The Russia Investigations and other Trump-related cases

[N.E. Brigand]

I would say that it *is* too "good" to be true, for a few reasons....

In a column titled "Rudy's Very Bad Week," Marcy Wheeler agrees, writing: "I’m sure many of the claims made in this suit are true, but packaged up as it is, it feels too convenient, just like the 'Hunter Biden' 'laptop.'" She thinks the filing indicates Dunphy is trying to interest the FBI in her testimony and/or trying to threaten Giuliani or his associates into arranging a quick settlement....

I am also reminded of Lev Parnas, who teased that he had a bunch of information about Giuliani, Trump, and the Ukraine scandal.

Speaking of Parnas: "Exclusive: Texts tie Ron DeSantis closely to Trump insider Lev Parnas in 2018 race" (Reuters).

When Parnas and his associate Igor Fruman were arrested in 2019, DeSantis's office said that DeSantis barely knew Parnas, who "was just like any other donor, nothing more than that." However, Parnas has provided Reuters with "63 previously unreported text messages from DeSantis to Parnas between May and October 2018, as DeSantis campaigned for governor," and on more than 20 occasions, DeSantis "appealed to fellow Floridian Parnas for introductions, advice and other fundraising help during his hotly contested campaign"; Parnas also "served as an intermediary between DeSantis and former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who at the time was the personal attorney of then-President Trump," and less than two weeks before the election, "DeSantis sent Parnas a text with suggested wording for a Giuliani tweet in support of his candidacy". They also met at least twice.

[N.E. Brigand]

Per new reporting from the New York Times, the investigation into the Clinton Foundation, which was launched in 2015 on what seem to be flimsy grounds, ended "with prosecutors closing the case without charges just days before [President Donald Trump] left office" in January 2021. "Newly released documents and interviews with former department officials show that the investigation stretched long past when F.B.I. agents and prosecutors knew it was a dead end."

As Special Counsel John Durham's report notes, the initial investigation was founded in large part on what even Durham calls "unvetted hearsay information": allegations in a book by Peter Schweitzer called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. As the new Times report notes, "Mr. Schweizer is the president of the Government Accountability Institute, where Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s former chief strategist, was a founder and the executive chairman." What the Times doesn't disclose is that they helped to disseminate the Clinton Cash narrative.

The article notes that two other investigations into the Clinton Foundation were also opened in 2015-16 -- based on what we don't know -- and all three investigations were merged into one in August 2016, managed by FBI field office in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Also Hillary Clinton was interviewed by John Durham in May 2022. Her lawyer says, "No topics were off limits. She answered every question."

[N.E. Brigand]

Eric Geller has obtained the U.S. government's 2016 cybersecurity assessment of potential risks to that year's election. His overview is worth a quick read.

- - - - - - - - - -
Speaking of 2016, I think I read Franklin Foer's July 4, 2016 Slate article at the time, but I had forgotten how deftly he summarized the situation as it was then known, a month before Wikileaks started sharing material stolen from the Democratic National Convention -- but two weeks after it was known that Russia had hacked the DNC. The story, titled "Putin's Puppet," apparently caught the attention foreign policy advisors for Hillary Clinton's campaign. After noting how Russia had interfered in a number of European political contests, including Brexit, Foer offers this:

Donald Trump is like the Kremlin’s favored candidates, only more so. He celebrated the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU. He denounces NATO with feeling. He is also a great admirer of Vladimir Putin. Trump’s devotion to the Russian president has been portrayed as buffoonish enthusiasm for a fellow macho strongman. But Trump’s statements of praise amount to something closer to slavish devotion. In 2007, he praised Putin for “rebuilding Russia.” A year later he added, “He does his work well. Much better than our Bush.” When Putin ripped American exceptionalism in a New York Times op-ed in 2013, Trump called it “a masterpiece.” Despite ample evidence, Trump denies that Putin has assassinated his opponents, “In all fairness to Putin, you’re saying he killed people. I haven’t seen that.” In the event that such killings have transpired, they can be forgiven: “At least he’s a leader.” And not just any old head of state: “I will tell you that, in terms of leadership, he’s getting an A.”

