of the report by May 31.
The revelation in Flynn's cooperation addendum that he provided information on close-hold discussions about WikiLeaks means some of those conversations may be unsealed in that production. But aside from that, this redaction on Volume I page 183 — footnoting a discussion of the consideration of whether Flynn was a foreign agent and probably discussing an ongoing counterintelligence investigation into Russians, not Flynn — is the one of the only Flynn-related passages that might be of any interest that is not otherwise grand jury material.
With just a few notable exceptions, the redactions aren't that nefarious.
Using Grand Jury redactions to protect the President from political pressure
I've noted two exceptions to that. One is the way DOJ used grand jury redactions to hide the details of how both Donald Trumps refused to testify (even while Jr continues to be willing to testify before congressional committees that don't have all the evidence against him).
There are two redactions hiding details of what happened when Jr was subpoenaed.
Volume I page 117 on the June 9 meeting:
Volume II page 105 on President Trump's involvement in writing the June 9 statement.
And there are two redactions hiding the discussion of subpoenaing Trump.
Volume II page 12 introducing the obstruction of justice analysis.
Appendix C introducing Trump's non-responsive answers.
These redactions are all ones that Congress should ask more about. If Don Jr told Mueller he would invoke the Fifth, we deserve to know that (particularly given his willingness to appear with less informed committees). More importantly, the role of Trump's refusal to answer questions (as well as any concerns he had about Don Jr's jeopardy) are necessary parts to any discussion of obstruction of justice.
Plus, the President of the United States should not be able to hide his unwillingness to cooperate with an investigation into his own wrong-doing by claiming it's grand jury material.
The use of "Personal Privacy" to hide central players
In his description of the four types of redactions in the report, Bill Barr described the fourth — "personal privacy" — as relating to "peripheral third parties."
As I explained in my letter of April 18, 2019, the redactions in the public report fall into four categories: (1) grand-jury information, the disclosure of which is prohibited by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); (2) investigative techniques, which reflect material identified by the intelligence and law enforcement communities as potentially compromising sensitive sources, methods, or techniques, as well as information that could harm ongoing intelligence or law enforcement activities; (3) information that, if released, could harm ongoing law enforcement matters, including charged cases where court rules and orders bar public disclosure by the parties of case information; and (4) information that would unduly infringe upon the personal privacy and reputational interests of peripheral third parties, which includes deliberation about decisions not to recommend prosecution of such parties.
Some of the PP redactions do pertain to genuinely peripheral players.
For example, sometimes they hide the random people with whom Russian trolls communicated.
In others, they hide the names of other victims of GRU hacking (including Colin Powell, who is not a private person but is peripheral to this discussion).
In other places, they hide the names of genuinely unrelated people or businesses.
But as I have noted, Mueller treated this category as a declinations decision, not a privacy one.
I previously sent you a letter dated March 25, 2019, that enclosed the introduction and executive summary for each volume of the Special Counsel's report marked with redactions to remove any information that potentially could be protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); that concerned declination decisions; or that related to a charged case. [my emphasis]
Among the people Barr claims are "peripheral" players who have been investigated but not charged are Don Jr in the second redaction in this passage:
Carter Page on page 183.
And KT McFarland and several other key players on page 199.
Don't get me wrong: I think these redactions are absolutely proper. The description of them, however, is not. Barr is pretending these people are "peripheral" to avoid having to admit, "in addition to Trump's Campaign Manager, Deputy Campaign Manager, Personal Lawyer, Life-Long Rat-Fucker, National Security Advisor, and Foreign Policy Advisor who have either pled guilty to, been found by a judge to have, or been indicted for lying in an official proceeding, Mueller seriously considered charging at least three other Trump associates with lying."
The expansive redactions pertaining to WikiLeaks and Roger Stone
So aside from the grand jury redactions hiding how Trump Sr and Jr dodged testifying and the way Barr describes the declinations redactions, I think the redactions are generally pretty judicious. I'm less certain, though, about the redactions pertaining to Roger Stone, the bulk of which appear in Volume I pages 51 to 59, 188 to 191, 196 to 197. and Volume II, pages 17 to 18 and 128 to 130.
There are two reasons to redact this information: most importantly, to comply with the gag order imposed by Amy Berman Jackson that prohibits lawyers on either side from making statements that "pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice" to Stone's case, or to hide information from Stone that he doesn't otherwise know.
Except that we know he has already gotten the latter category of information in discovery. In a filing opposing Stone's bid to get an unredacted copy of the Mueller Report, prosecutors noted that "disclosable information that may have been redacted from the public version of the Special Counsel's report to the Attorney General is already being provided to the defendant in discovery."
