211

 

Now that’s a headline-after years of getting it wrong someone on the MSM-Politico finally gets it right.

As I noted yesterday in the previous chapter, what was of interest to me in the coming redacted Mueller Report was less obstruction of justice-as it’s pretty clear even via previous public knowledge that this illegitimate ‘President’ has obstructed Justice many times over-but ‘collusion’ to use it in a the political and moral sense rather than merely technically legal sense.

While the MSM totally went for the bait in Barr’s fake exoneration letter it was clear that ‘did not establish conspiracy with the Russian government’ was just one technical legal judgment-it hardly proved no collusion. And Mueller’s own words make this clear. 

A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

But the not so savvy MSM fell for this hook, line, and sinker so many of them were looking first yesterday for obstruction of justice-as even Barr’s own limited quotes-he was never willing to use an entire sentence-stated that Mueller had not exonerated Trump of obstruction of justice-which somehow didn’t prevent Ken Dilianian from tweeting this:

And let’s be clear-the evidence of this illegitimate ‘President’s’ obstruction of justice that Mueller presents is compelling and vast.

Mueller didn’t buy all the canards of Trump’s lawyers and co-conspirators about obstruction of justice. In Coverup AG Barr’s presser yesterday morning where he spoke not as the nation’s Attorney General but as Trump’s personal mob lawyer if not publicist, he claimed that any obstructive behavior this fake ‘President’ engaged in was somehow forgivable because-gee he was really upset and sincerely believed the investigation was a ‘witch hunt.’

As for the Coverup Specialist AG is there reason to hope his reputation is now rightfully garbage?

The Coverup AG then went on to argue but even so Trump totally cooperated. Mueller’s own report totally debunks these canards. First of all to the extent that Trump was unable to obstruct the investigation it was because his own Russia House co-conspirators were unwilling to do things that could put themselves in jail or at least in disgrace. Mueller also categorically rejects the false premise that if you can’t prove the underlying crime you can’t prove obstruction. Which makes a lot of sense-think about it: otherwise the incentive to obstruct justice would be virtually limitless.

What’s ignored is that obstruction and the underlying crime are related-obstruction impedes the ability of an investigator to find evidence of the underlying crime. Indeed, it’s clear that Manafort’s lies obstructed the investigation mightily in terms of learning about collusion. This is why obstruction and perjury shouldn’t be dismissed as ‘mere process crimes’-if a witness lies then that obstructs our ability to learn the truth about the underlying crime.

Mueller also didn’t buy the notion that Trump as ‘President’ is shielded from obstruction laws and states very clearly ‘no one is above the law.’

While in some cases Trump’s flacks didn’t do what he wanted this hardly means they are moral paragons-plenty of times they did.

“Trump’s advisers rarely challenged him and often willingly did his bidding, according to the special counsel’s report released Thursday. But in some cases, they refused when Trump pushed them to the brink of committing outright crimes.”

“Trump ordered Donald McGahn to instigate special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s firing, but the White House lawyer decided he would resign rather than follow through.”

“Trump urged Corey Lewandowski to ask then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to curtail the investigation, but his former campaign manager only delivered the message to an intermediary.”

“And Trump demanded that Reince Priebus procure Sessions’s resignation, but the White House chief of staff did not carry out the directive.”

Here is a list of 10 areas Mueller investigated obstruction of justice. 

But again, I don’t look at obstruction of Justice as the main event here. The last thing I will say about it for now is this: it’s the opposite of what the Coverup artist of an AG says: it’s not that the importance of obstruction is diluted if you can’t prove the underlying crime but the reverse: to say you didn’t establish a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is diluted if there was great obstruction and perjury-after all maybe evidence that would establish the crime was held back.

So it’s not that failing to establish the underlying crime is dispositive of obstruction but rather obstruction is dispositive of that failure. It certainly doesn’t exonerate.

What is stunning is what we learn about collusion. Ok Mueller didn’t find the Trump campaign guilty of conspiracy in a very narrow technical sense. 

“As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel’s investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second , a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents.”

The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Pg. 9

But again he also cautions us this:

“A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.”

It’s vital that we not lose sight of this fact.

Regarding Mueller’s-technical, narrow-definition of ‘collusion, coordination, and conspiracy’ see Emptywheel.

But even if Mueller didn’t establish that a crime had been committed on very narrow technical grounds what he does say is extraordinarily damning.

As I’ve argued in previous chapters in this book, there are two very clear cases of collusion

1. Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, and senior members of the Trump campaign-Bannon in early October, possibly Paul Manafort in July-clearly coordinated with Wikileaks-ie, maybe not Russia directly but clearly a cutout

Coverup Bill Barr throws in the red herring ‘illegally.’ Basically Mueller did find out the Trump campaign ‘encouraged or otherwise played a role in these dissemination efforts.’ But they weren’t illegal. Note what Nadler says about impeachment-impeachable offenses can be for conduct that isn’t necessarily illegal but should be.

