“History Is Watching”

/274 Comments/in /by

I obviously come late to President Biden’s powerful State of the Union speech last night.

My biggest takeaway is this: The State of the Union is about visibility. That’s why the First Lady’s guests matter. That’s why the chattering class chatters about who is sitting next to whom and what they’re wearing. That’s why CSPAN preps so well to highlight key spectators, pro and con.

Joe Biden gave tribute to the possibility that government can work. He laid out one after another policy that makes sense, and often as not, saves money. He talked about real policy successes. He promised to fight against past policy disasters.

He did so in one of the few remaining venues where political shame exists anymore.

Joe Biden laid out one after another policy that voters overwhelmingly support. Behind him, Speaker Johnson squirmed, often shaking his head. Republicans sat sourly, usually in silence.

Joe Biden orchestrated a public event where voters could see that Republicans collectively want government to fail, want popular policies to fail.

We could do with a lot more shame in the United States. US democracy would be vibrant if Republicans were held accountable for their attacks on America.

Last night, Joe Biden made the Republicans look like the small men and women they are.

I don’t know if that refrain, History is watching, will ring in their minds.

But he used the opportunity, with cameras rolling, to capture Republicans being shamed.

 

Fresh Off an Interview with Vladimir Putin, Tucker Carlson Repeats the Trick with Keith Ablow

/26 Comments/in , , /by

“I settled a few cases,” onetime Hunter Biden shrink Keith Ablow said, just over ten minutes into an interview with Tucker Carlson. “Because, I don’t know. Maybe God saying ‘you didn’t have the quijones [sic],’ I don’t know. But I wanted some safety for my family.”

It was the only explanation he gave for why Massachusetts stripped his license in the wake of multiple claims he sexually abused patients. For the bulk of the interview, Ablow carried on, as if he were still a shrink.

Ablow similarly claimed to be ignorant of why the DEA searched his office.

“I can’t explain why these things were ever taken or why I would be raided. … I never figured out why the DEA would come to my office. ”

In fact, Ablow provided an anachronistic claim suggesting he got “raided” for the same reason Roger Stone and Donald Trump did — politics, he insinuates.

A: I texted Roger Stone, Man, you, me, and Trump get raided. Who doesn’t get raided. And he, because he’s Roger Stone, he texted right back, “The bad guys.”

T: He’s right. Unfortunately, he’s right.

This exchange couldn’t have been a response to the search of Ablow’s office; rather, it could only have been a response to Trump’s search for stealing classified documents.

This conversation could have occurred no earlier than August 2022 — 30 months after the search of Ablow and 43 months after the search of Roger Stone. It’s an interesting comparison. After all, one of those searches sought notes Roger Stone took of all the conversations he had with Trump in 2016. Another found documents recording a grant of clemency for Roger Stone that has some unknown tie to a French President — possibly Macron, whom in 2017, Stone’s buddies colluded with GRU to target in a hack-and-leak.

Are you really suggesting there’s a similarity between the Stone and Trump searches and your own, Keith? Because that’s a whole lot of rat-fuckery you’re tying this search to.

Having endorsed Ablow’s claim that he, Trump, and Trump’s rat-fucker are really the good guys, Tucker predictably never pointed out that Ablow might learn why he was searched by looking at the warrant, nor did he ask what the warrant said.

Ultimately, after more babbling and blaming an assistant, though, Ablow offered up that if you call in prescriptions to pharmacies around the country, you might get in trouble for doing so.

A: Right. And so no idea, as to motive, agenda, again, I mean, I did have a disgruntled former employee. One who thinks the laptop had nothing to do with it, well maybe that person told them that you were selling drugs. They raided a pharmacy in my town, at the same time, in Newburyport, Mass. Again, no charges. it’s run by a very nice guy, Louis, he’s about 85.

T: Did anyone apologize to you?

A: No. And it’s not necessarily over. They never say, sorry, and by the way, you have a clean bill.

T: Wait. So they can just show up with guns at your house, not explain why they’re there,

A: That’s right.

T: Steal all your stuff. And then never charge you, much less convict you. And that just kind of hangs over your head.

A: It hangs over your head and if I had called my lawyer prior to this, he would have said, absolutely not. You are not going on Tucker Carlson’s show, because, as you know, you’re still under Federal investigation. Any doctor — any doctor in America, if you said, did you ever have to wonder if you could call in prescriptions around the country for pharmacies, would say, I don’t know. I’ve done it. Is that a bad thing, if they fill it? But, if they find out that any single doctor did that, for instance, they can make a beef about it. So this is a way to shut people up. Right. Because anybody can be messed with.

[snip]

The reason I’m here … is I don’t like being shut up. It’s safer not to. Really safer. [my emphasis]

That’s important context to the interview: Slightly more than four years after the DEA search and more than five after Hunter Biden left his care, Ablow is claiming that if anything were to happen to him, it would be because he opened his mouth. The timing of this is important.

Unless someone were charged with a continuing conspiracy through the time Rudy Giuliani started disseminating the laptop, the statute of limitations on Ablow’s hypothetical role would have expired. They would not have, though, on any drug-related crimes that continued through February 2020. “You’re still under federal investigation,” Ablow’s lawyer would say to him.

It as if he’s saying that if he were charged with drug-related crimes, it would be because of his role in the Hunter Biden caper.

That claim came even as Ablow falsely claimed to have protected Hunter’s privacy. He did so, several times, when describing how he came to sit on Hunter’s laptop for a year. In the first instance, he described that, generally, he has no interest in someone’s private life.

T: How did Hunter Biden’s laptop end up in your office or your house?

A: Well, I think that texts and emails that exist would prove out that, you know, he leaves laptops places.

T: Yeah?

A: Despite my saying to him, pick it up, dude, along with your Loro Piana clothes, because they’re my size and I might wear them [laughs], or keep them, he didn’t. And so there it was. And it was taken.

T: You knew it was in your house.

A: Oh yeah. It was … locked up.

T: And you told him, you left your laptop at my place, pick it up, and he didn’t?

