The Russian Connection 2

[fraurosena]

Here's a mini-thread by the Daily Beast's Rick Wilson on the 'news that isn't' about the Steele Dossier's funding:

 

[GrumpyGran]

10 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier"

  Reveal hidden contents

The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump’s connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS’s research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS’s research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

Fusion GPS gave Steele’s reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS’s role.

The dossier has become a lightning rod amid the intensifying investigations into the Trump campaign’s possible connections to Russia. Some congressional Republican leaders have spent months trying to discredit Fusion GPS and Steele and tried to determine the identity of the Democrat or organization that paid for the dossier.

Trump tweeted as recently as Saturday that the Justice Department and FBI should “immediately release who paid for it.”

Elias and Fusion GPS declined to comment on the arrangement.

A DNC spokeswoman said “[Chairman] Tom Perez and the new leadership of the DNC were not involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization. But let’s be clear, there is a serious federal investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, and the American public deserves to know what happened.”

Brian Fallon, a former spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said he wasn’t aware of the hiring during the campaign.

“The first I learned of Christopher Steele or saw any dossier was after the election,” Fallon said. “But if I had gotten handed it last fall, I would have had no problem passing it along and urging reporters to look into it. Opposition research happens on every campaign, and here you had probably the most shadowy guy ever running for president, and the FBI certainly has seen fit to look into it. I probably would have volunteered to go to Europe myself to try and verify if it would have helped get more of this out there before the election.”

Some of the details are included in a Tuesday letter sent by Perkins Coie to a lawyer representing Fusion GPS, telling the research firm that it was released from a ­client-confidentiality obligation. The letter was prompted by a legal fight over a subpoena for Fusion GPS’s bank records.

People involved in the matter said that they would not disclose the dollar amounts paid to Fusion GPS but that the campaign and the DNC shared the cost.

Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier is a compilation of reports he prepared for Fusion GPS. The dossier alleged that the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and that the Kremlin was engaged in an effort to assist his campaign for president.

U.S. intelligence agencies later released a public assessment asserting that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to aid Trump. The FBI has been investigating whether Trump associates helped the Russians in that effort.

Trump has adamantly denied the allegations in the dossier and has dismissed the FBI probe as a witch hunt.

Officials have said that the FBI has confirmed some of the information in the dossier. Other details, including the most sensational accusations, have not been verified and may never be.

Fusion GPS’s work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries, when the GOP donor paid for the firm to investigate the real estate magnate’s background.

Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump’s Russia ties but quickly realized that those relationships were extensive, according to the people familiar with the matter.

When the Republican donor stopped paying for the research, Elias, acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, agreed to pay for the work to continue. The Democrats paid for research, including by Fusion GPS, because of concerns that little was known about Trump and his business interests, according to the people familiar with the matter.

Those people said that it is standard practice for political campaigns to use law firms to hire outside researchers to ensure their work is protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges.

The Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in “legal and compliance consulting’’ since November 2015 — though it’s impossible to tell from the filings how much of that work was for other legal matters and how much of it related to Fusion GPS.

At no point, the people said, did the Clinton campaign or the DNC direct Steele’s activities. They described him as a Fusion GPS subcontractor.

Some of Steele’s allegations began circulating in Washington in the summer of 2016 as the FBI launched its counterintelligence investigation into possible connections between Trump associates and the Kremlin. Around that time, Steele shared some of his findings with the FBI.

After the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports.

The dossier was published by BuzzFeed News in January. Fusion GPS has said in court filings that it did not give BuzzFeed the documents.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that Steele was respected by the FBI and the State Department for earlier work he performed on a global corruption probe.

In early January, then-FBI Director James B. Comey presented a two-page summary of Steele’s dossier to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump. In May, Trump fired Comey, which led to the appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel investigating the Trump-Russia matter.

Congressional Republicans have tried to force Fusion GPS to identify the Democrat or group behind Steele’s work, but the firm has said that it will not do so, citing confidentiality agreements with its clients.

Last week, Fusion GPS executives invoked their constitutional right not to answer questions from the House Intelligence Committee. The firm’s founder, Glenn Simpson, had previously given a 10-hour interview to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Over objections from Democrats, the Republican leader of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), subpoenaed Fusion GPS’s bank records to try to identify the mystery client.