Foer's summary of his conclusion, not so prescient as to what ultimately happened, still recognized the dangers of Donald Trump's candidacy:

We shouldn’t overstate Putin’s efforts, which will hardly determine the outcome of the election. Still, we should think of the Trump campaign as the moral equivalent of Henry Wallace’s communist-infiltrated campaign for president in 1948, albeit less sincere and idealistic than that. A foreign power that wishes ill upon the United States has attached itself to a major presidential campaign.

Both passages actually come from the introduction of Foer's long piece, which has quite a bit more detail.

[N.E. Brigand]

Forbes reported today that "newly released documents reveal that Donald Trump’s businesses charged his Department of Defense $976,000 during the first three years of his presidency, an amount that appears far greater than previously reported." I think much of this is hotel rooms for military pilots.

[N.E. Brigand]

Mimi Rocah, the district attorney in Westchester County, New York, has closed her office's two-year investigation into whether Donald Trump's company "illegally misled authorities about the value of the Trump National Golf Club Westchester to pay lower property taxes." Her office won't be filing any charges in this matter.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I guess I'll put this here. I guess the "divorce" between Trump and Jim Trusty is pretty extensive.

[N.E. Brigand]

Edited to add a tidbit about another case that hadn't appeared to be Trump-related, but:

New reporting from Maggie Haberman's book indicates that after Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested, Donald Trump asked aides: "She say anything about me"?

In the first interview of the dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's procurer, Ghislaine Maxwell, since she was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment, she says she's grateful to Donald Trump, who was then the President, for publicly saying "I wish her well" at the time of her arrest in July 2020. Maxwell says that comment was "a big boost" to her and that she "was very touched that he would remember me".

Today I was reminded about a story from February 2021 that I know I saw at the time but then forgot. I searched the forums for "Ghislaine" and "Epstein," and it seems that we were too busy focusing on the aftermath of January 6th and other matters to take note of it, but I think it's worth mentioning:

"Ghislaine Maxwell ‘told reporter that Epstein had tapes of Trump and Clinton’."

That's the Independent citing a memoir by Ira Rosen, formerly of the CBS program 60 Minutes, who claims that Maxwell told him this in 2016. Maxwell may have been lying to Rosen. Rosen may have been lying to sell more books. But as regards Trump, it does connect to what Maggie Haberman reported him as having said following Maxwell's arrest.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I feel like I should say something about the Durham hearing going on today at the House Judiciary Committee, but there is just too much.

ETA: Actually, I'll throw this clip up there as fairly representative of the proceedings.

[N.E. Brigand]

Congressional witnesses almost always are given an opportunity later to correct misstatements in their testimony, so Durham is at no risk of consequences for what David Corn and Dan Friedman report out in this story:

"John Durham Just Made False Statements to Congress" (Mother Jones).

What's more, the incorrect statements that the article calls out can be chalked up to Durham's ignorance about the Trump-Russia affair. That's not a quality you want form a special counsel investigating that matter, but no one gets charged for stupidity. Also, despite Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, giving Durham hell near the end of the hearing (apparently for not having prosecuted any prominent figures like James Comey or Hillary Clinton), Republicans would never refer Durham to the Dept. of Justice anyway.

[N.E. Brigand]

Edited: wrong thread. (Reposted here in the "Chaos in the House" thread. It's ironic that the House should be voting on a motion to censure Adam Schiff on the false charge that he lied about the Trump-Russia affair right after Schiff shredded John Durham, the special counsel who investigated the Trump-Russia investigation.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Congressional witnesses almost always are given an opportunity later to correct misstatements in their testimony, so Durham is at no risk of consequences for what David Corn and Dan Friedman report out in this story:

"John Durham Just Made False Statements to Congress" (Mother Jones).

What's more, the incorrect statements that the article calls out can be chalked up to Durham's ignorance about the Trump-Russia affair. That's not a quality you want form a special counsel investigating that matter, but no one gets charged for stupidity. Also, despite Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, giving Durham hell near the end of the hearing (apparently for not having prosecuted any prominent figures like James Comey or Hillary Clinton), Republicans would never refer Durham to the Dept. of Justice anyway.