A: Correct. Multiple times. [Funny mouth gesture]

T: And so, what happened next? I mean, did you look at the laptop?

A: No. That’s why this theory from Hunter’s pal and benefactor — his lawyer — Kevin Morris is absurd. Cause they could open it up. He has it back! And they could do some sort of forensic look at it. Not only did I never open the lid, I never turned it on, I have no interest in looking at somebody’s private stuff. [my emphasis]

But then prodded by Tucker, he claimed to have Hunter’s secrets independent of the laptop and then shared what he claims Hunter’s diagnosis was — cocaine dependency.

T: But you were his shrink. So you would know his secrets anyway.

A; Exactly.

[Cackling from Tucker.]

A And I don’t have to look at his laptop to know his secrets and his secrets are safe with me, which is why if you have a lawyer, I’ve said this before, if you have a lawyer who represents you, and you allow that lawyer to suggest that your shrink is a scumbag, then I give you a diagnosis, additionally, besides, cocaine dependence, which is scumbag.

T; Yeah.

A: Because that, I made clear to a few people, who suggested, you should have turned it over. Look what you had! You could have helped America! No no no. You don’t understand. This is sacred. This is like a blood oath. If you think I’m gonna be on my death bed, and look my kids in the eyes and say, well I was the one who made it kind of confidential, when you go to a psychiatrist. Uh uh. Like I’m willing to die for that. I’m not breaking confidentiality with a patient, ever. That’s, like, one of those tripwires. [my emphasis]

He has no interest in looking at private stuff, Hunter’s secrets are safe with him, and he wouldn’t break confidentiality, he said, after claiming to repeat a diagnosis that would be useful for prosecutors in the gun case.

The most telling example of Ablow violating Hunter’s privacy, though, is Ablow’s thinly veiled description of his opinion regarding Hunter Biden’s ills. As Ablow explained to Tucker how he (used to, when he had a license, which again he doesn’t mention) helps clients reclaim their own story, he spoke about a hypothetical patient who exactly matches Hunter Biden. His description pitched a claim that Hunter was ordered to earn money for the family by the Bidens — something Hunter expressed when complaining about his financial woes, but something that had far more to do with his divorce than his father. Which is how he insinuated Joe Biden doesn’t love his son.

They suffer depression, anxiety, all manner of things, when their stories are not known to them. When they think of people, let’s say, in the family, or others or events that unfolded as beneficial to them when they were, let’s say, very bad for them. They need to recast the characters that they thought were the heroes in their lives and say, maybe not. Maybe when I abandoned my self, my interest, to take a common example, maybe when I allowed myself to not pursue that real passion of mine because I wanted to satisfy people around me, maybe that means that those people didn’t love me as much as I thought they did. Right? Now, that’s an incredible epiphany, when that happens. If a man, for instance, is supposed to be an artist, and he goes around the globe doing deals, to create wealth for his family, because he’s not sure what else to do because that was assigned to him? That man needs to embrace his art again and reevaluate everyone around him who suggested he not do that. [my emphasis]

We’ve seen this — Ablow minimizing Joe Biden’s love for his son — before. As I showed in this post, Ablow completely rewrote a statement Hunter wrote for a Vanity Fair piece and took out all the love. Ablow replaced this fairly amazing paragraph about Joe Biden … [I’ve left all typos, including the charming, “iOS” instead of “is.”]

The reason people love my Dad Chris iOS because he’s the son they hope to raise he’s the parent they hope to be he’s the brother and friend we all look up to. They love him Chris because he is as real an American as they are and they all want to be. He’s not perfect’ he’s got a horrible temper, he spoils his grandkids, he loves my Mom almost too much and he still thinks he can still make me angrier than anyone on earth sometimes. There’s nobody I want to make more proud of me than my Dad and there’s no-one that I know can ever be more proud of me and my whole family. May Dad never has asked anyone of us to be less human he’s just taught us all what it means to be a good man in hard world. He taught me what his mom and dad taught him “Always remember no man is better than you and you are no better than you.”if er to break I m certain they would all say —no one will ever know you better than your brothers and your sisters you always take their side no matter how badly they screwed up. Every Biden kid knows there’s nothing that they could do to make anyone in this family to stop loving you. And finally always be kind to the people in pain (unless they hurt your grandmother your mom your aunt or your sister- then you’re free to beat the shit out of them if your sister hasn’t beat you to it.) [my emphasis]

With a paragraph that turned Trump’s opponent into a fighter, stripped of his love.

I believe that my father has become an ongoing symbol of what it means to keep on fighting for what is good in oneself, in others and in our country. I can tell you that I wouldn’t be alive today, if my dad hadn’t kept fighting for me, too, through my darkest days. So the idea that tragedy or tough times or any number of trials would dissuade a Biden from serving his fellow man—whether a friend or a fellow citizen—could not be more misguided. My dad has proven, ag ain and again, that he is (as Teddy Roosevelt once said of himself) “as strong as a bull moose” and that America “can use [him] to the limit.”

In an interview in which Ablow advised Tucker to get a dog so he can experience unconditional love, Ablow stole the love Joe has for Hunter, one of the things that has sustained Hunter in sobriety.

Given Ablow’s inconsistent claims about confidentiality and his attack on Joe Biden’s love for his son, take a look at Ablow’s claims about why he got the DEA to give the laptop back to Hunter. As Ablow described it, after the raid he moved immediately to inform the DEA that the Hunter laptop was not his own.

T: So, and then, how did they get Hunter Biden’s laptop?

[describes seizure]

A: And then I immediately called my lawyer and said, look, a patient’s item was taken amongst the things that were mine. It has a sticker on it. It looks different than mine. It’s messy. Mine are clean. His was messy. We have to get it back to him because that’s not okay. And uh, that’s what we did.

[snip]

T: They returned it to him. How did that happen?

A: Well, I did suggest that that would be the right thing for them to do. They made a — they could have made a different decision given that he was under investigation, federally. They didn’t. That’s their business, as to why not. You know it sure put me in a funny position because I had guys like Garrett Ziegler, who’s a far right guy, saying, Keith Ablow must be in business selling drugs with Hunter Biden. He wouldn’t turn over that laptop — he had it all this time. Well, no. It’s patient confidentiality.

