The Russia Investigations and other Trump-related cases

[N.E. Brigand]

Last week we learned that the FBI agent who first looked into the Trump-Alfa DNS lookups, the same week that Baker got the material from Sussmann, decided within a few hours that there was nothing to it (even before he looked at the actual data) and texted another agent that the accompanying white paper that Sussmann had provided, written by an unidentified researcher based on that data, "seemed a little 51-50ish." That's slang, often used in law enforcement, designates someone who is mentally incompetent (so much so as to potentially be a danger to themselves). The researcher, who was noted above was never interviewed by the FBI before they closed their Trump-Alfa investigation in January 2017, is David Dagon, a senior research scientist at Georgia Tech.

Today we learned how that same FBI agent told another agent working on the case a couple weeks later that it was "a waste of time," but "any chance you get to work something like this that truly has zero repercussions if you mess it up, take those opportunities."

In other words, they just didn't think it was important.

[River]

If the people being called as witnesses never thought the whole affair was important that would explain why they don't remember anything. They used the brain space for other, in their opinions, higher priorities.

[N.E. Brigand]

If the people being called as witnesses never thought the whole affair was important that would explain why they don't remember anything. They used the brain space for other, in their opinions, higher priorities.

Yes indeed, and to me that makes it all the more odd that Durham decided to bring this case against Sussmann.

Meanwhile, more about the general quality of the Trump-Alfa investigation:

A takeaway for me from today's witnesses, the FBI agents who had been tasked to investigate the anomalous Trump-Alfa DNS lookups, is that they didn't do a very good job investigating! Goldman notes how Sussmann's attorney got one agent to agree that the "FBI didn't want to take any overt steps such as interviewing Sussmann so as not to influence the election, but the FBI went to Alfa Bank's paid consultant -- Mandiant -- and asked them for their view of the allegations."

Today, Sussmann's attorney introduced an FBI "302" form (the form on which agents summarize their interviews), in this case pertaining to what the FBI learned from Mandiant, the company hired by Alfa Bank to investigate the unusual DNS lookups. As per Times reporter Adam Goldman, that 302 says the FBI was told:

"When the Mandiant investigative team arrived, Alfa bank did not have any historical data, and only saved logs for 24 hours."

[N.E. Brigand]

The whole concept of the "summary witness" just strikes me as odd, and it seemed all the more so, as in the Sussmann trial, when the prosecution's summary witness actually works in the prosecutor's office. Also she was supposedly going to be used to enter more than 100 different items into evidence. But both Sussmann's team and the judge found that problematic -- they felt it was going to be, more or less, a second closing statement -- so she was on the stand for a much shorter time than expected.

(Edited to add: that said, Sussmann's team also used a paralegal as a summary witness.)

Anyway, after that witness, the prosecution rested, and Sussmann's defense has begun.

The first two defense witnesses are Department of Justice employees who took notes at a March 2017 meeting that James Baker attended in which the Trump-Alfa investigation, which had been closed two months earlier, came up in discussion. The subject was apparently raised as part of the FBI's attempt to understand what President Donald Trump had meant when he claimed that the Obama administration had had wiretapped Trump Tower.

The first witness, Tashina Gauhar, who was then the associate deputy attorney general, doesn't remember the meeting, but she confirmed that her notes say that this about the provenance of the information: "'attorney' brought to FBI on behalf of his client".

The second witness, Mary McCord, then led the National Security Division at the Dept. of Justice. Her notes indicate that the FBI was wondering if Trump's 2017 tweet was a reference to their investigation of the odd server activity. She wrote that "attorney brought to Jim Baker and did not say who client was."

The implication of both notes being that the FBI's understanding at that time was that Sussmann didn't hide the fact that he had a client when he met Baker.

[N.E. Brigand]

Oh my. As previously noted, the FBI opened its Trump-Alfa investigation in September 2016 after Michael Sussmann gave James Baker two thumb drives (Baker at various times has described this as one thumb drive and three thumb drives) plus some white papers analyzing the contents of those drives.

And the investigation was officially closed in January 2017, although the FBI seems to have finishes its somewhat shoddy work well before that.

Yesterday, Sussmann's defense attorney asked an FBI agent: what caused the delay between finishing up the work and closing the investigation?

The answer is that the FBI had an "evidence issue": they hadn't properly documented the source of the thumb drives and didn't know to whom they should be returned.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Also in cross-examination yesterday, Sussmann's lawyer asked an FBI agent testifying for the prosecution to read into the record the following memo, that the agent had never seen (but perhaps should have); it was written on Sep. 19, 2016, the very day that Sussmann went to James Baker ("Moffa" is Jonathan Moffa, an agent in the FBI's counter-intelligence division):

Essentially a lawyer representing DNC and Clinton brought an envelope to G.C. Baker this a.m. with info that a private cyber group had identified an IP associated with Trump company (not necessarily campaign) is using a computer in a hospital in Michigan to talk to a Russian bank. Nobody knows what that means but Moffa is going to drop the packet at Cyber Division because the lawyer said he also gave the info to the media and it will go public on Friday.