I just saw Brad Moss addressing this very subject.

[N.E. Brigand]

Congressional witnesses almost always are given an opportunity later to correct misstatements in their testimony, so Durham is at no risk of consequences for what David Corn and Dan Friedman report out in this story:

"John Durham Just Made False Statements to Congress" (Mother Jones).

What's more, the incorrect statements that the article calls out can be chalked up to Durham's ignorance about the Trump-Russia affair. That's not a quality you want form a special counsel investigating that matter, but no one gets charged for stupidity. Also, despite Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, giving Durham hell near the end of the hearing (apparently for not having prosecuted any prominent figures like James Comey or Hillary Clinton), Republicans would never refer Durham to the Dept. of Justice anyway.

More leopards are eating Durham's face: former Trump White House national security advisor and radio host Sebastian Gorka, and his recent guest, another Trump White House security and defense official, Kash Patel, who discussed their determination that "John Durham Is the Deep State."

[N.E. Brigand]

Edited to add a tidbit about another case that hadn't appeared to be Trump-related, but: New reporting from Maggie Haberman's book indicates that after Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested, Donald Trump asked aides: "She say anything about me"?

In the first interview of the dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's procurer, Ghislaine Maxwell, since she was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment, she says she's grateful to Donald Trump, who was then the President, for publicly saying "I wish her well" at the time of her arrest in July 2020. Maxwell says that comment was "a big boost" to her and that she "was very touched that he would remember me".

Today I was reminded about a story from February 2021 that I know I saw at the time but then forgot. I searched the forums for "Ghislaine" and "Epstein," and it seems that we were too busy focusing on the aftermath of January 6th and other matters to take note of it, but I think it's worth mentioning:

"Ghislaine Maxwell ‘told reporter that Epstein had tapes of Trump and Clinton’."

That's the Independent citing a memoir by Ira Rosen, formerly of the CBS program 60 Minutes, who claims that Maxwell told him this in 2016. Maxwell may have been lying to Rosen. Rosen may have been lying to sell more books. But as regards Trump, it does connect to what Maggie Haberman reported him as having said following Maxwell's arrest.

Since this was the most recent reference on these forums to Jeffrey Epstein, I'll note here that the Department of Justice Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, has issued his "Investigation and Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Custody, Care, and Supervision of Jeffrey Epstein at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, New York." Here's the link. You can read his one-page statement summarizing the report here. It appears there's nothing new: the Bureau of Prisons is awful, that's all.

- - - - - - - - -
Edited to note a new story about Epstein from Business Insider, which reveals that Stacey Plaskett, the Virgin Islands's Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives, received campaign contributions from Epstein even after he was a convicted sex offender. In 2018, she also persuaded him to make a large donation to the DCCC -- which is Congressional Democrats' official fundraising PAC -- but the DCCC rejected his donation.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Court Throws Out New York’s Civil Case Against Ivanka Trump
The decision could mean that claims against Donald J. Trump and his company might also be limited.

[N.E. Brigand]

Weird article. Of fourteen paragraphs, about half merely rehash familiar arguments about the merits (or lack thereof) of New York's case against the Trumps. Only three paragraphs have anything like detailed information about today's ruling:

On Tuesday, the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court in Manhattan said in a unanimous ruling that Ms. James’s claims against Ms. Trump should be dismissed because the attorney general missed a deadline for filing the case against her. Ms. Trump was no longer a part of the Trump Organization after 2016, the ruling noted.

The appeals court effectively left it to the State Supreme Court judge presiding over the case to determine whether the claims against the other defendants — including Mr. Trump, his company and his two adult sons — should be limited. ...

Based on the appeals court’s ruling, it’s possible that Justice Engoron may have to limit claims related to two of the bigger transactions cited in the complaint: a hotel deal in Chicago and the purchase of a golf resort in Florida.

