Doppelgänger Debunking: Monitoring Social Media Does Not Equate to Recruitment

/6 Comments/in , /by

As noted, I plan to do a more substantive piece on DOJ’s effort to disrupt Russian efforts to influence the election, but first want to debunk a few claims people are making about last week’s releases.

In this post, I debunked the claim that Lauren Chen is likely to have been targeted under FISA; FBI wouldn’t have needed FISA, when criminal process is easier to get.

There’s an even bigger error regarding something about the Doppelgänger materials released last week, traceable in significant part to this post and the screen cap from it, disseminated by others:

The screen cap comes from this passage of the affidavit supporting the take-down of a bunch of sites used by Russia’s Doppelgänger project. Gilbert and others have screen-capped primarily the part describing influencers (italicized below), without the part that directly followed, describing that Russia has a similar list of people who don’t support Russia, much less the part (bold below) describing that these were accounts were monitored to track public opinion.

66. SDA documents further reveal that SDA extensively monitors and collects information about a large number of media organizations and social media influencers. One document revealed a list of more than 2,800 people on various social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Telegram, spanning 81 countries, that SDA identified as influencers, including television and radio hosts, politicians, bloggers, journalists, businessmen, professors, think-tank analysts, veterans, professors, and comedians. When referring to politicians, the list often mentioned which U.S. state and/or political party they represent and the position they hold in Congress. The U.S.-based influencers accounted for approximately 21% of the accounts being monitored by SDA. On another list of over 1,900 “anti-influencers”14 from 52 countries, the U.S.- based accounts comprised 26% of the total accounts being monitored by SDA. I assess that “anti-influencer” indicates that the account posts content that SDA views as contrary to Russian objectives. Based on my review of other records obtained during this investigation, I know that SDA adds information captured through its monitoring efforts to dashboards. These dashboards analyze trends in public opinion and thereby measure the effectiveness of the malign foreign influence campaign based on its impact on public opinion. SDA’s content varies from project to project; however, it can include videos, memes, cartoons, social media posts, and/or articles. SDA’s content delivery also varies each campaign, but often relies heavily on social media posts driving targeted audiences to domains SDA controls, like the SUBJECT DOMAINS. [my emphasis]

In his story on the releases, Gilbert extrapolates from a different document that primarily focuses on using targeted advertising to attract social media users to Russian-made content, to suggest this list of 2,800 influencers might constitute those envisioned in a small section of the document as “collaborators,” though that section of the document doesn’t use the term, “collaborators.”

According to the Good Old USA project document, the Kremlin was seeking to work with influencers who are “proponents of traditional values, who stand up for ending the war in Ukraine and peaceful relations between the US and Russia, and who are ready to get involved in the promotion of the project narratives.”

Among the types of influencers listed as possible collaborators are actors, politicians, media representatives, activists, and clergymen.

The affidavit references one document maintained by the Social Design Agency, which is not included in the unsealed court documents, that contains a list of more than 2,800 people identified as influencers. While this list is global, US-based influencers account for around 20 percent of the accounts being monitored, including many US lawmakers, according to an analysis of the list by the FBI.

That is, in my opinion, a wild misreading of the material, not least because the document envisioning “working with influencers” includes passive ways to exploit pro-Russian voices, including the “rollout of real comments” from them.

Other even more inflammatory tweets have highlighted the same passage to claim that Russia is paying 2,800 people.

While it’s not clear that the FBI knows precisely what the Social Design Agency is doing with these lists, all it claims that they’re going is tracking these accounts — both pro and anti-Russian social media accounts — to “analyze trends in public opinion and thereby measure the effectiveness of the malign foreign influence campaign based on its impact on public opinion.”

There’s no claim the 2,800 people on the list are being paid.

Even if SDA were doing more, it would in no way signal full “collaboration.” An earlier report on Doppelgänger’s work (one I’m still looking for, to link), for example, described how Doppelgänger would exploit the way Elon Musk uses his Xitter account to piggyback on his visibility to magnify pro-Russian content with no involvement from him. Elmo is so predictable and so stupid with his Xitter account it requires no payment or even witting involvement to be exploited in such a way.

Similarly, there are any number of right wing members of Congress who oppose Ukrainian funding in significant part because Trump told them to; while some of them might be on the Russian payroll, the overwhelming majority are not, but they nevertheless produce social media content that is of enormous use to Russia. JK Rowling’s transphobic content similarly attracts the kind of engagement that could be usefully exploited for Russia.

The inclusion of anti-influencers on this list is a big tell that those on the influencer list are not all recruited. Indeed, my own Xitter account could be big enough and — because Musk has forced a virtual blue check on my account, increasing my visibility in algorithms — to be included on an anti-influencer account; Asha Rangappa, Tom Nichols, and Anne Applebaum are all people with credentialed anti-Russian views with more Xitter followers than me who are even more likely candidates. It often happens that trolls with their own blue checks will attempt to hijack my timeline to stir up fights; it takes aggressive blocking to prevent it.

In other words, it doesn’t take recruitment to exploit readily apparent algorithmic patterns. Even overt opposition can be harnessed, if such efforts are not aggressively combatted.

And there’s nothing in the affidavit, describing an effort to monitor public opinion, to suggest Russia is doing even that.

Share this entry

Lauren Chen’s Curious Legal Status

/17 Comments/in , , , /by

I’m planning (and have already started) a post on how last week’s Russian actions may serve to disrupt Russia’s attempts to tamper in the election more broadly, after which I plan to do a post on the efficacy of this all.

But before that, I want to address two details about last week’s legal actions — the indictment of two RT personnel for acting as unregistered foreign agents and the takedown of a bunch of Doppelganger sites — that people are likely getting wrong.

The first has to do with the legal status of Lauren Chen, the founder of Tenet Media, and how that would impact the investigative techniques used in this investigation.

The other right wing operations with which Chen had affiliations, including Glenn Beck and Turning Point USA, have now turned her into an unperson, removing her from their sites (though her affiliation to them remains on her Xitter account).

But that hasn’t stopped a general right wing panic about the communications the government must have. Many — including Michael Caputo — are insisting that the FBI must have used the FISA to target her.

What Caputo is referring to as “one-hop” may be a misstatement of what DOJ used to do with Section 215 of FISA, obtaining metadata of people two degrees from terrorist suspects overseas. If so, it’s a dumb comment, because the FBI can do all that with subpoenas using criminal process far easier than they can do it with FISA.

Yet that’s common. What people of all political stripes (including many if not most in the privacy community) often ignore is that the FBI can do most of the things they would do with FISA using criminal process, and do it with a whole lot less paperwork and in a way that makes the information far more useful for prosecutions like this one. As I noted here, some of what DOJ showed in this indictment, like content from Chen’s Discord servers and the Google accounts of Konstantyn Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva, would undoubtedly be criminal process, even if they were first obtained via 702 targeting of Kalashnikov and Afanasyeva.

The investigative techniques they would use with Chen would stem from her really curious legal status.

The indictment introduces Chen and her spouse, Liam Donovan, as foreign nationals — Chen, at least, is Canadian — who reside in the US.

Founder-1 and Founder-2 are foreign nationals who reside in the United States. Founder-1 and Founder-2 jointly control and operate U.S. Company-1, and they are the only authorized signatories for U.S. Company-1’s business checking account (the “U.S. Company-1 Bank Account”), which is held at a bank in the United States.

The indictment never describes the visa status of either one. But Tenet — US Company-1 — is a US Company and would be a US person for FISA purposes. Regardless of their visa status, Chen and Donovan’s US residency would prohibit targeting of them using FISA 702, at least so long as they are in the US. If the FBI wanted to use FISA against them, they’d need an individualized warrant.