He again cited patient confidentiality, the same confidentiality that didn’t prevent him from repeating his diagnosis of Hunter or describing generally what he told Hunter to malign his father’s love. The exclusion of a laptop from a warranted search has nothing to do with patient confidentiality: Ablow has already said that he didn’t look at the laptop. The laptop, at that point, had more to do with Ablow’s rental than with his psychiatric care.

Importantly, Ablow pointed to the fact that he got the DEA to return the laptop to Hunter as proof that he had no role in compromising the other laptop.

I [effected?] the return of Mr. Biden’s laptop to him through my attorney, interacting with the DEA, because that’s the responsible thing to do. Which is, by the way, why Kevin Morris’ theory that Keith Ablow is the source of the laptop originally — he’s the leak — is absurd.

Is it, though? Or did Ablow rush to get the laptop back to Hunter to prevent them from doing a search, to prevent the Feds from seeing the Hunter Biden laptop?

There are two more details of interest. First, note that Ablow is equivocating about what building was — is — next to the cottage Hunter occupied when his digital life got picked up. Yes, that building is currently (as far as I understand it) Ablow’s house. It wasn’t then. It was his office (note Tucker’s reference to house or office above, as if he knows this detail).

It’s an open network of people who have descended in my town. I have a cottage next to mine. They’ve made use of that at times. In order to heal!

It’s very private, etcetera. Of course, not so private if you end up going to dinner many times as we did, in our town, and if you’re a person — [my emphasis]

But in the course of offering up what a private place that cottage is, Ablow let it be known that he and Hunter repeatedly were outside the cottage, in public, at which point the rental cottage would be vacant.

He had nothing to do with the compromise of Hunter’s digital life that occurred while he was staying in the cottage next door to his office, Ablow says. But if it was compromised then and there, he had an alibi: he was out to dinner with Hunter!

Kash Patel’s Deep State: How Trump Trained the GOP to Hate Rule of Law 2

/79 Comments/in , , , , , /by

I realized after I wrote my first post on how Trump trained Republicans to hate rule of law that I didn’t lay out what I meant by that. After all, that first post showed that for decades before Trump ran for President, Republicans were already willing to gin up criminal investigations against people named Clinton for political gain.

If that’s the baseline, what did Trump change? And to what degree was that change driven by Russian interference, which I argued did little more than drop a match on an already raging bonfire in 2016?

So I want to show the trajectory, using this Politico piece about the concerns a bunch of spooks have about Trump’s plans to remake the Deep State in his image. The story is not all that new — there have been a bunch of stories that included Trump’s goal to remake the Deep State in his image, both during his Administration and in more recent descriptions of Trump’s plans for a second term. But it does certain things that make it helpful to explain what I mean.

The spooks described three concerns with Trump in a second term. He would:

  • Selectively ignore intelligence on certain issues [cough, Russia], blinding the Intelligence Community and weakening our collective alliances
  • Leak [more of] America’s secrets
  • Staff the agencies with loyalists

POLITICO talked to 18 former officials and analysts who worked in the Trump administration, including political appointees from both parties and career intelligence officers, some who still speak to the former president and his aides and had insight into conversations about his potential second term. A number of them were granted anonymity to avoid provoking backlash and to speak freely about their experience working with him. Others are now vocal Trump critics and spoke publicly.

“He wants to weaponize the intelligence community. And the fact is you need to look with a 360 degree perspective. He can’t just cherry pick what he wants to hear when there are so many U.S. adversaries and countries that don’t wish the U.S. well,” said Fiona Hill, a top Russia adviser on the National Security Council in Trump’s administration who has regularly criticized his policies. “If he guts the intel on one thing, he’ll be partially blinding us.”

Many of the former officials said they opted to speak to POLITICO because they believe the extent to which Trump could remake the intelligence community remains — despite the copious media coverage — underestimated.

Trump’s demands for “loyalty” — often read as a demand to skew findings to fit his political agenda — have not been limited to his spy agencies, but in the intelligence world, those demands carry particularly dire risks, they said.

If Trump is cavalier with his treatment of classified information or material — as alleged in a June 2023 indictment of the former president — it could endanger those who supply much-needed intelligence, said Dan Coats, who served as director of national intelligence early in Trump’s tenure.

Kash Patel gets special mention as someone who would both burn intelligence and spin fantasies by Politico.

Kash Patel, former top adviser to Devin Nunes, a former representative from California, and director of counterterrorism at the National Security Council, served as an informal adviser to Grenell but was also considered for a top post at the CIA. He later became chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense in Trump’s final months. Patel also helped advise on an initiative to declassify material related to the origins of the Russia investigation.

Patel is likely to return to serve under Trump if he is elected, raising worries among current and former intelligence officials about the preservation of sources and methods of U.S. intelligence.

“There were often a lot of appointments that seemed designed to make sure that the intelligence assessments could be shaped to paint certain pictures that simply didn’t match up with what the intelligence community had come up with,” said one former Trump administration intelligence official.

The guy who rose to prominence by turning an investigation into a Russian attack on democracy into a counterattack on the FBI, the guy who spends his time writing children’s books in which he, Kash, protects his liege from imaginary threats from the Deep State, is presumed to be the future steward of Trump’s efforts to politicize the intelligence community.

You could argue that the replacement of civil servants with Trump partisans in the IC is little different than what Trump plans everywhere else in government, if he’s elected. That’s true with regards to the means — gutting civil service protections and replacing them with loyalty oaths to a person rather than the Constitution. But not the effect.

One reason Trump floated putting Kash in charge of the FBI, after all, was because efforts to punish Trump’s enemies weren’t producing the results he desired. The Durham investigation didn’t exact revenge on FBI figures like Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, and Peter Strzok; when it finished, Kash complained that it “failed” precisely because people who tried to protect the country from Russia weren’t prosecuted for doing so. Five years of investigating the Clinton Foundation failed to find a chargeable crime. After he left government, a Kash Patel charity started funding right wing FBI agents accused of the same thing McCabe and Comey were — improper disclosures — but did so to discredit investigations into the right wing.

