Amy Berman Jackson Disputes Claims of “Exculpatory” Information on Russia and Ukraine

For all its import showing the problems with Carter Page’s FISA application, I’ll eventually show the DOJ IG Report  commits some of the same errors of inclusion and exclusion of important information that it accuses FBI of. Most importantly, it treats as exculpatory comments that George Papadopoulos made to Stephan Halper and another informant in fall 2016 when the FBI agents involved rightly (the record now confirms) suspected Papadopoulos’ answer was a cover story. Notably, Rosemary Collyer did not include the Papadopoulos comments in her letter to the government yesterday, suggesting she doesn’t think exclusion of those comments to be noteworthy.

Given Michael Horowitz’s focus on FBI’s withholding of exculpatory information (which they absolutely did, on a number of occasions), I find the focus of Amy Berman Jackson’s comments at Rick Gates’ sentencing hearing yesterday notable. (Thanks to CNN for culling these comments from the transcript.)

Some of the comments — including some focusing on Ukraine — seemed targeted at Republicans debating impeachment. For example, she emphasized that Gates’ information was not hearsay, and it implicated individuals associated with Ukraine and Russia.

Mr. Gates provided information — not hearsay, but information — based on his personal knowledge, meetings he attended, conversations in which he was a participant and information that was verified with contemporaneous records of numerous, undeniable contacts and communications between individuals associated with the presidential campaign, primarily but not only Manafort, and individuals associated with Russia and Ukraine.

ABJ likely recognizes, as I have emphasized, that Paul Manafort’s August 2, 2016 meeting with Konstantin Kilimnik and its aftermath — including his booking $2.4 million from pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs eight days later — represents a clearcut case of Ukraine interfering in the 2016 election.

She also takes a shot at those claiming there was no basis for the investigation into Russia, and suggests that obstruction successfully prevented prosecutors from charging the underlying coordination.

Gates’ debriefings, his multiple incriminatory bits of evidence on matters of grave and international importance are a reminder that there was an ample basis for the decision makers at the highest level of the United States Department of Justice — the United States Department of Justice of this administration — to authorize and pursue a law enforcement investigation into whether there was any coordination between the campaign and the known foreign interference in the election, as well as into whether there had been any attempt to obstruct that investigation, and to leave no stone unturned, no matter what the prosecutors determined they had evidence to prove at the end of that investigation.

And she emphasizes that pursuing this investigation was critical for election security.

Gates’ information alone warranted, indeed demanded, further investigation from the standpoint of our national security, the integrity of our elections and the enforcement of our criminal laws.

But there’s a line in here that seems directed at the discussion surrounding the IG Report.

One cannot possibly maintain that this was all exculpatory information. It included firsthand information about confidential campaign polling data being transmitted at the direction of the head of the campaign to one of those individuals to be shared with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs.

The investigation into whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia in its election interference started 3 days before Roger Stone spoke to Trump about how to optimize the WikiLeaks releases. It started 5 days before Trump’s campaign manager met with Konstantin Kilimnik to explain how he planned to win the investigation, discussed carving up Ukraine to Russia’s liking (an effort Manafort pursued for over a year afterwards), and how to get paid by his Ukrainian and Russian paymasters. It started 11 days before Manafort booked $2.4 million in revenues — to be received in November — from his Ukrainian paymasters.

Again, ABJ has seen more of the underlying evidence from this investigation than anyone. And she sure seems to think that Bill Barr, Donald Trump, and Michael Horowitz are dismissing the seriousness of this investigation.

image_print
25 replies
  1. Burqueley says:

    Edit check: end of 5th graf, sub “Russia” for “Ukraine”?
    “— represents a clearcut case of Ukraine interfering in the 2016 election.“

      • Geoff says:

        You are correct sir. The sentence is only problematic in that, when taken without context, and without further detail, the simple inference is that Ukraine interfered in a way that backs Trumps recent BS story, and not the more complicated one that most people can’t grasp…that one oligarch is not much different than any other, be they Russian or Ukrainian, in that they are all happy to subvert democracy (and push a certain US candidate that is not Hillary Clinton) in any way which maximizes their economic interests – and if carving up the Ukraine for Putin helps, so be it. Manafort is just your basic wanna be oligarch, ultimately. But he was just a piss ant to those types.

      • orionATL says:

        bmaz-

        i am very interested in this issue. i read the entire post and the sentence at issue carefully, and the sentence repeatedly with puzzlement. it is a rare awkward sentence that is easy to miscomprehend. it would be a courtesy to readers and just generally better writing if it were edited for clarity. the link doesn’t help if you just want to read without absorbing what is essentially a long footnote.

        • Mitch Neher says:

          I read the sentence at issue as follows:

          . . . Paul Manafort’s August 2, 2016 meeting with Konstantin Kilimnik and its aftermath — including his booking $2.4 million from pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs eight days later — represents a clearcut case of [pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs] interfering in the 2016 election [in Trump’s favor].

          While I am often wrong, I would be surprised to be wrong about that reading.

        • ItTollsForYou says:

          The point here, which I’ve seen Marcy make a few times lately, is that the one time Ukraine DID interfere in the 2016 election, it was to help Trump, not Hillary.

  2. Pajaro says:

    Edit? 2nd to last paragraph: “–campaign manager met with Konstantin Kilimnik to explain how he planned to win the investigation,” Should “investigation’ be election?

  3. Savage Librarian says:

    Marcy, I’m exceptionally grateful for your work and that of Amy Berman Jackson. Kudos to both of you!

  4. richard says:

    As a non-lawyer trying follow this story I sometimes get lost.