2. But then there’s the case of the late GOP operative Peter Smith.Russia, if you’re listening!

“President Trump pushed for obtaining Democratic rival Hillary Clinton’s private emails, and his campaign was in touch with allies who were pursuing them, according to the redacted special counsel’s report released Thursday.”

“On July 27, 2016, Trump famously said at a campaign rally, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” referring to emails that Clinton said she had deleted from her private server. She had used a private account during her tenure as secretary of state.”

Note that that very evening hackers attempted to hack Clinton’s personal office in Chappaquidick.

Yet Trump claimed he was ‘being sarcastic.’

Turns out-he was lying; what a shock:

“Trump also “made this request repeatedly” during the campaign, former national security adviser Michael Flynn told special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation. Flynn “contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails,” including Peter Smith, a longtime Republican operative, and Barbara Ledeen, a Republican Senate staffer who herself had previously tried to find the emails. Ledeen, at the time, worked for Sen. Charles E. Grassley on the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

What baffles me here is that isn’t Trump actually doing more than simply coordinating and disseminating but soliciting the hacking conspiracy itself? Or is it simply that, again, Mueller wasn’t able to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt?

But I’ve argued for some time that the case of Peter Smith was potentially the most serious charge against the Trump campaign in terms of collusion-coordination-conspiracy.

Just yesterday I wrote this in the previous  chapter-prior to the Mueller Report’s release:

Then there’s the late GOP operative Peter Smith-remember him? The MSM sure doesn’t. We heard in October that Mueller was very interested in Smith’s crusade to reach out to Russian hackers and work with Wikileaks to hack Clinton’s emails.

As I’ve argued elsewhere in this book Stone-Corsi-Bannon-Manafort?-provide evidence of coordination. Smith potentially could prove conspiracy to commit computer crimes with the Russian hackers if you can.

A. Connect him to the Trump campaign-and you can via the emails he sent expressing his intent to pay Russian hackers to hack Clinton’s server to top Trump campaign aides-Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Sean Spicer, Kellyann Conway, etc

B. This would show intent. The next question is did he actually carry out this plan? There’s reason to believe he did..

He made payments:

An email to him after the Podesta emails were leaked referencing ‘happy students’ that has been read as referring to the hackers.

While Barr’s letter had the half sentence ‘failed to establish conspiracy with the Russian government’ the hackers Smith paid weren’t technically with the Russian government.

That’s why Barr’s use of this half sentence is so misleading.

We know that Michael Flynn cooperated very fulsomely with Mueller so if that’s so you’d presume Flynn told about all his conversations with Peter Smith and what they lead to.

Beyond that Adam Schiff stated last year that-even as the minority and even though the GOP had shutdown prematurely shutdown the Russia investigation in February, 2018-that the Dems actually have made good progress on Smith.’s crusade. 

“House Democrats, poised to reactivate a probe of President Trump’s campaign ties to Russia, said this week that an investigatory priority is learning more about a Republican activist who sought 2016 Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s private emails, and whether he served as a conduit between the Trump campaign and Russia-tied groups.”

“That is an area of continuing interest for us,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), who is expected to become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee when Democrats regain control of the House in January, said in an interview. “In fact, that’s one of the areas that we’ve been able to make progress” on, despite Republican attempts to end the probe.

“Mr. Schiff declined to detail what more the panel has learned.”

Again, this allegation is potentially the most serious one against the Trump campaign we’re aware of as it’s not just about coordinating on the release of hacked emails after the fact-a la Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi-but actually working on the supply side with the Russian hackers themselves-which was Smiths’ clearly stated intent.”

End of quote from Yesterday…

But we now have a lot of new information-what we didn’t know previously for sure was if the Trump campaign accepted Smith’s overtures. We knew of Smith’s emails proposing to commission the Russian hackers and Wikileaks to acquire Clinton’s emails-this clearly showed Smith’s intent to commit a crime-pay hackers to illegally steal Clinton’s emails-and that he proposed this to the Trump campaign.

 

True but what we didn’t know was the response of the Trump campaign. We knew that Smith was especially close to Flynn. Now we know that Flynn indeed called on Smith for this project and that Trump himself wanted to hack-ie, steal-Clinton’s emails.

This is an act that Mueller says is a crime though he didn’t charge Trump and his co-conspirators for it. Why is that? Not enough evidence for beyond reasonable doubt?

Let me level with you-I’m only on page 50 of the 448 page report so will have to read it in detail! But this is as damning as it gets.

Just like the hackers went after Clinton’s private office after Trump’s un-sarcastic, very much deadly serious call to hack Clinton’s emails, Peter Smith also took Trump totally and deadly seriously.