Fusion GPS has been fighting the release of its bank records. A judge on Tuesday extended a deadline for Fusion GPS’s bank to respond to the subpoena until Friday while the company attempts to negotiate a resolution with Nunes.

Of course Nunes had to issue a subpoena. So much for stepping away.

So it's okay for Dumpy Jr. to have a meeting with a Russian thinking she will give him information on Hillary but it's not okay to pay someone to do research on your opposition? Everyone who thinks Nunes will completely ignore that Republican candidate who was using Fusion to get info before the convention, raise your hand! Somebody on the right is pissed at Nunes.

[Howl]

Good timeline of the entire dossier, GPS Fusion, oppo research thingy:

TIMELINE: What’s Known About Trump Dossier’s Creation And Dissemination

I didn't realize until I read the timeline that there was a handoff of documents to John McCain, who then passed them on to to Comey.   Another reason why Trump tries to dump on McCain/Comey whenever possible?  Here's the section of timeline pertaining to McCain.  I don't know how much time McCain has on this earth, but I hope he does a major data dump of everything that he knows about, well, just everything before he crosses the rainbow bridge. 

Quote

November 18, 2016: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attends the annual Halifax International Security Forum in Nova Scotia, where Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Russia, told McCain about the existence of material compromising to Donald Trump, according to Wood’s account to BBC4. Wood, an Orbis “associate,” goes on to set up a meeting between Steele and David Kramer, an associate of McCain’s who works at the McCain Institute, according to court filings in the U.K. case.

November 28: Steele meets with Kramer and tells him that what he’s learned through his research raises nation security issues. They agree that a hard copy of the research should be provided to McCain, per court filings.

Around December 13, 2016: Another version of the dossier is compiled, and it is shared with an unnamed U.K. security official and with Fusion, according to Steele’s filings in the U.K. case. According to the filings, Fusion was instructed to only provide the memo to Kramer, for him to pass on to McCain. Fusion has in court filings denied giving the memo directly to Buzzfeed.

Also around this time — December 9, according to CNN’s reporting, though that doesn’t entirely match up with the timeline laid out in the Steele lawsuit — McCain hands over a copy to Comey. The FBI, however, already had in its possession earlier versions of the memo dating up to August.

I need to go back and read the original published dossier from January 2017; I didn't read it when it was first published by Buzzfeed. 

[Howl]

Back to Cambridge Analytica:  The Guardian recently posted this: 

Cambridge Analytica used data from Facebook and Politico to help Trump

Spoiler

Speech by company executive contradicts denial by Trump campaign that claimed the company used its own data and Facebook data to help the campaign

Cambridge Analytica used its own database and voter information collected from Facebook and news publishers in its effort to help elect Donald Trump, despite a claim by a top campaign official who has downplayed the company’s role in the election.

Nigel Oakes’s company is at the centre of a growing controversy over the use of personal data during elections. But is there any evidence that what it does works?

The data analysis company, which uses a massive database of consumer and demographic information to profile and target voters, has come under the scrutiny of congressional investigators who are examining the Trump campaign.

This week, the group became the focus of a new controversy after the Daily Beast reported that the company’s chief executive, Alexander Nix, had contacted Julian Assange last year. Nix allegedly asked the WikiLeaks founder whether he could assist in releasing thousands of emails that had gone missing on a private server that had been used by Hillary Clinton. Assange confirmed the contact but said the offer was rejected.

The news prompted a top former campaign official, Michael Glassner, who was executive director of the Trump election campaign, to minimise the role Cambridge Analytica played in electing Trump, despite the fact that it paid Cambridge Analytica millions of dollars in fees.

In a statement on Wednesday, Glassner said that the Trump campaign relied on voter data owned by the Republican National Committee to help elect the president.

“Any claims that voter data from any other source played a key role in the victory are false,” he said.  But that claim is contradicted by a detailed description of the company’s role in the 2016 election given in May by a senior Cambridge Analytica executive.

Speaking at a conference in Germany, Molly Schweickert, the head of digital at Cambridge Analytica, said that Cambridge Analytica models, which melded the company’s own massive database and new voter surveys, were instrumental in day-to-day campaign decisions, including in helping determine Trump’s travel schedule.

The company’s models also helped drive decisions on advertising and how to reach out to financial donors.

Schweickert said Cambridge Analytica started working with the Trump campaign in June 2016.

