Iranian Hackers Compromised Roger Stone’s Email Eight Years After Russian Hackers Exfiltrated DNC Emails

/18 Comments/in , , /by

DOJ unsealed the indictment against three Iranian hackers it accuses of targeting Donald Trump’s campaign (as well as a bunch of other victims, including one of his top State Department officials).

Perhaps the most remarkable detail is this.

On May 25, 2016, Russian hackers started exfiltrating the emails from the DNC that Trump and his rat-fucker would exploit to beat Hillary Clinton.

On May 23, 2024 — two days short of eight years, to the day — Iranian hackers first compromised one of two Roger Stone email accounts they hacked.

As noted, Trump waited to call the FBI, in part because Susie Wiles was worried the FBI would make them hand over their email server (as Hillary had done during the campaign where Trump beat her). As a result, Iranian hackers remained in the account of Victim 11 — from whom they stole the JD Vance vetting materials, among other things — for two months.

According to the indictment, Iranian hackers were in Roger Stone’s account (what must be his Hotmail account) for almost a month, from May 24 to June 20.

 

On June 15, the hackers used Roger’s account to try to hack another Trump account (probably Susie Wiles), though that failed, which may have led Microsoft to cop on, leading to the expulsion of hackers from the Hotmail account.

After they were kicked out of that account they got into his Gmail account, apparently for a day.

Now, I might allow myself to feel a touch of schadenfreude that Roger Stone has been victimized in the same kind of influence operation he exploited against Hillary.

Except for this: As I keep saying, one of the reasons this is worse — more dangerous — than what happened to Hillary is that these people are also trying to exact revenge for the killing of Qasem Soleimani. The indictment says that almost verbatim: One of the goals of this operation was to “steal information relating to current and former U.S. officials that could be used to advance the IRGC’s malign activities, including ongoing efforts to avenge the death of Qasem Soleimani.” The indictment describes that the hackers successfully targeted someone who played a key role in the Abraham Accords in Trump’s State Department, then started making travel reservations for the person using their stolen passport.

They’re not just using this information to affect the election. They’re using it to track people.

It turns out it was never fun and games.

Share this entry

Bill Barr, “So Far as We Knew”

/33 Comments/in , , /by

As I described, the book written by Aaron Zebley and two of Robert Mueller’s other former prosecutors breaks most new ground in its description of discussions between Mueller’s team, Trump’s lawyers, and those supervising the investigation at DOJ.

As it describes, for months, the investigation was working towards a January 27, 2018 interview of Trump, to be held at Camp David. But shortly after Mike Flynn pled guilty, Trump attorney John Dowd (whose call to Rob Kelner floating a pardon made it into the report but not the book), started getting cold feet. On January 30, Dowd told Jim Quarles, “I can’t let this guy testify. I will resign before he does.” On March 1, Dowd and Jay Sekulow first pitched the idea of written questions. Four days later, Mueller first raised the possibility of a subpoena; Dowd said that would be war. Trump would plead the Fifth before he’d respond to a subpoena.

Three weeks later, Dowd resigned.

On April 18, Sekulow told Quarles that Trump was close to bringing on new lawyers. Of Jane and Marty Raskin, Sekulow spoke of their high stature.

“We are talking to people with high stature to take over the representation,” Sekulow said. “Just finalizing everything now.”

“Good,” Jim said.

“You know them, actually. I think you’ve worked with them in the past. They are like-minded people who share our desire to get to the goal line.”

Of Rudy Giuliani (who was officially disbarred in DC yesterday), Sekulow said he hoped he wouldn’t join the team.

Sekulow continued, “There’s a third person too, but I’m hopeful he won’t join.” He did not divulge this person’s identity.

[snip]

Sekulow then said, “And the third person is, well, America’s Mayor.”

Jim thought for a brief moment. “Rudy?”

“That’s correct,” Sekulow said. “Rudy Giuliani is coming on too.”

Rudy almost immediately ran afoul of the Mueller team.

At a meeting on April 24, there was a discussion about whether Trump even could be charged. Bob told Rudy that “we plan to follow the [OLC] regulations” prohibiting the indictment of a sitting President, though in a way that left wiggle room in case (as the book describes) the team found “evidence proving Trump truly was a Manchurian candidate.” Rudy asked whether Trump was a witness, a subject, or a target; Mueller answered he was a subject.

Giuliani asked, “Is he a subject regardless of the OLC opinion?” In other words, were we not labeling Trump a “target” simply because he couldn’t be indicted? Or was he a subject because there was not enough evidence to make him a target?

Bob said that we had deliberately withheld making a judgment about the president’s conduct, but we would get back to them if we could say more.

In spite of repeated assurances the meeting was confidential, Rudy promptly ran to the press and (per the book, at least) misrepresented what Mueller said. As the book describes, Rudy told journalists that if Trump couldn’t be indicted, he couldn’t be subpoenaed.

That’s all background to the discussion of whether Trump could be charged with obstruction. As the book describes, Trump’s request that Don McGahn make a false statement disclaiming Trump’s effort to replace Mueller involved the creation of a false record in an attempt to obstruct the investigation; it clearly involved creating a false evidentiary record, and so would qualify no matter how you interpret 18 USC 1512(c)(2). But the other obstruction incidents did not (this issue has now been decided by Fischer to require evidentiary impairment, meaning the only obstruction incident that could be charged against Trump, ignoring the immunity opinion, is the McGahn one). So there was an extended dispute, starting in May 2018, which a long chapter discusses at length.

