Mueller investigation

[Trausti]

I'm just impressed with how little historical perspective people have when discussing politics.

Yeah. There's a lot of amnesia about how Russians have been trolling the USA for over 100 years. It's one of the things that made the Russia Collusion Hoax so silly.

 Mitrokhin_Archive

Disinformation campaign against the United States

Andrew described the following active measures by the KGB against the United States:[36]

Promotion of false John F. Kennedy assassination theories, using writer Mark Lane.[37][not specific enough to verify] Lane denied this allegation and called it "an outright lie".[38]
Forged letter from Lee Harvey Oswald to E. Howard Hunt, attempting to incriminate Hunt in the Kennedy assassination.[39]
Discrediting the CIA using the ex-CIA case officer and defector Philip Agee.[40][clarification needed]
Spreading supposedly unconfirmed rumors that the FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was a homosexual.[41]
Attempts to discredit Martin Luther King, Jr. by placing publications portraying him as an "Uncle Tom" who was secretly receiving government subsidies.[42]
Stirring up racial tensions in the United States by mailing bogus letters from the Ku Klux Klan, by placing an explosive package in "the Negro section of New York" (operation PANDORA),[43] and by spreading conspiracy theories that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination had been planned by the US government.[43]
Fabrication of the story that the AIDS virus was manufactured by US scientists at the US Army research station at Fort Detrick. The story was spread by Russian-born biologist Jakob Segal.[44]

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Wow. As Trump made clear about a thousand times over the past two years, the “hoax” part was not just about collusion; it was that there was any interference in the election at all.

So, you not only failed at reframing the narrative, you also just provided additional historical evidence that proves Trump is a traitor for siding with Putin over our own intelligence community.

And, now, the Mueller report evidently, which even Barr had to concede proved that there was no hoax in regard to Russian interference and the jury is still out on collusion.

 

[PyramidHead]

What I haven't seen discussed nearly enough is what many of Trump's insiders, as well as the press who had access to them at the time, generally agree about Trump: he didn't really seem to want to be President, he was just running to increase his brand and see what kind of business partnerships it would get him. Same as when Howard Stern ran for mayor of NYC, except when the numbers started tilting in Stern's favor he had the self-awareness to bow out. Trump never intended for it to get that far, and has way too much pride to ever bow out of anything. Honestly, I think he was about as surprised as everyone else when he won.

I don't have any proof that Trump had this attitude about his candidacy, but it's just something I've always wondered about: what good does being president really do for someone like Trump? Sure, he gets exposure and lots of ego stroking, but he also gets constant criticism and scorn. He doesn't like really any aspect of his job other than campaigning. He hates briefings, hates reading stuff, hates talking about policies, hates thinking about geopolitics, and leaves all that stuff to the experts unless he thinks it can improve his image. The executive orders, appointments, and military movements he has enacted are notable for being high on drama and spectacle (the travel ban, the wall) but run-of-the-mill conservative Republican sludge when it comes to their effects. I look at Trump and I don't see somebody with a burning desire to run a country, with big plans for how the world should be, to the point where he would go so far as people are suggesting he did to win. What I see is an opportunist who saw a chance to build up his business empire by appealing to a strain of nationalism that was bigger than he probably predicted.

Now, that doesn't mean there was no Russian interference in social media, etc. because as a world power, they have an interest in American politics going favorably for them. And at the time, Hillary Clinton was not seen as a favorable president from Russia's perspective. However, the same thing happens in every presidential election, implicitly or out in the open, with the Israel lobby. American presidential politics has been a global phenomenon for a long time, and there was nothing particularly special about the last election in that regard.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What I haven't seen discussed nearly enough is what many of Trump's insiders, as well as the press who had access to them at the time, generally agree about Trump: he didn't really seem to want to be President, he was just running to increase his brand and see what kind of business partnerships it would get him.

Plus, he could have spent the next 4-8 years campaigning, and bitching about everything Hillary did. Saying 'If you had picked me, I would have solved that problem in 30 days/100 days/first year.'