And it seems highly likely that some of the information in these redacted passages is stuff that would only prejudice Stone's case by raising the import of it to Trump.
Consider, for starters, that (unless I'm mistaken) not a word from Stone's indictment appears in this Report. For example, the descriptions of how Stone asked Jerome Corsi to ask Ted Malloch to find out what WikiLeaks had coming and a follow-up email reflecting knowledge that John Podesta would be targeted must be reflected on pages 55 and 56.
On or about July 25, 2016, STONE sent an email to Person 1 with the subject line, "Get to [the head of Organization 1]." The body of the message read, "Get to [the head of Organization 1] [a]t Ecuadorian Embassy in London and get the pending [Organization 1] emails . . . they deal with Foundation, allegedly." On or about the same day, Person 1 forwarded STONE's email to an associate who lived in the United Kingdom and was a supporter of the Trump Campaign.
On or about July 31, 2016, STONE emailed Person 1 with the subject line, "Call me MON." The body of the email read in part that Person 1's associate in the United Kingdom "should see [the head of Organization 1]."
On or about August 2, 2016, Person 1 emailed STONE. Person 1 wrote that he was currently in Europe and planned to return in or around mid-August. Person 1 stated in part, "Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps. One shortly after I'm back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging." The phrase "friend in embassy" referred to the head of Organization 1. Person 1 added in the same email, "Time to let more than [the Clinton Campaign chairman] to be exposed as in bed wenemy if they are not ready to drop HRC. That appears to be the game hackers are now about. Would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke – neither he nor she well. I expect that much of next dump focus, setting stage for Foundation debacle."
Page 56 actually includes new proof that Stone and Corsi had confirmed that Podesta's emails were coming. Malloch describes Corsi telling him about Podesta's emails, not vice versa.
Malloch stated to investigators that beginnin in or about Au ust 2016, he and Corsi had multiple Face Time discussions about WikiLeaks [redacted] had made a connection to Assange and that the hacked emails of John Podesta would be released prior to Election Day and would be helpful to the Trump Campaign. In one conversation in or around August or September 2016, Corsi told Malloch that the release of the Podesta emails was coming, after which "we" were going to be in the driver's seat.221
Likewise, the indictment makes it clear that Stone was talking to the campaign about WikiLeaks releases.
ROGER JASON STONE, JR. was a political consultant who worked for decades in U.S. politics and on U.S. political campaigns. STONE was an official on the U.S. presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Trump Campaign") until in or around August 2015, and maintained regular contact with and publicly supported the Trump Campaign through the 2016 election.
During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about Organization 1 and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about future releases by Organization 1.
By in or around June and July 2016, STONE informed senior Trump Campaign officials that he had information indicating Organization 1 had documents whose release would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The head of Organization 1 was located at all relevant times at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, United Kingdom.
After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1.
We see outlines of precisely who those references are to in the report.
Most notably, after describing Trump's enthusiasm after Stone told Trump while Michael Cohen was listening on the speaker phone that the DNC emails would drop in a few days just before they did (which Cohen described in his testimony to Oversight), these two paragraphs, appear to to describe Manafort and Trump's enthusiasm after the DNC release, with Manafort telling both Stone directly and Gates that he wanted to be kept informed via Stone of what was coming. And having gotten some indication of what was coming, the campaign started making plans to optimize those releases. It appears that Gates, like Cohen before him, witnessed a Stone-Trump call where the rat-fucker told the candidate what was coming.
These pages also have more background about how important all this was to Trump, who was frustrated that Hillary's deleted emails hadn't been found (something also told, in Flynn's voice, in the Peter Smith section).
The references to Stone in these passages may well be appropriately redacted. But the descriptions of conversations between Trump and Manafort or Gates should not impact Stone's defense — unless you want to argue that Trump's personal involvement in Stone's rat-fucking might change the deliberations for a jury. They don't serve to hide Stone's actions. They hide Trump's enthusiasm for using materials stolen by Russia to win.
This affects the "collusion" discussion
All of this has particular import given the basis on which Attorney General Bill Barr tried to exonerate the President for obstruction. In Barr's 4-page summary of the report, Barr emphasized that Trump did not conspire or coordinate with the Russian government, even going so far as to suggest that no Trump associate "conspired or coordinated with the Russian government on these efforts," efforts which in context include, "publicly disseminat[ing hacked] materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks."
As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign "coordinated" with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined "coordinated" as an "agreement–tacit or express–between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference."
The second element involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election. The Special Counsel found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through various intermediaries, including WikiLeaks. Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election. But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.
Of course, that leaves off coordinating with WikiLeaks because WikiLeaks is not the Russian government, even while in context it would be included.