But then, unbeknownst to Mueller, Bill Barr weighed in, writing Rod Rosenstein and OLC head Steven Engel that Mueller’s views on obstruction were wrong.

As the book describes, Barr’s allegedly unsolicited memo was “remarkably timely,” because, from that point forward, Rosenstein’s team seemed to adopt precisely the analysis Barr offered.

We didn’t know it at the time, but just as we were starting our subpoena discussion with the DOJ, another person weighed in with the department on these very issues.

On June 8, 2018, the once-and-future attorney general, William Barr, submitted a nineteen-page memo to Rosenstein and Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel, who was then head of the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel. In his memo, Barr argued that section 1512 did not apply to President Trump in the manner Barr imagined we might be seeking to apply it. We say “imagined” because Barr had no actual insight into our work, so far as we knew.

Given that Barr was a private citizen at that time, his memo was remarkably timely. It posited (fairly accurately) that we were then “demanding that the President submit to interrogation about [obstruction] incidents, using the threat of subpoenas to coerce his submission.” Barr’s bottom line was that a prosecutor, even a special counsel, should not be allowed to require an examination of the president regarding these incidents, end of story. According to Barr, section 1512 prohibited only corrupt acts that impaired the integrity or availability of evidence, for instance, an act that destroyed a document or induced a witness to change his testimony. Barr’s memo stated that a president’s conduct can “obviously” be considered obstruction of justice in the “classic sense of sabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, for example, if a President knowingly… induces a witness to change testimony… then he, like anyone else, commits the act of obstruction.”

But Barr maintained that the obstruction statute did not apply to what he termed the president’s “facially-lawful” actions—such as firing an FBI director or ending a federal criminal prosecution—even if such an action were done with corrupt intent and impacted a grand jury proceeding. In other words, even if Trump fired Comey for a corrupt purpose, that could not be a crime, in Barr’s view.

We wouldn’t become aware of Barr’s memo until December 2018, the day before his Senate confirmation hearing for attorney general. Nevertheless, his memo seemed to capture the fundamental issues Rosenstein and the department would raise throughout that summer when it came to subpoenaing the president. Barr may have previewed the department’s position when he wrote: “It is inconceivable to me that the Department could accept Mueller’s interpretation of 1512(c)(2). It is untenable as a matter of law and cannot provide a legitimate basis for interrogating the President.” [my emphasis]

A couple of points about this.

First, the Zebley book doesn’t address any documents that have subsequently been released. Most notably, while the book discusses the events immediately following the conclusion of the report at length, it doesn’t address Bill Barr’s memo declining prosecution on obstruction (the chapter on Barr’s letter to Congress is called “The Barr Report”), even though Barr egregiously avoided comment on the pardons that Trump was using to silence Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone.

Similarly, it doesn’t address the communications with OLC that were liberated via FOIA. Those show that starting on July 12 — the day before the GRU indictment incorporating reference to Roger Stone — Ed O’Callaghan shared everything that went between Mueller and Trump’s lawyers with Engel who, like Rosenstein, got the Barr obstruction memo, and along with O’Callaghan would “advise” Barr to release his letter to Congress. Starting on July 26, National Security Division head John Demers got added. Those things, taken together, strongly suggest that OLC was involved from the start to find a way to find that Trump couldn’t be charged (remember that Engel did similar cover-up work during impeachment).

All that is not that suspicious if, indeed, “Barr had no actual insight into our work.”

“So far as we knew.”

But it would be if Barr did have actual insight into what Mueller was doing.

LOLGOP and I are hard at work on our Ball of Thread episode on precisely how Bill Barr killed the Mueller investigation. And in that context, I’ve returned to something I’ve puzzled over for years: Barr’s description, in his book, of his decision to return to government with the intent of killing the Mueller investigation and starting an investigation without a crime, the Durham investigation.

I would soon make the difficult decision to go back into government in large part because I saw the way the President’s adversaries had enmeshed the Department of Justice in this phony scandal and were using it to hobble his administration. Once in office, it occupied much of my time for the first six months of my tenure. It was at the heart of my most controversial decisions. Even after dealing with the Mueller report, I still had to launch US Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the genesis of this bogus scandal. At the end of my first year in office, the President was impeached over a harebrained effort, involving Rudy Giuliani, to push back on the Russia collusion canard by digging up an alleged counter-scandal in Ukraine implicating the Clinton campaign or Vice President Biden and his son Hunter.

The fallout from Russiagate continued during my last year in office. My relationship with the President frayed as he became frustrated by my failure to bring charges against those who had ginned up Russiagate and the failure of Durham’s investigation to produce more rapid results.

I’ve always believed — even already taped for the podcast my belief — that you need no more than Barr’s reactionary views (which happen to match those of several SCOTUS justices), his past work obstructing Iran-Contra, and years of submersion in Fox News propaganda to explain his actions. Just like you need no more than Trump’s narcissism to explain his actions, you need no more than those three characteristics of Barr to explain his willingness to chase Russian disinformation in his effort to kill concerns about Trump’s ties to  Russia.

