Archive for category: 2024 Presidential Election

Don’t Make the Same Mistake with Iran that Denialists Made with Russia

/60 Comments/in , /by

I read the book by Aaron Zebley, James Quarles, and Andrew Goldstein on the Mueller investigation. Regarding the investigation itself, there were no new details. Where the book does break new ground is in describing the discussions with Trump’s attorneys and DOJ officials, especially with regards to the debate about whether to subpoena Trump. I’ll return to those details in a follow-up.

But I want to point to something they said in their afterward. They describe that Barr’s treatment of the report helped sow doubt about the import of the Russian attack on US democracy in 2016.

Perhaps the most significant casualty of Barr’s handling of the report was the truth about Russia’s attack on the United States during the 2016 election. The Russian government interfered in our democracy in sweeping and systematic fashion. Those are the first substantive words of our report. This statement is beyond dispute, and yet many in America do not know that, and still others deny it.

As detailed in volume I of our report, Russian operatives working for the Internet Research Agency visited the United States in 2014 to gather intelligence for what they called “information warfare” against the United States. They returned to Russia and—sitting at their desks in Saint Petersburg—planned and advertised rallies to support Trump at specific US locations, invited Americans to attend, provided banners for Americans to wave, and then handed off logistical responsibilities for the events to real Americans. The goal of these activities, along with their yearslong campaign of false-name social media accounts, was to further divide Americans and cause them to think and behave in particular ways—including at the voting booth in 2016.

Meanwhile, Russian military intelligence hacked into email accounts belonging to the Democratic team supporting Hillary Clinton in 2016, and then dumped emails and other documents they had stolen at specific times during the campaign to harm Clinton and bolster Trump. The Russians also leveraged WikiLeaks to release the stolen information, and, like the Russians, WikiLeaks timed its releases to favor Trump’s candidacy.

While these operations were underway, Russian government officials and their proxies reached out to multiple Trump campaign officials. George Papadopoulos was one example. A month after Trump appointed him as a foreign policy adviser in March 2016, Papadopoulos received word about a Russian government offer to assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information information damaging to Clinton—“dirt” in the form of “thousands of emails.” This offer coincided with the Russian military’s then secret hack-and-dump operation.

It is beyond dispute that the Russians interfered in the 2016 election to support Trump—that was no hoax. They worked to secure his win. Our investigation of this work was no witch hunt.

[snip]

It has not seemed to matter, for instance, that our hack-and-dump indictment, which was backed by financial, email, and other records, demonstrated irrefutably that the Russian military executed this operation. Three days after the indictment came out, Trump dismissed it all in a press conference in Helsinki, Finland, after Putin—standing a few feet to Trump’s left—told him, “It’s not Russia.” Trump and his advocates declared it all a hoax, taking Putin’s word over the plain facts. And millions of Americans have taken this as truth, siding with Kremlin propaganda over the US Department of Justice.

We are now heading into another election. Russia interfered before, Russia is emboldened, and Russia is interfering again. Bob described Russia’s actions as one of the most serious attacks on democracy he has seen in his career—chilling words from the person who helped lead America’s fight against terrorism following the 9/11 attacks. As he put it in his 2019 testimony, the Russians are interfering in our democracy “as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign.”

I’ve obviously written a lot about this. It’s the central focus of the Ball of Threads podcast that LOLGOP and I are doing.

I fear that, because of the polarization Trump has deliberately stoked, many lefties are doing the same thing that Trump’s MAGAts did with Russia: treat credible allegations that Iran is targeting him, both for hacking and assassination, as a hoax.

Regarding the hacking, as happened in 2016, it is not just the Intelligence Community (one, two) attributing the hack in real time. Both Microsoft and Google have described the operation. As I explained repeatedly regarding the 2016 Russian attack, big American tech companies have a similar kind of global reach as the NSA, and when someone uses their infrastructure to target someone, they have both the tools and an independent incentive to get the attribution right. There’s really no reason to doubt the attribution, from three of the entities with the best global reach in the world, that Iran targeted Trump’s campaign.

Regarding Iran’s attempt to assassinate Trump, there’s also no reason to doubt that. While the case against Asif Merchant, whom DOJ accused of trying to solicit a variety of operations targeting Trump, does rely on undercover FBI employees posing as wannabe hitmen, the underlying tip — from the guy Merchant allegedly asked for help recruiting a hit team — appears to be organic, just someone calling the cops. Plus, the effort bears certain resemblance to the effort to solicit assassins for John Bolton, arising from the same motive of revenge for the Qassem Soleimani killing.

According to court documents, on Oct. 22, 2021, Poursafi asked Individual A, a U.S. resident whom Poursafi previously met online, to take photographs of the former National Security Advisor, claiming the photographs were for a book Poursafi was writing. Individual A told Poursafi that he/she could introduce Poursafi to another person who would take the pictures for $5,000-$10,000. Individual A later introduced Poursafi to an associate (referred to in court documents as the confidential human source or CHS).

On Nov. 9, 2021, Poursafi contacted the CHS on an encrypted messaging application, and then directed the CHS to a second encrypted messaging application for further communications. Poursafi offered the CHS $250,000 to hire someone to “eliminate” the former National Security Advisor. This amount would later be negotiated up to $300,000. Poursafi added that he had an additional “job,” for which he would pay $1 million.

As I noted in my first post on the Merchant arrest, the Pakistani man took 20 minutes before he let the FBI in to arrest him, meaning he may have had time to destroy evidence. There’s no reason to assume Merchant’s efforts to hire assassins was limited to the NYC source who called the FBI, nor is there reason to assume that Merchant was the only one recruiting assassins.

Indeed, as I keep noting, we can’t rule out that Ryan Routh (who was indicted yesterday and will face trial before Aileen Cannon, and whose son was arrested Monday after the FBI found CSAM at his house while conducting a search presumably related to his father) was recruited by Iran. His sympathy for Iran and his antipathy for Trump were both public, he imagined himself a fighter, and he had international ties from his efforts to recruit fighters for Ukraine. Both the Bolton efforts and the Merchant plot relied on secure digital operational security, and the six phones Routh had in his truck indicate he was communicating in unusual ways, even for — especially for — a person with possible mental illness. And the timing of Routh’s movements — he left North Carolina August 14 and traveled to Florida, scoped out Trump events in August, September, and October, and conducted reconnaissance for much of the month leading up to his arrest — match the planned timing of the Merchant plot. For a variety of reasons (not least that Routh has due process rights and an incentive to flip, if he did have co-conspirators), if the FBI did suspect an Iranian tie, they wouldn’t say more than they already have done, including references to Iran in his detention memo.

In the wake of Routh’s indictment yesterday, the IC briefed Trump on ongoing assassination threats from Iran. And while his comments to Fox — suggesting that Kamala Harris was weak on Iran — were typical Trump garbage, Trump’s Xitter account posted something that — for him — is downright gracious, recognizing the bipartisan support to expand Secret Service funding.

It is perfectly reasonable to call out the double standards of Trump himself, in responding stupidly to the hacking attempt, in ignoring his own role in the stalking of Barack Obama and pretending he has faced unique threats, in media outlets refusing to publish stolen emails.

Trump’s narcissistic behavior is one reason it’s so easy for hostile countries like Russia and Iran to stoke division.

But that doesn’t mean you should make it easier for them, by doubting the word of neutral parties who attest the threat to Trump is real. The Russian attack continues to do real damage, to this day, because the investigation into it led to such polarization. If I’m right about the Steele dossier (Ball of Thread version), some of that was by design, while some of it was the auspicious upside (from the perspective of Russia) of targeting a narcissist. But the result is the same: By targeting Trump, you can elicit the tribalism that damages the US, regardless of Iran’s (or Russia’s) other efforts. A great deal of the polarization in the US, a great deal of the conspiracism on the part of Trump supporters, and therefore a great deal of the extremism, stems from the response to the Russian attack and investigation.

Whether a country backs Trump or wants revenge against him, the goal is the same: to end US hegemony and extend authoritarianism. There are public, rational reasons to believe that Iran really is targeting Trump. There are no good reasons to instead irrationally doubt those public attributions.

Update: In an appearance in North Carolina, Trump said there could be a tie to Iran, and complained that DOJ had not yet broken into the six phones found in Routh’s truck.

Share this entry

The Trained [Un]Seal that Performed for Trump’s Lawyers

/96 Comments/in /by

At least thus far, I am wrong. Trump’s response to Jack Smith’s request for an oversized opening brief did not stage an emergency his lawyers can use to ask John Roberts for immediate help.

Oh sure. They wailed about fairness.

The proposed approach is fundamentally unfair, as the Office would attempt to set a closed record for addressing unfiled defense motions by crediting their own untested assessments of purported evidence, denying President Trump an opportunity to confront their witnesses, and preventing the defense from obtaining discovery.

They complained about the election — one thing that Judge Chutkan has made clear she doesn’t want to hear. They complained about the election over and over and over.

In doing so, though, they falsely claimed that Jack Smith was trying to release all this publicly.

[T]he Office is violating these protections and has instead articulated an unacceptable, extralegal “guiding principle” of “structur[ing] a schedule that leads to only one additional interlocutory appeal.” 9/5/24 Tr. 12-13. That is simply code for the Office’s continued preference for the type of “highly expedited” proceedings prior to the 2024 Presidential election that the Supreme Court has already criticized.

[snip]

[T]he Special Counsel’s Office is seeking to release voluminous conclusions to the public, without allowing President Trump to confront their witnesses and present his own, to ensure the document’s public release prior to the 2024 Presidential election.

The strategy reflected by the Motion would increase the irreparable harm caused by the Gag Order in this case. False, public allegations by the Special Counsel’s Office, presented through a document that has no basis in the traditional criminal justice process, will undoubtedly enter the dialogue around the election. The Gag Order prevents President Trump from explaining in detail why the Office’s selective and biased account is inaccurate without risking contempt penalties. While the D.C. Circuit modified and addressed the Gag Order previously, the court was careful to note that “the general election is almost a year away, and will long postdate the trial in this case.” United States v. Trump, 88 F.4th 990, 1018 (D.C. Cir. 2023). Circumstances have changed drastically: President Trump is the leading candidate in the Presidential election, which is just weeks away. The Office cannot be permitted to issue a massive and misleading public statement that is not responsive to a defense motion, and risks adverse impacts to the integrity of these proceedings, while simultaneously insisting on an unconstitutional prior restraint on President Trump’s ability to respond to their inaccurate assertions while he is campaigning.