Things get more interesting, though, when you consider RT’s status in all this.

Let’s work backwards, Matryoshka doll like.

As the indictment describes, Chen and Donovan set up Tenet Media to be a subsidiary of Chen’s Canadian company.

11. U.S. Company-1 is a United States corporation established under the laws of Tennessee. Founder-1 has described U.S. Company-1 as the U.S. subsidiary of Founder-1’s Canadian company, Canadian Company-1;

[snip]

Founder-1 incorporated U.S. Company-1 on or about January 19, 2022, and applied with the Tennessee Department of State to transact business under its current operating name, which Company-1 uses on its website and social media channels, on or about May 22, 2023.

The contracts Chen set up directly pertaining to Tenet had this dual status. She got paid via her Canadian company; the talent got paid via the American one.

25. On or about May 12, 2023, Founder-1 sent an email to Persona-1 in which FounderI proposed that “we … keep the contract between us with my Canadian company ([Canadian Company-1]), but for [Commentator-2]’s contract, it will be through our American subsidiary, [U.S. Company-1].” In a subsequent email on or about May 19, 2023, Founder-1 explained that Founder-1 wished for “my personal payment [to] be under [Canadian Company-1] but the payments for the influencers go directly to [U.S. Company-1].”

26. On or about June 13, 2023, consistent with Founder-1 ‘s proposal, Persona-1 emailed Founder-1 a final “service agreement” that named Founder-1, Canadian Company-1, and U.S. Company-1 as the service providers. The contract provided for a monthly fee of $8,000 for the “first stage,” a monthly fee of $25,000 per month for the “second stage” after signing Commentator-1 and Commentator-2, and additional performance incentives and commissions for “engagements closed with talents.”

As a result, much (though not all) of the funding for Chen, personally, would go through Canada; the funding for the talent went through the US, using a corresponding bank in New York.

a. Starting in approximately August 2023, Founder-1 and Founder-2 typically submitted two invoices each month to Persona-1 on the Investor Discord Channel: one invoice for U.S. Company-1 ‘s expenses, such as its payments to its commentators, and another invoice for Founder-1 and Founder-2’s own fees and commissions. Between in or about August 2023 and in or about June 2024, Founder-1 and Founder-2 invoiced U.K. Shell Entity-I more than $9.3 million for U.S. Company-1 ‘s expenses, which they asked to be paid to the U.S. Company-I Bank Account. Founder-1 and Founder-2 also invoiced U.K. Shell Entity-1 more than $760,000 for their own fees and commissions, some of which they asked to be paid to Canadian Company-1 ‘s bank account in Canada, and some of which they asked to be paid to the U.S. Company-1 Bank Account in the United States.

b. After Founder-1 and Founder-2 transmitted their monthly invoices to Persona-1 on the Investor Discord Channel, Persona-1 typically acknowledged receipt and confirmed payment. Between in or about October 2023 and in or about August 2024, the U.S. Company-1 Bank Account received approximately 30 wire transfers from foreign entities totaling approximately $9.7 million. U.S. Company-1 disbursed most of these funds to its contracted commentators, including approximately $8.7 million to the production companies of Commentator-1, Commentator-2, and Commentator-3 alone. Consistent with Founder-1 ‘s February 8, 2023 warning to Persona-1 that “it would be very hard … to recoup the costs for the likes of [Commentator-1] and [Commentator-2] based on ad revenue from web traffic or sponsors alone,” U.S. Company-1 ‘s foreign wire transfers far exceeded its receipts of advertising revenue. Indeed, the approximately $9.7 million that U.S. Company-1 received from foreign wire transfers represented nearly 90% of all the deposits into the U.S. Company-1 Bank Account from in or about October 2023 to in or about August 2024.

[snip]

43. To deliver funds into the U.S. Company-1 Bank Account, each of U.S. Company-1 ‘s 30 inbound international wire transfers -which totaled nearly $10 million, as set forth above – utilized a correspondent bank in Manhattan, New York.

The stuff that came into the US had cover descriptions that Chen had to have known were false.

42. Contrary to U.S. Company-1 ‘s invoices, which reflect fees for staff and commentators (as well as Founder-I and Founder-2’s commissions), the wire notes of many of U.S. Company-1 ‘s inbound wire transfers ascribe the payments to the purchase of electronics. For example, the wire note for Turkish Shell Entity-1 ‘s $318,800 wire payment to U.S. Company-I on March 1, 2024 read: “BUYING GOODS-INV.013-IPHONE 15 PRO MAX 512GB.”

But that all describes what happened in 2023 and since. What happened before that is really important: As the indictment describes, before the invasion of Ukraine, Chen got paid directly from RT.

Before operating U.S. Company-I for RT, as set forth below, Founder-I and Founder-2 worked directly for RT and its affiliates, including as follows:

a. From in or about March 2021 to in or about February 2022, Founder-I created videos, posted social media content, and wrote articles pursuant to a written contract between Founder-1 ‘s Canadian company (“Canadian Company-I “), and RT’s parent organization, ANO TV-Novosti. This content generally consisted of English-language social commentary. RT directly published some of Founder-1 ‘s paid work, while Founder-1 posted other of Founder-1 ‘s paid work on Founder-1 ‘s personal accounts (without attribution to RT). For example, Founder1 ‘s invoices reflect that Founder-I billed ANO TV-Novosti for approximately 217 videos, of which approximately 209 were published on Founder-1 ‘s personal YouTube channels. Founder 1 also wrote approximately 25 opinion articles that were published on RT’s website, at least 19 of which Founder-1 billed to ANO TV-Novosti. None of Founder-1 ‘s articles disclosed that Founder-1 was paid by RT to write them.

And Donovan got paid by RT and Ruptly until later than that: May 2022.

From in or about October 2021 to in or about May 2022, separate and apart from Founder-1 ‘s contract with RT’s parent organization, ANO-TV Novosti, Founder-2 also worked directly for RT and with Ruptly GmbH, RT’s German subsidiary. Founder-2’s paid work for RT included, among other things, preparing English-language text messages describing news events. During this time, Founder-2 and KALASHNIKOV appear to have had overlapping business contacts: On or about May 18, 2022, a Ruptly GmbH employee sent a Russian-language email to six recipients, including Founder-2 and KALASHNIKOV, requesting that they send their work email addresses to gain account access to Ruptly’s website.

The indictment doesn’t directly allege that Chen and Donovan knew they were (still) working with RT in the Tenet venture. It stops just short of doing so, possibly to protect the full details of what it knows. But it does include proof they knew they were working with Russians pretending to be French.

On or about April 17, 2023, Founder-1 replied, in part, that Founder-1 was “happy to work with the Russian firm.” As set forth below, this “Russian firm” consisted of KALASHNIKOV and AFANASYEVA, who later monitored and directed U.S. Company-1’s activities under the guise of an outside editing firm.

[snip]

27. Despite describing U.S. Company-1 ‘s investor to Commentator-1 and Commentator-2 as “Eduard Grigoriann,” a purported finance professional in Western Europe, Founder-1 and Founder-2 admitted to each other in their private communications that their “investors” were, in truth and in fact, the “Russians” – the same term that Founder-1 and Founder-2 previously used to refer to RT while working directly under contract with RT, as described above.