You need no more to explain their actions, but I can never shake the possibility there’s more.

All the more so given Lev Parnas’ claim, in interviews after the release of From Russia with Lev, that Victoria Toensing got Barr hired.

Now, Parnas’ reference — and his visibility on interactions between Toensing, Rudy, and Barr — post-dates Barr’s June 2018 memo. He’s talking about Toensing’s assurances to Trump, after he fired Jeff Sessions, that Barr would make the Mueller investigation go away (though if Toensing made that assurance, the Ukraine stuff looks far different, as does Barr’s treatment of it as a mere “counter-scandal”).

But Toensing was involved in the effort to make the Mueller investigation go away far earlier.

She represented Sam Clovis (who was interviewed, without an attorney, in two parts on October 3, 2017, and interviewed, including before a grand jury, with Toensing, on October 26, 2017). George Papadopoulos probably told Clovis that Russia had Hillary’s emails and Clovis was involved in Papadopoulos’ apparent discussions about setting up a September 2016 meeting with Russia, but Clovis testified that he had no memory of either of those things. And she represented Erik Prince (who was interviewed on April 4 and May 3, 2018) — who, like Steve Bannon, deleted their texts to each other from during the period when Prince was meeting with Kirill Dmitriev in the Seychelles, but has no memory of doing so.

Indeed, Toensing’s spouse, Joe DiGenova, even briefly said he was representing Trump, during that transition where Rudy got added. During his Ukraine caper a year later, Rudy repeatedly proposed that he do the work while Toensing billed for it. So if you got Rudy, you got Toensing.

And if Toensing later was involved in getting Barr hired, it would be unsurprising if she was a contact with him before that.

Incidentally, Barr never once mentions Toensing in his book. He mentions Rudy, who is a central focus of his book, around 44 times. He exercised his right to remain silent about Toensing.

In a follow-up, I’m going to talk (again) about the blind spot that connects the Mueller investigation and the Durham investigation — the blind spot at the core of Bill Barr’s effort to cover up Trump’s ties to Russia.

For now, though, consider the possibility that Barr had a great deal more insight into the Mueller investigation when he wrote that memo than he let on.

Share this entry

Scott Schools Got the [Trump Subpoena] Memo — Then Left DOJ

/34 Comments/in , , /by

As noted, while the book by Aaron Zebley et al does not reveal a single new detail from the Russian investigation, it provided a bunch of new details on discussions between Mueller’s team, Trump’s lawyers, and DOJ. Two chapters focus almost entirely on discussions about an interview and, after Trump’s new legal team in May 2018, reversed earlier assurances Trump would sit for an interview, discussions about a subpoena.

The book describes how, after getting nowhere with requests for a voluntary interview, Zebley approached Scott Schools (then the senior non-political appointment at DOJ) about subpoenaing Trump. Schools asked for a memo making the case.

Three days after Mueller delivered it, Schools left DOJ.

Bob’s May 16 letter about the importance of an interview did not get an immediate response from Trump’s lawyers. Instead, after a series of emails, calls, and meetings during the ensuing weeks, the Raskins told us that they would agree to an interview on preelection Russia-related topics only. There could be no questions on obstruction. Bob rejected this proposal.

By the end of June, it was becoming clear that a subpoena might be the only way to secure the president’s testimony on obstruction. Aaron called Schools at the DOJ and relayed the president’s latest position. Aaron explained that “evidence from the president is likely to be of significant value to our evaluation of the issues.”

Schools did not immediately respond, so Aaron continued: “If we can’t negotiate a resolution, we’d like to point to a subpoena as our next step.” Aaron told Schools we wanted the department to agree to enforce a subpoena in the courts, including the Supreme Court if it came to that. “We have written materials that go through the evidence and our analysis” as to why a subpoena was necessary and appropriate, Aaron said.

Schools responded in his muted southern drawl, “Think we’ll want to see those.”

Four days later, on July 3, we delivered to Schools and O’Callaghan a memo, “Preliminary Assessment of Obstruction Evidence,” with a set of supporting documents. The takeaway was on page 1: the president had refused an interview; we had gathered significant evidence on obstruction and had determined that the law enabled us to compel the president’s testimony; and, finally, “we have concluded that the issuance of a subpoena is justified.” There was no immediate response from the department. (On July 6, 2018, after a decades-long career at the Department of Justice, Schools left to take a job in the private sector.)

There’s no evidence, here, that the memo was the reason Schools left, apparently with no notice to Mueller’s team.

But eight months later, in advance of the first meeting between Mueller and Barr, Ed O’Callaghan probed what would appear in the report on obstruction.

He specifically referred to the memo justifying the subpoena as “aggressive.”

We knew that one of the main issues for our March 5 meeting with Barr would be obstruction of justice. In the days leading up to the meeting, O’Callaghan had asked Aaron how we planned to handle our obstruction findings. “Will your report be as aggressive as your legal analysis from last summer?” he asked, referring to the memo we submitted in July 2018 about a subpoena for the president’s testimony. “That is a topic we want to discuss.”

As it happens, almost immediately after Mueller gave DOJ the memo in June 2018, according to files released under FOIA, they pulled in Office of Legal Counsel and (at least for a few meetings), National Security Division. It’s not entirely clear Mueller’s team realized Rod Rosenstein’s people were doing that.