So we have an internal FBI memo that says, within hours of Sussmann meeting Baker, that Sussmann represents Clinton, that the information he presented shows a possible connection between a Russian bank and the Trump Org. but not the campaign -- and Durham apparently needs to prove that Sussmann was trying to hurt candidate Trump -- and that Sussmann alerted the FBI to a pending media report. (Thanks to Sussmann's heads up, the FBI was able to stop that report from being published for six weeks.)

On its face, that memo alone would seem to warrant an acquittal for Sussmann.

(One thing that hasn't come up before in this forum is the part about the hospital. The Trump Org. server was making the regular communications with both Alfa Bank and with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids. Spectrum is owned by the DeVos family. As in Betsy DeVos, who became Donald Trump's Secretary of Education. And DeVos's brother is Erik Prince, the military contractor whose name turned up at various points in the Russia investigation. But at the time the weird server pings appear to have started in spring 2016, DeVos wasn't a Trump supporter.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I should note that I'm pulling tidbits from the trial transcripts from this writer, who is already pre-selecting the parts she finds most interesting but perhaps also those most sympathetic to Sussmann's point of view. (Although she was skeptical from the very first of the idea that there was anything untoward about the apparent Trump-Alfa server communications, she has grown to despise Durham's investigation.) But it's worth remembering that there are other people following the trial who see it as wholly damning for Sussmann.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yeah, I'm a fan of Marcy Wheeler's but she definitely has an agenda. That having been said, I agree this case never should have been brought, and it would be a travesty of justice for there to be anything but an acquittal (or perhaps even a directed verdict).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

New York appeals court rules Trump, Ivanka and Don Jr. must sit for depositions

[N.E. Brigand]

Previously secret 'alternate' Mueller report goes public (MSNBC)

"However, the 37-page report prepared at the direction of Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann and released this week under the Freedom of Information Act is heavily redacted. Justice Department officials withheld large swaths of the document on grounds of ongoing investigations, privacy and protecting internal deliberations."

Weissmann's report concerns the branch of Mueller's investigation, dubbed "Team M" for Manafort, that he led.

Of note for current events, the report says, regarding a Ukrainian "peace plan" that Manafort crafted with Russian spy Konstantin Kilimnik in 2016, that "Manafort conceded [it] constituted backdoor means for Russia to take over eastern Ukraine."

We already knew that, but this is the plainest statement to date.

Edited to add:

1. In a December 2016 meeting, i.e., after Trump won the election, Kilimnik told Manafort that "All that is required to start the process is a very minor 'wink' (or slight push) from DT [i.e, Donald Trump] . . . and a decision to authorize you to be a 'special representative' and manage this process. With this authority you could start the process and within 10 days visit Russia (BG guarantees your reception at the very top level)". (I can't remember who "BG" is.)

2. Some people have noticed that Manafort continued to work on this "peace plan" at least as late as February 2017, and possibly after that -- there are redactions using the code for "ongoing investigation" following that date in the document -- and that if what Manafort did constituted a crime, the statute of limitations may not have expired (and this isn't what Trump pardoned him for). In fact, reading more closely, it appears the "backdoor" comment above pertains to work that Manafort did in Ukraine as late as 2018. Not getting my hopes up, but it's notable.

[N.E. Brigand]

Scott Pruitt led the Environmental Protection Agency from February 2017 to July 2018.

Besides using the EPA to undermine actual environmental protections -- as would not be unexpected in a Republican administration -- Pruitt also became embroiled in a series of controversies pertaining to misuse of his office and government funds. At the time he resigned, there were at least 14 different matters being investigated by the inspector general of the Government Accountability Office.

Today we learn that one of those investigations (consolidating several matters?) was completed in 2018 but was only released now. Among other things, it reveals that on numerous occasions, Pruitt "endangered public safety" by ordering his staff drivers to speed while using flashing lights and a siren in non-emergency situations (e.g. when he was late for an appointment or needed to pick up some dry cleaning). One driver who refused to do so was reassigned.

The report appears to indicate that a referral was made to the Dept. of Justice. I wonder if anything came of it.