[snip]

30. Founder-2 also used the Investor Discord Channel to, among other things, submit U.S. Company-1 ‘s invoices to Persona-1, and to press for payment of those invoices. For example, on or about September 11 , 2023, at approximately 8:07 p.m. Central Time, Founder-2 wrote in the Investor Discord Channel: “Today marks two weeks since I submitted the invoice for August. Any idea for the delay? We are signing the large contracts and need to be certain we will get the funding to pay these people.” Persona-1 did not immediately respond. While awaiting a reply from Persona-1, Founder-1 searched for the then-current time in Moscow. Specifically, at approximately 8:50 p.m. Central Time on or about September 11, 2023, Founder-1 searched on Google: “time in Moscow.”

So Chen and Donovan used to work directly for RT, and then just about the time of the Ukrainian invasion, set up shop in the US, allegedly participating in a ruse by which they hid the Russian source of their funding. But the funding went both through a bank in New York to their US subsidiary of the Canadian company, and also to the Canadian company that used to get paid directly by RT.

Here’s where things get interesting. First, after the invasion, Canada banned RT broadcasts.

In or about March 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and Canada banned broadcasting by RT. That same month, RT also ceased its operations in the United States after major television distributors dropped the network.

Until last week, the US had not yet sanctioned RT, but in their sanctioning documents, they reminded that RT registered as a foreign agent back in 2017.

RT, formerly Russia Today, is a Russian state-funded news outlet that began broadcasting internationally in 2005. In 2017, RT registered as an agent of a foreign government in the United States.

The indictment makes clear that RT itself acknowledges the outlet is funded by the Russian government.

RT is a Russian state-funded and state-directed media outlet. As RT’s editor-in-chief has publicly acknowledged, “since RT receives budget from the state, it must complete tasks given by the state.”

That makes it an agent of the Russian government the agents of which are subject to 18 USC 951, not just a foreign entity covered by FARA.

And the indictment likewise makes clear that RT publicly acknowledged working covertly after the invasion of Ukraine.

For example, on or about February 25, 2024, RT’s editor-in-chief declared, during a Russian television appearance, that “public opinion in the West is changing, very rapidly and very cheerfully,” due in part to RT. RT’s editor-in-chief further explained that, despite being “banished everywhere on February 25” – referring to the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 – RT had built “an enormous network, an entire empire of covert projects that is working with the public opinion, bringing truth to Western audiences.”

Lauren Chen is a Canadian citizen, resident in the US; her US residency should prevent FBI from targeting her in the US using 702 and would require a traditional FISA warrant to target her directly. There are ways she set up her Discord server that may make it susceptible to 702 targeting from the time she added the RT personnel to it.

But that’s not the big issue, in my opinion.

Chen set up this business such that she’d be subject to the laws of and some tax burdens in both Canada and the US. She did that at precisely the moment where the impending invasion of Ukraine made such issues more sensitive. And since then, she has done things that provide some evidence that she’s in on the ruse: that she knows she’s evading some laws or regimes by using corporate and financial cut-outs.

Those things likely provide enough to make her US accounts subject to probable cause warrants.

So Michael Caputo doesn’t need to worry about whether he or his buddies got picked up via FISA. Because the FBI — working in partnership with Canada and other countries through which RT laundered this operation — likely had plenty to conduct an investigation implicating both counterintelligence and criminal matters.

What Caputo and others need to worry about is how much of the content collected as a result FBI has demonstrated probable cause to access.

Share this entry

John Lauro’s Mike Pence Gateway Drug

/32 Comments/in , , /by

As I laid out last week, Trump’s lawyers want to make the entire immunity discussion about his January 6 indictment about Mike Pence; they had wanted to do so after the election. They argued in their status report that Jack Smith will be unable to rebut the presumption invented by John Roberts that discussions with Mike Pence are immune from prosecution.

[I]n Trump, the Supreme Court held that President Trump is “at least presumptively immune from prosecution for” all alleged efforts “to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding.” Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2336 (2024). These same allegations are foundational to the Superseding Indictment and each of its four counts. See Doc. 226 at ¶¶ 5, 9(b), 11(c)-(d), 14, 51(b), 55, 67–90, 99–100. If the Court determines, as it should, that the Special Counsel cannot rebut the presumption that these acts are immune, binding law requires that the entire indictment be dismissed because the grand jury considered immunized evidence. Trump, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2340 (2024) (“Presidents . . . cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution.”).

The Special Counsel’s inability to rebut the presumption as to Pence is dispositive to this case. The special counsel will be unable to do so as a matter of law, thus rendering the remainder of the case moot. Trump, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2337 (2024) (“We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”). [emphasis original]

As it became clear at last Thursday’s hearing that Judge Tanya Chutkan wasn’t going to let Trump delay until after the election, Trump’s attorney, John Lauro, made a number of desperate bids to — first — limit the entire immunity discussion to Mike Pence, and then limit that discussion to legal issues, not evidentiary ones. This seems to be an effort to prevent actual facts, including previously undisclosed ones, from being disclosed before the election.

Here’s how Lauro described it. All sides agree that the immunity decision treated conversations between the President and the Vice President as presumptively immune (though Judge Chutkan stumbled on this once). Lauro asserted that the standard the Supreme Court set on whether prosecutors could rebut this presumptive immunity was whether using conversations between the President and his Vice President would intrude on important presidential functions. If it would, those conversations would have to be immunized and, because the grand jury was exposed to them in the process of superseding the indictment, the entire indictment would have to be thrown out.

MR. LAURO: That’s what I’ve said, that that’s an official act.

So as a matter of — as an initial matter, the issue before the Court is whether or not the Government can overcome the presumption, whether or not they can show that there’s no way, no possible way, that the lack of immunity would result in an intrusion on an important presidential function.

They can’t show that. And if, in fact, the communications with Vice President Pence, which are all over this indictment, if, in fact, those are immune, then that entire indictment is improper and illegitimate. And that’s a gateway issue that your Honor needs to decide right away.

That can be decided without an evidentiary hearing. That could be decided as a matter of law guided by counsel, which is exactly what the Supreme Court suggested.

A bit later in the hearing, Lauro argued that Judge Chutkan could first rule on the legal issues — the ones the Supreme Court already did rule on — and only then turn to the evidence.

MR. LAURO:  [T]he issues here, your Honor, at least initially, can be decided on a legal basis. Obviously, there’s some room for your Honor’s determination as to the timing. But the structure, the sequencing, makes perfect sense in terms of the way we proposed it.

That’s when he raised the election.

MR. LAURO: These important issues, which the Supreme Court has said are of great magnitude to the country, should not be decided by an asymmetrical proffer from the Government without President Trump’s ability under due process, the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment, to meet these witnesses and cross-examine them. That would be an inherently unfair and inequitable process.

THE COURT: It’s not unfair in the sense that you don’t get an opportunity to address the issues. You’re just doing it in a different sequence. There’s nothing inherently violative of due process by the Government filing an open brief and your getting an advance look at their arguments, have a chance to respond and address them. The Government replies. And if you want to file a sur-reply, you can ask for leave to file a sur-reply. But there’s nothing inherently unfair in that. It’s just a matter of who goes first.

MR. LAURO: Well, it’s incredibly unfair in the sense that they’re able to put in the public record at this very sensitive time in our nation’s history —

THE COURT: Ah.

Judge Chutkan dismissed the notion that any of this should be delayed in light of the election because it — Trump’s past action — is not a dispute about this election.

THE COURT: Let’s just — let’s just discuss what the sensitive time is. I understand there is an election impending, and I’ve said before and I say again that the electoral process and the timing of the election and what needs to happen before or shouldn’t happen before the election is not relevant here. This Court is not concerned with the electoral schedule. Yes, there’s an election coming. But the sensitive time that you’re talking about, if you’re talking about the timing of legal issues and the timing of evidentiary issues in relation to when the election is, that’s not — that’s nothing I’m going to consider.