An IC led by Kash Patel would not just be a politicized intelligence community, intentionally blinded to the threat from countries like Russia, and by degrading intelligence on certain adversaries corroding the alliances built on that shared intelligence.

But it would be an instrument for exacting loyalty.

That instrument can and would be targeted at disloyal Trump party members. Look at efforts by the GOP House to investigate Cassidy Hutchinson, for example.

It’s not just Jack Smith or Nancy Pelosi’s spouses who get targeted with threats for challenging Trump, but also Don Bacon’s.

This, then, is the trajectory along which Trump has coaxed Republicans. At first, a goodly many Republicans defended the integrity of the Mueller investigation, until they didn’t anymore. With the first impeachment, virtually all Republicans excused Trump’s defiance of their own appropriations choices. With the second, reportedly fearful Republicans made excuses for an attack that threatened their own lives rather than fulfill their constitutional duty to check Trump. Since then, Trump has used his legal woes not only as an electoral plank, but also as leverage to demand that the party continue to pay his bills, diverting funds that otherwise might help to reelect down-ticket candidates.

What used to be the Grand Old Party has become, literally, a criminal protection racket serving one man.

The fate of the party depends on that man defying the law.

In a post examining why Elise Stefanik might have parroted Trump’s assertion that January 6 felons were, instead, hostages, I laid out a taxonomy of potential motives that would convince Republicans to follow Trump down this path. Aside from ideological true believers, I think Republicans are motivated because they’ve fallen for Trump’s grift, they’re afraid, or they calculate they can stay on Trump’s good side long enough to advance their career.

One way or another, a series of individual choices brought Trump’s party to this point.

Moments ago, Mitch McConnell endorsed a man who launched a terrorist attack targeting, among others, McConnell himself.

A series of individual choices have brought the party that used to be Mitch McConnell’s to this point.

Update Mike “Moses” Johnson is bragging about defunding the FBI and DOJ.

So-So Tuesday Meanderings

/119 Comments/in , /by

Even eight hours after polls started closing on the Super Tuesday primaries yesterday, I see little of real interest in yesterday’s results.

The biggest news of the day remains that we’re rid of Kristen Sinema, which should make it easier for Ruben Gallego to replace her.

Another big news nugget yesterday confirmed what some had speculated: that when Elon Musk flew to West Palm Beach the other day, it was to allow Trump to beg him for cash. Musk famously demands full board control in business negotiations; imagine how such a discussion would go with Trump’s campaign team, who thus far have run a far more professional show than Trump’s past Presidential elections. Or, for that matter, Xitter under Musk’s direction.

Speaking of Nazi sympathizers, the North Carolina GOP nominated a Black Holocaust denier to run for governor.

Adam Schiff and Steve Garvey will face off to take Dianne Feinstein’s seat — and sadly, the progressives weren’t even close.

Nikki Haley appears to have won Vermont. [Update: At 10AM, Haley will suspend her campaign but not yet endorse Trump.] Joe Biden appears to have lost American Samoa. [Correction: Updated reporting says it was a delegate tie.]

It will take days to figure out how much of Haley’s vote — under 20% in more conservative states and Texas — reflected cross-overs. Similarly, it’ll take some time to understand the significance of protest votes against Joe Biden, the most significant of which was in Minnesota. And given what a weird situation a two incumbent general presents it’ll take days to figure out what the turnout means for Biden and Trump.

One of the most important measures, in my opinion, is in where and how Latinos voted — particularly if Colin Allred, now the Democratic nominee in Texas, has a chance of replacing Ted Cruz. Again, it’ll take days to make sense of that.

The big takeaway right now is that a whole lot of people don’t want to be facing a Trump-Biden rematch. But as of yesterday, it is virtually certain that’s what will happen.

SCOTUS Invites Jack Smith to Supersede Trump with Inciting Insurrection

/236 Comments/in , , /by

The Supreme Court has not only held that states cannot enforce the 14th Amendment for Federal offices,

This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency.

But it held that Congress must exclude insurrectionists from office.

The respondents nonetheless maintain that States may enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office. But the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, on its face, does not affirmatively delegate such a power to the States. The terms of the Amendment speak only to enforcement by Congress, which enjoys power to enforce the Amendment through legislation pursuant to Section 5.

It points to the predecessor to 18 USC 2383 as means to exclude someone.

Instead, it is Congress that has long given effect to Section 3 with respect to would-be or existing federal officeholders. Shortly after ratification of the Amendment, Congress enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870. That Act authorized federal district attorneys to bring civil actions in federal court to remove anyone holding nonlegislative office—federal or state—in violation of Section 3, and made holding or attempting to hold office in violation of Section 3 a federal crime. §§14, 15, 16 Stat. 143–144 (repealed, 35 Stat. 1153–1154, 62 Stat. 992–993). In the years following ratification, the House and Senate exercised their unique powers under Article I to adjudicate challenges contending that certain prospective or sitting Members could not take or retain their seats due to Section 3. See Art. I, §5, cls. 1, 2; 1 A. Hinds, Precedents of the House of Representatives §§459–463, pp. 470–486 (1907). And the Confiscation Act of 1862, which predated Section 3, effectively provided an additional procedure for enforcing disqualification. That law made engaging in insurrection or rebellion, among other acts, a federal crime punishable by disqualification from holding office under the United States. See §§2, 3, 12 Stat. 590. A successor to those provisions remains on the books today. See 18 U. S. C. §2383. [my emphasis]

Taken in tandem with SCOTUS’ punt on Trump’s immunity bid, this seems like an invitation for Jack Smith to supersede Trump with inciting insurrection. After all, SCOTUS has now upheld the DC Circuit opinion that says there’s no double jeopardy problem with trying someone for something on which they were acquitted after impeachment.

Jack Smith could — today — charge Trump with inciting insurrection in response to this order. It is the one Constitutional means to disqualify him, according to this order.