Share this entry

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

/6 Comments/in , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump did that, not the FBI.

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

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

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

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

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

Share this entry

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

/56 Comments/in , /by

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

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

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

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

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

The same is true of Elon Musk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

Share this entry

The Laura Loomer Problem Is the Same as the Vladimir Putin Problem

/138 Comments/in , /by

At about the same time that several of Donald Trump’s most loyal supporters were warning that Laura Loomer’s access to the former President threatens his presidential bid, Tim Walz was in Grand Rapids mocking how easy it is to manipulate Donald Trump.

 

Kamala Harris was able to, within a matter of a few seconds, use this guy’s inflated ego and narcissism to bait him into melting down on a national stage in front of 60 million.

You don’t think Vladimir Putin could do that?

You don’t think Xi Jinping could do that?

Jewish space laser conspiracist Marjorie Taylor Greene scolded Loomer about attacking Kamala Harris for her Indian ancestry (after which MTG went back to making racist attacks on migrants again).

Lindsey Graham, a sometime hawk who makes excuses for Trump’s apologies for Russia, agreed that Trump should distance himself from Loomer and the incendiary comments she makes.

“We have policy disagreements but the history of this person is just really toxic,” Graham told HuffPost on Thursday. “I mean, she actually called for Kellyanne Conway’s daughter to hang herself. I don’t know how this all happened, but, no, I don’t think it’s helpful. I don’t think it’s helpful at all.”

[snip]

“Marjorie Taylor Greene is right. I don’t say that a lot,” Graham said.

“I think what [Loomer] said about Kamala Harris and the White House is abhorrent, but it’s deeper than that,” he added. “I mean, you know, some of the things she’s said about Republicans and others is disturbing. I mean, to call for someone’s daughter to hang themselves. Yeah, no, I think that the president would serve himself well to make sure this doesn’t become a bigger story.”

The backlash comes after Trump brought Loomer, a 9/11 conspiracist, with him to the 9/11 memorial in New York. It comes as many of Trump handlers are trying to find someone, someone besides themselves, besides the candidate, to blame for his disastrous debate performance.

When asked about Republican complaints about Loomer the other day, Trump offered word salad.

Well, I don’t know what they would say, Laura has been a supporter of mine, just like a lot of people have been supporters. And she’s been a supporter of mine. She speaks very positively of the campaign — I’m not sure why you asked that question, but Laura’s a supporter. I don’t control Laura. Laura has to say what she wants. She’s a free spirit. Well, I don’t know. Look. I can’t tell Laura what to do. Laura’s a supporter. I have a lot of supporters. So I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to. … I just don’t know. Laura’s a supporter. I don’t know. She is a strong person. She’s got strong opinions. And I don’t know what she said but that’s not up to me. She’s a supporter.

Shortly after this pathetic response from Trump, a Truth Social post was released over Trump’s initials, bearing none of the roughness of a post the man wrote himself. The post disavowed unspecified “statements she made.”

All that, in turn, has led to insinuations and whispers about precisely what kind of access Loomer has to Trump.

No one can keep former President Donald Trump away from Laura Loomer.

Throughout his third presidential campaign, aides and advisers have done their best to shield him from Loomer, a far-right social media influencer, and similar figures who stroke his ego and stoke his basest political instincts.

They lost that battle this week, as Loomer traveled on Trump’s jet to his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris on Tuesday and to Sept. 11 memorial services Wednesday. Her presence at the latter infuriated some Democrats and Republicans because one of the many conspiracy theories she has promoted is the false notion that the terrorist assault on the U.S. was an “inside job.” It wasn’t.

[snip]

[H]er presence reflects Trump’s loss of faith in his campaign aides and their concomitant fear of upsetting him in a time of crisis, according to people familiar with the situation. Last month, he tapped his 2016 campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to be an adviser to his top advisers — a move widely viewed as a rebuke of the existing leadership crew.

A senior official from Trump’s 2020 campaign team said that helps explain why Loomer is no longer being kept at arm’s length.

“The people that have the authority to stop it are hanging on to their jobs,” the former official said. “So are you going to pick that fight with him?”

A lot of this is manufactured controversy. Loomer is little different than all the other far right nutbags Trump surrounds himself with. Why blame Loomer for the cat-and-dog screech when Trump’s chosen Vice Presidential candidate — chosen with the considerable input of Trump’s dumbass son — has a much more central role in magnifying this hoax, when Trump has employed Stephen Miller to engage in such fearmongering both inside and outside the White House, for years?

And Marjorie Taylor Greene, lecturing other people about being racist? You have got to be fucking kidding me.

As described, what distinguishes Loomer is her access. I even joined in, speculating that as she traveled on his plane to the Philadelphia debate, handlers may believe she tainted the killer immigration attack coached by upstanding, reasonable people like Matt Gaetz and Tulsi Gabbard, creating the screech.

The unspoken (except by Drudge) suggestion they’re fucking is the invented explanation for what might make Loomer more dangerous than the other racists and conspiracists who populate Trump’s inner circle. Me, I’m more interested in whether the problem with Loomer is that she’s so close to Roger Stone, whom campaign officials perennially attempt to keep separate from Trump during presidential elections. Ali Alexander served as Roger’s surrogate during the 2020 election; perhaps Loomer is doing so now.