MR. LAURO: I’m not asking you to consider it. But the courts have routinely said that courts should not be drawn into election disputes. And there is an inherent unfairness in the legal process —

THE COURT: Oh, I am definitely not getting drawn into an election dispute.

MR. LAURO: Right. And what I’m saying is that this process is inherently unfair, particularly during this sensitive time that we’re in.

Then, after Lauro raised issues of discovery and grand jury testimony, he doubled and tripled down on his bid to keep this evidence out of the public view before the election, leading to this crescendo, before Judge Chutkan cut him off.

But for them to selectively decide how they want to portray their case before we move to dismiss is completely contrary to the Rules of Criminal Procedure. It shows fundamental unfairness never before seen in a district court.

And it’s exactly the kind of proceeding that the Supreme Court said should never take place, and it’s the reason that the Supreme Court, I believe, in part ruled as it did, that these issues are very important. They need to be developed with some legal care in a very transparent and careful way.

This is not behind-the-envelope — or back-of-the-envelope jurisprudence. This has to be done in a very, very deliberative way.

What we’re suggesting is your Honor deal with the legal issues first in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling and then turn to the merits of the evidentiary issues that need to be developed. That way, it’s structured. If your Honor decides — and your Honor may very well decide — that the information relating to Vice President Pence is not only presumptively immune, but immune, then that indictment has to be dismissed.

Why do we go through merits arguments on presidential immunity when as an initial matter the Court can dismiss this case right away? And that’s exactly what the Supreme Court said you should look at. Let’s deal with the gateway issues first. And that’s the way the Court structured the opinion.

THE COURT: Well, when the Supreme Court considered this case, Mr. Lauro, they had the original indictment in front of them, which set forth all the communications with the former vice president that are — that you’re talking about.

They could have ruled then that the indictment was so permeated with those kinds of contacts that it should be — that it couldn’t hold up. They didn’t. They sent it back to me to make certain findings, not just with regard to those communications, but with regard to all the allegations in the indictment.

So I’m not sure that I agree with you that as a matter of law I could just dismiss the indictment based on the Supreme Court’s — dismiss the superseding indictment based on the Supreme Court’s decision at all.

MR. LAURO: Of course you can. Because the Supreme Court — and the ruling is clear, crystal clear — has already decided that the communications with Vice President Pence are official acts within the outer perimeter of the presidential responsibility. That is the case law of this case right now.

The only issue with respect to Vice President Pence is whether or not they can overcome the presumption of immunity, which is an incredibly high bar. They have to show that under no circumstances, under no circumstances is there any intrusion with respect to the authority and responsibility of the presidency in light of those communications.

That’s an incredibly high bar. Your Honor can decide that as a legal issue guided by counsel. We can make whatever proffers are necessary.

If your Honor decides that that is immune, then the whole indictment craters. It goes away. Because the Supreme Court decision made very clear you can’t use immunized testimony with respect to an indictment or otherwise at trial.

So this is a logical way for the Court to deal with these issues. What they’re suggesting — and I don’t think your Honor is suggesting it, but asking questions about it — is that we leapfrog over the legal issues. We get —

THE COURT: That’s not what I’m suggesting.

MR. LAURO: No. I’m not suggesting you’re suggesting it. I’m suggesting that’s what they’re suggesting.

THE COURT: I actually don’t think that’s what they’re suggesting.

MR. LAURO: Well, they are in this respect: They’re suggesting they leapfrog into merits-based argument over all the official acts. Right? They’re going to do their big proffer.

All of that is wasted time if your Honor decides initially that the Pence communications are immune and they didn’t overcome the presumption.

We can avoid months and months of briefing by your Honor dealing with the gateway issue first. That’s exactly what the Supreme Court said you should be doing.

THE COURT: All right. I think I’ve — you’ve made your argument on that point.

There’s nothing legal available to Judge Chutkan that wasn’t already available to the Justices. There’s no conceivable way SCOTUS could have imagined Chutkan could carry out this inquiry without looking at the facts. And Lauro is misrepresenting SCOTUS’ concern with a jury seeing such immunized communications and a judge seeing them — after all, judges routinely weigh in on whether things like Speech and Debate communications are immunized, most recently in Scott Perry’s challenge to a warrant for his phone.

Now, Lauro may not be wrong that when SCOTUS reviews this after the election, they’ll agree that the bar is as “incredibly high” as Lauro suggests. We all thought he was batshit when he said the President would have this kind of immunity the first time, but he ended up rightly predicting that the Republican members of SCOTUS were that corrupt.

Here’s what the immunity decision actually said.

Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. When the Vice President presides over the January 6 certification proceeding, he does so in his capacity as President of the Senate. Ibid. Despite the Vice President’s expansive role of advising and assisting the President within the Executive Branch, the Vice President’s Article I responsibility of “presiding over the Senate” is “not an ‘executive branch’ function.” Memorandum from L. Silberman, Deputy Atty. Gen., to R. Burress, Office of the President, Re: Conflict of Interest Problems Arising Out of the President’s Nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller To Be Vice President Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 2 (Aug. 28, 1974). With respect to the certification proceeding in particular, Congress has legislated extensively to define the Vice President’s role in the counting of the electoral votes, see, e.g., 3 U. S. C. §15, and the President plays no direct constitutional or statutory role in that process. So the Government may argue that consideration of the President’s communications with the Vice President concerning the certification proceeding does not pose “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754; see supra, at 14.

At the same time, however, the President may frequently rely on the Vice President in his capacity as President of the Senate to advance the President’s agenda in Congress. When the Senate is closely divided, for instance, the Vice President’s tiebreaking vote may be crucial for confirming the President’s nominees and passing laws that align with the President’s policies. Applying a criminal prohibition to the President’s conversations discussing such matters with the Vice President—even though they concern his role as President of the Senate—may well hinder the President’s ability to perform his constitutional functions.

It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

But there are three underlying tensions here.

First, quite early on, in the first time Lauro presented this argument to Judge Chutkan, she described that she wouldn’t be doing what SCOTUS told her to do if she didn’t conduct a fact-based analysis. She noted, as she would later, that the Supreme Court had everything Lauro claimed she could rely on — the indictment — but they didn’t make the legal decisions he said she could make without reviewing the evidence.

But when she made that argument the first time, she noted that she could be reversed (this would include the DC Circuit) if she didn’t conduct this fact-bound analysis.

Then Judge Chutkan, whose original opinion seemingly stated basic facts inherent to the Constitution was reversed by a decision that dramatically rewrote the Constitution, repeated, again, that she could be reversed no matter what.

MR. LAURO: That can be decided without an evidentiary hearing. That could be decided as a matter of law guided by counsel, which is exactly what the Supreme Court suggested.

THE COURT: I actually don’t think so, Mr. Lauro. The Supreme Court had the indictment before it. They decided — they ruled on these three categories. And certainly conversations with an existing vice president may be subject to the presumptive immunity that you talk about. But one of the things I have to decide is whether, based on facts presented to me by the Government, those conversations, those contacts, are somehow outside of his official duties.

MR. LAURO: I —

THE COURT: And I don’t think I can decide that as a matter of law. I think I would be — I would be risking reversal if I tried to decide that as a matter of law.

MR. LAURO: I would ask your Honor to reconsider —

THE COURT: I’m risking reversal no matter what I do.