[N.E. Brigand]

Oh my. As previously noted, the FBI opened its Trump-Alfa investigation in September 2016 after Michael Sussmann gave James Baker two thumb drives (Baker at various times has described this as one thumb drive and three thumb drives) plus some white papers analyzing the contents of those drives. And the investigation was officially closed in January 2017, although the FBI seems to have finishes its somewhat shoddy work well before that. Yesterday, Sussmann's defense attorney asked an FBI agent: what caused the delay between finishing up the work and closing the investigation? The answer is that the FBI had an "evidence issue": they hadn't properly documented the source of the thumb drives and didn't know to whom they should be returned.

Also in cross-examination yesterday, Sussmann's lawyer asked an FBI agent testifying for the prosecution to read into the record the following memo, that the agent had never seen (but perhaps should have); it was written on Sep. 19, 2016, the very day that Sussmann went to James Baker ("Moffa" is Jonathan Moffa, an agent in the FBI's counter-intelligence division) ... So we have an internal FBI memo that says, within hours of Sussmann meeting Baker, that Sussmann represents Clinton, that the information he presented shows a possible connection between a Russian bank and the Trump Org. but not the campaign -- and Durham apparently needs to prove that Sussmann was trying to hurt candidate Trump -- and that Sussmann alerted the FBI to a pending media report. (Thanks to Sussmann's heads up, the FBI was able to stop that report from being published for six weeks.)

On its face, that memo alone would seem to warrant an acquittal for Sussmann.

I should note that I'm pulling tidbits from the trial transcripts from this writer, who is already pre-selecting the parts she finds most interesting but perhaps also those most sympathetic to Sussmann's point of view. (Although she was skeptical from the very first of the idea that there was anything untoward about the apparent Trump-Alfa server communications, she has grown to despise Durham's investigation.) But it's worth remembering that there are other people following the trial who see it as wholly damning for Sussmann.

Closing arguments were presented Friday morning. The jury deliberated for about six hours (Friday afternoon and this morning), and Michael Sussmann has been found not guilty.

Edited to add: The jurors did ask to see a piece of evidence this morning: Sussmann's taxi receipts from the day of his meeting with James Baker. As Marcy Wheeler pointed out today before the verdict was announced, way back last October, Sussmann's attorneys filed a motion in which they said that one piece of evidence that proved Sussmann's innocence was those taxi receipts: they weren't billed to either of the clients (the Hillary Clinton campaign and tech executive Rodney Joffe) on whose behalf Durham alleged Sussmann was bringing the Trump-Alfa information to the FBI.

[N.E. Brigand]

Closing arguments were presented Friday morning. The jury deliberated for about six hours (Friday afternoon and this morning), and Michael Sussmann has been found not guilty.

Notice how this mainstream media outlet is misleadingly presenting the case:



Sussmann "pushed information meant to cast suspicions"? Why that framing?

I would say that, having been given information concerning apparent mysterious communications between the Trump Org. and the Kremlin-connected Alfa Bank, and not having the ability to check on the legitimacy or meaning of that information himself, he provided it both to some reporters and to the FBI for them to determine what it meant. The reporters were free to determine on their own whether or not the information merited publication. The FBI was free to determine on its own whether the information merited investigation. And we now know that the FBI never did figure out what it meant. They closed the case (1) without even interviewing the Georgia Tech computer scientist who first analyzed the data and (2) after having asked Alfa Bank for their own analysis of what was going on. So even if Sussmann had lied, then that means the prosecution's argument is that, if the FBI had known he was representing a political client, then rather than doing a bad investigation they would have done no investigation at all?

[N.E. Brigand]

In May 2020, Attorney General Bill Barr ordered a review of whether Obama administration officials had improperly "unmasked" the identify of U.S. citizens in intelligence reports for political purposes. The review was completed in September 2020, and its topline findings became known around then, but the report itself was only made public today thanks to the diligent FOIA work of Jason Leopold at Buzzfeed. And what did that review find? That there had been no improper unmasking of names, and most notably, there was no particular effort to unmask the identity of Gen. Michael Flynn (who, we learned some years ago, was secretly on the payroll of a foreign government).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And yet:

Barr says Durham uncovered 'seditious' activity

[N.E. Brigand]

I've occasionally seen the name Richard Burt pop up over the course of the Trump-Russia affair. I never looked into who he was, but apparently his name was mentioned in passing at one point in the Sussmann trial. Checking his Wikipedia entry, I see that he was the U.S. ambassador to Germany in the latter part of Ronald Reagan's administration in the 1980s. Wikipedia goes on to add:

"Burt's simultaneous roles as a campaign adviser for Trump and a lobbyist for Russian interests first drew scrutiny in October 2016 following the discredited dossier. Burt is on the Alfa Capital Partners Advisory Board in which Russia's Alfa-Bank is an investor."