“It became obvious that a sophisticated data apparatus would be needed to combat the years of infrastructure and experience the Clinton campaign had been building up,” she said.

One of the company’s strategies was to work in “collaboration” with news publishers like Politico, the political news website, which Schweickert said helped the company target a political ad about the Clinton Foundation to readers in key battleground states.

“We knew we would be showing this to the right individuals,” Schweickert said.

In another case, in the late stages of the November election, Schweickert said the company acquired data on voters who voted early – data it collected from local counties and states – and linked the information to individual Facebook profiles.

This helped Cambridge Analytica determine whether people had been exposed to certain political advertisements, and whether those people had turned in their early voting ballots, helping them to predict the outcome of the election.

When asked by a German audience member whether this was legal, given privacy rules in Europe that would “probably” make the activity illegal in Germany, Schweickert responded: “It’s a very different sort of data privacy culture.  All the data we work with is already publicly available,” she said.

 

[fraurosena]

Seth Abramson has an excellent thread in which he makes a legal case for impeachment.

 

[Rachel333]

Wow, the first charges have been filed in the Mueller investigation, arrests could happen on Monday.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/politics/first-charges-mueller-investigation/index.html

[Howl]

I know, right?  And it was announced on Friday, the day news goes to die.  Why would they do that, and not let us know who until Monday?

Dayum, I can hardly wait until Monday.  Any bets on Misha Flynn or Manafort?

[candygirl200413]

I was thinking Manafort but I actually somehow forgot about Flynn? I'm hoping this is the calm before the storm!!

[fraurosena]

I’m thinking Manafort. But we also have to remember that it could be some obscure person we haven’t heard about. What we know about Mueller’s investigation is next to nothing. Still, I’m hoping it’s Manafort.

Flynn is a posibility too, but as he is just that slight degree closer to the presidunce, I don’t think it will be him yet, as these things tend to start furthest away from the actual target and slowly close in, in ever tightening circles, until they can catch the largest fish. Carter Page is another such, whom I’m sure is also a subject of the investigation.

Whoever it is though, I’m sure the TT will be rattled.  It would not surprise me if an attempt will be made to fire Mueller or some other drastic measure is taken in order to stop the investigation. And if that is prevented, the denials of having any knowledge of the things this person stands accused of will come via tweetstorm in three... two... one...

[Howl]

I keep hearing the term "constitutional crisis" thrown around a lot these days.  For example, I'm hearing that if Trump fired Mueller, it would create a constitutional crisis. So of course,  I googled! and this article popped up telling me there are 4 different kinds of constitutional crises.  It was written Feb. 2017, because this type of stuff began weighing on many people's minds.  I'll list the four, and list a bit of text from the end of the article.  Easy and interesting read with brief examples of constitutional crises in the past. If you have further interest, just click on the link in the title. 

The 4 Types Of Constitutional Crises And which ones are most likely to come up during Trump’s presidency.

1. The Constitution doesn’t say what to do.
2. The Constitution’s meaning is in question.
3. The Constitution tells us what to do, but it’s not politically feasible.
4. Institutions themselves fail.

Quote

 

True constitutional crises are rare. The Constitution is set up so that power is shared between the president, Congress and the courts, and between the federal government and the states. This cuts down on vacuums where no one has clear authority, instead creating situations where multiple people or institutions are empowered to act. Serious constitutional crises occur when our institutions are rendered ineffective, which is usually about politics more than process, and often has less to do with how institutions were designed than with how legitimate they are perceived to be.

The last type of constitutional crisis — when different parts or branches of government are at loggerheads — might be the one we are most likely to see during Trump’s administration. If Trump continues to strain democratic norms and push political boundaries, Congress, the courts or even members of his own administration could push back. Those conflicts could be resolved deliberately and thoughtfully, with an eye toward what the founders would do. Or not.

 

 

[fraurosena]

23 minutes ago, Howl said:

I keep hearing the term "constitutional crisis" thrown around a lot these days.  For example, I'm hearing that if Trump fired Mueller, it would create a constitutional crisis. So of course,  I googled! and this article popped up telling me there are 4 different kinds of constitutional crises.  It was written Feb. 2017, because this type of stuff began weighing on many people's minds.  I'll list the four, and list a bit of text from the end of the article.  Easy and interesting read with brief examples of constitutional crises in the past. If you have further interest, just click on the link in the title. 