Russia’s Flipping Focus: Alexander Smirnov Is No Exception

/23 Comments/in , , , , , /by

When I started spinning the Ball of Thread out of which I hoped to explain how Trump trained Republicans to hate rule of law, this post was described, “The FBI keeps getting pwned.”

The bullet point was, perhaps, a misnomer.

What I had planned to talk about, two months ago and some forty days before David Weiss accused a 14-year FBI informant of framing Joe Biden in 2020, was the way that Russia has long exploited one-time FBI informants as part of their operations against the US.

Since then, we’ve learned that a guy who first established contact with Russian spies, way back in 2002, by helping another intelligence service (likely Israel’s) flip a low-level Russian spy, and who would therefore have been readily identifiable as an asset of intelligence services throughout that period, attempted to frame Joe Biden in 2020. If you can believe his reporting, Alexander Smirnov has since established contact with four to six high level Russian spies.

Russia’s focus on using informants was readily apparent in the results of the Mueller investigation. Key players in the Russian attack who were or had previously been informants include:

This was nothing new then. This Emma Best piece describes how a former FBI informant, Maxsim Popov, played a key role in Anonymous; they suggest Popov made have been a model for the Guccifer 2.0 persona.

Nor has Russia’s focus on informants diminished. In addition to Alexander Smirnov, informants dealing dirt on the Bidens leading up to 2020 include Ukrainians Rollie and The Economist and Peter Schweizer.

Sometimes, Russia’s identification of FBI informants may have been facilitated by hacking. In the lead-up to the 2016 operation, the Crackas with Attitude hackers — who got far more attention for hacking John Brennan’s AOL account — stole some lists of law enforcement partners and accessed FBI’s Joint Automated Booking System, which might provide a way to identify hackers the FBI was in the process of flipping. The Solar Winds hack compromised DOJ six months before the department figured out what was happening; it also targeted PACER, another source of information on sealed plea deals usually associated with cooperating witnesses. To this day, I’m furious that when DOJ IG discovered what amounts to a backdoor in the system used to archive texts sent on FBI devices — including those on which Peter Strzok and Lisa Page conducted an affair — there wasn’t a more focused effort to find out whether anyone had found and used that back door. And the reason US spooks changed their understanding of WikiLeaks is that, after burning State’s partners worldwide and DOD’s partners in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010, WikiLeaks went on to make CIA’s local assets readily identifiable in 2017.

None of this is surprising or unique to Russia. It’s good spycraft.

But the targeting of informants, particularly FBI informants, has been a central part of Russia’s recent campaign against the US. There are all sorts of sound operational reasons for Russia to do that. It probably helps to evade certain kinds of counter-surveillance. It’s a good way to inject information directly into investigative hands.

Just as importantly, by making it clear how shoddy FBI’s management of informants is, it discredits the Bureau more generally.

What the Information Operation about Joe Biden’s Age Looks Like

/67 Comments/in /by

One reason Joe Biden is behind in the polls, I’m fairly convinced, is because Democrats relentlessly participate in an organized campaign to use Biden’s age to dehumanize him.

Whether it involves making reasonable critiques of the nonsense focus by the press on Biden’s age, loud fights about his age and how one might replace him, or the collapsing of all problems with Robert Hur’s report into his geezer comments, Democrats talk about Biden’s age all the time, even while complaining that the NYT does too.

Democrats talk about Biden’s age instead of all the other things (Gaza is an important exception) they should be talking about, whether they want to replace Biden or not. Want Kamala Harris to replace Joe Biden at the top of the ticket? You’re best served to talk about the historic successes of the Biden-Harris Administration. Want Gretchen Whitmer or someone else to replace both Biden and Harris? You’re best served to talk about the success of Democratic policies. Happy to have Biden continue what he’s doing or even just resigned that he’s not going to be replaced? You sure as hell should be talking about the remarkable successes his Administration has had.

Not Democrats. They’re talking about Biden’s age instead.

Out of frustration, I went on Xitter and … talked about Biden’s age.

The post went, by my modest standards, viral: as of this moment, 6.3K likes, 1.7K RTs, 65 QTs, and just north of 106K views.

Because Xitter is a toxic cesspool full of brainless MAGAts and bots and trolls, my post elicited a flood of replies — effectively I jumped myself right into a cesspool of far right memes about Joe Biden’s age.

Perhaps about a fifth of the replies attacked me because I posted this, including the always stale attack on my moniker that I should be called empty head. A few people even suggested I was a bot.

There were a number of gross memes, often with photos shopped to make Biden look older.

A number of the memes were racialized.

Both memes and posts stated as fact that Biden had dementia.

A good many featured pictures (again, often altered) of Biden at the beach, as if going to the beach is something only seniors do.

Some, thinking they were being smart, asked, “What did he accomplish in the last week?”

The was the historic drop in crime rates. There was the student loan debt relief.

There was his yearly physical, which shows arthritis in his feet continues to be a problem, but the root canal he had over the year required only local numbing.

There was the “intense” meeting Biden hosted, at which he, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, and Hakeem Jeffries attempted to explain that the House had to fund Ukraine support to avoid a sure Ukrainian loss, the fracturing of NATO, and the conclusion by authoritarians of the world that the US was a soft, fat country that had lost its way.

And, yes, there were the inadequate efforts to reign in the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, the urgent topic that should be the focus of criticism.  The White House hosted Israeli cabinet member Benny Gantz in what Bibi Netanyahu made clear was an unauthorized visit, but President Biden was not described as participating.

We know how the far right engages in troll and meme warfare to dictate press coverage. As Microchip described at Douglass Mackey’s trial, it didn’t matter whether the memes he was making go viral were true; what mattered was to “creat[e] the appearance of some controversy … [t]o cause as much chaos as possible so that that would bleed over to Hillary Clinton and diminish her chance of winning.” Those efforts have only gotten more professionalized since 2016. Elon Musk has made that far easier to do on Xitter. If anything, mainstream outlets like NYT have only proven easier to bully into chasing right wing narratives since.