Given the Calvinball the Supreme Court is playing with the Constitution, there’s literally no way she can avoid reversal by someone. So Lauro’s procedural complaint rings especially hollow. She’s likely to be reversed by somebody before this is over. I do agree she’s doing what SCOTUS told her, but even if she weren’t, all the normal incentives would be gone.

Plus, my guess is that Jack Smith will start from a different point, one Lauro never considered. The Supreme Court’s opinion assumed everything the President did was in the persona of the President. But the Blassingame decision that they pointedly did not address, at least, imagines that as candidate-for-President, nothing Trump did was an official act. When the President asks the Vice President to cast a tie-breaking vote to confirm a judge, he’s doing so as President. But when a candidate asks his running-mate to throw out 81 million votes, he’s doing so as a candidate, not a President.

And that’s something that Chutkan missed when she reminded Lauro, twice, that. “the original indictment in front of [SCOTUS …] set forth all the communications with the former vice president that are.” Not all the communications with Pence from the original indictment are in there. The superseding indictment took out several references Trump made, in conversations with Pence, to the Justice Department.

On December 29, as reflected in the Vice President’s contemporaneous notes, the Defendant falsely told the Vice President that the “Justice Dept [was] finding major infractions.”

[snip]

76. During the meeting, as reflected in the Vice President’s contemporaneous notes, the
Defendant made knowingly false claims of election fraud, including, “Bottom line-won every state by 100,000s of votes” and “We won every state,” and asked-regarding a claim his senior Justice Department officials previously had told him was false, including as recently as the night before-“What about 205,000 votes more in PA than voters?”

That’s important for two reasons. First, because it provides even further reason for Chutkan to conduct a fact-bound analysis.

But it also raises the question: What happens when Trump tries to reintroduce these references to DOJ? If he tries to use them to prove that Trump was speaking in his role as President, does that amount to a waiver of the immunity that Trump has worked so hard to get?

John Lauro worked hard to insist that everything involving Pence be excluded without closer review. But unless he invents a procedural reason to forestall DOJ’s memo on September 26, DOJ will get one (or two, with the reply) chances to lay out — before the election — how Trump tried to use his incumbency, and Mike Pence’s role as President of the Senate, to steal an election against from Joe Biden and the woman who currently is the President of the Senate.

Share this entry

The September 26 Brief We’ll Get in the Trump January 6 Case

/33 Comments/in , , , /by

As I laid out in this thread, Judge Tanya Chutkan has set a deadline of September 26 for Jack Smith’s team to write a brief explaining how the superseding indictment against Trump consists exclusively of private conduct. From news coverage (Anna Bower and Roger Parloff did a typically good write-up of the hearing), it wasn’t entirely clear to me what that brief would entail.

Here’s how Thomas Windom described it in Thursday’s hearing:

MR. WINDOM: So what would our brief and what would our approach look like? What we anticipate filing in an opening brief is a comprehensive discussion and description of both pled and unpled facts. What this would do would be to set the stage so that all parties and the Court know the issues that the Court needs to consider in order to make its fact-bound determinations that the Supreme Court has required.

THE COURT: Your proposal mentions the Government’s briefing would include a proffer about unpled categories of evidence. You just mentioned that. Can you be a little more specific — or is that what you’re getting to? — about what that would look like? I mean, are you talking about not just — not the evidence itself, obviously, but the form it would take, proffered by — in written form? What are we talking about?

MR. WINDOM: Sure. So our initial view on it is this. We didn’t want to get ahead of the Court to lay anything specifically out.

But here’s what we are — what we were thinking and what we wanted to discuss with the Court: We were thinking a comprehensive brief where we would set forth the facts. What we would — that part of the brief would include things that are both in and outside the indictment. We anticipate that the brief would have a substantial number of exhibits. Those exhibits would come in the form of either grand jury transcripts, interview transcripts, 302s, documentary exhibits, things of that nature, things that would allow the Court to consider both the circumstances and the content, form and context, all in the words of the Supreme Court, that the Court needs to have in order to make its determinations.

We also in that brief, in addition to the facts, we would set forth for the Court why we believe that the conduct that is in the brief is private in nature and is not subject to immunity; and then with respect to the allegations in the superseding indictment involving the vice president, that the Supreme Court specifically talked about with respect to a presumption of immunity, why we believe that that presumption of immunity is rebutted.

We would — the benefit of us going first, which is what we are asking for, is that we would have everything in one place. The defense would know what the landscape looks like, as would the Court. And then we think that that would create a cleaner docket both for your determinations and also for any appellate court to review your determinations.

THE COURT: All right. So at this point, you wouldn’t anticipate proffering any actual evidence. It would be written submissions. And then, should I feel that I need further evidence, we would discuss that. Is that what you’re talking about?

MR. WINDOM: That’s right, your Honor.

Particularly given Windom’s reference to grand jury transcripts, that raised the question of how much of these “substantial number of exhibits” we’d get to see. The answer, per Windom, is that the existing protective order would govern.

THE COURT: How much of that information do you anticipate is going to be under seal?

MR. WINDOM: So that’s a good question. We don’t know the specific answer to that.

But I do know this: A year ago, we spent a considerable amount of time going through a protective order and making sure it could stand time. Paragraphs 11 and 12 specifically deal with this situation the defense counsel has raised. It is the Court that will decide what is unsealed from the sensitive discovery. It is not the defense or the Government that will do that.

We anticipate, consistent with the protective order, that any filing of sensitive material would occur first with a motion for leave to file under seal. The parties and the Court can determine thereafter what gets released into the public record in redacted form.

Here’s the operative language from the Protective Order.

11. The parties may include designated Sensitive Materials in any public filing or use designated Sensitive Materials during any hearing or the trial of this matter without leave of court if all sensitive information is redacted, and the parties have previously conferred and agreed to the redactions. No party shall disclose unredacted Sensitive Materials in open court or public filings without prior authorization by the court (except if the defendant chooses to include in a public document Sensitive Materials relating solely and directly to the defendant’s personally identifying information). If a party includes unredacted Sensitive Materials in any filing with the court, they shall be submitted under seal.

12. Any filing under seal must be accompanied by a motion for leave to file under seal as required by Local Rule of Criminal Procedure 49(f)(6)(i), as well as a redacted copy of any included Sensitive Materials for the Clerk of the Court to file on the public docket if the court were to grant the motion for leave to file under seal.

Effectively, then, Windom imagines that many of the exhibits would be submitted under seal, and there would be a fight about what gets released publicly, perhaps not unlike the process that has unfolded before Judge Cannon.

But Judge Chutkan would have the final say.

Share this entry

“If You Are a Psycho and You Want to Make Headlines”

/92 Comments/in , , /by

JD Vance has gotten a lot of deserved criticism for the offhand way he dismissed the Apalachee School shooting.

If you are a psycho and you want to make headlines, you realize that our schools are soft targets. And we have got to bolster security at our schools.

[snip]

I don’t want my kids to go to school in a place where they feel like you’ve got to have additional security. But that is increasingly the reality we live in.

[snip]

We don’t have to like the reality that we live in. But it is the reality that we live in. We’ve got to deal with it.

Trump, of course, famously told the families grieving after a shooting in Perry, Iowa, “It’s just horrible, so surprising to see it here. But have to get over it, we have to move forward.”

It’s not just that JD’s proposed solution is to box everyone up in aquariums like the Secret Service has done to Trump, but the way in which both men want to pray (or feign prayer, in Trump’s case) and move on.

Compare that to how Trump’s own people are treating his own shooting.

Vance, of course, didn’t blame some “psycho who wanted to make headlines” for Trump’s shooting. Instead, he blamed Joe Biden.