The huge public filing that the Motion portends would also violate the Justice Manual, which prohibits “Actions that May Have an Impact on an Election.” Justice Manual § 9-85.500 (emphasis added). “Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” Id. Separately, prior to this case, DOJ followed an “Unwritten 60-Day Rule” summarized as follows6:

  • Former FBI Director Jim Comey: “[W]e avoid taking any action in the run up to an election, if we can avoid it.” DOJ-OIG Report at 17.
  • Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch: “[I]n general, the practice has been not to take actions that might have an impact on an election, even if it’s not an election case or something like that.” Id. at 18.
  • Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates: “To me if it were 90 days off, and you think it has a significant chance of impacting an election, unless there’s a reason you need to take that action now you don’t do it.” Id. at 18.

Departures from these practices should never be countenanced because they risk allowing prosecutors to impact national elections, but the situation is even worse here where the Special Counsel’s Office is seeking to do so by turning criminal procedure on its head in order to file a 180-page false hit piece. See Veasey v. Perry, 769 F.3d 890, 892 (5th Cir. 2014) (“The Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed courts to carefully consider the importance of preserving the status quo on the eve of an election.”). “[O]nce the election occurs, there can be no do-over and no redress” for the voters or President Trump. League of Women Voters of N. Carolina v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 247 (4th Cir. 2014).

6 A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election, U.S. Dep’t of Justice Office of Inspector General (June 2018) (the “DOJ-OIG Report”) at 17-18, available at https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4515884/DOJ-OIG-2016-Election-Final-Report.pdf. [emphasis mine]

But the most curious complaint is that Trump’s team says he’ll be harmed even with these filings submitted under seal.

For example, in support of the Office’s motion for a protective order, they argued that President Trump has “no right to publicly release discovery material, because the discovery process is designed to ensure a fair process before the Court, not to provide the defendant an opportunity to improperly press his case in the court of public opinion.” ECF No. 15 at 4. Now it is the Office that wishes to press their case to drive public opinion rather than justice.

None of this will impress Judge Chutkan. She has repeatedly told them she doesn’t want to hear about the election.

But they have previewed the argument they make when Jack Smith — or the press consortium — asks to unseal this.

Update: Judge Chutkan has ruled to permit Jack Smith his 180 pages. She addresses Trump’s concerns regarding publicity by pointing to the protective order.

Fourth, Defendant contends that the briefing schedule would be unfair given the court’s order restricting certain extrajudicial statements, ECF No. 105, and the Government’s position with respect to the protective order in this case, see Reply in Supp. of Mot. for Protective Order, ECF No. 15. But the former contention mischaracterizes the court’s order, and even so identifies potential political consequences rather than legal prejudice. Def.’s Opp’n at 7.1 And the court did not accept the Government position that Defendant decries—“that even materials marked ‘nonsensitive’ under the Protective Order” should be kept under seal, id. at 5—instead extending that protection only to sensitive materials, see Protective Order ¶¶ 2–12, ECF No. 28. The court likewise rejects Defendant’s unsupported assertion that publicly docketing nonsensitive materials during the immunity briefing would impermissibly “impact potential witnesses and taint the jury pool.” Def.’s Opp’n at 5. Moreover, and once again, Defendant offers no reason why the same predicted harms would not result from his own proposal, which would include immunity briefing with presumably the same materials. See Joint Status Report at 4.

1 Defendant claims that he cannot “explain[] in detail why the Office’s selective and biased account is inaccurate without risking contempt penalties,” which could affect his political candidacy. Def.’s Opp’n at 7. As relevant here, the order only prohibits Defendant from “making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding.” United States v. Trump, 88 F.4th 990, 996 (D.C. Cir. 2023).

That language will lead to the nonsensitive material being unsealed sooner rather than later.

She mentions Trump’s wails about the election just once, noting that none of this causes him legal prejudice.

Fifth and finally, Defendant claims that the Government’s forthcoming brief violates Department of Justice policy. He asserts that the brief “would be tantamount to a premature and improper Special Counsel report,” Def.’s Opp’n at 6, which is provided at “the conclusion of the Special Counsel’s work,” id. (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c)). And he argues that the brief would run afoul of the Justice Manual, which prohibits federal prosecutors from “select[ing] the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election.” Id. at 7 (quotation omitted). The court need not address the substance of those claims. Defendant does not explain how those putative violations cause him legal prejudice in this case, nor how this court is bound by or has jurisdiction to enforce Department of Justice policy.

 

Share this entry

The Habitual Lies on Which Trump Has Built His Attack on Rule of Law

/21 Comments/in , , , /by

Credit where it’s due: WaPo has already published two stories this week that attempt to cover Trump like the conman he is, rather than the good faith politician he is often treated as.

Yesterday, Ashley Parker wrote about how Trump spins ridiculous lies to gin up fear against Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

It is a distorted, warped and, at times, absurdist portrait of a nation where the insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to deadly effect were merely peaceful protesters, and where unlucky boaters are faced with the unappealing choice between electrocution or a shark attack. His extreme caricatures also serve as another way for Trump to traffic in lies and misinformation, using an alternate reality of his own making to create an often terrifying — and, he seems to hope — politically devastating landscape for his political opponents.

Later yesterday, Isaac Arnsdorf and Josh Dawsey described what Trump was trying to do with a statement that — among other things — said Trump wanted Florida to take the lead in investigating the Ryan Routh suspected assassination attempt: He was trying to “foment distrust of federal law enforcement.”

His statement sought to implicate President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, picking up on other recent remarks blaming them for failing to protect him. There is no evidence that Biden or Harris were involved in any security decisions leading up to the apparent assassination attempts, and Biden has since ordered the administration to provide the Secret Service with every available resource and asked Congress for more funding.

These pieces treat Trump’s language as utilitarian means to accrue power, rather than transparent statements of truth, something that — in my opinion — is necessary to reclaim truth from him. It’s a rare moment of a news outlet applying savviness to the manipulation Trump is attempting rather than how it fits into a campaign strategy.

The means of manipulation are the news, not (primarily, anyway) the measure of their success.

That said, while the Arnsdorf/Dawsey story fact checks two of Trump’s claims,

There is no evidence that Biden or Harris were involved in any security decisions leading up to the apparent assassination attempts, and Biden has since ordered the administration to provide the Secret Service with every available resource and asked Congress for more funding.

[snip]

He also complained that FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who Trump appointed, testified to Congress in July that he was not certain what struck Trump’s ear at the July 13 rally in Butler, Pa. The FBI quickly clarified that Trump was injured by a bullet or a fragment.

They don’t fact check the lies on which Trump’s grievances are based. For example, they misstate what Trump claimed that Director Wray said:

[T]he FBI Director went before Congress and falsely said that it may not have been a bullet, “It was just glass or shrapnel — a lie condemned by even my worst enemies. What he said was disgraceful, especially since it was witnessed LIVE by millions of people, and he was forced to immediately retract.

This quotation, presented as such, completely misstates what Chris Wray said.

He said, “there’s some question about whether or not it’s a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear.” As the FBI clarified immediately, what hit Trump was, “a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces.” Bullet fragments are shrapnel.

Wray never raised glass (from the teleprompter).

Similarly, WaPo never debunks Trump’s false claim that the “Biden/Harris DOJ/FBI [have] control over local D.A.s and A.G.s.”

Perhaps the most curious choice, however, is how WaPo defined half a paragraph of shorthand for readers…

In the statement, Trump proceeded to recite a long list of legal problems that he attributed to his political opponents, using shorthand familiar to his fans, including:

  • “Russia, Russia, Russia,” meaning special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election
  • “Impeachment Hoax Number One,” again meaning the 2019 impeachment, for which the Senate acquitted him; and “Impeachment Hoax Number Two,” meaning his 2021 impeachment for inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, again resulting in acquittal
  • “the Lawless Documents Hoax,” meaning the court-authorized search of his Mar-a-Lago estate as part of a federal prosecution for mishandling classified documents, which a Trump-appointed judge dismissed in July
  • “the January 6th Hoax” and “the J6 Unselect Committee,” meaning the House investigation into the attack on the Capitol
  • “the Manhattan D.A.’s Zombie Case,” meaning his conviction in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a 2016 hush money scheme
  • “the New York A.G. Scam,” meaning New York Attorney General Letitia James’s lawsuit accusing Trump’s businesses of fraud, resulting in a $450 million judgment in February

… without debunking the lies.

For example, DOJ has repeatedly debunked Trump’s claim that the January 6 Committee deleted documents and Republicans haven’t been able to prove it with their majority either.

Letitia James didn’t just accuse Trump and win a judgment, she proved that Trump and his sons are fraudsters.

And the balance of that paragraph includes a set of lies implicating Hunter Biden and his father. Trump invented the quote, “Russian interference and disinformation;” the false claim that the former spooks used the word “disinformation,” rather than “information operation,” has always been central to an orchestrated campaign claiming they lied. Moreover, the letter expressed a non-falsifiable opinion; to this day many of the former spooks who signed it stand by that opinion that the laptop “has the earmarks of a Russian influence operation.” (And contrary to some WaPo reports, FBI has never claimed to have done the things it would need to do to dispute it.)

Nothing in the laptop shows evidence of Joe Biden’s grift (indeed, after six years of investigation, DOJ didn’t substantiate any unlawful grift on the part of Hunter).

In other words, it’s not just the general insinuation that the Deep State can’t be trusted. WaPo is right that Trump uses a lot of shorthand when he attacks the Deep State.