Whatever it is that has Republican members of Congress and campaign officials blaming Loomer for Trump’s failures, it is also a concession.

The complaint being offered is that none of Trump’s advisors can prevent someone — in this case, Loomer — from getting Trump to parrot the most outrageous beliefs simply by inveigling herself into his closest circle and flattering him enough to stay there.

The complaint being offered is that Loomer’s mere fawning presence will lead Trump to say and do things that will disrupt the carefully cultivated illusion that he is a sane, effective leader.

Trump’s anonymous aides are making the same argument that Tim Walz did: that anyone who strokes Trump’s ego enough can win him to their view. Trump’s boasts about how valuable Viktor Orbán’s adulation is have nothing to do with Orbán’s real stature on the world stage. Rather, Trump boasted about Orbán’s “endorsement” because Orbán has serially sucked up to Trump, repeating back to Trump Trump’s own fantasy that he can deliver “peace” in Ukraine with a snap of his fingers.

The problem isn’t Laura Loomer. She’s little different than all the other extremists who remain in Trump’s good graces by performing near-perfect sycophancy.

The problem is precisely what Tim Walz warned: Trump’s narcissism and his ego make him weak, vulnerable to any person willing to use flattery to win their objectives.

Trump’s aides are making the same argument Tim Walz is: that Trump doesn’t have the self-control to protect against extremists making him their ready tool.

Share this entry

Kamala Harris Is Not Goading Journalists to Publish Emails Iran Stole from Roger Stone

/33 Comments/in , , /by

As I’ve alluded to a few times, I was sent what I believe to be three of the files Iran puportedly stole from Trump’s team. I received them after I explained why I thought this hack-and-leak was different than the Hillary one in ways that should influence considerations about publishing:

  • Trump doesn’t compartment his campaign from his crimes, meaning Iran could be — could have been trying, could have succeeded in — stealing information about the Iran-related documents Trump took when he left the White House. The report that Susie Wiles was the intended target of the hack confirms that risk. In addition to running Trump’s campaign, Wiles decided who would be provided defense attorneys paid by the campaign. Aside from the classified information Trump shared with her, she should never have had anything implicating classified discovery and the classified discovery itself should never have left the SCIFs in which it was provided to defense attorneys. But she is likely to know some of what — for example — witnesses like Kash Patel said about classified information.
  • In addition to the hack, Iran allegedly was also trying to solicit a hit squad to kill Trump (indeed, the alleged recruiter, Asif Merchant, was just indicted on Wednesday). That makes the possibility of Iran exploiting internal information from Trump’s campaign (such as travel details) far more dangerous.

I had decided it wasn’t worth participating. And then I got sent files I believe to be those vetting files.

In the last few days, Google has slapped a phishing warning on the files I got sent.

Even though I offered that explanation a month ago, I still get questions from people about why I, and why other outlets, haven’t published the documents.

Don’t get me wrong, other outlets are, without a doubt, exercising a double standard in choosing not to publish these documents, or at least reviewing whether the JD Vance vetting document includes some of the really damning videos surfaced since Trump picked him. It’s not just the Hillary emails in 2016. Every single outlet known to have received these files has also chased the Hunter Biden laptop, even though they never succeeded in implicating Joe Biden in anything found in the laptop. The dick pics were enough to sustain many outlets for a year (and longer, in the case of the NYPost).

But there’s one other big, big difference — one that I think explains the entire difference.

As far as I know, no one in the Kamala Harris campaign is goading journalists to post the documents.

Compare that to 2016, where Trump’s top people were strategizing how to maximize attention on John Podesta’s risotto recipe. Somebody who may be Don Jr was getting all his trolls to push hashtags so “liberal news forced to cover it.” Or 2020, when Trump’s personal lawyer flew around the world, even meeting with known Russian spies, looking for dirt on Joe Biden’s kid. And when a laptop of dick pics dropped in Rudy Giuliani’s lap, like magic, the far right demanded that private social media companies let those dick pics disseminate like wild, because — they claimed — the dissemination of distractions about Hunter Biden was absolutely crucial to Trump’s election strategy.

If I’m right that Kamala Harris has never encouraged journalists to post these documents, there would be a very good reason why not, even beyond the considerable national security risks of encouraging hack-and-leak operations from hostile intelligence services.

Kamala has just 107 days to win an election. And she has a story that she is very very busy telling.

Hack-and-leak operations are about attention, about distraction. If she focused on these stolen documents, she would distract from her own campaign, from the story she is busy telling.

In 2016, Trump used the documents Russia stole to suck up media attention, which served to distract from his own corruption. That’s what he tried in 2020, too. And media outlets have, quite literally, argued that they could avoid accusations of liberal bias by printing error-riddled stories about Hunter Biden, still sucking on that dick pic, three years later.

Hack-and-leak operations help someone like Donald Trump, because too much scrutiny of his own actions might sink his campaign.

But Harris is doing something different than Trump. She’s trying to convince voters that government can improve their lives. She’s trying to convince voters that she cares about their issues and plans to [try to] address them. She needs to sustain their attention long enough to tell that story.

She doesn’t have the time to chase distraction with documents stolen from Trump.