The 4 Types Of Constitutional Crises And which ones are most likely to come up during Trump’s presidency.

1. The Constitution doesn’t say what to do.
2. The Constitution’s meaning is in question.
3. The Constitution tells us what to do, but it’s not politically feasible.
4. Institutions themselves fail.

 

Well, number 4 is happening right now. And I'm not even thinking of Mueller and his investigation or any of the Hill's investigations into that Russian thing. Nope. The institutions themselves are failing, and failing miserably, to uphold the Constitution itself.

I mean, Emoluments Clause, anyone? It's happening quite overtly, and we hear crickets from the very institutions that are supposed to act upon it. Nepotism, anyone? Also happening in plain sight for everyone to see, Also crickets. I'm sure there are other things, but I'm not that familiar with your Constitution. 

So, yes, I believe that there is a Constitutional Crisis happening right now. SAD.

[onekidanddone]

7 hours ago, fraurosena said:

I’m thinking Manafort. But we also have to remember that it could be some obscure person we haven’t heard about. What we know about Mueller’s investigation is next to nothing. Still, I’m hoping it’s Manafot.

Whomever it is Orange shit stain will claim not to know him. 

Flynn: "Never met him. Nope.  And if I did it was only for a few seconds. Nope never met him. No, I never though of him for a slot in my administration. People are saying ...NFL BAD..flag, inner cities... MS 13...I know more...Hillary.. oh look...  

Manafort:  "Who? Oh yea, never met him. Did he run my campaign for a short time? Well people say he did, but I don't know..lots of people ran my campaign am I supposed to know who they were? Do you know all the people who ran my campaign?  No, didn't think you did.  So how am I supposed to know. ..... Oh how about the 120% great job I did in Puerto Rico". 

Jared: "Who? Jared? What a SAD name.  People are saying I have a 750% better name. Jared? Gold Start family mean to Trump. But her e-mails."

Except some major deflecting this weekend. More vicious of NFL players; Clinton,  the media (except Fox); random person of color; Mexico;.. and the list goes on

[fraurosena]

Benjamin Wittes has this to say in a mini thread on the CNN story:

He followed it up with these comments later on:

 

[onekidanddone]

In a way I wish this hadn't been reported. They won't give a name and all we know is this person will be taken into custody 'soon'. I think the news should have come out after the arrest had been made. Now all we have is supposition and headline grabbing rumor.  Fodder for tweets and FoxSpews talking heads blather.  I'm not sure how all  this works, but if they announced an impending arrest, wouldn't the person of interest fly the coop to an unknown location or country which does not extradite? 

[OtterRuletheWorld]

That's why I am taking a "wait and see" approach to this. It seems odd to announce this ahead of time. It is possible they don't believe whomever is a flight risk, but I am not holding my breath.

[Rachel333]

Reuters is citing their own source on the story, so it's not just CNN anymore. 

Edit: Also Wall Street Journal

[GrumpyGran]

Maybe they just wanted to provide a sweaty weekend for several people. I'll bet there's a lot of consultation going on with lawyers this weekend!

[fraurosena]

51 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

Reuters is citing their own source on the story, so it's not just CNN anymore. 

Edit: Also Wall Street Journal

NBC is also confirming:

Robert Mueller’s Office Will Serve First Indictment Monday, Sources Confirm

Quote

A federal grand jury in Washington has approved the first charges in the investigation being conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Mueller's Office of the Special Counsel will serve an indictment on Monday though the charges and target are unknown, a U.S. official with firsthand knowledge of the process confirmed to NBC News. The timing was confirmed by a second source familiar with the matter.

CNN was the first to report on Friday that the grand jury approved charges, citing multiple sources. The network added that the charges remain sealed by order of a federal judge.

Peter Carr, a spokesperson for Mueller, declined to comment Friday night.

Mueller, a former FBI director, was appointed in May as special counsel to oversee the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the election.

He was appointed by Deputy U.S. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein after President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey. Rosenstein made the decision to appoint Mueller because Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself from any probe in the Russia investigation.

Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn have been said to be key figures in Mueller's probe, law enforcement sources familiar with the matter have told NBC News in the past.

Representatives for Flynn and Manafort did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday night.

Congressional investigations into alleged Russian involvement in the presidential election are also underway.