But even that shorthand is riddled with deliberate false claims. In each instance, Trump transforms something that has a perfectly understandable explanation — Chris Wray was trying hard to avoid overstating what the FBI had concluded, the spooks expressed an opinion — and by misrepresenting it, makes it appear far worse, Wray dismissing the seriousness of Trump being hit, former spooks trying to cover for the Biden family.

I don’t mean to be greedy. I’m grateful that WaPo has, at long last, started explaining how Trump exerts his power, rather than treating his false claims as if they were delivered in good faith.

But if we’re going to unpack the very cynical way Trump has deployed lie after lie to get his supporters and the Republican Party generally to hate rule of law, this cumulative process needs to be unpacked. The press has, for years, simply let Trump repeat those underlying claims without contest, as WaPo again does here. None of them are true, but his followers believe them, not least because the press disseminates them in various ways without contest.

There is no underlying basis for Trump’s grievances about the Deep State. None.

To invent that grievance, Trump has created lie after lie, and built them together into a caricature of the Deep State that his loyal followers have been trained to attack.

Share this entry

Trump Didn’t Call the FBI Because He Refused to Meet the Standard to Which He Held Hillary Clinton

/6 Comments/in , /by

In a piece laying out how Trump tried to undermine rule of law with a press release stating that the former President wanted the State of Florida, not the FBI, to investigate the suspected Ryan Routh assassination, WaPo provides more explanation for why Trump’s campaign didn’t call the FBI after Microsoft or Google told them they had been hacked: Because they feared sharing their email server with the FBI.

Trump’s mistrust of federal agencies has complicated the investigation into Iran’s cyberattack on his campaign. When a technology firm first discovered the breach, campaign aides huddled to discuss what they should do. After hours of discussions in July, they decided they trusted the software experts to handle the matter and did not call the FBI. Co-campaign manager Susie Wiles, whose email account was targeted, was among those who questioned whether they could trust the Justice Department. The fears centered on giving federal officials access to campaign email servers and whether they would leak information out publicly.

Donald Trump and his Republican allies spent years spinning conspiracies off of misleading Jim Comey testimony about how the FBI conducted the investigation into the Russian hack of Hillary’s campaign, claiming that because (they claimed) FBI had not obtained Hillary’s server, any attribution to Russia must be suspect. This was a key prong of Roger Stone’s criminal defense. Republicans spent years suggesting that Hillary, a victim of a nation-state attack, somehow failed to meet the standards of responsible victim.

Yet Hillary, in 2016, was in fact situated in the place Trump claims to currently be: facing a counterintelligence investigation stemming out of a partisan witch hunt in Congress.

Hillary was, in fact, faced with the prospect of having to ask for help from the very same people who had been criminally investigating her for years.

And any precedent that information shared with the FBI would “leak” (as opposed to get shared in court filings)? Trump’s the guy who did that, leaking materials from the investigation that resulted, going so far as to prepare his entire Crossfire Hurricane binder to release to the press.

Trump did that, not the FBI.

I am genuinely sympathetic about the plight Trump faces, trying to run an election campaign while facing real threats, including assassination attempts, from a hostile foreign actor.

The ongoing burden of trying to reclaim digital security and stave off physical threats takes a lot of energy that would otherwise be focused on running a campaign.

I know that, because I’ve heard a bit about how much time Hillary’s team had to spend fighting serial hacks, all the way through election day.

But understand: This decision not to call the FBI because Susie Wiles was afraid the FBI might ask to access the compromised server, what amounts to a decision to delay taking necessary steps to try to fight back?

That decision stems from a refusal to abide by the standards Republicans have demanded of Hillary for eight years.

Share this entry

Ryan Routh’s Eleven Phones and Two Iran Mentions

/69 Comments/in /by

DOJ has submitted a detention memo for Ryan Routh, the man held on suspicion that he was trying to assassinate Donald Trump.

The memo cites a letter, left in a box with a neighbor months ago, that seems to confirm that he was trying to assassinate Trump (and offering six figures to anyone else who would accomplish the task). That same letter describes that Trump, “ended relations with Iran like a child and now the Middle East has unraveled.” The detention memo also cites the passage from Routh’s manuscript that I noted here, apologizing to Iran for voting for Trump.

I am man enough to say that I misjudged and made a terrible mistake and Iran I apologize. You are free to assassinate Trump as well as me for that error in judgment and the dismantling of the deal.

The memo describes a number of other things that suggest an operational security far exceeding that of a mentally ill man seeking glory. As I noted in the earlier post, the phone he had on his person while surveilling the golf course was one for which he had posted the WhatsApp number while Asif Merchant, charged in an attempt to recruit hitmen to target Trump, was still at large on July 10.

But in addition to that phone, Routh had six cellphones in his truck, at least two of which used different carriers, and four more cell phones in the box he left at a neighbor’s. As I mentioned, Merchant provided the informant in that case instructions on acquiring secure phones.

As previous reports described, the license plats on his truck were stolen, and he had two other sets of plates in the truck. One of the phones in the truck had been used to search for directions to Mexico.

Again, it certainly may be that Routh was simply disturbed. But more of this looks like Iran may have been involved.

Share this entry

Why No One Went to Prison for Rudy Giuliani’s Hunter Biden Corruption

/32 Comments/in , , , , /by

Like many people, I’ve watched From Russia with Lev since it was released the other day.

The documentary tells a story I’ve covered here in real time: of how, with Lev Parnas’ help, Rudy Giuliani solicited dirt on Hunter (and Joe) Biden from foreigners, mobsters, and Russian spies, in hopes of helping Trump stay in office.

As told, with Lev’s spouse Svetlana serving as a key narrator, it’s a compelling, personal story.

I’ve also told — am one of the only people who has told — the story that many people are now asking: why no one went to prison for this caper. The documentary has led many people, understandably, to demand to know why no one (besides Lev, they sometimes say, inaccurately) went to prison for all this, which has, predictably, led to the same conspiratorial bashing of Merrick Garland we saw with the January 6 investigation.

The question is premised on certain choices the filmmakers made: focusing away from Dmitry Firtash and especially from Andrii Derkach (who got involved after Lev was done), crediting the spin of Lev’s attorney, Joseph Bondy, and simplifying the investigation of Hunter Biden. The film doesn’t fill in any of the gaps I noted in Lev’s book, and creates new ones. It creates the appearance that Lev was prosecuted solely to protect Trump from impeachment and that the investigation into Hunter arose solely out of Rudy’s efforts. Those choices make sense for narrative and legal reasons, but as a good story does, it simplifies the issue.

And I promise you, the film vastly understates the corruption that went on. Wildly understates it. One goal I have for Ball of Threads is to unpack what is currently known of that far deeper corruption, but that still just scratches the surface.

The quick explanation of why Rudy didn’t go to prison for this is that:

  • Bill Barr did wildly corrupt things to protect him, Donald Trump, and himself
  • By the time, shortly into the Biden administration, DOJ tried to pursue Rudy, Rudy’s phones were corrupted

Trying to hold Garland responsible for failing to prosecute the underlying crime amounts to doing Bill Barr’s propaganda work, because Barr worked relentlessly to protect Rudy.

You can, however, hold Garland responsible for one thing: the continued appointment as Special Counsel of David Weiss, who as a witness to Barr’s corruption, is conflicted in any investigation pursuing Alexander Smirnov’s attempts to criminally frame Joe Biden.

This post explains all that in more detail.

 

Lev didn’t go to prison for the Hunter Biden stuff

As I said, the film leaves the impression that Lev was arrested to protect Trump during impeachment by silencing the key witness.

But that’s not why Lev went to prison (as a news clip in the movie tacitly admits).

Lev and Igor Fruman (along with David Correia and Andrey Kukushkin) were first charged on October 9, 2019, via indictment that was (according to then US Attorney for SDNY Geoffrey Berman’s memoir) drafted quickly overnight in advance of Lev and Igor’s trip to meet Dmitry Firtash in Vienna. From Berman’s memoir, I’m not 100% sure whether he pushed it because he genuinely feared they were about to flee the country, felt he had to do so before Barr intervened … or for more nefarious reasons.

The charges were:

  • Conspiring to make a bunch of political donations in the name of Global Energy Producers
  • Lying to the Federal Election Commission
  • Falsifying a document to the FEC
  • Laundering donations from Russian Andrey Muraviev to pay pro-cannabis politicians

As Bondy described, the indictment implied that Lev and Igor’s political contributions to Pete Sessions were tied to an attempt to fire Marie Yovanovitch. But that was not charged as FARA.

On September 17, 2020, the indictment was superseded. Lev and Correia’s longterm Fraud Guarantee fraud was added and the charges tied to Muraviev (who was secretly indicted that same day) were bumped up. The paragraph describing a payment to Sessions took out the reference to an Ambassador, describing it instead as to “further their political goals.” There were still no FARA charges though.

Ultimately, Lev was convicted at trial in October 2021 of the GEP and Muraviev donations, and in March 2022, pled guilty to the fraud guarantee charges. He was never charged with FARA violations.

Bondy’s insinuation that SDNY took out the foreign agent aspect to protect Rudy is wholly inconsistent with the warrants (linked below) targeting Lev and Rudy unsealed last year.

They show that the investigation into Lev, which started based on a Campaign Legal Center complaint, initially focused on campaign finance crimes. In August 2019 — after the firing of Marie Yovanovitch but before the disclosure of the Perfect Phone Call — SDNY began to turn to Foreign Agent suspicions (though one of two warrants obtained in August 2019 was not executed). After the arrest, SDNY more aggressively turned to developing the Foreign Agent prong of the investigation. On November 4, 2019, SDNY obtained warrants targeting Rudy (which were not released last year). On December 10, 2019, the Foreign Agent prong continued.

That’s when Bill Barr intervened to kill that prong of the investigation, certainly as it pertained to Rudy, as I’ll lay out below.

After that point, SDNY focused on the Fraud Guarantee fraud.

It’s not that Lev went to prison for this but Rudy did not. On the contrary, Barr worked hard to ensure no one could go to prison on such charges.

While Barr was doing that, SDNY appears to have put that investigation on ice and attempted, without success, to resuscitate once Barr was out of office.