Similarly, in Barr's "no collusion" press conference, he again emphasized that Trump's people were not involved in the hacking. Then he made a remarkable rhetorical move [I've numbered the key sentences].
But again, the Special Counsel's report did not find any evidence that members of the Trump campaign or anyone associated with the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its hacking operations. In other words, there was no evidence of Trump campaign "collusion" with the Russian government's hacking.
The Special Counsel's investigation also examined Russian efforts to publish stolen emails and documents on the internet. The Special Counsel found that, after the GRU disseminated some of the stolen materials through its own controlled entities, DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0, the GRU transferred some of the stolen materials to Wikileaks for publication. Wikileaks then made a series of document dumps. [1] The Special Counsel also investigated whether any member or affiliate of the Trump campaign encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts. [2] Under applicable law, publication of these types of materials would not be criminal unless the publisher also participated in the underlying hacking conspiracy. [3] Here too, the Special Counsel's report did not find that any person associated with the Trump campaign illegally participated in the dissemination of the materials.
Given what we know to be in the report, those three sentences look like this:
Mueller asked, did any Trump affiliate encourage or otherwise play a role in WikiLeaks' dissemination?
By the way, if a Trump affiliate had played a role in the dissemination it wouldn't be illegal unless the Trump affiliate had also helped Russia do the hacking.
After finding that a Trump affiliate had played a role in the dissemination, Mueller then determined that that role was not illegal.
Again, "collusion" is not a legal term. It describes coordination — legal or not — in sordid activities. What these three sentences would say, if Barr had been honest, is that Mueller did find coordination, but because Stone (via yet unidentified means) coordinated with WikiLeaks, not Russia itself, Mueller didn't find that the coordination was illegal.
Note that even Bill Barr, who's a pretty shameless hack, still qualified the "no collusion" judgment on which he presents his obstruction analysis as pertaining to Russia.
After finding no underlying collusion with Russia, the Special Counsel's report goes on to consider whether certain actions of the President could amount to obstruction of the Special Counsel's investigation. As I addressed in my March 24th letter, the Special Counsel did not make a traditional prosecutorial judgment regarding this allegation. Instead, the report recounts ten episodes involving the President and discusses potential legal theories for connecting these actions to elements of an obstruction offense.
After carefully reviewing the facts and legal theories outlined in the report, and in consultation with the Office of Legal Counsel and other Department lawyers, the Deputy Attorney General and I concluded that the evidence developed by the Special Counsel is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.
Barr bases his obstruction analysis on "collusion," not conspiracy. But his 1-2-3 gimmick above lays out that non-criminal "collusion" did happen, only that it happened with WikiLeaks.
For his part, Mueller points to those same passages that get redacted in the first discussion in his background discussion for the obstruction volume.
Importantly, the redaction in this footnote makes it clear that the campaign was relying on what they were learning from Stone to plan their communication strategy for upcoming releases.
Remember, in his charging decisions on campaign finance, Mueller didn't actually say no crime had been committed. He said the evidence was not sufficient to obtain and sustain a criminal conviction.
The Office similarly determined that the contacts between Campaign officials and Russia-linked individuals either did not involve the commission of a federal crime or, in the case of campaign-finance offenses, that our evidence was not sufficient to obtain and sustain a criminal conviction.
There are multiple places where the report makes it clear that, in addition to the June 9 meeting, the campaign finance crimes reviewed included the WikiLeaks releases, including the Table of Contents.
Indeed, the paragraph describing why Trump may have wanted to fire Jim Comey focuses closely on the campaign's response to the WikiLeaks releases.
In addition, the President had a motive to put the FBI's Russia investigation behind him. The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia: As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns. Although the President publicly stated during and after the election that he had no connection to Russia, the Trump Organization, through Michael Cohen, was pursuing the proposed Trump Tower Moscow project through June 2016 and candidate Trump was repeatedly briefed on the progress of those efforts.498 In addition, some witnesses said that Trump was aware that [redacted] at a time when public reports stated that Russian intelligence officials were behind the hacks, and that Trump privately sought information about future WikiLeaks releases.499 More broadly, multiple witnesses described the President's preoccupation with press coverage of the Russia investigation and his persistent concern that it raised questions about the legitimacy of his election.500 [my emphasis]
And a more general discussion of Trump's motives later in the obstruction discussion raises it — and the possibility that it would be judged to be criminal — explicitly.
In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President's conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events–such as advance notice of WikiLeaks's release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians–could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family. [my emphasis]
The most damning revelations about the President's own actions during the campaign in this report pertain to his exploitation of the WikiLeaks releases. They go directly to the question of criminal liability (which Mueller says he couldn't charge for evidentiary reasons, not because he didn't think it was a crime), and if you want to talk "collusion" as opposed to "conspiracy" — as the President does — it goes to "collusion."