I believe that was the plan. That's why he's still campaigning and still obsessed with Hillary (and Obama).

Now, that doesn't mean there was no Russian interference in social media, etc

No, I think his asking for Russian help would be just as likely. He wanted to appear to be a contender, a viable candidate instead of a joke, so in order to get campaign donations for the next 8 years, he needed to do a LOT better than, say, Mondale did against Reagan. If he got spanked too badly, then no one would come to his rallies.

 

[PyramidHead]

Is it funny that our institutions are corrupt and owned by conscienceless oligarchs or something? I mean, good for you that you personally get to spooge over insults to liberals and everything. Is there anything of holding power accountable in the minds of people who think they are above politics? Or do you think liberals are the "power" you should be questioning?

Ding ding. They aren't the only ones we should be questioning, but they absolutely shouldn't get a pass. This whole affair has been a great illustration of what happens when people trust official organizations within a stratified society to act in the interests of the general public, when the official organizations are in a different class and have different priorities than the general public.

The great irony in all this is how the media, in latching onto every unsubstantiated detail that cast Trump as a Russian agent, gave him the ammunition to gloat about how he was right all along about the fake news conspiring against him. It would have been so easy to cover the actual, open-and-shut examples of impeachable offenses rather than divert so many resources to their spy fanfiction, but they became addicted to having permission to use words like "kompromat" and "oppo".

I suggest reading this recent interview with Matt Taibbi:

In a weird way, we’ve revived the idea that the people that we should revere as heroes are the guardians of the state who are in the shadows and sometimes you have to break a few rules to prevent something terrible from happening, like the election of a foreign-aided candidate like Donald Trump.

And this is how people who would’ve described themselves as liberals a couple of years ago are worshiping at the altar of people like Brennan, and Clapper, and even Robert Mueller himself. I think that’s incredibly dangerous. It’s as though we’ve forgotten we’re supposed to be skeptical of these people, and not simply buy whatever they’re selling.

I agree with his thinking especially here:

Look, almost every pundit failed to see what was happening during the presidential election. No one thought this guy would win. It was almost a 100 percent consensus in the industry. Nobody even accepted it as an idea that he could possibly win, and a lot of that had to do with the insularity of the media. We just weren’t talking to voters enough.

Then when he became president, the instantaneous decision was to declare his presidency illegitimate and foreign-aided. That doesn’t mean all of these stories were made up, of course, but I think there was a deep need to make sense of it all, to somehow not recognize the result. So a lot of people wanted to cancel it out. But that’s not what the press is supposed to do. That’s not our job.

I was watching Chris Matthews yesterday, and he was basically saying now that collusion is off the table, we’re just going to have to win the election, as though that’s the first time that thought ever occurred to him. That should’ve been the thought on day one. How do we correct the fact that so many people chose Donald Trump as president? And not, how do we get him out of office prematurely?

 

[ZiprHead]

What I haven't seen discussed nearly enough is what many of Trump's insiders, as well as the press who had access to them at the time, generally agree about Trump: he didn't really seem to want to be President, he was just running to increase his brand and see what kind of business partnerships it would get him. Same as when Howard Stern ran for mayor of NYC, except when the numbers started tilting in Stern's favor he had the self-awareness to bow out. Trump never intended for it to get that far, and has way too much pride to ever bow out of anything. Honestly, I think he was about as surprised as everyone else when he won.

If you look at the photograph of Bonespurs and Melanoma taken at the moment the announcement was made that he won, it looks like they were both gut-kicked. It is said that Melanoma cried with grief.

 

[PyramidHead]

What I haven't seen discussed nearly enough is what many of Trump's insiders, as well as the press who had access to them at the time, generally agree about Trump: he didn't really seem to want to be President, he was just running to increase his brand and see what kind of business partnerships it would get him. Same as when Howard Stern ran for mayor of NYC, except when the numbers started tilting in Stern's favor he had the self-awareness to bow out. Trump never intended for it to get that far, and has way too much pride to ever bow out of anything. Honestly, I think he was about as surprised as everyone else when he won.