That's a curious pair of sentences. The phrase "discredited dossier" suggests it was written by someone skeptical of the idea that Trump colluded with Russia. Also, since the dossier prepared by Christopher Steele about Trump's Russian connections wasn't made public until January 2017, it's not at all clear what "drew scrutiny" means. Whose scrutiny? But what most interests me is that there was a much closer connection between Donald Trump and Alfa Bank! This guy both advised Trump and this Russian bank?

[RoseMorninStar]

N.E. I believe you can edit Wikipedia. 'discredited' should perhaps read 'controversial' dossier.

[N.E. Brigand]

Judge holds former President Trump in civil contempt for failing to comply with document subpoenas from New York attorney general

And then later in the day, the same judge also ordered that Donald Trump's appraisers, Cushman & Wakefield, must obey subpoenas issued the attorney general in that investigation and turn over the documents requested by May 27.

I do see one possibility, remote though it may be. Trump's attorneys claim that he hasn't produced any documents because he personally doesn't have any, since he doesn't personally text, or email or anything like that. The judge asked why he didn't then provide a declaration to that effect under oath, and the attorneys said that they would have him do so. If he does, and the attorney general has clear evidence from other sources that it isn't true, I could see James going after Trump for perjury. Beyond that, I do think that there are going to be some civil ramifications from the appraisers being forced to comply, but I doubt it will lead to any criminal charges against Trump.

Per this story in Business Insider, Donald Trump last night submitted an affidavit in which he swears that he cannot find four personal and business cellphones previously subpoenaed by Attorney General Letitia James's office. He says that one of them was "taken from me" at some point after he became president, an apparent reference to stories about how early in his presidency, he was using an unsecure phone that could easily be hacked. If he's telling the truth about that one, maybe James can get it from the Biden administration?

But also: why didn't Trump just say this in the first place when these items were subpoenaed? Or as soon as he was found in contempt, so that he wouldn't have to pay $10,000 per day for failing to comply? (He now owes the court more than $100,000.)

And more: how is it that Alvin Bragg's criminal investigation into Trump's business dealings apparently never subpoenaed these phones? If they had, then Trump would have had this "I lost them" answer for James ready long before. This makes it seem all the likelier to me that Bragg gave up without pursuing all the obvious avenues of investigation.

Finally, Trump says in the affidavit that "Since at least January 1, 2010, it has been my customary practice not to keep any documents, files, or papers relating to my business activities in my private residences." Which makes it all the more curious that he took a bunch of classified documents to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House.

Today the judge in the civil case brought by the State of New York against Donald Trump found Cushman & Wakefield in contempt for failing to produce all the documents required by the subpoena and will fine the company $10,000 per day until it complies.

Again I want to know why Bragg's office dropped its criminal investigation into Trump without ever getting these documents.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In other news, the New York Times reports that "former FBI director Jim Comey and his deputy Andy McCabe were the subjects of highly unusual and invasive IRS audits over the past three years. Comey's audit occurred at the same time he was under Dept. of Justice investigation. The minuscule chances of the two highest-ranking F.B.I. officials — who made some of the most politically consequential law enforcement decisions in a generation — being randomly subjected to a detailed scrub of their taxes presents extraordinary questions."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Because, as I have said before, Bragg's decision had little to do with the law, or who had broken it, and everything to do with politics.

[elengil]

Trump Committed 'Serious' Crime If Found To Have Used IRS As Weapon: Tribe

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-irs-audi ... be-1722431

Hidden text.

I realize headlines are meant to grab attention but why does it feel like this is saying subverting the election wasn't all that big a deal??

[N.E. Brigand]

In other news, the New York Times reports that "former FBI director Jim Comey and his deputy Andy McCabe were the subjects of highly unusual and invasive IRS audits over the past three years. Comey's audit occurred at the same time he was under Dept. of Justice investigation. The minuscule chances of the two highest-ranking F.B.I. officials — who made some of the most politically consequential law enforcement decisions in a generation — being randomly subjected to a detailed scrub of their taxes presents extraordinary questions."

In Comey's case, the audit took more than a year and cost him $5,000 to hire an accountant, although in the end, the auditor found that Comey had paid the IRS too much, so he got a $347 refund.

The odds of someone being chosen for this kind of audit are 1 in 30,000.

It is of course still possible that two men who had led the FBI and had been publicly denigrated by the President both being selected for random audits within two years is just a wild coincidence, but I'm glad that the IRS Inspector General is looking into the matter.

[RoseMorninStar]

I am terrible at maths, but I would think the odds would be far higher than 1 in 30,000. 1 in 30,000 for ONE person at random perhaps, but with the other criteria the odds have to be practically astronomical.