Besides, the press has barely scratched the surface of the corruption or right wing extremism of Trump and his running mate, just sitting in plain sight, such as JD’s claim that we’re still fighting the Civil War and he’s fighting on the side of the south, or Trump rolling out another effort to cash in on his campaign, just weeks before the election.

There’s no shortage of dirt on Donald Trump. Nothing Iran has offered, thus far, at all compares to the stuff sitting out in plain sight.

There is, however, a shortage of time. And wasting time on stolen emails would squander what little time there is.

Share this entry

In One Week, Trump Suggests He’ll Eliminate Sanctions on Iran and Lies about Iran Hack to Supporters

/34 Comments/in , /by

Donald Trump’s batshit crazypants answer regarding childcare was the part of his address to the New York Economic Club that deservedly attracted the most attention last week.

But I was interested in a response Trump gave to Sullivan & Cromwell Rodge Cohen regarding whether he would alter the sanctions against Russia.

H. RODGIN COHEN: Thank you, Bob, and thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. I would like to ask about the United States economic sanctions programs. These programs have been used, as you well know, to advance our national security interests, our foreign policy objectives, but they also have economic implications. And the most recent was the program against Russia in response to the Ukrainian – their invasion of Ukraine, where, for once, we got the support of all our allies. So my specific question is, would you strengthen or modify any of these economic sanctions programs, particularly Russia, including the pipeline you mentioned?

DONALD TRUMP: Well, it’s a great question. The problem with what we have with sanctions – and I was a user of sanctions, but I put them on and take them off as quickly as possible because, ultimately, it kills your dollar and it kills everything the dollar represents, and we have to continue to have that be the world currency. I think it’s important. I think it would be losing a war. If we lost – if we lost the dollar as the world currency, I think that would be the equivalent of losing a war.

That would make us a third-world country, and we can’t let it happen. So I use sanctions very powerfully against countries that deserve it, and then I take them off. Because look, you’re losing Iran, you’re losing Russia, China is out there trying to get their currency to be the dominant currency, as you know better than anybody. All of these things are happening.

You’re losing so many countries because there’s so much conflict with all of these countries that you’re going to lose that, and we can’t lose that. So I want to use sanctions as little as possible. One of the things that we have with tariffs is that I’ll say to them, you don’t honor the dollar as your world currency. Is that right?

You’re not going to do it? No, we’re not. I said, that’s okay. I’m going to put tariffs all over your product, and they’re going to say, sir, we’d love to honor the dollar as the world currency.

You know, tariffs, in addition to monetary and the money that we’ll take in, which will be bigger than you’ve ever seen in this country before, gives you tremendous political power for something like that, as an example. I stopped wars with the threat of tariffs. I stopped wars with two countries that mattered a lot. A lot of people would have been killed. [my emphasis]

Cohen asked only about Russia. But Trump’s answer included Iran (and wildly misrepresented what he did with sanctions on Iran, which Biden rescinded a month after becoming President). Trump seemed to suggest that sanctions, including those against Iran, had to be limited, or targeted countries would abandon the dollar.

I’ll leave it to economic experts to address whether his plan to enforce adherence to the dollar using tariffs could have the same effect.

I’m interested in the response, generally, because if there was a quo that Trump was supposed to provide after Russia helped Trump win in 2016, it was sanctions relief. Trump went to some effort — with an attempt to script Steve Bannon’s HPSCI testimony, Don Jr’s refusal to testify before a grand jury, Trump’s complete blow-off of a sanctions question from Mueller, and the attempt to reverse the Mike Flynn prosecution — to prevent Mueller from substantiating that Trump had taken steps to deliver that quo before the Russian investigation became overt.

Yet here he is again, suggesting he’ll end sanctions on Russia during the election.

But I’m particularly interested in Trump’s affirmative inclusion of Iran in the comment.

Sure, his inclusion of Iran in this discussion might reflect his belief that Jared’s effort to spread Trumpism around the Middle East will bring Iran into the fold — or perhaps it reflects the efforts of his Russian buddies to view Iran as an ally.

But I found it interesting given that Iran not only targeted his rat-fucker and his campaign manager for hacking, but also allegedly tried to hire hitmen to assassinate him.

All the more so given how Trump lied about DOJ’s focus on Iran when he responded to DOJ’s exposure of the RT influence laundering last week at his equally batshit appearance in Mosinee, WI.

Did you see? Three days ago, it started again. The Justice Department said Russia may be involved in our elections again. You see that, Mr. Congressman, great Congressman from Texas? You see that Russia — it’s Russia. And you know? The whole world laughed at him this time, 2.5 years, not a phone call made to Russia, not anything to do with Russia but stopping their pipeline and lots of other things that people approved. And they said just the other day, the Attorney General, we are looking at Russia, and I said, oh no. It’s Russia Russia Russia all over again. But they don’t look at China and they don’t look at Iran. They look at Russia. I don’t know what it is with poor Russia. This is very, very. But you know what? Russia would have never happened if I were President, attacking Ukraine would never have happened. I knew Putin. I knew him well. And you know, he endorsed — I don’t know if you saw the other day? He endorsed Ka-Mala. He endorsed Ka-Mala. I was very offended by that. I wonder why he endorsed Ka-Mala. Now, he’s a chess player. I endorse Ka-Mala. Should I be congressman, should I be upset about that? Now, it was done with a smile — Ron? Was it done with a smile? I think it was done. Maybe with a smile. I don’t know who the hell knows. Nobody is going to figure out. There are about 19 steps ahead of us but this whole Russian thing, nobody, was tougher on Russia in history than Trump and the person that knows that better than anyone is President Vladimir Putin.