And Trump’s top propagandist, Stephen Miller, won’t shut up about Trump’s shooting.

 

Trump’s people want people to obsess about his own shooting, a month ago, even while minimizing the impact of a shooting that killed four, including two kids. That’s true, even though all the evidence to date suggests that Thomas Crooks shares many similarities with school shooters like accused Georgia shooter Colt Gray, including a fascination with previous school (and in Crooks’ case, presidential) shooters.

Even given all of the Secret Service’s failures, Donald Trump was not a soft target, like schools are. But ultimately he, too, was  vulnerable to an assault rifle in the hands of a disturbed young man hoping for notoriety.

Trump and Stephen Miller and JD Vance don’t want to get over that shooting attempt, and the murder of Corey Comperatore. They need Trump to be more special than all the kids gunned down in their schools. They need Trump’s shooting to have a meaning they won’t ascribe to the murder of children in their classrooms.

And yet Trump is no more special a victim than the teenagers killed in Georgia.

Share this entry

Hunter Biden Pleads Guilty

/54 Comments/in /by

Hunter Biden just pled guilty to all of the tax charges against him, staving off a trial in which prosecutors were intent to once again introduce things unrelated to tax charges.

He will be sentenced in December.

Update: Here is Hunter’s statement.

I went to trial in Delaware not realizing the anguish it would cause my family, and I will not put them through it again. When it became clear to me that the same prosecutors were focused not on justice but on dehumanizing me for my actions during my addiction, there was only one path left for me. I will not subject my family to more pain, more invasions of privacy and needless embarrassment. For all I have put them through over the years, I can spare them this, and so I have decided to plead guilty.

Like millions of Americans, I failed to file and pay my taxes on time. For that I am responsible. As I have stated, addiction is not an excuse, but it is an explanation for some of my failures at issue in this case.

When I was addicted, I wasn’t thinking about my taxes, I was thinking about surviving. But the jury would never have heard that or know that I had paid every penny of my back taxes including penalties.

That I have been clean and sober for more than five years now because I have had the love and support of my family.

I can never repay them for showing up for me and helping me through my worst moments. But I can protect them from being publicly humiliated for my failures.

For anyone now going through the scourge of addiction, please know there is a light at the end of that seemingly endless tunnel. I was where you are now. Don’t quit right before the miracle.

 

Share this entry

The Doppelgänger Dossier

/43 Comments/in /by

Yesterday, one day short of 60 days before the November election, the US government did four things:

  • Indicted two RT officials, Konstantin Kalashnikov and Elena Mikhaylovna Afanasyeva, and in the process exposed some right wing influencers to be useful idiots paid indirectly by RT.
  • Unsealed the domain takedown affidavit for a bunch of sites used in a Russian fake news program, Doppelgänger.
  • Imposed Treasury sanctions on RT and Doppelgänger, among other entities.
  • Indicted Dmitri Simes and his spouse, Anastasia, on sanctions tied to Aleksander Udodov.

In this post, I want to lay out precisely what was included in the affidavit, before I have further comment on all four of these efforts.

Affidavit: The affidavit itself describes how Russia has been impersonating real media outlets, including the Washington Post and Fox News, that it uses to embed false stories supporting its attack on Ukraine. It bases the takedown on two claims. First, that by hiding the tie to top Putin aide, Sergei Kiriyenko, who was first sanctioned in March 2021, in response to the Aleksey Navalny poisoning, the propaganda effort violates sanctions regimes.The affidavit also alleges that these fake sites traffic in counterfeit goods, basically fake news sites and news articles infringing on the trademarks of three real US outlets (WaPo, Fox, and Forward, including content pretending to come from real journalists).

As the affidavit describes, Russia is using far better operational security than it did in 2016, with nesting sets of Virtual Private Servers and emails at Protonmail rather than Google (though the RT people are still using Google).

The affidavit describes what must be documents stolen from someone’s server, explaining several parts of the program, such as notes from meetings planning the operation, excerpts from western reporting on the Doppelgänger effort, and guidelines for how to accomplish the tasks, including via campaigns targeting Mexico and Israel.

About fifty pages of the affidavit lays out probable cause and lists the domains targeted. The affidavit was obtained on August 30.

Exhibit 1 Fake news stories: The first exhibit includes samples of the fake stories Russia used on their newsites, interspersed with stolen stories more detrimental to Russia. This fake story, published as Joe Biden tried to push a border bill tied to Ukraine funding, provides some idea of how closely this propaganda worked with US politics.

The stories in the fake Forward site show how Russia was trying to sow division regarding US involvement in Israel, which ties closely to two other documents included yesterday (Exhibits 12 and 13).

Exhibit 2 commentary on Doppelgänger: The Russians collected western commentary — from newspapers, security reports, and other NGOs. This includes excerpts that had been shared internally in Russian.

Exhibit 3 Work with Comments: This provides instruction on how to use comments to link back to the fake news sites.

Exhibit 4: Sample story: This is what the affidavit supposes is a story intended for one of the fake websites. It starts by claiming that “[Joe Biden’s] diplomacy has led the United States not only to the covert participation in the proxy war in Ukraine, but also to an open clash in the Middle East. [Joe Biden] destroyed the world he presented to the voters. It’s time for him to go.” The story comes with suggestions for how fake commenters on social media — pretending to be “an American living in a small town” — would pitch this story.

Exhibit 5: Recommended comments: Another example of a suggested comment from a fake American, starting with the claim that, “The U.S. is a house of cards that is about to collapse.”

Exhibit 6 Media plan: This is a longer, 26-page manual for targeting the Ukrainian public. It includes four goals:

  • Undermining military and political leadership
  • Discord among elites
  • Loss of morale in the Ukrainian Armed Forces
  • Sowing discord in the population

Exhibit 7 How to sow chaos in Germany and France: This document develops media strategies to maximize chaos in America’s NATO allies. The two most interesting suggestions pertain to internal political chaos: recommending that Alternative for Deutschland (Germany’s far right party) be treated as martyrs and stoking unhappiness after Emmanuel Macron raised the retirement age.

Exhibit 8 Good Old USA: One of two sections focusing primarily on the United States, this document lays out the stakes for magnifying MAGAt views:

The current international environment is known for, first and foremost, severe hostility of the US towards Russia. The USA has been trying to maintain “the global leadership” by strategically defeating Russia. This desire shapes the financial investment, weapons supply, and efforts to keep the conflict in Ukraine going.

In the meantime, the key question in the US domestic policy remains the same: how justified are these efforts? The further we go, the more politicians state that the US should target their effort towards addressing its domestic issues instead of wasting money in Ukraine and other “problem” regions.

This sentiment has become the centerpiece for the US 2024 presidential election campaign. While [Democrats] are still in power, they are trying to maintain the current foreign policy priorities. [Republicans,] still in opposition, have been criticizing these priorities.

It makes sense for Russia to put a maximum effort to ensure that the [Republicans’] point of view, first and foremost, the opinion of [Trump’s] supporters) wins over the US public opinion. This includes provisions on peace in Ukraine in exchange for territories, the need to focus on the problems of the US economy, returning troops home from all over the world, etc.

Public opinion polling results in the US indicate that the politics which we consider correct has a real chance to get approval of the majority of the US voters. [emphasis original]

It sets goals for polling percentage (for example, trying to move opposition to supporting Ukraine from 41% to 51%).

It treats Texas among the states (with Alabama, Kansas, Wyoming, and Louisiana) that it believes have traditional values that should support Republicans, and targets US citizens of Hispanic descent — and American Jews — specifically. It also identifies American gamers, as if they’re a big percentage of voters.