"Sealing is fairly common at the stage when you have an indictment that is issued or approved, as it may have been today,” former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said on MSNBC Friday.

"And the reason is that law enforcement kind of wants its ducks in a row before they go out and arrest the defendant or even notify him — it may be that they don’t arrest whoever this defendant is because they’ve worked out a relationship with his or her defense attorney to bring them in to appear on the case," she said.

Trump has repeatedly denied that any collusion with Russia took place and has called the Russia probe a "witch hunt." 

 

[Howl]

There's a lot of screaming and frothing on the right about Hillary and Uranium One, and this isn't an insignificant thing, because there's at least some possibility that this is the spin that will be used to attempt to defuse/defang/discredit/fire Mueller, and, at the same time, claim that the Dems were the ones collaborating with Russia on a disinformation campaign.  Yeah, I (accidentally) found my way to a Breitbart post by innocently following links to headlines about a WSJ BoD op-ed saying that Mueller should resign.  

I think it is important have a heads up on this, because this is how it is being and will continue to be spun (and spun and spun) by the right and far right.  Basically, Trump OK because HILLARY and Russians and uranium.  And of course, Mueller must resign because Hillary, Uranium and Russians.  I do fear this is providing cover for firing Mueller.  So, without further ado, I present an excerpt from Breitbart: 

WSJ Editorial Board Calls on Robert Mueller to Resign from Russia Probe

(link redacted)

Quote

But the controversy re-emerged last week after the Hill reported that the FBI uncovered “substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering” to expand Russia’s nuclear footprint in the U.S. as early as 2009, but the Justice Department did not inform Congress and the public, and did not act on the information until 2014, after the sale was completed.

The FBI also reportedly found evidence that Russian officials routed “millions of dollars” to the U.S. to be funneled into the Clinton Foundation — at a time when Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of state and served on the government body that approved the deal.

Additionally, the Washington Post reported this week that the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign funded Fusion GPS as it put together the so-called “Trump dossier,” a dossier of mostly uncorroborated accusations against Trump, many of which the Journal notes are based largely on Kremlin-connected sources. This raises the possibility that Democrats funded a Moscow-pushed misinformation campaign against Trump.

Both sets of revelations turn the Democrat-pushed accusations that Trump colluded with the Russians on their heads and raise questions about the Clinton campaign, DNC, and Obama administration’s dealings with the Russians instead.

The Journal’s editorial argues that the FBI’s role in such controversies now needs to be investigated. Mueller served as FBI Director between 2001 and 2013, so he led the FBI at the same time the Uranium One deal was being debated and approved.

On the question of the dossier, the Journal argues:

The more troubling question is whether the FBI played a role, even if inadvertently, in assisting a Russian disinformation campaign. We know the agency possessed the dossier in 2016, and according to media reports it debated paying Mr. Steele to continue his work in the runup to the election. This occurred while former FBI Director James Comey was ramping up his probe into supposed ties between the Trump campaign and Russians.

 

[Rachel333]

I read an article about Sarah Kendzior, who has studied autocratic regimes in Central Asia and has a lot of interesting things to say about Trump. She predicted his presidency back in 2015 and has been right on with a lot of predictions since, including predicting that Trump and his associates would be turning the Russia story around to say that Clinton was the one who really colluded with Russia. Here's her twitter: https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior She's guessing Flynn, Manafort, or possibly Icahn for the charges, though...

 

[fraurosena]

I found this interesting article about the alt-collusion that @Howl and @Rachel333 mention in their posts above. It lays out exactly what the alt-collusion theory is, and why they willl probably succeed in convincing the right of it's veracity, even though it has some glaringly obvious logical fallacies.

The Republicans Have Developed a Theory of Alt-Collusion to Defend Trump From Mueller

Quote

Having apparently decided that defending the Trump campaign against charges of collusion with Russian cyberattacks is an impossible task, the Republican Party has decided to go on offense. The House Intelligence Committee, putatively assigned to investigate collusion, is instead running a counter-investigation into Trump’s nemeses. Their argument, incredibly enough, is that the FBI and Robert Mueller are the real perpetrators of collusion with Russia. “No puppet, no puppet, you’re the puppet” has become the new Republican argument against Mueller.