The right wing noise machine turning Biden’s walks on the beach, walks he has been taken for over a half-century of living in Delaware, into some sign of abnormality will run rampant regardless of what Democrats talk about. But the choice to obsess about Biden’s age instead of the things his experience has allowed him to accomplish is equally a choice to participate in an information operation designed to dehumanize the President and drown out any discussion of his accomplishments.

The Still Unidentified “Big Guy[s]” in the Alexander Smirnov Saga

/84 Comments/in , , /by

With a few weeks to work with, several outlets have done profiles of the shady financial life of Alexander Smirnov, the former FBI informant accused of framing Joe and Hunter Biden.

The AP examines a series of what it calls “duplicitous business schemes,” including a pump and dump scheme.

Even as Smirnov was being paid as a government informant, he participated in duplicitous business schemes, according to court records and interviews.

One example is his investment in an obscure penny-stock company called Eco-Trade Corp.

Such companies can yield a handsome return on a minimal investment. They are lightly regulated and often subject to financial scams and market manipulation.

In 2010, Smirnov purchased a stake in Eco-Trade valued at roughly $3 million as the company was on the verge of launching an advertising blitz that dramatically inflated its value. A crash three years later saddled investors with losses.

WSJ focuses on schemes with closer proximity to Donald Trump — or more importantly, Rudy Giuliani. Of note, WSJ describes several occasions that Smirnov pitched Sam Kislin, a fellow Ukrainian, who has long-standing ties to Rudy and Trump.

Around 2021, on the beach at a private club in Boca Raton, Smirnov pitched Kislin on founding a company together that would market electric-car batteries and capture federal subsidies, Kislin said.

Smirnov told him he also could use his FBI ties to help him unfreeze more than $21 million in infrastructure bonds that belonged to Kislin but which Ukrainian authorities deemed had been issued illegally, embroiling Kislin in a corruption probe, Kislin said.

Kislin had for years been seeking to unfreeze the funds, traveling to Ukraine and meeting with officials there. His travel there coincided with efforts by Giuliani and his associates to push the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden, and in 2019, Kislin was subpoenaed by House impeachment investigators who were looking into those efforts. Kislin’s lawyer said he didn’t have relevant information, and he didn’t ultimately testify.

Smirnov set his fee for recovering Kislin’s $21 million at $1 million, according to Kislin, who said he paid Smirnov $224,000—partially as an advance and partially as an investment in the car-battery company, incorporated in Nevada in May 2021 as Quantum Force.

After a little over a year, Quantum Force dissolved and registered by the same name in a different state—this time without Smirnov listed in the corporate records.

When a solution to Kislin’s problem in Ukraine failed to materialize, Kislin said he deduced that Smirnov had taken him for a ride.

And while WSJ notes that Smirnov was repeatedly admonished that he might have to testify at trial, neither story notes he was admonished at least five times that the “Otherwise Illegal Activity” that he engaged in to stay close to subjects of interest to the FBI could not include obstruction.

In addition, when the Defendant was authorized to engage in illegal activity for investigative purposes, he was further admonished that: “Under no circumstances may the CHS … Participate in an act that constitutes obstruction of justice (e.g., perjury, witness tampering, witness intimidation, entrapment, or fabrication, alteration, or destruction of evidence, unless such illegal activity has been authorized).” When the Defendant was given this admonishment, he signed an FBI form that contained this statement, including on 10/8/2014, 1/18/2017, 10/8/2018, 1/10/2019, and 8/7/2020.

These sketchy business schemes were presumably the point — they were the reason Smirnov was useful to the FBI, because they provided the FBI access to learn about suspected crooks of more interest.

But his larger network is of interest for two other reasons.

First, because Scott Brady’s explanation for how he came upon Smirnov’s 2017 FD-1023 mentioning Hunter Biden — first telling Republicans he simply searched on Hunter Biden and Burisma, then telling Democrats something much more squishy — is garbage. There is nothing about the mention of Hunter in a 2017 FD-1023 claimed as that link that should have led Brady to look further.

During this call, there was a brief, non-relevant discussion about [Public Official 1]’s son, [Businessperson 1], who is currently on the Board of Directors for Burisma Holdings [No Further Information].

One possible link is that the process of (per Chuck Grassley) shutting down an investigation into Mykola Zlochevsky created the possibility of a derogatory conversation in 2019, which Smirnov claimed in 2020 but disclaimed in an FBI interview last September.

But another is that someone knew that, if asked, Smirnov would be willing to fabricate bribery allegations on demand. That someone would presumably need to know both that Smirnov was an FBI informant and that he had met with Zlochevsky in the past, even if not in a period that was convenient for a story about Joe Biden’s imagined corruption.

In Jerry Nadler’s referral of Scott Brady to DOJ Inspector General for misleading the Committee, he included an email from someone — he describes it as one of the investigators — telling the lead AUSA on the project that, two days after his interview with Brady, Rudy was in Florida, speaking “to the original source [redacted].”

There are plenty of Ukrainians in Florida from whom Rudy might have been digging dirt (Smirnov’s cousin, for example, lives there and has ties to Trump world). If such sources also had reason to know about Smirnov’s work with the FBI, they might provide guidance to look for the innocuous 2017 informant report as a pretext to set up an interview with Smirnov.

But by description, Smirnov was trading on his ties to the FBI, so plenty of people might have been able to offer his name as a worthwhile source.

There’s one other reason Smirnov’s network is of some interest.

In the allegedly fraudulent FD-1023, Smirnov used a line that would become famous months later when Tony Bobulinski would pitch it: Big Guy.

CHS mentioned Zlochevsky might have difficulty explaining suspicious wire transfers that may evidence any (Illicit) payments to the Bidens. Zlochevsky responded he did not send any funds directly to the “Big Guy” (which CHS understood was a reference to Joe Biden). CHS asked Zloehevsky how many companies/bank accounts Zlochevsky controls; Zlochevsky responded it would take them (Investigators) 10 years to find the records (i.e. illicit payments to Joe Biden). CHS told Zlochevsky if he ever needed help in the future and wanted to speak to somebody in the US government about that matter, that CHS could Introduce him to someone. [my emphasis]

While it’s true that some of Hunter Biden’s associates would recognize (and dispute) the use of the term by others, Hunter told Congress he doesn’t use the term.