Trump acknowledged the hack at his Bedminster presser — where he also predicted “we will be friendly with Iran.”

I originally thought this response from Trump was a response to the Ukraine question, I think, instead, he was responding to the hacking question.

Can you say anything about the hacking of your campaign?

I don’t like it. Really bad. I’m not happy with it. Our government shouldn’t let that happen.

Does there need to be a government response?

Yeah there should be. Our government should not let — they have no respect for our government.

Trump blamed the government after, earlier in the Potemkin Presser, he had already predicted that “we” will be friendly with Russia’s increasingly critical ally, Iran.

We will be friendly with Iran. Maybe, maybe not. But they cannot have a nuclear weapon. We were all set to make sure they did not have a nuclear weapon.

But last week, he lied about it. He lied and suggested that DOJ would never look at Iran’s influence operations, even though the Deep State has twice done what they did last week with Russia, attribute Iran’s effort to interfere in the election, in that case by harming Trump, and do so before the Trump campaign alerted the FBI to the hack.

Trump was targeted for hacking (and, allegedly, assassination) by Iran. And yet he’s hiding that when he dismisses DOJ’s similar focus on Russian influence operations.

Share this entry

Lauren Chen’s Curious Legal Status

/17 Comments/in , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s work backwards, Matryoshka doll like.

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this entry

ABC Treats Kamala’s 21-Year Old Misstatement about Prosecutions as News but Not Trump’s Daily Lies about His Own Crimes

/99 Comments/in , , , , , /by

As the mainstream press continues to soil itself like toddlers over Kamala Harris’ interview tonight, I was going to use this CNN piece — suggesting questions about how the VP’s stance on immigration has changed — as an example of the complete collapse of any sense of newsworthiness.

After all, Donald Trump has still never been asked, much less answered, how he plans to fulfill his promise of mass deportations, something that might be impossible without dramatic escalation of police force against both citizens and not. He hasn’t been asked how he’ll pay for it, which would be prohibitively expensive. He hasn’t asked who will do the jobs, such as in agriculture, that keep America’s cost of living relatively low. He hasn’t been asked if he’ll separate families, especially marriages empowered by Obergefell.

Trump hasn’t been asked the most basic questions about one of his only policy promises.

CNN’s Eva McKend has really good questions about immigration policy. In another place and time they’d be totally valid questions!

But given the failure by the entire press corps to ask Trump about a policy promise that would serve as — and assuredly is intended to serve as — a bridge to fascism, it is the height of irresponsibility to waste time on the shifts in Harris’ immigration views, because they don’t matter in the face of Trump’s promises to sic cops on American families in pursuit of brown people.

So that was going to be my exemplar of how completely the press corps has lost any sense of proportionality regarding what counts as news.

Then I read this piece from ABC, which makes a big deal out of the fact that in 2003 — 21 years ago!!! — some Kamala Harris campaign fliers said she prosecuted over a hundred cases, when she should have said she was involved in that many.

But during a debate held in the runup to Election Day 2003 on KGO Radio, Harris’ then-opponent, veteran criminal defense attorney Bill Fazio, accused her of misleading voters about her record as a prosecutor and deputy district attorney in California’s Alameda County.

“How many cases have you tried? Can you tell us how many serious felonies you have tried? Can you tell us one?” Fazio asked Harris, according to audio ABC News obtained of the debate, which also included then-current San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan.

“I’ve tried about 50 cases, Mr. Fazio, and it’s about leadership,” Harris responded.

Fazio then pointed out campaign literature where Harris had been claiming a more extensive prosecutorial record.

“Ms. Harris, why does your information, which is still published, say that you tried hundreds of serious felonies? I think that’s misleading. I think that’s disingenuous. I think that shows that you are incapable of leadership and you’re not to be trusted,” Fazio said. “You continue to put out information which says you have tried hundreds of serious felonies.”

[snip]

Asked this week about Harris’ prosecutorial experience before she became district attorney, a spokesperson for Harris’ presidential campaign used slightly different language to describe her record — saying she was “involved in” hundreds of cases.

This is insane!! Having prosecuted 50 felonies is a lot, for an entire career! To make a stink about this 21-year old misstatement would be unbelievable on its face.

But it is just contemptible, given the amount of lies Donald Trump tells about his own crimes that ABC lets go unmentioned.

Just as one example, check out how ABC covered Donald Trump’s August 8 Mar-a-Lago presser. In that presser, Trump seems to have falsely claimed he did oversee a peaceful transfer of power (the only lie NYT called out in its coverage of this presser). He lied about the four people who were killed that day. He lied about his role in sending his mob to the Capitol. He lied about what those mobsters chanting “Hang Mike Pence” were seeking to do. He lied about how Jan6 defendants are being treated. [All emphasis here and elsewhere my own.]

QUESTION: Mr. President, you were – you just said that it was a peaceful transfer of power last time when you left office. You didn’t (inaudible) …

TRUMP: What – what’s your question?