And in the guise of protecting Roger Stone's right to a fair trial — and possibly with an eye towards preserving the President's ability to pardon Stone before a trial reveals even more of these details — DOJ used a heavy hand on the redactions pertaining to Trump's own personal involvement in exploiting the benefit his campaign received from WikiLeaks releasing emails that Russia stole from Hillary. These details are the bulk of what DOJ is hiding by offering just a small number of members of Congress to review the less-redacted version of the report.
Perhaps Mueller agreed with all these redactions; it's a question I hope he gets asked when he finally testifies. But the redactions serve to hide what was clearly a close call on prosecution and one of the most damning explanations for Trump's obstruction, an explanation that involved his own actions on the campaign.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Screen-Shot-2019-03-26-at-2.35.58-PM.png 553 1011 emptywheel https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png emptywheel2019-05-20 17:00:432019-05-20 18:15:05The Mueller Report Redactions and the Claims about "Collusion"
William Barr Ratchets Up the "Witch Hunt" over an Investigation He Judges to be "Anemic" Given the Threat
Bill Barr hit the right wing news circuit today to make vague claims designed to feed the hoax about inappropriate spying on the Trump campaign. With both the WSJ and Fox, he obfuscated about what led him to ask John Durham to conduct what amounts to at least the third review of the origins of the Russia investigation.
"Government power was used to spy on American citizens," Mr. Barr told The Wall Street Journal, in his first interview since taking office in February. "I can't imagine any world where we wouldn't take a look and make sure that was done properly."
He added: "Just like we need to ensure that foreign actors don't influence the outcome of our elections, we need to ensure that the government doesn't use its powers to put a thumb on the scale."
In his Wednesday interview, he declined to elaborate or offer any details on what prompted his concerns about the genesis of the Russia probe.
Mr. Barr wouldn't specify what pre-election activities he found troubling, nor would he say what information he has reviewed thus far or what it has shown. He said he was surprised that officials have been so far unable to answer many of his questions.
"I have more questions now than when I came in," he said, but declined to detail them.
Given his inability to point to a reason to start this (aside from Trump's direct orders), it's worth looking back at something Barr said in his May 1 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Mike Lee attempted to get the Attorney General to substantiate his claim — made on April 10 — that the Trump campaign had been inappropriately spied on. In response, Barr explained his spying comment by suggesting that if the "only intelligence collection that occurred" were the FISA warrant on Carter Page and the use of Stefan Halper to question George Papadopoulos, it would amount to an "anemic" effort given the counterintelligence threat posed.
One of the things I want to look — there are people — many people seem to assume that the only intelligence collection that occurred was a single confidential informant and a FISA warrant. I'd like to find out whether that is, in fact, true. It strikes me as a fairly anemic effort if that was the counterintelligence effort designed to stop the threat as it's being represented.
Over the course of this exchange, Barr admits he doesn't know or remember what the Mueller Report says about Carter Page, and Lee displays that he's unfamiliar with several points about Page in the Mueller Report:
The report shows that Page had had two earlier ties to Russian intelligence before joining the Trump campaign, not just the one in 2013
After Page's conversations with Viktor Podobnyy were quoted in the latter's criminal complaint, Page went to a Russian official at the UN General Assembly and told him he "didn't do anything" with the FBI
Page defended sharing intelligence with people he knew were Russian spies by explaining, "the more immaterial non-public information I give them, the better for this country"
Dmitry Peskov was Page's trip to Moscow in July 2016 and Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich spoke about working with Page in the future
Mueller ultimately concluded that "Page's activities in Russia — as described in his emails with the Campaign — were not fully explained"
According to Konstantin Kilimnik, on December 8, 2016 "Carter Page is in Moscow today, sending messages he is authorized to talk to Russia on behalf of DT on a range of issues of mutual interest, including Ukraine"
The declinations discussion appears to say Page could have been charged as a foreign agent, but was not
Even with all the details about Page Lee appears to be unfamiliar with, there are more that he cannot know, because they're protected as grand jury materials.
Which is to say neither of these men knew enough about the investigation on May 1 to be able to explain why Barr needed to do an investigation except that Barr thought not enough spying occurred so he was sure there must be more. Had Barr read the IG Report laying out some of these issues, he would know that the investigation was anemic, in part because on August 15, Peter Strzok lost an argument about how aggressively they should pursue the investigation.
In a text message exchange on August 15, 2016, Strzok told Page, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office—that there's no way he gets elected—but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40…." The "Andy" referred to in the text message appears to be FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. McCabe was not a party to this text message, and we did not find evidence that he received it.
