dagblog - Comments for "DC Spy Novel Roundup: March 4 Edition"

Thanks, PP. That's a good

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 03:49:35 +0000

In reply to It was Marcy Wheeler.

Thanks, PP. That's a good piece that cuts through all the bs.

And aggrandize and aggress

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 06 Mar 2017 03:48:38 +0000

In reply to Sure. It's ridiculous.

And aggrandize and aggress

Thanks, Obey. Why so many

Doctor Cleveland — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 23:02:04 +0000

In reply to Nice run-down. Thanks.

Thanks, Obey. Why so many contacts is the big question here. And I am also wondering why the Russians aren't using better tradecraft, or telling Trump's people to do so. Kislyak certainly knows that he's constantly being surveilled, and behaves accordingly.

I wouldn't give Flynn much credit for staying on the right side of the Logan Act, since no one has ever been prosecuted for violating the Logan Act. There is no case law about where the line is, so you can't say that Flynn crossed it but also can't say he didn't.

But back to the big question. I don't know why there are so many meetings, by so many different parties. But it is very clear that the Trump people are going to lengths to hide those contacts, so THEY thinks something is up. By definition, they have a clandestine relationship with Russia, because they go to lengths to keep that relationship secret.

I see three main possibilities:

1) This is a strange result of Trump and Trumpworld's obsession with secrecy. They're covering this up because they cover everything up. The first problem there is Sessions, who is not from Trumpworld and does not have those habits. The second problem is that whatever's been going on has been enough to topple multiple advisors: first Manafort, then Flynn, and also smaller fry such s Carter Page.

2) This is about shutting a line of inquiry down, because investigating the Putin connection -- even if that didn't turn up much -- would lead investigators toward other things, like financial ties to Russian mob figures, that is a bigger deal. It's like bootleggers trying to quash a murder investigation, even if they didn't do the murder, because the bootleggers can't afford to have the cops around.

3) The worst scenario is this: It's not a quid pro quo. It's a relationship.

Yes, there are far too many contacts, and too many meetings, for any single payoff deal. But all those meetings and contacts make sense for two organizations that are engaged in a serious ongoing relationship.

There's some reporting to back this: the belated White House admission that Kushner met with Kislyak suggests that Flynn was trying to open a new line of communication (Kushner) for the Russians.

And Russian intelligence doesn't usually work on a quid-pro-quo basis. Once you work for them, you are compromised by the fact of working for them (because they can expose you as a traitor or a spy), and they use that to squeeze you further. It's their standard playbook. You don't pay off your debt to Russian intelligence. You just get further in hock to them.

If you don't like the sound of that, you're right. Because if Trump does have a relationship with Russian intelligence, that means it's not about loosening Ukraine sanctions and walking away. It's a relationship where they will try to influence and control him for as long as he remains useful.

Sure. It's ridiculous.

Doctor Cleveland — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 22:32:36 +0000

In reply to One amusing element of this

Sure. It's ridiculous. Especially because the right wing "news sources" don't actually do much (read: any) reporting, They just repackage and spin, sometimes adding a healthy dose of speculation. I realize that this is also a fair description of my post above. But getting your news from my blog would also be inexplicably stupid. It's an opinion blog by someone who reads the same papers you do. And yet, Fox News does not rise above this bloggy level. It's like an endless video stream of opinion blog.

There isn't any news in Breitbart News, because they don't go out and collect news. They aggregrate and aggravate

It was Marcy Wheeler.

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 22:22:05 +0000

In reply to I think Huffpost or someone

It was Marcy Wheeler.

In regards to Trump "openly

moat — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 22:06:04 +0000

In reply to Nice run-down. Thanks.

In regards to Trump "openly warming up to Russia", another trench coat has entered stage left:

Fiona Hill has been reported to be considering the job of being Trump's advisor upon Russia. It is hard to make out how all this effort to network with the Russians can possibly make sense to someone who has said:

Many Russian and American analysts now refer to the current state of U.S.-Russia relations as a kind of new Cold War; Hill gave the current state of affairs an even more alarming tag. “I think we are in a hot war with Russia, not a cold war,” she said. “But we have to be careful about the analogy. It’s a more complex world. There is no set-piece confrontation. This is no holds barred. The Cold War was a more disciplined competition, aside from the near blowups in Berlin and Cuba, where we walked back from the brink. The Kremlin now is willing to jump over the abyss. They want to play for the asymmetry. They see themselves in a period of hot kinetic war. Also, this is not just two-way superpower. There is China, the rising powers. I almost see it as like the great power competition from the time before the Second World War.”

My brain hurts

James O'Keefe seemed to be

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 19:39:12 +0000

In reply to Nice run-down. Thanks.

James O'Keefe seemed to be getting money directly from Trump, & I think I saw some indications that Wikileaks or related were getting some direct money too. Considering the illegality of hacking emails, this *should* be high up there as a felony investigation against the sitting president, but maybe I missed a piece that keeps it from going there (for now).

I think Huffpost or someone

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 19:36:14 +0000

In reply to One amusing element of this

I think Huffpost or someone else did a post-op on this, including the woman who resurrected it & put several more layers of spin on (factually wrong, but if it sells, who's to blame her? welcome to 2017)

One amusing element of this

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 18:55:00 +0000

In reply to DC Spy Novel Roundup: March 4 Edition

One amusing element of this story that I haven't seen anyone comment on. It's old news. The Breitbart piece that apparently prompted this shitstorm is just a compendium of old articles. The bit about "wiretapping" Trump tower (not wiretapping but whatever) came from a Heatstreet article published three months ago.

Nice run-down. Thanks.

Obey — Sun, 05 Mar 2017 14:44:31 +0000

In reply to DC Spy Novel Roundup: March 4 Edition

Nice run-down. Thanks.

I'm still confused about the sheer volume of contact there seems to have been. So many people attached to the Trump campaign being in such constant and flagrant contact with the Russians. If the contacts were just a matter of agreeing on some quid-pro-quo (say, publishing Clinton's emails in exchange for an easing of sanctions) as in the Casey-Karrubi 1980 deal, that should have taken all of 3 minutes total. No collusion theory I can think of requires 10s or 100s of meetings and calls at multiple levels.

And Flynn seems to have been careful not to violate the letter of the Logan act, careful enough to not justify a legal charge. As the dumbest of the bunch, I doubt the others were any less careful.

So is the underlying bombshell more about details regarding financial quid-pro-quo that were getting discussed, thus raising the issue of violations of the emoluments clause? But if so, the communications or negotiations should rather have been flowing through Trump's shady Russian business contacts rather than the ambassador or Kremlin officials.

Also, no matter how incompetent Trump's inner circle may be, why would the Russians be so careless?

Or is it just a matter of the Trump campaign treating the Russians as a friendly foreign power, swapping views and advice and prospective collaboration as one could imagine another campaign doing with Isreali officials while raising little outrage. In which case, their inept stonewalling seems excessive given the limited damage it could cause. After all, Trump was openly warming up towards Russia.

I really can't come up with a clear cogent theory of what the cover-up is covering up...