If you look at the photograph of Bonespurs and Melanoma taken at the moment the announcement was made that he won, it looks like they were both gut-kicked. It is said that Melanoma cried with grief.

Yeah, it was surreal for everybody. I don't think I buy Keith's take that he needed to be seen as a real contender, because he was a joke when he ran in 2000 and opted out of running in 2012 to host The Apprentice... he does what he does based on what's convenient for his immediate future as a businessman, and is totally fine with adapting to circumstances as they change and develop. If he lost, he would have spun his loss into another rallying opportunity.

Lest we all forget, there was a time when he repeatedly claimed he might not even concede the election if he lost. That was Trump preparing for the post-election book bomb, speaking tours, and media appearances that would keep him in the spotlight and keep people buying that MAGA merch. He was totally prepared to go down that road and would have made plenty of money doing so, without the scrutiny that goes with being president. Nothing about him being groomed by the USSR for the world stage is consistent with that businesslike flexibility he prefers.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I have no doubt that he didn't expect to win nor did he want to win. That, however, would still easily be in keeping with a Russian asset acting in concert with Russian designs, either because he was being blackmailed (e.g., "kompromat"), or because he's been a Russian puppet since they first started molding him in the eighties (if not the seventies, when he was first targeted).

Indeed, there have been several moments in Trump's first year in particular where it looked as if he was sending messages of "now that I'm in, I will no longer do your bidding" to Putin--that Putin, in turn smacked down--that I've noted in various posts

Nor does it necessarily mean that Putin thought it would be successful. That, too, however, has no bearing on whether or not it was the case.

There's no doubt that they interfered for the singular purpose of putting Trump into the WH (rather than just general interference for the sake of fucking things up). There's also no doubt that Trump has been--at the very least--a carefully watched and likely cultivated Russian "target" for decades. This isn't just my speculation/assertion. These three articles contain the evidence:

Czechoslovakia spied on Donald and Ivana Trump, communist-era files show

Czechoslovakia ramped up spying on Trump in late 1980s, seeking US intel

Will Trump Be Meeting With His Counterpart — Or His Handler?

There's also no doubt that Trump has openly and personally praised Putin numerous times--before and during his presidency--and certainly behaved as if he were under Putin's influence on a multitude of measures that are otherwise inexplicable. Even if it were simply a matter of Trump protecting the interests of a business partner, it still amounts to the same treasonous acts.

As I've argued from the beginning, none of this started with the meeting in Trump Tower, or even the Miss Universe pageant. That was just when I believe this particular phase was started.

And, again, all we have so far from the Mueller report in regard to "collusion" is this cherry-picked sentence:

[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.¹

Where "1" is this carefully worded footnote:

¹ In assessing potential conspiracy charges, the Special Counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated” with Russian election interference activities. The Special Counsel defined “coordination” as an “agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference.”

So, only in regard to "coordination," apparently, does Mueller make clear that the standard was in regard to an agreement (i.e., volitional) and that is then further broken down into "tacit or express." Why? And why does Barr even make it a footnote or include that in his summation? And why not the same condition regarding "conspired" (i.e., "tacit or express")?

Regardless, an agreement is not the question to be answered if we are trying to see whether or not Trump was a Russian asset being used by Putin. It's a question of legal standards, to be sure, but not a question of what actually happened, so if we take out the "coordinated" part and go strictly with the "conspired" part we have:

[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Which, likewise, if that were the entire thought and not a cherry-picked one (as the brackets around "[T]he" indicate) merely tells us that Mueller did not have a smoking gun (i.e., could not legally establish) that the "Trump Campaign" and the Russian government conspired. But without the same clarification of "tacit or express," does this cherry-picking affirm that Mueller could find no evidence of express conspiring, but could find evidence of tacit conspiring (which would therefore not rise to the legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt")?