Did Letitia James literally "miss a deadline"? Was this an error on her part? Was the delay related to Trump delaying the release of his tax returns for so long? How does it apply for sure to Ivanka but only perhaps to Donald, Don Jr., Eric, and the Trump Org.? So many unanswered questions in that piece.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It was unclear to me why it would apply to Trump, his sons, or the Org. As I read, the ruling applying to Ivanka because she left the Org in 2016, but Trump was still the nominal head, and the sons ran it all along. There must be some other reason why the case might be limited separate from why it was dismissed against Ivanka, but that was not made clear in the article. I guess I'll need to try to find the decision itself.

[N.E. Brigand]

From Rolling Stone, and not whatever article about January 6th that the magazine's editor was teasing earlier today:

"Top Trump Adviser Pushed for Drone Strikes on Migrants, New Book Claims."

Important caveat right in the sub-hed: "Stephen Miller [the advisor in question] denies the account, and a person present has 'no recollection' of the alleged conversation, but the book accuses the top Trump adviser of suggesting an atrocity." With that in mind, here is some of what is alleged:

"Tell me why, then, can't we use a predator drone to obliterate that boat?"

Admiral Zukunft looked nonplussed. "Because, Stephen, it would be against international law." ...

The United States launched airstrikes on terrorists in disupted areas all the time, Miller said, or retaliated against pirates commandeering ships off the coast of Somalia. The Coast Guard chief calmly explained the difference. America attacked enemy forces when they were armed and posed an imminent threat. Seafaring migrants were generally unarmed civilians. They quarreled for a few minutes. Stephen wasn't interested in the moral conflict of drone-bombing migrants. He wanted to know whether anyone could stop America from doing it.

[Contra the denials, Rolling Stone says it "has reviewed written documentation from during the Trump administration that supports" this allegation. And it's not that much different from some things that we know Miller and other Trump aides suggested.

[N.E. Brigand]

It was unclear to me why it would apply to Trump, his sons, or the Org. As I read, the ruling applying to Ivanka because she left the Org in 2016, but Trump was still the nominal head, and the sons ran it all along. There must be some other reason why the case might be limited separate from why it was dismissed against Ivanka, but that was not made clear in the article. I guess I'll need to try to find the decision itself.

There's not much more information in this article from the Financial Times, although the perspective differs a little.

[River]

The saddest part to me is there are going to be people who agree with Stephen Miller about drone bombing unarmed civilians in boats. Not sure what twisted their souls into thinking that kind of thing is okay and I hope they eventually find the help they need.

[N.E. Brigand]

John Kelly, who was Donald Trump's Chief of Staff, says that Trump pushed for IRS and DOJ investigations into "former F.B.I. director James B. Comey and his deputy, Andrew G. McCabe ... former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan; Hillary Clinton; Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and the owner of The Washington Post, whose coverage often angered Mr. Trump; Peter Strzok, the lead F.B.I. agent on the Russia investigation; and Lisa Page, an F.B.I. official who exchanged text messages with Mr. Strzok that were critical of Mr. Trump."

Kelly says he believes he prevented any such investigation from going forward, and yet somehow the IRS audited both Comey and McCabe.

Multiple news outlets today reported that the IRS has determined that these 2017 and 2019 audits of James Comey and Andrew McCabe, respectively, were indeed the result of random selection, but as some observers have noted, the text of the IRS report itself presents some information indicating that the IRS deviated from its regular procedures for selecting auditees in the relevant years and that some data was not available to the investigators who wrote this report. There's even a redacted passage on page 8 concerning what the selecting managers knew.

Here's a choice selection from the report, courtesy of Allison Gill: "Because the seed numbers were not selected independently and documented prior to subsampling, there is a risk that the seed numbers used could have ensured that specific taxpayers from the original sample remained in the subsamples." This is the report that several reporters say exonerates the IRS.

Following up on these stories, the New York Times reported yesterday that former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly has repeated this claim -- that Donald Trump wanted the IRS to investigate several former FBI employees including Peter Strzok and Lisa Page -- in a sworn statement that Strzok and Page included in a filing as part of their ongoing lawsuit against the Department of Justice for violating their privacy.