Q One final question, because our round is up, I know everyone’s disappointed by that.

But the reference to the big guy, you would agree, is a reference to your father?

A I truly don’t know what the hell that James was talking about. All I know is that what actually happened.

[snip]

Mr. Raskin. Just, on the question of nicknames, I have not seen your father referred to as the big guy anywhere else in this record. Was that his nickname in your family, the big guy?

The Witness. No.

Mr. Raskin. Did you ever call him the big guy?

The Witness. No, I never called him that.

Hunter occasionally used “my guy” to refer to his father. Not The Big Guy.

When Smirnov’s FD-1023 was released last summer, the frothy right took this reference to the “Big Guy” not just that this allegation of corruption was true, but that Tony Bobulinski’s was too.

So it remains a fairly important question why — months before Tony Bobulinski went public with the “Big Guy” email, but months after he (described that he) started considering doing so, at a time Bobulinski was trying to navigate how to come forward, as he was being referred to a former Trump lawyer by someone whose identity he has protected jealously — why Smirnov would use the line that would become famous after Bobulinski made it public.

Smirnov’s shady financial ties are to be expected: that’s why he was useful to the FBI and some of those shady deals likely were negotiated with the FBI’s permission. What’s more interesting is whether any of those shady financial ties would explain why Smirnov told the specific story he did.

Update: I forgot, when I did this post, that I had already put the dates of Smirnov’s admonishments into a table.

Hunter Biden Claims All Zhaos Look the Same to Joseph Ziegler

/43 Comments/in , , , /by

From the time Gary Shapley provided Congress obviously flawed summaries of WhatsApp texts, stripped of their identifiers, from an iCloud backup of Hunter Biden’s, I’ve argued their treatment reflects badly on the IRS agents involved.

When Abbe Lowell claimed, before Hunter was charged, that the IRS agents had gotten the identify of Hunter’s interlocutor wrong, I noted that the summaries, lacking identifiers, prevented what should be easy adjudication of this dispute.

The summary matters, a lot. That’s because Lowell claims that Shapley — or whoever did these summaries — misidentified the Hunter Biden interlocutor whose last name begins with Z.

In one excerpt that has now gotten a great deal of media attention, Mr. Biden is alleged to have been sitting next to his father on July 30, 2017, when he allegedly sent a WhatsApp message, urging the completion of some business transaction. See Shapley Tr. at 14. The inference is that the referenced message was being sent to an official of CEFC (China Energy) to forward a false narrative about the Bidens’ involvement in that company. The facts, which some media has now reported, are that President Biden and our client were not together that day, the company being referenced was not CEFC but Harvest Financial Group (with a person who also had the initial “Z”), and that no transaction actually occurred. More important, your own actions call into question the authenticity of that communication and your subsequent use of it. In short, the images you circulated online are complete fakes. Many media articles confirm that data purported to have come from Mr. Biden’s devices has been altered or manipulated. You, or someone else, did that again. All of the misstatements about this communication and your use of a false text are good examples of how providing one-sided, untested, and slanted information leads to improper conclusions. [my emphasis]

This is a remarkable claim, because — if true — it suggests the IRS was investigating Hunter Biden based on wildly incorrect assumptions about the identity of his interlocutors.

Abbe Lowell claims that the IRS agents who investigated his client for five years — the son of the President!!! — didn’t know to whom he was talking! I’ve heard a lot of outlandish claims from defense attorneys (though Lowell is far more credible than the grifters who defend a lot of January 6 defendants), But this is an utterly inflammatory claim.

Had Shapley used responsible summaries, rather than the unprofessional script he did use, it might be possible to figure out who is right, here, because then we could compare the actual number or email account used.

When Luke Broadwater tried to manufacture a partisan both-sides dispute out of this discrepancy, I noted the real conflict came between Republicans, some of whom said the Zhao in question was Henry, others who said it was Raymond.

The summary and the fabrications of the text and Smith’s use of the initials “HZ” matter because there’s a dispute between Republicans and their IRS source about the identity of the person involved.

Shapley said the texts involved Henry Zhao, consistent with Smith’s fabrication.

But in a later release, James Comer described the interlocutor as Raymond Zhao — which is consistent with the interjection in the summary (and other communications regarding this business deal).

On July 30, 2017, Hunter Biden sent a WhatsApp message to Raymond Zhao—a CEFC associate—regarding the $10 million capital payment:

As we’ll see, Broadwater predictably “fact checks” this as a dispute between Democrats and Republicans. It’s not. Before you get there, you first have to adjudicate a conflict between the guy who led the IRS investigation for more than two years, Gary Shapley, and James Comer. It’s a conflict sustained by the shoddiness of the underlying IRS work.

This is a story showing not only that James Comer and Jason Smith don’t know what they’re talking about, but are willing to lie and fabricate nevertheless, but even the IRS agents may not know what they’re talking about, and if they don’t, it’s because the standard of diligence on the investigation of Joe Biden’s son was such that they didn’t even include the identifier of the person to whom Hunter was talking, which would make it easy or at least possible to adjudicate this dispute.

In Wednesday’s hearing, after such time as they had received discovery on this material, Hunter Biden and Abbe Lowell provided a new explanation for the discrepancy: That the first text (but only the first text) was accidentally sent to Henry Zhao, and the follow-up texts — which were therefore necessarily unrelated — came from Raymond Zhao.

Q This is a giant text pack prepared by the IRS investigators, summarizing, and in many cases, quoting WhatsApp message.

Mr. Lowell. Do you have the underlying message?

[Redacted] We have this document. This is what we have.

Mr. Lowell. I want to point out on the record that is all known to you that we have great reservations about the accuracy and completeness of what two IRS agents who have decided to go on television and try to promote what they believe should happen to Mr. Biden as having made a complete record.

And when there have been records, they have not been complete?