SDNY believed Lev was not fully forthcoming

The film makes it sound like SDNY refused Lev’s efforts to cooperate against Rudy and everyone else.

It’s more complicated than that.

SDNY has a rule: To enter into a cooperation agreement with them, one has to plead to all crimes. Geoffrey Berman described it this way in his memoir, explaining why SDNY didn’t give Michael Cohen a cooperation deal.

Cooperation in the Southern District means full cooperation—taking responsibility for all criminal actions, not just a select few. If any one area of a defendant’s life is off limits, we do not recommend leniency in sentencing. (Some districts are more transactional: you give a little, you get a little.)

When defendants agree to this and become cooperating witnesses against others, their testimony is more credible. Our prosecutors can tell juries that if the cooperator is caught lying, the agreement can be revoked and he or she will be prosecuted not only for the crimes covered at trial but for a host of others that the cooperator copped to as part of his agreement.

The SDNY rules also serve as a powerful investigative tool, because when you acquire absolute cooperation, your avenues for making other cases expand dramatically. We often learn of additional criminal activity—whole new threads of wrongdoing that in some instances we knew nothing about.

That’s one reason why SDNY didn’t give Lev a cooperation agreement. As SDNY explained in their sentencing memo for him, Lev’s attorney, Joseph Bondy, proffered information in the months after his arrest in October 2019. But Bondy provided details that were contradicted by the evidence (at the time, Lev may not have understood that FBI had obtained iCloud content he deleted). SDNY then did a reverse proffer on November 6, 2019 (two days after obtaining a warrant for Rudy’s comms), meaning they told Lev and Bondy all the evidence they had against Lev. After that, Bondy replied saying that Parnas was unwilling to plead guilty to the campaign finance crimes charged against him.

After that meeting, Parnas’s counsel wrote the Government to report that he could not “accept responsibility for criminal activity for which he is not guilty,” which based on discussions with counsel, the Government understood to be a reference to, among other things, the campaign finance and false statements offenses of which Parnas now stands convicted.

That’s consistent with Parnas’ own memoir, in which he still attributes the campaign finance stuff as a lack of awareness of the law and of the Russian source of the money he was throwing around.

According to SDNY, that unwillingness to fully accept responsibility continued when Parnas did sit for a proffer on March 5, 2020.

In addition, SDNY was unable to corroborate some of the things Parnas claimed in that March proffer.

[T]he Government was ultimately unable to corroborate significant portions of what Parnas said.

This was during a period when Barr was aggressively trying to limit SDNY’s investigation, so it may not have been Lev’s fault they couldn’t corroborate this stuff.

Finally, DOJ generally has a rule: Cooperating witnesses who chat to the press are usually useless as witnesses. This makes sense for a lot of reasons, not least that it alerts criminal targets of what prosecutors do and don’t know. SDNY told Parnas this early on, in November 2019, and his early 2020 interviews would have only exacerbated this.

At the close of that [November 6, 2019] meeting, the Government informed Parnas that public spectacles, leaks, and social media postings could undermine his credibility and diminish his value as a potential cooperating witness.

Given Barr’s fuckery, I don’t know if Parnas could have pulled off cooperation in any case. But even without it, things he himself did made it virtually impossible he could get a deal from SDNY.

And honestly, it wouldn’t have served his purposes. He needed to come out publicly against Trump, but that was inconsistent with the ability to cooperate criminally. The impeachment was his one shot for accountability, and Congress blew that. (As I was writing this, I considered that, had Democrats made Lev’s testimony more central to impeachment, Republicans might have forced Hunter Biden to testify, as they were threatening at the time; I have long wondered whether Trump’s impeachment defense team had a copy of the laptop.)

Bill Barr insulated the impeachment review from the Hunter Biden caper

The film focuses closely on how, after Trump’s Perfect Phone Call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy was released, onetime Trump defense attorney John Dowd, speaking as a lawyer for Lev and Igor, first refused to cooperate with Congress. Their arrest, days later, put Parnas and Fruman at the mercy of lawyers arranged by Trump, until Parnas hired Bondy.

It is true that their arrest discredited them as witnesses.

But it wasn’t just their arrest that limited the investigation from impacting impeachment. DOJ also did some tactical things to prevent the Trump impeachment from merging with Lev’s prosecution.

When Lev and Igor were arrested, DOJ told the press that Barr had been briefed on the investigation from early in his tenure as Attorney General.

That seems inconsistent with a claim that Barr made in his memoir (which IMO is largely CYA about these matters). Barr claimed he had no awareness of Rudy’s efforts to investigate Biden, and only learned of it from news reports.

By the spring of 2019, I had noticed news stories stating that Giuliani was pushing the Ukrainians to investigate Biden’s role in Shokin’s dismissal. But other than what I glimpsed in the media, I had no knowledge of the former mayor’s activities. During the spring, I expressed my concern about Giuliani with the President. As I was leaving an Oval Office meeting on another topic, I paused briefly to raise the matter.

“Mr. President,” I said, “I don’t think you are being well served by Giuliani at this point. Mueller is over, and Russiagate is dying. Why is Giuliani thrashing about in Ukraine? It is going to blow up—”

“Yeah,” the President said, cutting me off. “I told him not to go over there. It was a trap.” President Trump gave the impression Giuliani had a degree of independence and was going to pull back. I did not press the point.

Even imagining that SDNY kept these details from Barr, by August 14, 2019, it is highly likely that the National Security Division had notice of the focus on Rudy. That’s when possible Foreign Agent charges (and a reference to Marie Yovanovitch) got added to the warrants targeting Lev and Igor.

NSD head John Demers was one of the first people at DOJ to review the Perfect Phone Call. He did so, on August 15, 2019, after SDNY had turned to FARA crimes normally overseen by NSD.

That may explain why DOJ did something that served to insulate the Public Integrity (PIN) review of the Perfect Phone call from the ongoing investigation of Rudy’s efforts with Lev and Igor: Demers and Criminal Division head Brian Benzkowski only had PIN review the transcript of the call, not the full whistleblower complaint. Had investigators done what investigators have been ordered to do since 9/11 with the full complaint, they would have searched on all the references in the complaint, including those in the OCCRP report on Lev and Igor referenced repeatedly in it. That, in turn, should have identified the SDNY investigation, which would have immediately implicated Trump in the investigation.

Effectively, by focusing solely on the transcript, someone at DOJ deliberately blinded that PIN review to an ongoing FARA investigation, thereby eliciting a clean bill of health for Trump.

There’s a lot more that Barr did as the scandal unfolded, as I’ve laid out here and here. But the first thing someone at DOJ did was to gin up a prosecution declination before anyone could tie Trump’s coercion of Zelenskyy with the existing investigation into Lev and Igor.

Bill Barr played a shell game to protect Rudy’s “collusion” with a known Russian spy

Barr was nowhere near done.

There seems have been an ongoing cat-and-mouse between SDNY and Barr.

When SDNY got the indictment, according to Berman, they got approval from two PIN prosecutors in the middle of the night, not NSD, which may be why only the campaign finance crimes were in the indictment and only the campaign finance crimes were on the warrants for the searches done the day of arrest (this would have served to hide that part of the investigation from Lev and Igor, too). That’s the biggest piece of evidence that SDNY did not arrest Lev and Igor as a favor for Barr, as he attempted to kill impeachment, but the reverse.

In October, SDNY got warrants to search everything for the FARA crimes. On November 4, 2019, SDNY got warrants targeting Rudy for FARA crimes.

On December 5, 2019, Rudy met, with Barr’s foreknowledge, known Russian asset Andrii Derkach.

And on December 10, 2019, SDNY got further warrants in that investigation.

DOJ had just let Rudy meet with a Russian spy while SDNY had an ongoing investigation into whether Rudy was working with foreign spies. It was insane to let that happen in any case. All the more so given the ongoing investigation from the Sovereign District of New York, as SDNYers like to call themselves.

So Barr had to gut SDNY’s sovereignty.

Barr did several things:

  • Assigned any investigation of Derkach, with whom Rudy had just met, to EDNY, not SDNY where it would be a natural follow-on.
  • Made EDNY US Attorney Richard Donoghue the gate-keeper for all Ukraine investigations, requiring SDNY to get permission from him before taking any investigative steps against Rudy or Lev.
  • Asked Pittsburgh US Attorney Scott Brady to play a role. Publicly, Barr and Brady claimed this was a vetting process of tips from Ukraine. But Brady’s congressional testimony revealed he did almost no functional vetting; he ignored evidence from the impeachment and some key public articles. Plus, he did more than vetting. Brady also checked in on investigations into all the oligarchs from whom Rudy had solicited dirt on Hunter Biden, with uncertain outcome; he tried to tell SDNY he knew better than they did about their investigation; he demanded details about the investigation into Hunter Biden. Most importantly, some yet unidentified person told Brady to seek out FBI informant Alexander Smirnov, who had made a reference to Hunter Biden in an informant report about Mykola Zlochevsky years earlier. By May 2020, Smirnov was allegedly attempting to frame Joe Biden with allegations of bribery, and Brady made that part of his work. Once again with Smirnov’s allegations, Brady did little functional vetting, falsely claiming that his travel schedule confirmed the claim, rather than debunked it.
  • Barred the FBI Agents working with SDNY from receiving certain information, including Rudy’s interview with Scott Brady.
  • Ordered David Weiss, whom DOJ had put in charge of an investigation into DC and CA resident Hunter Biden, to consult with Brady on his tips.

These efforts halted what should have been obvious next steps in the SDNY investigation, ensured Rudy could share information obtained from a known Russian spy with no legal risk, and ordered that some of Rudy’s information be used in an investigation of Joe Biden’s kid. DOJ was literally protecting a Russian influence operation, because it served the interest of the President.

The biggest reason why Rudy didn’t go to prison for this is that Barr protected this entire process, including the solicitation of dirt from a known Russian spy.

DOJ approved steps against Rudy on Lisa Monaco’s first day on the job

While Trump remained in office, SDNY tried several more times to get warrants targeting Rudy, but were denied.