QUESTION: My question is you can’t (inaudible) the last time it was a peaceful transfer of power when you left office?

The second one (ph) …

TRUMP: No, I think the people that – if you look at January 6th, which a lot of people aren’t talking about very much, I think those people were treated very harshly when you compare them to other things that took place in this country where a lot of people were killed. Nobody was killed on January 6th.

But I think that the people of January 6th were treated very unfairly. And they – where – they were there to complain not through me. They were there to complain about an election. And, you know, it’s very interesting. The biggest crowd I’ve ever spoken to, and I said peacefully and patriotically, which nobody wants to say, but I said peacefully and patriotically.

Trump made a misleading crack meant to suggest that Arthur Engoron undervalued Mar-a-Lago.

TRUMP: It’s a hard room because it’s very big, if you don’t …

(LAUGHTER)

… this is worth $18 million.

Trump lied that the prosecutions against him — all of them — are politically motivated. He lied that “they” have weaponized government against him. He lied that the Florida case, in which he was investigated for the same crime as Joe Biden, was weaponized. He falsely claimed that the NY cases are controlled by DOJ.

TRUMP: Because other people have done far bigger things in see a ban [ph] and sure, it’s politically motivated. I think it’s a horrible thing they did. Look, they’ve weaponized government against me. Look at the Florida case. It was a totally weaponized case. All of these cases.

By the way, the New York cases are totally controlled out of the Department of Justice. They sent their top person to the various places. They went to the AG’s office, got that one going. Then he went to the DA’s office, got that one going, ran through it.

No, no, this is all politics, and it’s a disgrace. Never happened in this country. It’s very common that it happens, but not in our country. It happens in banana republics and third-world countries, and that’s what we’re becoming.

Trump claimed he wouldn’t have wanted to put Hillary in jail when, on his orders, DOJ investigated the Clinton Foundation for the entirety of his term and then John Durham tried to trump up conspiracy charges against her (and did bring a frivolous case against her campaign lawyer). Trump also lied about calming, rather than stoking, the “Lock her up” chants at rallies. Trump lied about what files Hillary destroyed after receiving a subpoena (and who destroyed them).

TRUMP: I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to talk about it. I think it’s a tragic story, if you want to know the truth. And I felt that with Hillary Clinton, too. You know, with Hillary Clinton, I could have done things to her that would have made your head spin. I thought it was a very bad thing, take the wife of a President of the United States and put her in jail. And then I see the way they treat me. That’s the way it goes.

But I was very protective of her. Nobody would understand that, but I was. I think my people understand it. They used to say “lock her up, lock her up,” and I’d say “just relax, please.” We won the election. I think it would be very – I think – I think it would have been horrible for our country if I – and we had her between the hammering of all of the files.

And don’t forget, she got a subpoena from the United States Congress, and then after getting the subpoena, she destroyed everything that she was supposed to get. I – I – I could – it – I didn’t think – I thought it was so bad to take her and put her in jail, the wife of a President of the United States. And then when it’s my turn, nobody thinks that way. I thought it was a very terrible thing. And she did a lot of very bad things. I’ll tell you what, she was – she was pretty evil.

But in terms of the country and in terms of unifying the country, bringing it back, to have taken her and to have put her in jail – and I think you know the things as well as I do. They were some pretty bad acts that she did.

Depending on how you count, that’s around twelve lies in one hour-long press conference. They’re proof of Trump’s abuse of the presidency, his refusal to cooperate with an investigation like Joe Biden had, his lifelong habits of fraud, and his assault on democracy.

And these are only the lies about his own (and his eponymous corporation’s) crimes! They don’t include the lies about abortion or gun laws and shootings, other lies about the law he told in that presser.

And yet ABC covered none of those lies, focusing instead on Trump’s false claims about crowd size.

Crowd size.

These aren’t the only lies about justice Trump routinely tells. He routinely lies that he “won” the documents case, that he was declared innocent or that Biden was only not prosecuted because he was too old. They don’t include the lies Trump has told about the Hunter Biden case, the Russian investigation, his actual actions in the Ukraine impeachment. Trump continues to lie about whether he sexually assaulted E Jean Carroll. He lies about his Administration’s jailing of Michael Cohen to shut him up.

Then there are Trump’s renewed false claims, in the last day, about the superseding indictment against him.

Trump lies all the time. He lies about the cases against him, about his own crime. He lies with a goal: to present rule of law as a personal grievance. Those lies go to his core unfitness to be President.

And yet, aside from some good reporting (particularly from Katherine Faulders) on these crimes, ABC never bothers to fact check Donald Trump’s lies about rule of law, not even his own prosecutions.

It is the height of irresponsibility to adopt this double standard — to ignore Trump’s corruption of rule of law while chasing a campaign exaggeration made two decades ago. It was bad enough that the press corps sits there, docilely, as Trump corrupts rule of law every time he opens his mouth. But to then try to make a campaign issue about whether Kamala Harris was involved in or prosecuted 50 cases decades ago?

ABC claims that Kamala Harris made misstatements. But their own failure to report on Trump’s false claims is a far, far greater misrepresentation of the truth, and it’s a misrepresentation of the truth they repeat every day.

Share this entry