Aside from the misunderstanding of how close to purple Texas could become, this document matches what Trump is doing, down to the focus on right wing podcasters (who would be favored by gamers) rather than traditional outlets. This document is one of several that made me ask if Paul Manafort has still been working with his Russian buddies.

Exhibit 9 Guerrilla media: This is another document targeting the US. It notes that Biden at that point (the precise dates of these documents is not entirely clear) had approval lower than 40%, but doesn’t mention Trump’s approval, which would be little better. It also repeats right wing claims that the media is 75% skewed to the Democratic party. As I’ll return to, this document repeatedly claims that social media moderation amounts to censorship of Republicans.

Exhibit 10 Social Media influencers: This document proposes setting up a network of 200 fake Xitter accounts, four each in every state, to push Russian propaganda.

Exhibit 11 A Mexican pass to Trump: This document proposes creating artificial tension on the border by stoking (alleged) Mexican opposition to the US.

The [Trump] who was building a border wall; the [Trump] who talked about the problem of migrants coming from the South pretty much all the time throughout his presidency; and the [Trump], to whom the ball needs to be passed conveniently in order to switch the American political discussion — that [Trump] is so much in need of an exacerbated confrontation with Mexico.

Yet the document bemoans that the growth of the US economy is the biggest problem for Trump’s campaign.

Exhibit 12 The Comprehensive Information Outreach Project in Israel: This attempts to stoke fear of Nazis to lead Israelis to side with Russia over Ukraine. It likens opposition to Bibi Netanyahu to Maidan. It doesn’t appear to mention that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Jewish.

Exhibit 13 Disaster 23: The US will soon have its hands full with issues other than Israel: This document purports to pose as an Israeli worried that civil war in the US (in response to the effort to boot Trump off the ballot in Colorado) is inevitable, which would leave Israel isolated.

Update: Corrected translation for AfD party.

Share this entry

Don Jr’s Online Buddies Allegedly Demand $5 Million from Russian Shell Companies to Say Nice Things about His Daddy

/63 Comments/in , /by

When DOJ announced today it would unseal legal actions against Russian influence operations, the former President’s failson complained, “Here we go again. LOL”

Some hours later, it became clear that a number of right wing influencers, including Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, and Benny Johnson, were unwittingly on the take from Russia, via Tenet Media, which DOJ alleges in a new indictment is a front company for RT.

I consider myself a connoisseur of a well-written indictments. And this, released days after Labor Day and implicating a number of Americans, may be one of my favorites.

Start with the two crimes alleged, like the innermost layer in a matryoshka doll.

The indictment only charges two things. First, conspiracy to violate FARA (18 USC 371), based on just only charges four overt acts, all pertaining to RT persona Elena Afanasyeva:

  • Konstantyn Kalashnikov’s addition of Afanasyeva to Tenet’s Discord Server in August 2023.
  • Afanasyeva’s circulation fo 841 video clips that got posted onto Tenet’s social media channels, possibly including the video of Tucker Carlson getting off after shopping in a Moscow grocery store.
  • Tenet’s June 2024 authorization for Afanasyeva and Kalashnikov to post on Tenet’s platform.
  • 30 wire transfers to Tenet, though countries including Türkiye, the Emirates, Mauritius, Czechia, and Hungary, all ultimately going through a bank in NYC.

The second charge, conspiracy to commit money laundering, describes only that Kalashnikov and Afanasyeva used a variety of means to hide that RT was paying for all this.

To prove the FARA charge — one you’d only need to prove if Kalashnikov and Afanasyeva showed up in the US for arrest — you’d need to prove that the two RT people succeeded in influencing US politics, and deliberately hid that they were doing so on behalf of a Russian entity. And RT is sufficient — you wouldn’t need to show that RT was paid by the Russian government.

So you have to show how they worked through cut-outs, the two people who run Tenet media and through them the influencers like Tim Pool and Benny Johnson who got duped.

And that requires you showing how RT set up fake personas, including a fake funder named Eduard Grigoriann, as a front to use to convince Pool and Johnson this was all legit, so that after one of them — I believe this is Pool — asked for more information about whom he’d be working with, they would have ready answers.

One of the other figureheads — either Johnson or Dave Rubin — complained about this fake funder (FBI mocks them all because they keep spelling his name wrong), because he used woke language:

Commentator-1 had “a problem with the profile we sent over, specifically the reference to ‘social justice.” I think it may be because that’s usually a term used by liberals, but we’re trying to create a conservative network.”

That led to a Zoom meeting that the persona, Grigoriann may have missed, because they fucked up the time difference between Paris and Moscow.

At approximately 8:58 a.m. Central Time that day, “Eduard Grigoriann” replied to his earlier email: “I am there guys.” The time, in fact, was 3:58 p.m. in Paris — but it was 4:58 p.m. in Moscow. Approximately two minutes later, “Eduard Grigoriann” performed a Google search for “time in Paris.” “Eduard Grigoriann” them replied to his email, in part: “Sorry, wrong hour. Didn’t sync the calendar.”

There’s some real clown show stuff in this. But it didn’t matter for Pool and whichever one is Commentator-1, because they signed contracts worth almost $5 million a year or $100,000 per non-exclusive video.

The money laundering part of the indictment describes that RT has laundered $10 million to pay for Tenet’s work.

Which brings me back to the logic of this indictment. As noted, it’s all focused on the Russians, and even there, the evidence in the indictment consists of IP addresses showing they accessed Tenet servers from the same IP address they used to access their Gmail accounts from Moscow. There’s undoubtedly a lot of SIGINT behind what the US government knows about the operation.

It’s not necessary to prove criminal charges.

And there’s no First Amendment equities, because Afanasyeva and Kalashnikov are both overseas.

Even if DOJ hadn’t missed the 60-day window for the election by two days, there’d be no election implications for the same reason.

But this indictment will continue to work for the next two months, until the election and thereafter.

In the presser announcing this and another legal action, DOJ emphasized that this investigation is very much ongoing.

For people like Pool and one of the other Commentators, so long as they claim to be duped by these awful Russians, they’re in the clear, legally (interestingly, Pool has ties to Cassandra Fairbanks, who was targeted by RT in 2016). In fact, Pool has posted to just that effect.

My statement regarding allegations and the leaked [sic] DOJ Indictment

Should these allegations prove true, I as well as the other personalities and commentators were deceived and are victims. I cannot speak for anyone else at the company as to what they do or to what they are instructed

The Culture War Podcast was licensed by Tenet Media, it existed well before any license agreement with Tenet and it will continue to exist after any such agreement expires. The only change with the agreement was that the location of the live broadcast moved to Tenet’s Youtube Channel.

Never at any point did anyone other than I have full editorial control of the show and the contents of the show are often apolitical. Examples include discussing spirituality, dating, and videos games.

The show is produced in its entirety by our local team without input from anyone external to the company

TCW is separate company not associated with http://Timcast.com or other properties. It exists solely for the production of the Culture War Podcast

That being said, we still do not know what is true as these are only allegations.

Putin is a scumbag, Russia sucks donkey balls

And to the journalists who wish to jump the gun, create their own narrative, or lie about what is currently going on,

you can eat my irish ass

Tim Pool is now on the record with “donkey balls.”

But there are other people — certainly the two founders of Tenet — whose actions might be crimes, either Foreign Agent and/or sanctionable crimes.

DOJ doesn’t tell us about the fate of those people. Perhaps there are other indictments buried somewhere. Perhaps they are coming.

Anyway, read the whole thing: It’s a tale of right wing grift, sloppy operational security that was nonetheless adequate to satisfy far right grifters, and a far bigger spend on the part of Russia to play in this year’s election.