Plus, once again, Stone was NOT a part of the Trump Campaign (he was fired after only two months) and he did allegedly conspire with Wikileaks and with Guccifer 2.0, a Russian hacker, not a member of the government.

So, once again, we are left with more questions than answers. Indeed, based on the exact same vaguaries Barr cherry-picked, we could easily write:

The investigation established that affiliates of the Trump Campaign conspired with Wikileaks and Russian hackers acting at the direction of the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Or, even:

While we could find no express evidence of conspiring, the investigation did establish that members of the Trump Campaign tacitly conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Both sentences are perfectly in keeping with everything presented in the Barr letter.

 

[PyramidHead]

There's also no doubt that Trump has openly and personally praised Putin numerous times--before and during his presidency--and certainly behaved as if he were under Putin's influence on a multitude of measures that are otherwise inexplicable. Even if it were simply a matter of Trump protecting the interests of a business partner, it still amounts to the same treasonous acts.

This is another thing. Why does nobody seem to suggest the obvious explanation for this "otherwise inexplicable" quality of Trump: he looks up to Putin because Putin is the badass he wants to be. For all his reputation as a cad and a lover of beautiful women, the category of people that seem to arouse Trump even more are tough men. He'll go on and on about muscle-bound generals running a tight ship and protecting our interests at home and abroad. Before he was even running for President, he would sometimes gloat about the mafiosos he'd meet in Trump Tower, and sneak in a fawning comment about how ruthless they were. It's blatantly clear to me that Trump sees Putin as an icon of manliness, who runs his empire shirtless atop a horse and does whatever he feels like doing, up to and including violence (though he never actually gets his hands dirty). Just a garden variety man-crush that makes perfect sense when you look at how Trump conducts himself, shoving diplomats out of the way to get a spot on stage and telling his fans to beat up protesters. Nothing about his idolization of Putin says "begrudging respect driven by blackmail" to me. It says "you are the lion that I wish to emulate among the sheep."

The use of spy-novel terminology in this phase of our media's existence (asset, handler, kompromat, etc.) is gonna be a giant embarrassment in the history books.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It's blatantly clear to me that Trump sees Putin as an icon of manliness

Even if that were the only takeaway, all that says is that Trump has a man-crush which only makes him even more vulnerable to Putin's influence.

Nothing about his idolization of Putin says "begrudging respect driven by blackmail" to me.

Ok, but that could also easily be explained as being comparable to any number of incidents of Stockholm syndrome or battered wife syndrome, where the victim does nothing but praise their abuser for a myriad of complex reasons, most notably fear of reprisal. And, as I mentioned (but did not link), there were instances in Trump's first year certainly that I would argue (and did) evidenced someone who thought he was now free of Putin's influence (since he was, in fact, in the WH; i.e., the plan, remarkably, worked), but then got spanked for it. Much like the way Melania has exhibited, most notably in her wearing that coat.

Which is why it's more important to go on what is being deliberately concealed in the Mueller report by Barr as I believe I have laid out, at least in part.

The use of spy-novel terminology in this phase of our media's existence (asset, handler, kompromat, etc.) is gonna be a giant embarrassment in the history books.

Or, dead-on. Regardless, it is no longer in question that Putin has in fact treated Trump as his asset and put a considerable amount of resources into getting him in the WH. Whether that was just an act of happenstance or opportunity may still be in question, but, again, the decades of deliberate Russian intelligence surveillance of Trump argues differently.

This has been going on since the seventies. It strains incredulity that Putin did not know of the extensive cultivation and targeting of Trump since at least the late 1980s, let alone when it all began in the late seventies and certainly would have been informed of such an extensive, two decade long intelligence operation when he took over in the nineties.

And, again, the decision to mount a concentrated cyber attack on the 2016 election had to have begun as early as 2013 at the very least considering the resources and training and strategy that was first deployed in 2014. Is it, again, just coincidence then, that Trump decides for no coherent reason to hold a bikini contest in Moscow in the middle of winter in 2013? Where he first openly brags about meeting Putin and then, two years later on the campaign trail vehemently denies it ever happened?