After Trump’s July comments about Russia, Smith launched his own effort to find the missing emails.

“He created a company, raised tens of thousands of dollars, and recruited security experts and business associates,” the investigation found. Smith also claimed “he was in contact with hackers ‘with ties and affiliations to Russia’ who had access to the emails, and that his efforts were coordinated with the Trump campaign,” but the special counsel could not establish if that was true.

Again how do you ‘find’ this yet fail to ‘establish’ it? Presumably there was evidence but not enough for the very high bar of beyond a reasonable doubt. But let’s be clear this would be a crime on the part of not just Smith, Flynn, Bannon, et. al but ‘President Trump’ himself.

“In August, Smith wrote to Trump campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis, among others, about his efforts. “Parties with varying interests, are circling to release [the emails] ahead of the election,” Smith said. And as Smith raised thousands of dollars for his efforts, he told potential donors he was doing his work “in coordination” with the Trump campaign, the special counsel found. The investigation only found that Smith communicated directly with Flynn and Clovis.”

Ok but these were very senior aides to the campaign. I mean that’s how things are done-through cutouts and intermediaries. Trump himself was seeking to hack Clinton’s email server. How does it get more serious than that?

“Ledeen later told Smith she believed she had obtained a trove of emails that might be Clinton’s. Smith wanted to authenticate them, and Erik Prince, the private military contractor, Trump supporter and brother of current Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, “provided funding to hire a tech adviser to ascertain the authenticity of the emails.”

“According to Prince, the tech adviser determined that the emails were not authentic, the report found. Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that Smith, Ledeen, or others in touch with the Trump campaign obtained the Clinton emails.”

The special counsel also did not find evidence that any Trump campaign staff or associates “initiated or directed Smith’s efforts.”

Really? Russia if you’re listening.

“The saga of G.O.P. operative Peter Smith’s ill-fated attempts to uncover the 33,000 e-mails deleted from Hillary Clinton’s server was revealed shortly after his death in 2017, and depicts an isolated and increasingly desperate researcher’s scramble to fulfill a task he believed would benefit Donald Trump. But according to Robert Mueller’s report, the directive to track down the missing correspondence came straight from the top. Though Mueller found no evidence that the Trump campaign had “initiated or directed Smith’s efforts,” he did note that the then-candidate asked several associates, most notably then-adviser Michael Flynn, to find a way to obtain the e-mails—and that they complied. According to the report, Flynn “recalled that Trump made this request repeatedly,” prompting Flynn to contact “multiple people” in an attempt to do his boss’s bidding.”

Again I’m confused as Mueller seems to contradict himself:

“But according to Robert Mueller’s report, the directive to track down the missing correspondence came straight from the top. Though Mueller found no evidence that the Trump campaign had “initiated or directed Smith’s efforts,” …”

So the directive ‘came straight from the top’ yet ‘no evidence that the campaign initiated or directed Smith’s efforts…’

The directive came from the top yet no evidence that the campaign directed Smith’s efforts. It seems clear that Trump directed Flynn who directed Smith…

I guess I got to catch up with Seth Abramson’s giant thread-as well as read the full chapter in Mueller myself-I’m proceeding methodically!

UPDATE:

Godspeed to Seth Abramson:

God’s work Mr. Professor, God’s work.

UPDATE:

“Mueller likewise found no evidence that anyone on the campaign “directed” Smith’s efforts. Nevertheless, Trump’s allies bought in. Per Mueller, Blackwater founder Erik Prince, who would later be involved in a sketchy meeting with Jared Kushner and emissaries from the Middle East in Seychelles, funded efforts to authenticate a trove of e-mails Ledeen had discovered on the “dark web.” (They did not belong to Clinton.) Despite their enthusiasm, however, Trump’s supporters’ shambolic search led to naught. Mueller ultimately concluded that “Smith, Ledeen, or other individuals in touch with the Trump Campaign never ultimately obtained the deleted Clinton e-mails.”

These emails may be the emails I wrote about in Chapter A that Smith actually peddled to the FBI-aka Trumpland-itself. I also conjectured if these fakes were the fake docs Comey used as a pretext for the Comey presser?

Not that now is the moment to go far afield.

As for Abramson I do have a response for one of his tweets:

In multiple previous chapters I’ve asked this question-does Mueller know about Jason Wilson? Based on Abramson’s tweet the answer would appear to be no-I will have to read the Papadopoulos part of his report which I should get to today-I’m on page 50 of the 448 report and the very much glorified Coffee Boy’s section begins on page 80.

So I better get back to it, see you on the flip side, my friends and fellow resistors.

UPDATE:

 

 

License

October 28, 2016: a Day That Will Live in Infamy Copyright © by . All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book