On Lisa Monaco’s very first day on the job, April 21, 2021, SDNY finally obtained warrants targeting Rudy. Merrick Garland’s DOJ did precisely what everyone is wailing for: He immediately permitted prosecutors to advance this long-thwarted investigation.

Based on what we can see, there were at least two limitations on the investigation, however. First, the warrants targeting Rudy did not include the Trump lawyer’s January 29, 2020 interview with Scott Brady. That suggests Rudy’s effort to share dirt from Russian spies was still protected as cooperation rather than confession, even after Garland took over (indeed, that’s what Rudy pointed to to argue he couldn’t be searched at all, his “cooperation” with Barr). Just as importantly, while some of the 2019 warrant affidavits mentioned Donald Trump’s call to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the 2021 warrants did not. I would be unsurprised if Barr got OLC to write a memo putting all that off limits before they left office.

Aside from that, DOJ’s approach to Rudy Giuliani remained remarkably aggressive, contrary to what virtually every news outlet will tell you. Importantly, SDNY did something no one else has reported: They installed a Special Master and got permission to review Rudy’s content — all Rudy’s post-2017 content — for privilege. Among other things, that freed up content, including at least one document the January 6 Committee did not get, for any other investigations.

Nevertheless, the delay (or possibly corrupt Rudy dead-enders in NY) appears to have killed any chance of pursuing Rudy for his role in soliciting dirt from Russian spies and others to attack Hunter Biden. On November 14, 2022, SDNY informed the court that the grand jury had concluded without filing charges (though Rudy’s lawyer and Hunter Biden laptop co-conspirator, Robert Costello, has never substantiated a declination letter). In a July 25, 2023 declaration in the Ruby Freeman lawsuit, Costello revealed one potential explanation: many of the devices seized from Rudy obtained in April 2021 were corrupted. Costello blamed the FBI’s contractor for making the phones unusable.

Not all the devices were corrupted, however. As noted, the privilege log from Freeman’s case shows a great deal of files pertaining to January 6 were successfully extracted, including a few identifiable files not obtained by the January 6 Committee.

DOJ also seized a phone from Victoria Toensing. But the value of that may have been limited by attorney-client privileged tied to Firtash, the same privilege which has, at times, led Lev (because he was a translator in that relationship) to limit his own comments about Firtash in all this. To fully unpack what happened, you’d need to know what promises Toensing made to Firtash and what Barr knew about them.

Attorneys General have vast discretion

In a just world, Bill Barr could be held accountable for the corruption he enabled. But that’s virtually impossible under the structures of impunity our system accords prosecutors and Attorneys General.

I’m neck-deep in a post on the three IG investigations pertaining to Bill Barr’s corrupt conduct.

All of them conclude that however nuts Bill Barr’s conduct was, the expansive authority of the Attorney General means that his actions, including his intervention into the sentencing for Trump’s rat-fucker and his decision to share details of minor infraction by someone whom Barr knew would never be charged for political gain, were within the discretion of the Attorney General.

DOJ IG has spent over four years investigating Barr’s corruption, and thus far, they have always concluded that as Attorney General, Barr’s discretion was so vast that he can break all of DOJ’s rules prohibiting its politicization.

There’s still at least one IG Report including Barr’s conduct outstanding (almost certainly, the ongoing investigation into DOJ getting the communications records of journalists for whom people like Jim Comey might have been a source). But of all the fuckery I know Barr to have committed, I can envision only a few details of his conduct might even remotely end up the focus of criminal investigation.

Even the most corrupt insinuations about Rudy’s efforts, in which Rudy allegedly offered Ihor Kolomoyskyi, Dmitry Firtash, and Mykola Zlochevsky relief from criminal investigations for dirt on Hunter Biden, would be included in this.

Lev explains why in his book: This was deliberately framed as the exact equivalent of Andrew Weissmann’s efforts to flip Firtash for information on Paul Manafort.

Andrew Weissman, who was lead prosecutor for the investigation of Russian collusion in the 2016 Election, had gotten there first. He offered a deal in which Firtash could avoid prison if he testified about the relationship between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The inclusion of Putin meant that Firtash would never take the deal. Nobody over there wants to make Putin angry.

Nobody else knew about the deal he was offered. Giuliani and Solomon wanted Firtash’s legal team to make it public. His Viennese lawyers were against it, so Firtash was reluctant. Soon, in a heated meeting in Vienna, an argument between some of Firtash’s legal team led to Victoria Toensing, who was on our team, confronting Dan Webb about it months later. Webb — who was connected with Weissmann, William Barr and other heavy hitters — admitted to the deal.

Still, we convinced Firtash that we — who were representing Trump’s interests — could help him with his extradition far more effectively than Weissman. The real goal for us was to get Firtash to use his contacts to pressure President Zelenskyy to announce an investigation of the Bidens. Our pitch was successful, Firtash agreed to hire Giuliani for $1 million. And $200,000 for me to be official translator and to be under the attorney-client privilege umbrella.

Prosecutors trade leniency for information on other crooks all the time. Here, however, it was the Attorney General, who had never served as a prosecutor himself, who would be making those deals, offering leniency to foreign oligarchs if they could offer dirt on Donald Trump’s likely opponent.

It’s unclear whether, and if so what, deals were made: an investigation into Zlochevsky was reportedly shut down in December 2019; investigations into Kolomoyskyi ratcheted up in 2020; and the prior investigation into Dmitry Firtash remains deadlocked on his extradition, as it has been for years.

But these kinds of deals would be consistent with an elaborate effort Barr makes in his book to spin Trump’s pursuit of dirt on the Bidens as a legitimate law enforcement pursuit, the logic of Trump’s impeachment defense taken to its logical conclusion.

It’s all transparent bullshit. But it would also be virtually impossible to debunk at trial, even if you could get beyond the vast discretion of an Attorney General.

David Weiss’ appointment threatens to limit further fallout

There’s one thing I do fault Merrick Garland for: For not removing David Weiss from the investigation into Alexander Smirnov.

By all appearances, Weiss asked to be appointed Special Counsel only after he renewed his focus on Smirnov in July 2023, after receiving, but blowing off, the allegation days before the 2020 election, on October 23, 2020.

Investigating Smirnov’s allegation that Joe Biden accepted a bribe from Burisma was the first thing that focused the investigation onto Biden, after the original prosecutor, Lesley Wolf had successfully avoided that focus for years. It was the first thing that created a real conflict with working for Joe Biden.

And Weiss bases his authority to prosecute Smirnov for lying when he started chasing that hoax on his Special Counsel authority. He could only do so if he were legitimately chasing that hoax as witness testimony.

Here’s the problem with that: David Weiss is a witness in what should be a broader investigation into how a side channel set up by Bill Barr ended up discovering an informant who once met Mykola Zlochevsky and then not vetting the false claims he made. At the very least, there should be an investigation into who — everyone swears it was not Rudy, and Smirnov has at least three other links to people close to Trump — alerted Brady that Smirnov might offer up such claims.

Bill Barr’s deputy ordered David Weiss to accept briefing on this hoax. He ordered him to let Scott Brady snoop on Weiss’ investigation of Joe Biden’s kid. That makes Weiss a witness. Once Smirnov became a subject rather than a witness, that created a conflict that should disqualify Weiss from overseeing an investigation into the former informant and the circumstances that allowed him to make allegedly false allegations against Joe Biden.

Merrick Garland should (at a minimum, though I could argue more broadly) move the primary team prosecuting Smirnov under supervision without such conflicts. A system set up by Bill Barr criminally framed Joe Biden, and a guy who worked with Bill Barr on that case continues to supervise the aftermath.

The complicity of the press

There’s one more party that demands accountability: The press.

Much of what I wrote in this post is public. It requires diligent reading, but not great access to Donald Trump or anyone else.

Not only has this entire story not been reported by mainstream outlets. Not only did NYT affirmatively obscure Rudy’s role in all this (and therefore Trump’s) in their one attempt to cover it. But one after another journalist — especially at NYT — writes stories that disappear the Hunter Biden pursuit from all of Trump’s abuse of DOJ. Indeed, some outlets, including Rachel Maddow’s parent company, seem to treat Hunter Biden as a gossip rag to drive clicks, rather than the locus of unprecedented corruption. Rather than chasing this story, or even asking Bill Barr direct questions about it, one after another TV star invites him on as if he’s a critic of Trump’s corruption, rather than a key player in it. WaPo’s Will Lewis pointed to a badly conflicted Hunter Biden piece as his antidote against accusations of lefty bias.

Want to know how Rudy Giuliani was allowed to solicit dirt from Russian spies to help Trump get elected, without accountability? Want to know why Barr is considered a critic of Trump rather than his most corrupt enabler? Ask the journalists who lost interest in that story as soon as Rudy released a laptop full of Hunter Biden’s dick pics.

From Russia with Lev begins to reverse all that. But as infuriating as it is, it barely scratches the surface.

Timeline

Below, every bullet is a known warrant. The ones not linked were described in a passage that failed to be fully redacted in a Lev Parnas filing. This document compares the Foreign Agent focus of the three warrants bolded below.