In an interview with the OIG, McCabe was shown the text message and he told us that he did not know what Strzok was referring to in the message and recalled no such conversation. Page likewise told us she did not know what that text message meant, but that the team had discussions about whether the FBI would have the authority to continue the Russia investigation if Trump was elected. Page testified that she did not find a reference in her notes to a meeting in McCabe's office at that time.
Strzok provided a lengthy explanation for this text message. In substance, Strzok told us that he did not remember the specific conversation, but that it likely was part of a discussion about how to handle a variety of allegations of "collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the government of Russia." As part of this discussion, the team debated how aggressive to be and whether to use overt investigative methods. Given that Clinton was the "prohibitive favorite" to win,
Strzok said that they discussed whether it made sense to compromise sensitive sources and methods to "bring things to some sort of precipitative conclusion and understanding." Strzok said the reference in his text message to an "insurance policy" reflected his conclusion that the FBI should investigate the allegations thoroughly right away, as if Trump were going to win. Strzok stated that Clinton's position in the polls did not ultimately impact the investigative decisions that were made in the Russia matter.
So the investigation was anemic, and it was anemic because the guy Lee blames for unfairly targeting Trump wasn't permitted to investigate as aggressively as he believed it should be investigated.
In the exchange, Barr also says he doesn't want to get into the "FISA issue," on account of the IG investigation into it — which would seem to leave just the Halper-Papadopoulos exchange to investigate.
DOJ's IG has probably given the initial results of its investigation into FISA to FBI. I say that because of Chris Wray's objection to the use of the word "spying" to describe predicated surveillance, Trump's attack on Wray because of it, and the unsealing of the names of additional people at the FBI involved in interviewing Mike Flynn — Mike Steinbach, Bill Priestap, James Baker — as well as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Matt Axelrod in two of the documents tied to his sentencing released last night. That would suggest there's nothing substantive there (which is not surprising, given how much more damning the information about Page is than we previously knew).
Which would mean the biggest reason Barr is starting this witch hunt is that the investigation was so anemic to begin with.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Screen-Shot-2019-05-17-at-1.17.32-PM.png 418 758 emptywheel https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png emptywheel2019-05-17 14:42:172019-05-17 14:42:18William Barr Ratchets Up the "Witch Hunt" over an Investigation He Judges to be "Anemic" Given the Threat
William Barr Absolved Trump of Obstruction without Having the Faintest Clue What He Obstructed
May 1, 2019 /135 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, Mueller Probe /by emptywheel
Bill Barr just finished testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It was remarkable.
Among the opinions the Attorney General espoused are that:
You only need to call the FBI when being offered campaign assistance by a foreign intelligence service, not a foreigner
It's okay to lie about the many dangles hostile foreign countries make to a political campaign, including if you accepted those dangles
Because Trump was being falsely accused (it's not clear of what, because the report doesn't address the most aggressive accusation, and many other accusations against Trump and his campaign are born out by the Mueller Report), it's okay that he sought to undermine it through illegal means
It's okay for the President to order the White House Counsel to lie, even about an ongoing investigation
It's okay to fire the FBI Director for refusing to confirm or deny an ongoing investigation, which is DOJ policy not to do
It's okay for the Attorney General to call lawfully predicated DOJ investigative techniques "spying" because Fox News does
Public statements — including threatening someone's family — cannot be subornation of perjury
You can exhaust investigative options in a case having only obtained contemptuous responses covering just a third of the investigation from the key subject of it
The Attorney General also got himself in significant trouble with his answers to a question from Charlie Crist about whether he knew why Mueller's team was concerned about press reports. His first answer was that he didn't know about the team's concerns because he only spoke with Mueller. But he later described, in the phone call he had with Mueller, that Mueller discussed his team's concerns. Worse still, when called on the fact that the letter — as opposed to Barr's potentially suspect representation of the call — didn't mention the press response, he suggested Mueller's letter was "snitty" and so probably written by a staffer, meaning he assumed that the letter itself was actually from a staffer.
But that's not the most amazing thing.
The most amazing thing is that, when Cory Booker asked Barr if he thought it was right to share polling data with Russians — noting that had Trump done so with a Super PAC, rather than a hostile foreign country, it would be illegal — Barr appeared to have no clue that Paul Manafort had done so. He even asked whom Manafort shared the data with, apparently not knowing he shared it with a guy that Rick Gates said he believes is a Russian spy.
That's remarkable, because he basically agreed with Ben Sasse that Deripaska — with whom Manafort was sharing this campaign data — was a "bottom-feeding scum-sucker."