And when they make summaries, they are often quoting from texts or communications, which appear to have been altered by those other than themselves.

So with all that, you can certainly ask your questions. But I do not accept the premise that what you’re about to ask him is either an authentic or authenticated or a complete document.

[Redacted]: Okay.

Mr. Lowell. With that in mind, let’s go.

[Redacted] Okay.

BY [Redacted]:

Q Just to set expectations here, I’m going to refer to three. Okay? Then we’ll be done with this document for now.

A Page 3?

Q I’m going to refer to three sort of topics —

A Okay.

Q — within this giant document, not 148. We’re not going to go through every page. I’m sort of managing your expectations here.

A Thank you.

Q I’d like you to turn to page 4, and it’s a message dated July 30th, 2017. It’s about halfway down the page and it begins, “WA message with SM.” And that’s the — that stands for Sportsman, and that’s what they called you, and Zhao. Have you identified the one that I’m referring to?

Mr. Lowell. It’s down the page. It’s the only one for the 30th?

[Redacted]. Correct.

Mr. Lowell. Okay. Yes.

BY [Redacted]:

Q And so the text, according to the IRS, the Federal investigators, say, “Z, please have the director call me, moment James or Tony or Jim. Have him call me tonight. I’m sitting here with my father, and we would like to understand why the commitment made has not been fulfilled.

“I’m very concerned that the chairman has either changed his mind or broken our deal without telling me or that he’s unaware of the promises and assurances that have been made have not been kept.

“Tell the director I would like to resolve this now before it gets out of hand, and now means tonight. And, Z, if I get a call or text from anyone involved in this other than you, Zhang or the chairman, I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret  not following my direction.

All too often people make mistakes — sorry.

“All too often people mistake kindness for weakness, and all too often I’m standing over the top of them, saying, I warned you.

“From this moment until whenever he reaches me. It’s 9:45 a.m. here and I assume 9:45 p.m. there. So his night is running out.”

Zhao responds, “Copy. I will call you on WhatsApp.”

You respond, “Okay, my friend. I’m sitting here, waiting for the call, with my father. I sure hope whatever it is are you doing is very, very, very important.”

Then Zhao says, “Hi, Hunter. Is it a good time to call now? Hi, Hunter, Director did not answer my call, but he got the message you just mentioned.”

A Yeah.

Q Do you have any recollection of sending these?

A No, but I’ve seen this and —

Mr. Lowell. Is there a question?

[Redacted]. Yes. Does he have a recollection of sending the message?

The Witness. And I do not, but I do know this. I have now seen it, which it’s been presented. I would say two things about this message.

Mr. Nadler. Can you speak up?

The Witness. I would say two things about this message. The first thing is this.

Is that the Zhao that this is sent to is not the Zhao that was connected to CEFC.

BY [Redacted]:

Q Okay.

A Which I think is the best indication of how out of my mind I was at this moment in time.

Again, I don’t — my addiction is not an excuse, but I can tell you this: I am more embarrassed of this text message, if it actually did come from me, than any text message I’ve ever sent.

The fact of the matter is, is that there’s no other text message that you have in which I say anything remotely to this. And I was out of my mind. I can also tell you this: My father was not sitting next to me. My father had no awareness. My father had no awareness of the business that I was doing. My father never benefited from any of the business that I was doing.

And so, I take full responsibility for being an absolute ass and idiot when I sent this message, if I did send this message.

Q Okay.

[Redacted]. When you say it wasn’t Zhao from CEFC, who —

Mr. Nadler. Would you speak up, please?

[Redacted]. Which Zhao are you referring to if it wasn’t from CEFC?

The Witness. The number that I believe it went to was to Henry Zhao. Zhao is a very common — it’s not a surname — surname in China. I mean, obviously, very common surname. And I, like an idiot, directed it towards Henry Zhao who had no involvement, who had no understanding or even remotely knew what the hell I was even Goddamn talking about. Excuse my language

BY [Redacted]:

Q And he seems to —

A No, no, no, no, no, the Zhao — it’s a different — you’re conflating now.

Q Okay.

A And this why this report from the IRS is absolutely wrong. They’re two different messages.

The Zhao that calls me is not related to the message that was sent. I speak to him the next day. They’re two completely different sets of messages. One goes a number because, I made the Goddamn — excuse my language again — because I made like an idiot, and I was drunk and probably high, sent a — this ridiculous message to a Zhao, to a Henry Zhao.

But then the next day, I speak to a Raymond Zhao, who has never received the message that Henry Zhao got. And so that’s why this report is very misleading in many ways.

Mr. Lowell. That’s exactly why I raised the point before you decided to ask questions. The IRS agents —

The Witness. I gave —

Mr. Lowell. — took two different times and two different messages and conflated them. That’s what he’s explaining.

The Witness. And I can — and we can show you that.

And I also could show you that on that message, there was never a Chinese flag and a picture of it, as I think was shown in the Oversight Committee before. [my emphasis]

If I understand it correct, Henry Zhao was involved in an earlier business deal, Raymond Zhao is the one with ties to CEFC.

Here’s how Shapley presented the text in his first deposition.

And here’s the exhibit on which House Republicans are likely relying.

There are still a number of inconsistencies with this story, but it really doesn’t make sense to address them without full context (which Hunter presumably has).

In any case, the text string is still somewhat damning to Hunter; his conversations with CEFC continued the same thread, cutting Tony Bobulinski and the others out of the deal.

But I will say this: I already have questions about where WhatsApp texts got saved, not least because at the time, having access to one WhatsApp instance would give you access to the rest of it.

All the more so given that, if we can trust the warrant and Joseph Ziegler’s description of the source of these texts (Apple Backup 3, which the warrant describes as an Apple 6S backup), the timing is curious. Hunter used an iPhone 6S much earlier than 2017, and he initiated a new one on February 9, 2019, just as his devices were packed up for delivery to John Paul Mac Isaac.

Whatever the explanation, it seems that rather than work through a discrepancy, or just leaving out texts that couldn’t be explained, the IRS just blew through inconsistencies.