  • January 18, 2019, 19 MJ 1729: Yahoo and Google content

May 15, 2019: Marie Yovanovitch firing public

  • May 16, 2019, 19 MJ 4784: iCloud content
  • August 14, 2019, 19 MJ 7593: Yahoo and Google content since January, with expanded focus
  • August 14, 2019, 19 MJ 7594: Unknown warrant
  • August 14, 2019, 19 MJ 7595: Existing Yahoo and Google content, with expanded focus

September 25, 2019: Disclosure of Perfect Phone call

October 9, 2019: Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman arrested

  • October 17, 2019, 19 MJ 7595: Actual authorization of the warrant approved in August
  • October 21, 2019, 19 MJ 9829: iCloud content since May
  • October 21, 2019, 19 MJ 9830: Unknown warrant
  • October 21, 2019, 19 MJ 9831: Devices from Dulles
  • October 21, 2019, 19 MJ 9832: Existing iCloud content for expanded focus
  • November 4, 2019: Warrant for Rudy’s iCloud
  • November 4, 2019: Warrant for Rudy’s email
  • November 4, 2019: Warrant for Victoria Toensing’s iCloud
  • November 6, 2019: Warrant for Yuriy Lutsenko’s email

December 5, 2019: Rudy meets with known Russian asset, Andrii Derkach

  • December 10, 2019, 19 MJ 11500: Stuff seized from residences for foreign agent focus
  • December 10, 2019, 19 MJ 11501: Instagram
  • December 10, 2019, Warrant for Roman Nasirov’s email
  • December 13, 2019, Warrant for Victoria Toensing’s email

December 14, 2019: Barr aide texts him: “Laptop on way to you”

January 3, 2020: Barr establishes dedicated channel to ingest Rudy’s dirt

January 17, 2020: Jeffrey Rosen makes Richard Donoghue a gatekeeper for all Ukraine-related investigations

  • February 28, 2020: iPhone of Alexander Levin
  • March 3, 2020: iPad of Alexander Levin
  • March 20, 2020, 20 MJ 3074: Fruman iCloud content obtained with October 21, 2019 warrant to cover earlier periods

June 20, 2020: Barr fires Geoffrey Berman

November 2020: SDNY denied authority to seek devices of Rudy Giuliani

January 2021: SDNY denied authority to seek devices of Rudy Giuliani

  • April 13, 2021: Cell site data for Rudy and Toensing

April 21, 2021: Lisa Monaco sworn in

  • April 21, 2021, 21 MJ 4335: Rudy’s office, residence, and devices
  • April 21, 2021: Victoria Toensing iPhone
Share this entry

Trump Will Stage an Emergency to Ban Jack Smith’s Book Report

/148 Comments/in , /by

I expect, on top of everything else this week, Trump’s lawyers are going to claim an emergency to try to ban Jack Smith’s book report, currently due Thursday.

As you’ll recall, after Judge Tanya Chutkan finally got the Trump January 6 case back, she agreed with Jack Smith’s proposed path forward: They would submit a brief explaining how the superseding indictment complies with the Supreme Court’s immunity opinion. Chutkan set a deadline of September 26, Thursday, for that brief.

Trump seems certain that if voters see that brief, he will lose the election.

Last Thursday, Trump’s lawyers submitted what was supposed to be a discovery filing, in which they basically said, “NOOOOOOO!!!!! No briefing before the election.”

Dismissal is required to protect the integrity of the Presidency and the upcoming election, as well as the Constitutional rights of President Trump and the American people.

Judge Chutkan does not have to rule on those issues before determining the immunity question, though, so the filing was better read as, “Help me Sammy Alito!!!! Help me John Roberts!!!! You’re my only hope!!!”

Yesterday, Jack Smith submitted a request to file excess pages, 180 pages instead of 45. In it, he disclosed that Trump objected and wanted a chance to respond, with the deadline set for Tuesday, September 24.

Defense counsel opposes the Government’s motion at this time, and requests that the Court set a deadline of September 24, 2024, 5:00 PM ET for the defense’s response.

Judge Chutkan ordered Trump’s team to file their opposition one day earlier, Monday September 23 (note: Trump’s team filed their last filing after 5PM, after which Judge Chutkan made it clear she’ll permit no more of that).

Defendant shall file any opposition to the Government’s [237] Motion for Leave to File Oversized Motion by September 23, 2024 at 5:00 PM ET.

Trump will oppose not just the excess pages, 180 instead of 45, but the entire filing. Now he’s got one less day to make that argument.

Which is what you need to understand the other things in the Jack Smith request. Trump is going to stage an emergency to get this question elevated to SCOTUS to prevent the filing this week. He will try to take things SCOTUS ordered Chutkan to do out of her hands, to put them back before SCOTUS.

Anticipating that, Smith starts his request by laying out that he is just trying to do what Chutkan ordered, to show that SCOTUS ordered precisely this briefing.

In Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2340 (2024), the Supreme Court emphasized the “necessarily factbound” nature of any presidential immunity analysis. See id. at 2339 (“Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a close analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations.”); id. at 2340 (“The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging.”); id. (“Knowing, for instance, what else was said contemporaneous to the excerpted communications, or who was involved in transmitting the electronic communications and in organizing the rally, could be relevant to the classification of each communication.”). The Supreme Court remanded to this Court “to determine in the first instance—with the benefit of briefing we lack—whether [the defendant’s] conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.” Id. at 2339.

A few paragraphs later, he describes that because this review will be what SCOTUS reviews on appeal, the record must be comprehensive. Thus the need for 180 pages.

The Court has been directed to conduct a detailed, factbound, and thorough analysis of the Government’s case to make appropriate immunity determinations. Because the Court will make determinations “in the first instance” that will be subject to exacting appellate review, it is essential that the Court ensure that the record in support of its determinations is complete. The Government believes that a comprehensive brief by the Government will be of great assistance to the Court in creating that robust record, and the Government thus seeks leave to exceed the typical limit for a single motion. See Local Crim. R. 47(e) (limiting opening motions and oppositions to 45 pages and replies to 25 pages).

Smith goes into detail about the breakdown of those 180 pages: half is narrative, thirty pages are footnotes, a bunch are exhibits. Those details will only matter if we ever get to see it.

Remember: Trump is looking for some basis to cause an emergency that will allow him to get back to SCOTUS. So Jack Smith will (and probably would have, in any case) submit the filing under seal, and only afterwards work on unsealing it for the voting public.

For the Court’s awareness, the opening brief and its exhibits contain a substantial amount of Sensitive Material, as defined by the Protective Order. Consistent with the Protective Order, the Government intends to file a motion for leave to file under seal that attaches an unredacted copy of the motion and appendix and proposed redacted versions to be filed later on the public docket at the Court’s direction. See ECF No. 28 ¶¶ 11-12. Because of the extensive and time-consuming logistics involved in finalizing the brief, appendix, and proposed redacted public versions of the same, the Government respectfully requests the Court’s decision on this motion as soon as practicable.

Voila, no emergency.

But without creating such an emergency, then Chutkan will get a look at the argument.

I honestly have no idea how it’ll end up. I’ve been wracking my brain for what procedural reason Trump’s team could use to declare an emergency.

But with this SCOTUS, it doesn’t have to be all that plausible.

Share this entry

Permission Structures and Polling Puzzles

/167 Comments/in , /by

As of today, Trump has less than 7% of his campaign left (47 of 721 days).

As of today, Harris has almost 44% of her campaign left (47 of 107 days).

Keep that in mind as you read this column from NYT’s Nate Cohn, in which he tries to puzzle out why Kamala Harris is doing less well in what he deems high quality national polls than she’s doing in Pennsylvania.

Never mind that his pick of polls has some few suspect polls in there. Effectively what Cohn convinces himself he’s seeing is that the Electoral College, which normally favors Democrats, may this year favor Trump.

Now let’s consider our puzzle: a clear lead for Ms. Harris in Pennsylvania, but a tie nationwide? This is unexpected. Four years ago, President Biden won the national vote by 4.5 percentage points, but won Pennsylvania by just 1.2 points. Similarly, our poll averages have shown Ms. Harris doing better nationwide than in Pennsylvania. This poll is nearly the opposite.

Usually, I’d say that this is probably just statistical noise — the inevitable variation in poll results inherent to random sampling. And it might well be, as we shall see. But I think it’s hard to assume that this is simply noise, for two reasons:

  • It’s what we’ve shown before. It’s easy enough to dismiss any single poll result as a statistical fluke. But we’ve now found similar results in our last two polls of the nation and Pennsylvania.
  • This is becoming a trend among high-quality pollsters. Yes, our poll average shows Ms. Harris doing better nationally than in Pennsylvania, but if you focus only on higher-quality polls (which we call “select pollsters” in our table), the story is a bit different. Over the last month, a lot of these polls show Ms. Harris doing relatively poorly nationwide, but doing well in the Northern battleground states.

Note that Nate says NYT’s own polls aren’t moving much (while admitting the first days after the debate, responses in PA were more favorable to Harris). But Harris’ lead in MI and PA, across all polls, is inching ever so slowly higher, with some polls beginning to show leads outside the margin of error.

My suspicion is we’re still seeing two effects: that of RFK endorsing Trump, which may have helped Trump by a point (indeed, some polls aren’t including him in states, like WI and MI, where he remains on the ballot) and the debate and Taylor Swift endorsement, which may have helped Harris by up to three.

So far.

But this is why I keep coming back to the 7% versus 44% that each candidate has left in their campaign. Harris is doing in an incredibly compressed timeline, at least by US standards, what campaigns spend years doing. As a result, some baseline actions, such as recruiting volunteers, happened later than they otherwise might have. So there could be — though by no means is guaranteed — a late-election effect from them, as those efforts bear fruit.

Still, as Harris tries to build on that foundation, Trump’s unconventional choices — such as to fire the RNC personnel doing field work and instead to let an Elon Musk PAC do that work — has risks, as evidenced by the decision to fire and replace the canvasing contractor in NV and AZ with 50 days left to go.

That leaves open the possibility that we’ll see gradual movement in the weeks ahead, even ignoring a big blunder by one of the campaigns, or a Black Swan event of the type that would be unsurprising this year.

Brittany Mahomes

To understand what kind of delayed effect recent events might bring about, start with Brittany Mahomes, the spouse of KC Chiefs QB Patrick Mahomes, who has become close to Taylor Swift as both root for their partners at football games. According to the Daily Mail, Trump’s attack on Swift led Ms. Mahomes to rethink her prior support of Trump.

Brittany Mahomes is ‘deeply bothered’ by Donald Trump’s very public attack on her close friend Taylor Swift, according to sources who claim the Kansas City Chiefs WAG is questioning her support for the former president.

Brittany, who has been married to Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes since 2022, sparked a liberal meltdown last month when she liked a post about Trump, 78, on social media.

Weeks later, Taylor, 34, publicly endorsed Kamala Harris’ bid for president – an action that drove a reported 338,000 visits to the federal voter registration website after she shared a link on Instagram.