So the Attorney General absolved the President of obstruction without having the faintest clue what actions the investigation of which Trump successfully obstructed by floating a pardon to Manafort.
There may be an explanation for this fairly shocking admission on Barr's part. He also admitted that he and Rod Rosenstein started making the decision on obstruction before they read the report. Indeed, several times during the hearing, it seemed he still has not read the report, as he was unfamiliar with allegations in it.
In short, the Attorney General said it was okay for Trump to obstruct this investigation because (he claims) Trump was falsely accused, without being aware that the report showed that several of the key allegations against Trump — including that his campaign manager coordinated with Russians, including one Barr agrees is a bottom-feeding scum-sucker" with ties to Russian intelligence — were actually true.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Screen-Shot-2019-03-26-at-2.35.58-PM.png 553 1011 emptywheel https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png emptywheel2019-05-01 16:15:122019-05-01 17:28:47William Barr Absolved Trump of Obstruction without Having the Faintest Clue What He Obstructed
The Significance of Trump's Obstruction of Investigation of His Family's Campaign Finance Crimes, Plural
April 22, 2019 /106 Comments/in 2016 Presidential Election, emptywheel, Mueller Probe /by emptywheel
In the Barr Memo usurping Congress' role in determining whether the evidence presented in the Mueller Report amounts to obstruction, he based a lot of his judgment finding no obstruction on the fact that Mueller "did not establish" that Trump and his campaign conspired with Russia.
In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction.
The line is unbelievably cynical for several reasons. First, right at the beginning of the report, Mueller points out that his use of "did not establish" does not mean "there was no evidence."
A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.
Yet in spite of that warning, Barr nevertheless claims that Mueller's observation that he did not establish Trump's involvement in a crime related the Russia's election interference amounts to an "absence of such evidence."
Moreover, Barr takes that quote out of the context of Mueller's discussions about the corrupt motives that Trump might have to obstruct the investigation. (I've bolded the actual sentence Barr quotes, but included both of Mueller's discussions of Trump's implication in potential crimes.)
In addition, the President had a motive to put the FBI's Russia investigation behind him. The evidence does not establish that the termination of Comey was designed to cover up a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russia: As described in Volume I, the evidence uncovered in the investigation did not establish that the President or those close to him were involved in the charged Russian computer-hacking or active-measure conspiracies, or that the President otherwise had an unlawful relationship with any Russian official. But the evidence does indicate that a thorough FBI investigation would uncover facts about the campaign and the President personally that the President could have understood to be crimes or that would give rise to personal and political concerns. Although the President publicly stated during and after the election that he had no connection to Russia, the Trump Organization, through Michael Cohen, was pursuing the proposed Trump Tower Moscow project through June 2016 and candidate Trump was repeatedly briefed on the progress of those efforts.498 In addition, some witnesses said that Trump was aware that [redacted] at a time when public reports stated that Russian intelligence officials were behind the hacks, and that Trump privately sought information about future WikiLeaks releases.499 More broadly, multiple witnesses described the President's preoccupation with press coverage of the Russia investigation and his persistent concern that it raised questions about the legitimacy of his election.500
Second, many obstruction cases involve the attempted or actual cover-up of an underlying crime. Personal criminal conduct can furnish strong evidence that the individual had an improper obstructive purpose, see, e.g. , United States v. Willoughby, 860 F.2d 15, 24 (2d Cir. 1988), or that he contemplated an effect on an official proceeding, see, e.g., United States v. Binday, 804 F.3d 558, 591 (2d Cir. 2015). But proof of such a crime is not an element of an obstruction offense. See United States v. Greer, 872 F.3d 790, 798 (6th Cir. 2017) (stating, in applying the obstruction sentencing guideline, that "obstruction of a criminal investigation is punishable even if the prosecution is ultimately unsuccessful or even if the investigation ultimately reveals no underlying crime"). Obstruction of justice can be motivated by a desire to protect non-criminal personal interests, to protect against investigations where underlying criminal liability falls into a gray area, or to avoid personal embarrassment. The injury to the integrity of the justice system is the same regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong. In this investigation, the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference. But the evidence does point to a range of other possible personal motives animating the President's conduct. These include concerns that continued investigation would call into question the legitimacy of his election and potential uncertainty about whether certain events-such as advance notice of WikiLeaks's release of hacked information or the June 9, 2016 meeting between senior campaign officials and Russians could be seen as criminal activity by the President, his campaign, or his family.
In both of these discussions, Mueller suggests that Trump may have believed his orders to Roger Stone to optimize WikiLeaks' releases might be a crime when he obstructed the investigation; and in the discussion Barr extracts the quote from, he also suggests that Trump may have believed the June 9 meeting amounted to a crime.