And then, finally, even if Trump is just a useful idiot, totally oblivious to any machinations on his behalf by Putin--which seems, again, highly unlikely, given all of the denials and contradictions and lies and indictments of pretty much everyone else in Trump's campaign, but certainly possible--that still doesn't negate the fact that Putin did in fact use him for Putin's own ends.

Whether compromised, in tacit agreement or just a useful idiot, it would still amount to the same thing: treasonous acts in concert--either willingly or under duress of some nature--with a foreign agent to overthrow our government. It may just not rise to the level of legal standard a Special Prosecutor must hurdle, but a Congress need not.

Which is precisely what we see evidence of in both Barr's summation and the snippets Barr cherry-picked from Mueller's report. Mueller could not establish "collusion" and/or "obstruction" but neither is he exonerating Trump. That is as close to we can get to Mueller openly stating, "This now must be addressed by Congress, not the DOJ."

 

[Keith&Co.]

he looks up to Putin because Putin is the badass he wants to be.

True. He wants to be seen as a great military leader, as an ass kicker. He wants to run unarmed into active shooter situations. He wants to have iron control over the press and every branch of government, and is jealous of any dictator.

But then, how would that explain his firing of Comey, and bragging about 'the Russia thing' to the Russians? Giving classified information, obtained from an ally, to Russia?

 

[James Brown]

It can't be both?

"I'm jealous of you."

"Help me get what I want, and I'll see what I can do."

"Okay."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

he looks up to Putin because Putin is the badass he wants to be.

True. He wants to be seen as a great military leader, as an ass kicker. He wants to run unarmed into active shooter situations. He wants to have iron control over the press and every branch of government, and is jealous of any dictator.

But then, how would that explain his firing of Comey, and bragging about 'the Russia thing' to the Russians? Giving classified information, obtained from an ally, to Russia?

He assures us he didn't say Israel.

 

[PyramidHead]

he looks up to Putin because Putin is the badass he wants to be.

True. He wants to be seen as a great military leader, as an ass kicker. He wants to run unarmed into active shooter situations. He wants to have iron control over the press and every branch of government, and is jealous of any dictator.

But then, how would that explain his firing of Comey, and bragging about 'the Russia thing' to the Russians? Giving classified information, obtained from an ally, to Russia?

Basically the most important fact to keep in mind when trying to make sense of Trump's behavior is that he is a senior citizen with a rapidly degenerating brain addled by many years of drug and alcohol abuse. He is senile and possibly even not completely literate. He lets his mouth run at the most inopportune moments, and not just to Russia. The bigger question, from my perspective, is how Trump would have managed to avoid blurting out during a press conference the entire conspiracy that had allegedly been set in motion before the collapse of the Soviet Union. He has no internal filter, no ability to keep a secret. It's honestly ridiculous to me that he's been a pawn of a foreign government all this time and never said anything, when he can't even stop himself from casually alluding to incest with his daughter.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Actually, Trump is a teetotaler, isn't he? The evil just comes from his basic nature.
I teetotal too. Can't stand the taste or smell of any kind of alky. Knowing that Trump shares my habit makes me want to get hammered. Alas, I cannot.

 

[PyramidHead]

Actually, Trump is a teetotaler, isn't he? The evil just comes from his basic nature.
I teetotal too. Can't stand the taste or smell of any kind of alky. Knowing that Trump shares my habit makes me want to get hammered. Alas, I cannot.

Even so, he reportedly snorted lines of Adderall in between takes at The Apprentice

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The bigger question, from my perspective, is how Trump would have managed to avoid blurting out during a press conference the entire conspiracy that had allegedly been set in motion before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You just argued that what describes his behavior is his age and years of alcohol and drug abuse, but then go back in time to the days before any would have such effects.