Trump hit back in predictably blistering style on his Truth Social platform, claiming ‘I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT’ – prompting Brittany, 29, to ‘question’ if she will continue to endorse his campaign.

‘She is questioning her support for Donald Trump after he lashed out at Taylor, saying he hates her,’ a source exclusively revealed to DailyMail.com.

Swift is perhaps the most trusted American, in any sphere. Because of that, polarization will work in her favor, and through her, Harris’, in the same way it tends to work in Trump’s favor when he spins prosecution of him as an attack on him. If people do things to Swift, her supporters will side with her all the more strongly, and in this matter, that may produce movement to Harris.

Mahomes’ vote — presumably cast in MO, where the couple lives — is not going to swing any races. But what is publicly reported to be going on with her may go on with millions of the diehard Swifties who would normally be soft Trump supporters. But that process takes time. First they reconsider their prior beliefs, then they learn why Swift supports Harris, then they get used to the idea of voting for a Democrat.

It’s a process, one that has as many as 47 days left to work.

Springfield’s Republicans and Reagan’s Dead-Enders

Something similar may be happening among more traditional Republicans.

Politico reported on how Republicans stuck with the chaos Trump has created in heavily Republican Springfield are rethinking their Republican support.

“Any political leader that takes the national stage and has the national spotlight needs to understand the gravity of the words that they have for cities like ours, and what they say impacts our city,” Rue, who said he was tired and angry, told POLITICO. “And we’ve had bomb threats the last two days. We’ve had personal threats the last two days, and it’s increasing, because the national stage is swirling this up. Springfield, Ohio, is caught in a political vortex, and it is a bit out of control. We are a wonderful city — a beautiful town. And for what it’s worth, your pets are safe in Springfield, Ohio.”

Asked whether he is going to vote for Trump, the 54-year-old mayor said, “I’m just probably not going to answer that question.” He said he is deeply “frustrated” with Trump’s remarks and how Springfield has become collateral damage.

[snip]

Republican Clark County Commission President Melanie Flax-Wilt, who said she backed Trump in 2016 and 2020 but is now undecided, largely refused to talk about national politics. But she said she was frustrated.

“I’m of the belief that it’s our local community that is going to be here dealing with this after all of the national news is gone and everybody’s done using Springfield, Ohio, as a poster child for immigration reform. We’re the ones who are going to be stuck figuring out what to do with these challenges that are facing us,” said Flax-Wilt.

Sasha Rittenhouse, another Republican member of the county commission, said, “We’ve seen a lot of, I don’t want to say crazy, but unfounded things. It’s a matter of trying to go back and see if there’s any validity to any of it.”

She added, “And thus far, we have not been able to track anything down that definitively shows that any of these things are happening.”

Of her plans to vote this November, Rittenhouse said: “I have not decided what I’m doing. I’ve been a Republican my entire life, and I will leave it at that.”

Any such reconsideration would happen amidst a larger permission structure created by the number of Republicans who’ve publicly supported Harris, including a new batch of national security professionals (some with ties to Dick Cheney, who of course endorsed Harris a week ago — rolled out yesterday, and a group of former Reagan aides rolled out days earlier.

I don’t know whether that will or is working; clearly, Harris finds the support valuable, so the campaign may be seeing positive effects from the GOP support.

But the point is to simply create a permission structure for those wavering in their support for Trump to consider Harris, to rebrand it as patriotism.

Again, if it works, it’ll take time. It’ll be a process.

Iowa draws closer

One of the most interesting polling developments in recent weeks is not in a swing state; it’s in Iowa. The state’s best pollster, Ann Selzer — whom some argue is the best state pollster in the country — released a poll showing Harris within 4 of Trump in the state.

Ann Selzer’s gold standard poll is out, and suggests a remade presidential race in Iowa.

The top line numbers from Selzer & Co’s latest poll for the Des Moines Register and Mediacom indicate former President Donald Trump has 47 percent support and Vice President Kamala Harris 43 percent among likely Iowa voters. This poll started contacting respondents on September 8 (before the debate) and concluded on September 11, the day after the debate. At the end of this piece is a summary of post-debate national polling, which has found a gain for Harris of about 1 percent.

When you compare the new survey to Selzer’s numbers from June (Trump 50 percent, President Joe Biden 32 percent in Iowa), you will find a 14 point shift in margin. But purely focusing on the margin may be a mistake.

Trump’s level of support has varied little since February, when Selzer found him ahead of Biden by 48 percent to 33 percent in Iowa. The change is in the Democratic number. Harris has consolidated the Democratic base, and the 43 percent she receives in this survey is close to the 44.9 percent vote share for Biden in the 2020 election.

As Selzer describes it, this poll reflects new participation among groups energized since Harris got in the race.

Now, 81% of all Iowans say they will definitely vote in the general election, up from 76% in June. However, some of the demographic groups more likely to favor Harris are showing increased participation.

Women show an 8-percentage-point uptick in likely voting since June, Iowans younger than 45 show a 10-point increase, city dwellers show a 6-point bounce, and those with a college degree are up 9 points.

Iowa is not going to go for Harris; if it does, this would not be a close race. But because of Selzer’s credibility, this suggests a trend in the Midwest that likely confirms positive polling for Harris in neighboring WI (and Nebraska’s Omaha district).

But by drawing close in Iowa, Harris puts two of Iowa’s congressional districts in play.

To understand the importance of this new poll, and what it means if it is on target, let’s look at Iowa’s U.S. House seats. As noted above, this poll find Harris trailing Trump by 4 percent statewide. The table below applies that shift to both the 2020 numbers and the results of the 2022 Congressional races.

If Selzer is accurate, Harris is ahead in two of Iowa’s four Congressional districts (the first and the third), and would only narrowly lose the second district. Based on those numbers the Democrats would likely pick up at least one House seat in Iowa, and three races would be competitive.

Even before this poll, Democrats had started dumping (more) money in the two Iowa CDs, so their internals must be showing similar movement.

Pennsylvania bellwethers

There have been a slew of polls from PA overnight. But the result I find most interesting is this one, from earlier in the week: a Suffolk poll of PA (showing a 49-46 Harris lead) and two bellwether counties, Northampton (Bethleham) and Erie (around the city), showing 4-5 point leads for Harris in both.

The survey results showed that the vice president also led the former president in Northampton and Erie counties – two counties that have picked the winner of the last two presidential elections.

Harris had a five-point edge (50-45%) over Trump in Northampton County, located in eastern Pennsylvania and is the home of the cities of Bethlehem and Easton. President Joe Biden carried the county, 50-49%, in 2020 after Trump topped Hillary Clinton, 50-46%, in 2016.

In the northwest corner of the Commonwealth, Harris carries a four-point advantage over Trump, 48-44% – a larger margin than either winner produced in the last two elections. Biden squeezed out a 1-point edge (50-49%) in winning in 2020, while Trump had a two-point triumph in Erie, 49-47%, four years earlier.

Experienced politicos tend to focus on bellwether precincts or counties to read a state and Suffolk just started doing this in the 2022 race (their results predicted John Fetterman’s victory, but weren’t accurate for the county). I’m interested in this approach, though, because it’s one attempt to address all the difficulties with polling.

I’m also interested because of how NYT, among other outlets, has covered the race in Erie.

In July, when Trump led Joe Biden’s native state by 3, NYT did a story on how little credit Biden has gotten for economic investment in Rust Belt areas, focusing on Erie.

On a blighted industrial corridor in a struggling section of Erie, Pa., a long-abandoned iron factory has been humming with activity for the first time in decades. Construction crews have been removing barrels of toxic waste, knocking down crumbling walls and salvaging rusted tin roofing as they prepare to convert the cavernous space into an events venue, advanced manufacturing hub and brewery.

The estimated $25 million project is the most ambitious undertaking the Erie County Redevelopment Authority has ever attempted. It was both kick-started and remains heavily funded by various pots of money coming from Biden administration programs.

Yet there is no obvious sign of President Biden’s influence on the project. Instead, the politician who has taken credit for the Ironworks Square development effort most clearly is Representative Mike Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican who voted against the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law that is helping to fund the renovation.

It is one example of a larger problem Mr. Biden faces in Pennsylvania, a swing state that could decide the winner of the 2024 election. In places like Erie, a long-struggling manufacturing hub bordering the Great Lake that is often an election bellwether, Mr. Biden is struggling to capitalize on his own economic policies even when they are providing real and visible benefits.

In August, after Harris had remade the race, WaPo did a story about Erie’s longterm economic plight, noting that its plight would affect the vote there. When it described a new factory funded by the Inflation Reduction Act as a green shoot that might change things, it didn’t describe that Kamala Harris cast the deciding vote for the law that funded it.

The irony — or the puzzle — is that this evident stress coexists with hints of green shoots in the local economy.

A long-planned plastics recycling facility is moving forward, thanks to a new federal loan guarantee. The Japanese corporation Kyocera broke ground this spring on a new manufacturing facility. And popular amenities, including an indoor golf simulator and a rock climbing gym, have opened downtown.

A pre-debate September story in NYT focused on Tim Walz’ appearance in Erie to highlight the campaign’s efforts — more apparent in Harris’ stop in Wilkes-Barre, a story about which NYT focused on skeptics about Harris —  to shave Trump’s margins in rural areas.

“Look, it would be easier if we didn’t have to do this. It would be easier if these guys wouldn’t undermine our system, if they wouldn’t lie about elections, if they wouldn’t put women’s health at risk. But they are, so it’s a privilege for us to do the fight,” he said in Erie, Pa., where he stumped from a stage at the edge of Presque Isle Bay before hundreds of cheering supporters waving “Coach” and “Kamala” signs.

The appearance was one of several events that Mr. Walz used to blitz the local media airwaves and fire up Democratic volunteers with the Midwestern dad charm that his party is banking on to help draw white working-class voters. Mr. Walz, and his daughter, Hope, hit several cities in counties that went for Mr. Trump in 2016 — stung by fading American manufacturing and a difficult economy.