And read it, too, for how even the producers who worked for Tenet, who also appear to have known the gig, thought that Tucker Carlson’s video, pretending to be wowed by a Russian supermarket was too much. “It just feels like overt shilling.”

Nevertheless they shilled away.

Share this entry

Stop Obsessing about Kamala Harris’ (Polling) Bumps

/70 Comments/in , /by

I’m going to defend Jonathan Karl, who described ABC’s poll showing a six point lead over Trump as within the margin of error. Here is Dan Drezner’s complaint about Karl’s comment, which is similar to that of many other people.

Take, for example, Sunday’s ABC News/Ipsos poll of the national race. It showed Harris leading 52%-46% among likely voters, a six-point lead that was outside the margin of error. Given the closeness of the race, a national poll showing Harris ahead seems newsworthy.

That, however, is not how ABC’s Jonathan Karl chose to frame it:

Karl says that Harris’ lead is “just barely outside the margin of error,” which is just a weird way to describe one of the few polls where someone has a statistically significant lead. Karl could have simply pivoted from the poll result to talk about how it’s still very close in the Electoral College — but he didn’t. Instead, he described a poll in which Harris had a significant lead as a toss-up.

It’s absolutely right that this poll is outside the margin of error (it is unchanged since before the convention). But Karl is right that the race is much closer in swing states, where voters have been flooded with Trump attacks on Harris for weeks now.

I think Democrats are telling themselves a wildly overoptimistic story about this race. I’m grateful Kamala and her campaign manager keep warning that she remains the underdog in this race.

That’s because this race is unlike any normal race. That’s true not just because Harris is a mixed race woman, though both her gender and race should raise concerns that the polls are overestimating her support (we literally hear stories about Republican women wondering if their spouses will learn for whom they voted). But it’s true because Kamala is not yet halfway through her race, and she’s running against a former President over 90% of the way done.

Pundits are measuring this odd campaign rhythm according to normal rules, such as that conventions bring a bounce (neither did this year) or that Labor Day marks some line in a sand about the final stage of the race.

As one example, both Frank Luntz…

And Nate Silver…

Pointed to this single Michigan poll of 600 possible voters to defend their argument that the Vice President has not gotten a bump from the convention. Neither of these men — a Republican partisan and a guy whose gambling habit may be influencing his analysis — are reliable sources.

And this is a particularly bad poll on which to base such judgments. Polling in MI has been pretty shitty going back two decades (though it is true that Trump has underperformed in many of them). It took WDIV/Detroit News five days to release this poll as compared to one day for their July poll. It was all done post-RFK endorsement of Trump (and as such could reflect RFK’s Trump-leaning vote moving to the former president), but before his bid to be removed from the ballot failed. Because of Michigan’s significant Arab American population, it is the swing state most likely to be influenced by Biden’s failures on Israeli policy. The August poll has a Likely Voter category (the one they report) and a Definite Voter category, the latter of which Kamala leads by 1.6%.

And as my former blogmate Dana Houle (who has run statewide campaigns in MI) noted, this poll delays release of crosstabs, and when they released theirs in January, they showed wildly unlikely results (results equally inconsistent with July’s poll).

More importantly, both the WDIV poll and the ABC one show two things that many polls are reflecting: First, while overall support for the candidates may look the same, the nature of their support is changing, with a gender split growing for each.

More curiously, that’s happening even as Kamala Harris’ favorability is going up. Even Joe Biden is on course to tip over into favorable ratings by election day!

That’s also happening as the electorate, at least in the short term, is becoming more female, more diverse.

What’s going on with the race is that Trump has a ceiling of support. While more men may be saying they’ll vote for Trump, Trump is not getting more popular.

And so he needs to do something to increase Kamala’s negatives (the success of negative ads may explain the narrower polling in swing states, but Trump’s future ad payments may indicate he’s blowing the money it would take to keep that up).

And therein, I think, was the intent of the Arlington Cemetery stunt — where Trump’s people, invited in by a few people who lost family members in the Afghan withdraw — took video from the gravesides of people whose family did not give consent, and did so after physically shoving a cemetery staffer.

This is the Benghazi playbook. Trump’s attempt to politicize an Afghan withdrawal that he played an instrumental role, according to his own former National Security Adviser, in making chaotic. This is, as everything with Trump is, a planned stunt coordinated with the House GOP.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) announced that Congress will honor the 13 American service members killed in the attack by presenting their families with the Congressional Gold Medal on Sept. 10.

“Congress has a duty to ensure these sacrifices are never forgotten, and it is my distinct honor to announce that Congress will bestow the families of these 13 heroes with the Congressional Gold Medal — the highest award Congress can present to any individual or group,” Johnson said in a statement released last week.

The ceremony, and remarks by a bevy of Republican lawmakers, will take place at the U.S. Capitol Rotunda the same day as the presidential debate between Harris and Trump.

Like Trump’s planned attack on Biden incorporating documents altered by DOJ, and like his hosting of Tony Bobulinski in October 2020, Trump is hoping he can use the debate to stage a Reality TV event that gives right wingers a hook for the remainder of the campaign.

The reason why right wingers still complain that 51 former spooks said, truthfully, that the Hunter Biden laptop looked like an Russian information operation is that it undercut Trump’s Reality TV show; Trump even tried to use that as his stunt for the debate with Biden.

Here, though, Trump doesn’t have the two to four years on which both the Hunter Biden laptop and the Benghazi attacks built. Plus, the Arlington stunt has begun to backfire, most notably with John McCain’s son publicly endorsing Kamala in response. If Jamie Raskin succeeds in getting answers from DOD about what happened before the debate, it risks upending Trump’s hoped-for attack by demonstrating the contempt in which he holds service members. This risks turning into yet another story on how Trump believes service members are suckers and losers.

There’s one more thing that remains unsteady in this race: The great disparity in most polls between statewide and presidential polling (one exception out today, CNN’s, shows at least two state races — the Senate races in AZ and PA — that are not remotely credible). That may reflect misses in the modeling of the race more generally.

Kamala Harris has not gotten the polling bumps where pundits are trained to look for them.

But even as they watch for those signs closely, they’re not contemplating how other nearly unprecedented movement might shape the race.

Update: One more point about the weird timing of this race. USAT has a poll (which finished fieldwork on August 28) showing that Kamala has significantly narrowed the margins on the two topics Trump wanted to run on: the economy and immigration.

Harris also has made inroads on which candidate would do a better job handling important issues.

  • On the economy, voters’ top concern, Trump was favored over Harris by 6 percentage points, 51%-45%. That’s an asset, to be sure, but it is less than half the 14-point advantage he held over Biden in June.
  • On immigration, an issue that energizes Republican voters, Trump was favored by 3 points, 50%-47%, down from the 13-point preference he had over Biden.

She has narrowed that gap, even while she’s still rolling out policy proposals, such as new tax credits to support small business formation.

Harris’ proposal, released on Tuesday, calls for significantly expanding the tax deduction for start-up expenses from $5,000 to $50,000, while also setting the goal of 25 million new small-business applications during her first term, according to a Harris campaign official granted anonymity to describe details of the plan. The plan also proposes reducing barriers to getting occupational licenses and developing a standard tax deduction for small businesses.

There’s a famous line Andy Card used when discussing the Iraq War in 2002: “From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”

Whether by necessity or design, Kamala can offer news events like this for the next several weeks. And this one sets up a solid contrast before the debate, in which Trump will be forced to defend tax cuts for billionaires over support for small businesses.

Share this entry