    The Ukraine we speak of in referring to Manafort and his role in this story was comprised of pro-Russian Ukrainians…..correct?

    So all attempts to influence the 2016 election whether they came from Russia or Ukraine all came essentially from the same sources….correct?

    So Trump’s attempts to muddy the waters is playing on a false assumption that Russia and Ukraine in this instance are separate players…correct?

    Thanks

      • Katherine M Williams says:

        Phew! I was worried there for a few seconds. Impressive in a scary way how Trump&Co can twist facts to (appear to) turn black into white and up into down.

      • AMG says:

        kilimnik, yanukovych, deripaska and the party of region. ukrainian oligarchs rinat akhmetov and serhiy lyovochkin (all names from the 12/13 post), but poroshenko was president of ukraine in 2016, so was it really a clearcut case of “ukraine” interfering?

        ABJ likely recognizes, as I have emphasized, that Paul Manafort’s August 2, 2016 meeting with Konstantin Kilimnik and its aftermath — including his booking $2.4 million from pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs eight days later — represents a clearcut case of Ukraine interfering in the 2016 election.

    • Rayne says:

      More pointedly, it’s the same ongoing crime. Russia is trying to occupy Ukraine — the RNC’s 2016 platform, Trump’s election with Russia’s interference, Trump’s pressure on Ukraine to help cheat-win another election while suppressing Ukraine’s ability to respond to Russian aggression — it’s all of a piece. The same damned, sustained attack on a democratic neighbor of Russia via our attacked democracy here.

      • Marinela says:

        The Ukraine interfere, but to help Trump.
        The corruption in Ukraine occurred before Zelensky took power, different prosecutors, presidents, oligarchs, different players.

        Probably the election of Zelensky freaked out Trump and his team of enablers, as they counted on the old regime to “cooperate”, so I think this was a wrinkle they didn’t anticipate. Did they change the play because Zelensky won?

        • Rayne says:

          I don’t even know where to start with your comment, beginning as it does with “The Ukraine” instead of “Ukraine,” which is how Russians refer to Ukraine.

          Granted, Americans need a scorecard to indicate who is and isn’t corrupt in Ukraine, and who is/isn’t aligned with Putin or pro-Russian oligarchs.

          The game hasn’t changed: Russia wants to take possession of all of Ukraine, and/or all of its energy assets including the oil and gas pipelines. That’s it in a nutshell. Which Ukrainians are resisting this as they struggle to preserve Ukraine’s democracy? The ones Team Trump is squeezing for cooperation (consisting at a minimum of 2020 election interference for Trump’s benefit and masking Putin’s influence during 2016) using a meeting in Washington DC and economic+military aid. No change in the game whatsoever; cooperate and get aid. Lack of cooperation means no aid.

        • Mitch Neher says:

          Rayne said, “. . . beginning as it does with ‘The Ukraine’ instead of ‘Ukraine,’ which is how Russians refer to Ukraine.”

          Oops. I didn’t know that. I thought it was the other way around. Thanks for the tip, Rayne.

        • milestogo says:

          I’ve visited Ukraine sever times and always omitted the “the” based on nothing more than the form my friends used. I was wondering why the confusion and I found this…

          “The Ukraine” is incorrect both grammatically and politically, says Oksana Kyzyma of the Embassy of Ukraine in London. “Ukraine is both the conventional short and long name of the country,” she says. “This name is stated in the Ukrainian Declaration of Independence and Constitution.” The use of the article relates to the time before independence in 1991, when Ukraine was a republic of the Soviet Union known as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, she says. Since then, it should be merely Ukraine.

          https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18233844

        • Rayne says:

          Should be obvious the country’s naming convention is political — a subordinate satellite was “the Ukraine,” while an independent democracy is “Ukraine.”

          Respect the democracy and the will of Ukraine’s people by calling the country Ukraine.

        • milestogo says:

          Yes, it’s a Russian possessive meant to indicate ownership of “The Ukraine” literally translated as “The Borderlands”. Borderlands of and belonging to Russia of course. It’s hard to be unsympathetic with their struggles and the nonsense they are still dealing with re Giuliani and friends in the middle of a hot war and an intelligence war with a more powerful neighbor intent on dominating them.

        • Marinela says:

          Didn’t know about the difference. Sorry for the mistake. English is not my first language, but I see is important to get it right.
          Please correct me. I don’t mind.
          Usually I don’t get corrected, but I’m sure I say things differently sometimes.
          I heard “the Ukraine” so I repeated that way.

  5. Hika says:

    ” It started 5 days before Trump’s campaign manager met with Konstantin Kilimnik to explain how he planned to win the investigation election, discussed carving up Ukraine to Russia’s liking (an effort Manafort pursued for over a year afterwards), and how to get paid by his Ukrainian and Russian paymasters.”

  6. Matthew Harris says:

    “Again, ABJ has seen more of the underlying evidence from this investigation than anyone”

    It is clear that she is in a much better place to know, but there are probably a lot of other people who have seen a lot of underlying evidence, perhaps with a different focus. Obviously, Emmet Sullivan must know a lot that is not publicly available. And like Jackson, many of Sullivan’s public comments seem to show that he thinks that the non-public evidence goes against exculpation.

    It is weird for me to think that there are probably dozens of people in Washington, DC right now who have seen evidence that Trump committed crimes that we might not even know about, but that for various reasons, none of them can speak. Somewhere in an office in the IRS building, there is some bureaucrat who knows just how much money Trump has gotten from Russia, and this vital information is just floating, suspended in space.

Comments are closed.