[snip]

His trip also underscored the challenges for his ticket as Democrats aim to improve their margins in rural and red-leaning areas in November. The specter of the former president loomed at nearly every stop, and though Mr. Walz arrived ready to engage with undecided voters, some places yielded few opportunities to do so. Mr. Walz also frustrated a handful of reporters as he refused to answer shouted questions.

It complained, twice, that Walz didn’t take reporters’ bait to answer questions only interesting to a pack of beltway journalists.

That outcome by Suffolk, if accurate, reflects a lot of work that Harris and Walz have put in, work that mainstream outlets seem ready to dismiss (while griping that candidates aren’t focusing on coastal journalists while visiting those areas).

There’s a story in Erie. It is a recognizable bellwether area. But rather than look there to see if that’s what explains a possible split between the national polls and PA, NYT’s pollster ignores the possibility that Harris is doing better in swing states than nationally because efforts she has made in those swing states, efforts that don’t feed the media’s narrative have made a difference.

What the Iowa poll may show is a national reconsideration that has happened as Kamala took over the ticket, particularly as women and young voters became more enthused. What the Suffolk PA poll may show is that more focused efforts in swing states are, very gradually, having some results.

That’s why I keep coming back to timing. Trump has 7% of his campaign left, and he’s spending much of his time outside of swing states, attempting to create stunts to shift the media narrative. Harris has 44% of her campaign left, and she’s spending it, partly, out of the limelight, working relentlessly to win over small groups of voters in the swing states that will decide the election.

We should expect a well-run campaign that has focused on swing states to show some results in those swing states, particularly in a race against a guy, Trump, who seems to have a ceiling for his support. Maybe that’s what we’re seeing.

If the election were held today, Harris would have a very good shot to win, but only narrowly. A narrow win might not be enough to stave off whatever fuckery Trump has planned.

But the election won’t be held today. She’s still got 44% of her campaign left to get this hard work to pay off.

Update: Fixed spelling of bellwether.

Share this entry

Useful Idiot Networks, Now Featuring Elon Musk and Don Jr.

/56 Comments/in , /by

As I noted in my piece in The New Republic the other day and as I have before, there’s a figure in the Twitter DM lists presented at the Douglass Mackey trial, using the moniker P0TUSTrump and referred to by others as “Donald,” who pushed the group to spread the PodestaFiles hashtags WikiLeaks had adopted on the same day that WikiLeaks had directly encouraged Don Jr to promote those hashtags.

[I]n an interview with Mackey last year, Donald Trump Jr. admitted that he had been added to the chat rooms. There’s even a persona on the lists who used the moniker “P0TUSTrump,” whom others called Donald, who pushed the John Podesta leaks in the same days that WikiLeaks encouraged Don Jr. to disseminate them. That user aimed to use the same trolling method to “Make #PodestaEmails4 Trend” so that “CNN [a]nd liberal news forced to cover it.”

If P0TUSTrump is Don Jr, it means that WikiLeaks piggybacked on the trusted network of this trolling group by getting Don Jr, a trusted member of it, to suggest pushing WikiLeaks. The trolls were otherwise occupied doing things that more directly impugned Hillary Clinton, but when P0TUSTrump suggested they push the Podesta hashtags, they all turned to doing that.

That may not have been an accident. There are many ways via which that group could have been discovered by WikiLeaks supporters and/or Russia. If they had, Don Jr’s since-admitted inclusion in it would be one of the most lucrative features of the group, a really dumb member of Trump’s family who commanded a lot of trust from the group. Don Jr was (and remains) really easy to manipulate, and by manipulating him, you can direct entire groups.

These networks matter not just for the work they do and the memes they put out. These networks matter because they can be mapped and exploited. Don Jr is going to be a ready point of weakness in any network because, well, he’s Don Jr.

The same is true of Elon Musk.

In my piece arguing that people were overstating what a comment in the Doppelgänger affidavit about the project identifying 2,800 influencers and 1,900 anti-influencers meant, I noted that there had already been signs that those behind the effort were exploiting the way that Musk very publicly acts on Xitter (public behavior documented through a whole lot of journalism about how Musk has ordered Xitter engineers to make it work this way).

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.

Like Don Jr, Elon Musk is very important, very trusted among a key network, and painfully easy to dupe. And in his case, the algorithms deliberately magnify any network effects of his influence.

You would not necessarily have to recruit Elon Musk to be a Russian stooge (though some of his close advisors might make that easier to do). You would only need to recruit those whom he trusted to exploit him as a useful idiot.

Keep that in mind as you read this analysis of how much content from Tenet Media Musk shared.

Musk has frequently replied to or reposted content from three conservative pundits formerly paid by Tenet: Tim Pool, Dave Rubin and Benny Johnson. From the public launch of Tenet Media in November 2023 until the release of the indictment, Musk interacted with Pool’s account at least 32 times, Rubin’s at least 11 times and Johnson’s at least nine times, according to searches of X’s archives. He did so on a wide array of subjects including immigration, presidential politics and homelessness.

[snip]

In August, Musk replied “!!” to a Tenet post on X criticizing diversity training at NASA. That post by Tenet received 1.9 million views, far more than Tenet’s typical posts, although it’s impossible to determine how much Musk helped. In April, Musk replied with the monocle emoji to a Tenet video about “eco-terrorism.”

Musk has used his influence to spotlight some of Tenet’s individual creators, too. In mid-August, Musk had a back-and-forth with then-Tenet Media pundit Lauren Southern, which began with her saying most people misunderstand Musk and Trump.

“Anyone who thinks the media is real is an idiot,” Musk responded, getting more than 647,000 views.

“Much work to do in reversing this brain rot,” Southern wrote back.

“Much work indeed. And it’s far worse in Europe. People really believe the media there!” Musk replied.

Lauren Chen didn’t pick Dave Rubin and Tim Pool to recruit because they were her buddies or because they would be profitable (though the fact that they were her buddies made her more useful). Rather, they were on a list that her handler gave her. The project was built around people like them.

Beginning in or about February 2023, Founder-1 solicited Commentator-I and Commentator-2 to perform work on behalf of “Eduard Grigoriann.” For example:

a. On or about February 6, 2023, Persona-1 emailed Founder-1 a “shortlist of candidates” for the YouTube channel, including Commentator-1 and Commentator-2. In the same email, Persona-1 attached a receipt for an $8,000 money transfer from an entity in the Czech Republic (“Czech Shell Entity-I “) to Founder-1 ‘s Canadian company, Canadian Company-1. Persona-I requested that Founder-I submit an invoice for Founder-1 ‘s “consultation services” to Czech Shell Entity-I, which Persona-I described as “our Czech sister company.” Czech Shell Entity-I has a website purporting to sell automobile parts, but also listing unrelated services (e.g., “CyberAmor Suite, Fortifying Your Digital Defenses”). The website makes no mention of “Eduard Grigoriann,” Persona-I, Persona-2, Persona-3, Viewpoint Productions, or Hungarian Shell Entity-I.

[snip]

c. On or about February 8, 2023, F ounder-1 reported to Persona-I on Founder1 ‘s outreach to Commentator-I and Commentator-2. Founder-I advised that Commentator-I said “it would need to be closer to 5 million yearly for him to be interested,” and that Commentator-2 said “it would take 100k per weekly episode to make it worth his while.” Founder-I cautioned that “from a profitability standpoint, it would be very hard for Viewpoint [i.e., the initial publicfacing name of the new venture] to recoup the costs for the likes of [Commentator-I] and [Commentator-2] based on ad revenue from web traffic or sponsors alone.” Despite Founder-1 ‘s warning that Commentator-I and Commentator-2 would not be profitable to employ, on or about February 14, 2023, Persona-I informed Founder-I that “[w]e would love to move forward with [Commentator-I and Commentator-2].”

And one reason you pick someone like Tim Pool is because you know that Elon Musk will promote his idiotic commentary, which not only ensures the widest possible dissemination, but uses Musk’s credibility to gain credibility for the project itself.

You piggyback on Pool’s credibility with Musk to piggyback on Musk’s credibility and reach.

The thing about these networks of right wing influencers is they offer a cascade effect. You pay off or persuade one or six useful idiots and the entire network becomes your useful idiot.

Update: In related news, the Guardian has a close focus on what George Papadoupoulos and his spouse, Simona Mangiante, have been up to, building a network around the Hunter Biden laptop.

Amid the recent crackdown on Russian influence in American media, a group of former Trump advisers and operatives have quietly helped build a pro-Russian website that frequently spreads debunked conspiracy theories about the war in Ukraine, election fraud and vaccines.

Working alongside contributors for Kremlin state media, the former Donald Trump policy aide George Papadopoulos, his wife, Simona Mangiante, and others have become editorial board members of the website Intelligencer, which is increasingly becoming a source of news for those in the rightwing ecosystem.

[snip]

Intelligencer appears to be gaining in popularity. It recently had its best month for internet traffic, with an increase of nearly 300% during August, according to data from Similarweb, and its articles have been shared on social media by the conspiracist Alex Jones, former Trump White House staffer Garrett Ziegler and former Trump aide Roger Stone.

[snip]

Three other editorial board members also have close connections to the Trump campaigns. Leah Hoopes and Greg Stenstrom, both from Pennsylvania, have written a book falsely alleging the 2020 election was stolen. Both of them have been litigants in court cases challenging the results of the election in Pennsylvania, and Hoopes was one of Pennsylvania’s fake electors, who falsely signed paperwork saying that Trump had won the election.

Tyler Nixon, Roger Stone’s personal attorney, also serves on the board and hosts his own show on TNT Radio. The former Radio Sputnik journalist Lee Stranahan is also involved.

Nixon, Hoopes, Stenstrom and Stranahan did not respond to requests for comment.

Simona met with Andrii Derkach, the Russian spy who cultivated Rudy Giuliani, earlier this year and did a big roll-out of the efforts to return to Hunter Biden disinformation.

I have long believed that one reason Trump was so sad that Biden dropped out is that there were plans for shit like this that now have limited value.

Share this entry