And no one is arguing that "the entire conspiracy" was set in motion before the collapse of the Soviet Union, merely that Trump had been targeted as someone who could be useful in a myriad of different ways since before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Though there is evidence that suggests that Putin has, in fact, considered Trump to be someone he could cultivate over the years and use in such a capacity, but if it is the case that he "activated" him now (i.e., in 2013), it would be a particular conspiracy on Putin's part that arose as the need (Obama's sanctions against his oil development deal), the opportunity and the technology (social media) to do so were in place and tested (as was the case in his previously successful cyber attacks).

In other words, it's not a binary proposition that was meticulously plotted thirty years ago with an omniscience that prophesied the means to accomplish his dreams all laid out. The idea of putting an asset into power is not exactly new to any country (we do it all the time, after all). The fact that it is common for Russian intelligence in particular--but also our own and Britain's--to cultivate and slowly mold assets over many years so that they are in place and ready to be "activated" on a moment's notice, if need be is likewise nothing new.

Ever heard of the Illegals Program? It's what the show Americans was loosely based on (emphasis mine):

Using forged documents, some of the spies assumed stolen identities of Americans, enrolled at American universities and joined professional organizations as a means of further infiltrating spies into government circles.[3][12] Two of the individuals used the names of Richard and Cynthia Murphy and resided in Hoboken, New Jersey, in the mid-1990s, before purchasing a nearby home in suburban Montclair. Another couple named in court documents were journalist Vicky Peláez and Mikhail Vasenkov (using the alias Juan Lazaro) in Yonkers, New York. The court filings allege that couples were arranged in Russia to "co-habit in the country to which they are assigned," going as far as having children together to help maintain their deep covert status.[12]

They weren't discovered until 2010.

ETA: We actually do have numerous examples of Trump "blurting out" the 2016 conspiracy, if not in exact terms and/or indirectly. Such as when he said, "Russia, if you're listening release the emails" and his numerous lies about the many times it was on public record that he went to Moscow and had extensive dealings with Russia and claimed to know and to have met Putin only to then deny any such connections, and fired Comey and gave Russians US intel and publicly informed the Syrians--and the Russians who were with them--that we were going to bomb their airport (that then was empty and easily rebuilt), etc.

Not to mention systematically achieving every goal Putin could ever want (e.g., destabilized NATO; ludicrous trade agreements that are decimating American businesses; destabilizing China; etc. etc., etc), allowing Putin to step in and effectively do an end-run around America. Russia has partnered with China and the Saudis--and already destabilized the EU with Brexit according to some--and has positioned Russia as the next global leader over America.

It literally could not have gone any better for Putin, with the one exception of the sanctions that are still in place (that even the Republicans saw as Trump's primary goal to remove and took the unnecessary and extraordinary step of reaffirming he could not).

 

[Keith&Co.]

It's honestly ridiculous to me that he's been a pawn of a foreign government all this time and never said anything, when he can't even stop himself from casually alluding to incest with his daughter.

Asset doesn't necessarily mean agent.
Remember Marcon, shortly after the election, saying that the way to 'handle' Trump was to tell him what he wants to hear.

I can remember more than a few officers I've had who were nowhere near senile, but still easily manipulated by the enlisted if we approached them the right way. Made them think it was their idea, told them half-truths, omitted things. He could be convinced he's getting one over on both Russia and the US and still be dancing to Putin's piper.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Actually, Trump is a teetotaler, isn't he? The evil just comes from his basic nature.
I teetotal too. Can't stand the taste or smell of any kind of alky. Knowing that Trump shares my habit makes me want to get hammered. Alas, I cannot.

Anybody know where that term comes from? Teetotal? I am that too. I am not a fan of alcohol of any kind.

 

[barbos]

Actually, Trump is a teetotaler, isn't he? The evil just comes from his basic nature.
I teetotal too. Can't stand the taste or smell of any kind of alky. Knowing that Trump shares my habit makes me want to get hammered. Alas, I cannot.

You are most likely a supertaster like I am. Trump does not drink for different reason.