Their case, which is being quickly spread by Republican officeholders and conservative media, centers on the role of Christopher Steele, a respected retired British intelligence officer turned private investigator, and Fusion GPS, the firm for which he worked. During the Republican primary, donors opposed to Trump’s candidacy hired Steele to conduct opposition research into Trump. After Trump won the primary, Democrats continued to finance his investigation. Steele compiled a now-famous dossier alleging a web of corrupt ties, including blackmail, between Trump, his inner circle, and the Kremlin. The FBI took at least some steps to investigate the allegations Steele made, a natural response given the serious possibility that the Kremlin had compromised a president-elect. The questions surrounding Trump’s collusion are in some sense an outgrowth of the larger question of his corrupt relationship with Russia.

The Republicans have developed a theory of alt-collusion, centering on elements of these same facts. Their version of the story uses Steele’s research in Russia as evidence that Steele is a tool of the Russian government. Steele’s report, charges the The Wall Street Journal editorial page, is “based largely on anonymous, Kremlin-connected sources.” Ergo, “Strip out the middlemen, and it appears that Democrats paid for Russians to compile wild allegations about a U.S. presidential candidate. Did someone say ‘collusion’?” Former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer has circulated the same bizarre theory.

It is obviously true that Steele’s sources had some contact with the Kremlin. That, of course, is why they were sources. If they had no connections to the Russian government, Republicans could say they were ignorant people speculating on subjects they knew nothing about. But by pretending that Steele’s sources were actually acting as agents of the Kremlin, Republicans can proceed to hypothesize that they were deliberately spreading a message devised by Putin in order to smear Donald Trump.

There are some important confounding facts that the theory of alt-collusion avoids. For one, Trump’s apparent collusion with Russia involved a crime: stealing Democratic emails. Steele’s “collusion” involves no crime at all. Second, while the Russian propaganda apparatus publicly amplified political messages generated by its email theft, it has done nothing of the sort with the Steele dossier. Indeed, Russia fervently denied the charges in the dossier and called them an attempt to smear Trump.

But if you ignore these massive flaws, the theory of alt-collusion opens the way for a prosecution of the people investigating Trump. After all, if Putin was using Steele to spread nefarious lies about Trump, then why did the FBI treat these charges seriously? Could it be that the FBI is also a tool of the Russian conspiracy?

The purpose of the theory of alt-collusion is not necessarily to be swallowed whole. It is merely to be taken plausibly enough to raise questions about Trump’s investigators. If the FBI might be compromised by a sinister Russian conspiracy, then it follows that James Comey is suspect. And since Mueller is close with Comey, he too is suspect.

“The Fusion news means the FBI’s role in Russia’s election interference must now be investigated,” charges the Journal. And Mueller’s close relationship to sacked FBI director James Comey therefore dictates Mueller “resigning to prevent further political turmoil over that conflict of interest.” Versions of this message have been echoed by Tucker Carlson and Representative Devin Nunes. “I think the next focus is going to be on whether or not did the FBI use this dossier to get any warrants, did they use it to open a counterintelligence investigation and if they did, if they’re using unverified information to open up inquiries into American citizens,” he tells Tucker Carlson.

In some ways the theory of alt-collusion mirrors the propaganda methods used by Putin himself. When William Browder publicizes Russia’s murder of crusading lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, Russia turns around and implies that maybe Browder is the one who murdered Magnitsky. The accusation is preposterous, but that doesn’t matter. The purpose is to create an offsetting accusation against the accuser, so that the average bystander can only puzzle at the spectacle of two sides making the same allegation against each other.

This method can work if you have enough mouthpieces who are sufficiently devoid of skepticism or intellectual self-respect to be willing to spread your obviously absurd message. A key fact that Trump has discovered, and which has enabled his takeover of the Republican Party, is that this is a resource the American right has in abundant supply.

 

[GrumpyGran]

43 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

I found this interesting article about the alt-collusion that @Howl and @Rachel333 mention in their posts above. It lays out exactly what the alt-collusion theory is, and why they willl probably succeed in convincing the right of it's veracity, even though it has some glaringly obvious logical fallacies.

The Republicans Have Developed a Theory of Alt-Collusion to Defend Trump From Mueller

 

Good Lord, I need to start selling bridges and beach-front property in Nebraska to these mindless people. So Putin loves Hillary. Even though she has said bad things about him. Putin loves Democrats. Even though they imposed sanctions against him.