The former is important given that Trump blatantly lied in his responses to Mueller about talking to Stone about his efforts to optimize WikiLeaks releases, even though at least three witnesses say he did. The prosecutorial decision with regards to WikiLeaks spans Volume I pages 176 to 179, but aside from a footnote explaining why they didn't charge WikiLeaks for trafficking in stolen property, it is entirely redacted. The prosecutorial decision on Stone optimizing the release of stolen documents spans 188 to 190; it is also largely redacted, though it's clear there were First Amendment concerns about pursuing it. Note that prosecutors continue to investigate Stone.
By contrast, the discussion of Mueller's decision not to charge the June 9 meeting as a campaign finance violation is not redacted. Ultimately, Mueller's team decided not to prosecute it because they did not have admissible evidence that Don Jr and the others knew taking the meeting and the offered dirt was illegal (which raises questions about whether they have hearsay or SIGINT suggesting they did), and because they had a hard time placing a value on the information offered.
The Office considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting described in Volume I, Section IV.A.5, supra. The Office concluded that, in light of the government's substantial burden of proof on issues of intent ("knowing" and "willful"), and the difficulty of establishing the value of the offered information, criminal charges would not meet the Justice Manual standard that "the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction." Justice Manual§ 9-27.220.
There are reasonable arguments that the offered information would constitute a "thing of value" within the meaning of these provisions, but the Office determined that the government would not be likely to obtain and sustain a conviction for two other reasons: first, the Office did not obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted "willfully," i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct; and, second, the government would likely encounter difficulty in proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation, see 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(l)(A)(i).
Additionally, in light of the unresolved legal questions about whether giving "documents and information" of the sort offered here constitutes a campaign contribution, Trump Jr. could mount a factual defense that he did not believe his response to the offer and the June 9 meeting itself violated the law. Given his less direct involvement in arranging the June 9 meeting, Kushner could likely mount a similar defense. And, while Manafort is experienced with political campaigns, the Office has not developed evidence showing that he had relevant knowledge of these legal issues.
Accordingly, taking into account the high burden to establish a culpable mental state in a campaign-finance prosecution and the difficulty in establishing the required valuation, the Office decided not to pursue criminal campaign-finance charges against Trump Jr. or other campaign officials for the events culminating in the June 9 meeting. [my emphasis]
This analysis is critically important for a number of reasons.
First, the Report did not say this was not a crime. Rather, it said that under Justice Manual guidelines, Mueller's team should not prosecute the case because they were unlikely to get and sustain a conviction. The analysis suggests there was a crime, but not one Mueller would win conviction on at trial.
That, by itself, blows Barr's analysis on obstruction out of the water, because Mueller argued that this probably was a crime. Barr says Trump could not have obstructed justice because there was no underlying crime, but in fact, Mueller said there was a crime, just not one that could be prosecuted successfully.
But it's crucially important to an impeachment inquiry for another reason (and explains one of the apparent referrals for attempted witnesses tampering of Rudy Giuliani friend Robert Costello to SDNY — though I suspect the fact that the passages describing Trump's attempt to tamper with Cohen's testimony are unredacted means SDNY will not prosecute).
Mueller's analysis of Don Jr's receipt of dirt from foreigners could not be prosecuted because it wasn't clear there was a crime and he didn't have evidence that those who engaged in the crime knew it was a crime.
But SDNY has already decided that Trump's hush payments are a crime. And in that case, it's far harder for Trump to claim he didn't know it was a crime for corporations to donate to presidential campaigns, because FEC investigated him and Cohen for it in 2011. A pity for Trump that he continues to alienate the guy who saved him from legal repercussions on that crime the last time, Don McGahn.
Mueller treats the question of whether Trump obstructed Cohen's testimony in its own section, separate from his pressure on Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone not to cooperate. After laying out Jay Sekulow's role in suborning Cohen's false testimony on the Moscow Trump Tower deal, Mueller actually mentions the hush payments as part of the obstruction consideration.
In January 2018, the media reported that Cohen had arranged a $130,000 payment during the campaign to prevent a woman from publicly discussing an alleged sexual encounter she had with the President before he ran for office.1007 This Office did not investigate Cohen's campaign period payments to women. 1008 However, those events, as described here, are potentially relevant to the President's and his personal counsel's interactions with Cohen as a witness who later began to cooperate with the government.
The report shows how, as he did with the Trump Tower deal, Cohen released false statements covering up the President's actions. It describes the search of Cohen's property and Trump's reaction. It describes elaborate efforts to convey to Cohen he'd be "taken care of" if he did not cooperate.