Putin doesn't like Trump. Trump doesn't like Putin. That's why Trump has followed through with the sanctions...oh, wait. And they hate each other so much that when they were together at a summit, they felt compelled by their hatred to meet several times. After being insulted by Putin in these private meetings, Trump appeared publicly with a smile on his face and pronounced the meeting as having gone well. Because he's fine with people who don't like him. Right, all makes sense to me.

[Howl]

Thanks for that link, @fraurosena.  It's an excellent clarification. 

Fusion GPS is likely to be collateral damage in this craziness, especially if they can be forced to reveal who, exactly, wrote the check to fund the oppo research (after the right wing donor bailed) and in particular the Steele dossier.  Devin Nunes, everyone's favorite eejit, is trying to subpoena Fusion GPS' bank records, but I don't think he's gotten them.  Four days ago,

Quote

Lawyers for the opposition research firm Fusion GPS argued in a late-night court filing that a subpoena from the House Intelligence Committee seeking all of the firm's bank records over more than two years is "overbroad" and would "irreparably damage" Fusion's business.

Fusion's lawyers argued that "compliance with the subpoena poses an existential threat to plaintiff's business" because it "will result in the disclosure of several thousand financial transactions and the revelation of Plaintiff’s relationship with approximately 25 clients and approximately 30 contractors."

"In short, compliance with this subpoena will not only harm Plaintiff’s business, it has a high likelihood of ruining it," the firm's lawyers said.

The court filing argued for a temporary restraining order and came several weeks after the House Intelligence Committee, chaired by Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, subpoenaed TD Bank for Fusion's records in an effort to determine who paid for the Trump-Russia "dossier" — a collection of memos written by former British spy Christopher Steele alleging extensive ties between the Trump campaign and Russia....

....Fusion's lawyers also argued on Monday night that the court "must assume that if Defendant Bank produces the records, they will become public," pointing to at least three episodes in recent weeks where HPSCI staff "has systematically disclosed confidential and prejudicial information about" Fusion to the press.

Something is telling me that the GOP would very much like to disable Fusion GPS and get their hands on the client list.  They can't make a clear argument for why, exactly, this information is important and necessary to their work.  As with all this shit, there's got to be more going on, and it seems like a fishing expedition is underway to find out if there are any bombshells hidden away in Fusion GPS' client list.  As far as anyone knows, Fusion GPS' research was legal.  I think if they can find out who, exactly, funded the Steele dossier, they can start to try to get dirt on them.   

Things are going to get so nasty; I fear the gloves are coming off and seriously dirty tricks are in the offing.  

[Destiny]

Hey friends, just a quick reminder that we don't allow links to alt-right sites, because we don't want or need to a) give them traffic, or b ) follow us home and shit the carpets. We already have gone way over the carpet cleaning budget for the year.

 

[Howl]

House Republicans To Subpoena Bank Records Of Fusion GPS

It looks like Fusion GPS has lost this round; wonder if they got some type of confidentiality agreement?  Oh, who am I kidding?   As Fusion GPS lawyers noted, “You [Nunes], and by extension, your staff, have proven to be unreliable partners in good faith negotiations, we cannot reasonably be expected to trust anything that you or your staff would represent to us.”   

Devin Nunes recused himself from the Russia investigation early on, but just cannot stay out of it; he's sent subpoenas to Justice and FBI, trying to sniff out information on the Steele dossier.  There are a lot of ongoing Republican moves that reek of flop sweat and desperation, but I do fear they could be ultimately successful in protecting Trump and themselves. 

For example, Obama holdover Dana Boente, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was ordered to resign on Friday.  Newsweek dissects how  DANA BOENTE’S RESIGNATION AS U.S. ATTORNEY COULD ENDANGER MUELLER’S RUSSIA INVESTIGATION.  

This is definitely the time to revisit the Saturday Night Massacre of 1973, when Richard Nixon ordered the firing of "independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, which led to the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus on October 20, 1973, during the Watergate scandal."  WIKI, Saturday Night Massacre

Many of you may be aware that Trump is personally interviewing candidates for open US Attorney positions; some potential candidates will be dealing with Trump-related lawsuits if their appointments are successful.  Mother Jones magazine covers it here: Here’s Why Trump Interviewing US Attorney Candidates Is Even Worse Than it Seems