Cohen also recalled speaking with the President's personal counsel about pardons after the searches of his home and office had occurred, at a time when the media had reported that pardon discussions were occurring at the White House. 1031 Cohen told the President's personal counsel he had been a loyal lawyer and servant, and he said that after the searches he was in an uncomfortable position and wanted to know what was in it for him. 1032 According to Cohen, the President's personal counsel responded that Cohen should stay on message, that the investigation was a witch hunt, and that everything would be fine. 1033 Cohen understood based on this conversation and previous conversations about pardons with the President's personal counsel that as long as he stayed on message, he would be taken care of by the President, either through a pardon or through the investigation being shut down. 1034
The report describes how, after Cohen pled guilty to the hush payments and implicated Trump in them, Trump turned on him.
On August 21, 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty in the Southern District of New York to eight felony charges, including two counts of campaign-finance violations based on the payments he had made during the final weeks of the campaign to women who said they had affairs with the President. 1044 During the plea hearing, Cohen stated that he had worked "at the direction of' the candidate in making those payments. 1045 The next day, the President contrasted Cohen's cooperation with Manafort's refusal to cooperate, tweeting, "I feel very badly for Paul Manafort and his wonderful family. 'Justice' took a 12 year old tax case, among other things, applied tremendous pressure on him and, unlike Michael Cohen, he refused to 'break'-make up stories in order to get a 'deal.' Such respect for a brave man!"1046
Only after that does it focus, again, on Trump's efforts to cover up the Trump Tower Moscow deal, and Trump's retaliation against Cohen for cooperating on that issue.
When the report conducts the analysis of whether this amounts to obstruction, it includes the SDNY case in both the "nexus to an official proceeding" and "intent" sections.
Nexus to an official proceeding. The President's relevant"conduct towards Cohen occurred when the President knew the Special Counsel's Office, Congress, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York were investigating Cohen's conduct. The President acknowledged through his public statements and tweets that Cohen potentially could cooperate with the government investigations.
The President's concern about Cohen cooperating may have been directed at the Southern District of New York investigation into other aspects of the President's dealings with Cohen rather than an investigation of Trump Tower Moscow
In other words, even though Mueller didn't prosecute the hush payments, he treated as one of the things Trump was attempting to obstruct with Cohen's testimony.
This analysis renders Barr's judgment — that Trump could not commit obstruction of justice because he didn't commit the underlying crime — utterly irrelevant and wrong with regards to the President's efforts to obstruct Cohen's testimony.
Even with the June 9 meeting, Barr is wrong: Mueller believed there as a crime, he just didn't believe he could prosecute it.
But SDNY has already decided — and obtained a guilty plea naming Trump as a co-conspirator — that the hush payment investigation that Trump was also obstructing was a crime, with the necessary proof that the criminals knew it was a crime. The 2011 precedent would further back that case.
Barr's attempt to exonerate Trump on obstruction heavily depends on the fact that DOJ didn't find a crime involving Trump.
Except DOJ did.
emptywheel's Mueller Report coverage
How "Collusion" Appears in the Mueller Report
Putin's Ghost: The Counterintelligence Calculus Not Included in the Obstruction Analysis
Working Twitter Threads on the Mueller Report
The Trump Men and the Grand Jury Redactions
Mueller's Language about "Collusion," Coordination, and Conspiracy
The Many Lies and Prevarications of Bill Barr
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Screen-Shot-2018-04-15-at-2.41.39-PM.png 296 447 emptywheel https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png emptywheel2019-04-22 12:52:402019-04-22 14:20:53The Significance of Trump's Obstruction of Investigation of His Family's Campaign Finance Crimes, Plural
Vicks on On CNN's WikiLeaks Exclusive: Remember the Other Document Dumps
Eureka on A Feud for Fun and Profit
P J Evans on Renewing My Obsession with Paul Manafort's iPods: Robert Mueller's 2,300 Media Devices
Terry on Renewing My Obsession with Paul Manafort's iPods: Robert Mueller's 2,300 Media Devices
bmaz@bmazRT @yeselson: This disqualifies Streyer, not on the merits of the issue, but in the sheer strategic stupidity of ****voting for impeachment…6 hours ago17 July 2019
Jim White@JimWhiteGNVFuck the Yankees anyway.8 hours ago17 July 2019
emptywheel@emptywheelRT @NatSecGeek: Not shut down, but unable to use Twitter more or less pic.twitter.com/rwCGITYHR68 hours ago17 July 2019
emptywheel@emptywheelAnd they should, so HJC can get busy talking about how unfit Trump is using descriptive language. twitter.com/joshchafetz/st…13 hours ago16 July 2019