Russia investigation

Report: Mueller’s investigation takes a bizarre turn

Featured image The Washington Post reports that Robert Mueller is investigating President Trump’s “private comments and state of mind” during the period when he issued a series of tweets belittling Attorney General Jeff Sessions. According to the Post, the thrust of Mueller’s inquiry is to determine whether the president’s goal was to oust Sessions in order to pick a replacement who would exercise control over Mueller’s investigation. If this story is true, »

Collusion: Loose threads

Featured image I want to note a few columns that supplement previously assigned reading on the Schiff memo. Andrew McCarthy returns with one more thing — one more thing that is wrong with the Schiff memo — in the NR column “A Foreign Power’s Recruitment Effort Is Not a Basis for a FISA Court Warrant.” The shady Schiff and his Democratic colleagues would prefer that you not know that. They seek to »

Collusion? I’m With Her!

Featured image This cartoon by Michael Ramirez is admirably even-handed, but since there is no evidence of collusion between Russians and the Trump campaign, and we know the Hillary campaign colluded with Russians through Fusion GPS to produce fake opposition research on Trump, the most apt apparel here is the Hillary shirt. Which is so beautiful I’m surprised no one had already thought of it. Click to enlarge: »

The Schiff memo’s appalling dishonesty

Featured image Over the weekend the House Intelligence Committee Democrats’ much ballyhooed memorandum (“the Schiff memo”) was finally redacted and released. I posted the Schiff memo here and Devin Nunes’s response here. The 10-page Schiff memo defends the FBI against the charge that it abused its surveillance powers during the 2016 election. The redactions strongly suggest that the Democrats don’t care as much about protecting intelligence sources and methods as they do »

Reading the Dems’ memo [updated]

Featured image As I quickly read the Dems’ memo proclaiming that everything was beautiful in the counterintelligence investigation of Russian election interference, I was struck by its argumentative nature. It is not a trustworthy document. It plays fast and loose with facts and argument. It refutes claims the Nunes memo didn’t make. It liberally trashes Carter Page. It omits the testimony of Andrew McCabe on the critical role played by the Steele »

Nunes responds

Featured image House Intelligence Commmittee Chairman Devin Nunes was ready to go with his own response to the Democrats’ memo that I have embedded in the adjacent post. I have uploaded his point-by-point response to Scribd and embedded it below. It is a useful document. Moreover, by contrast with Adam Schiff et al., Nunes is a credible player. Consistent with my comments, he notes some of the Democrats’ rebuttals of points not »

Rebut this

Featured image The powers that be have redacted and released the House Intelligence Committee Democrats’ memo rebutting the committee Republicans’ four page memo. In a quick reading, among other things, I find it rebutting claims that weren’t made. The Democrats vouch for the credibility of Christopher Steele when the only relevant question is the credibility of his sources. The Democrats also challenge just about every point made by the Republicans. The Democrats »

The silence of Susan Rice

Featured image By letter to Susan Rice dated February 8, 2018, Senators Grassley and Graham posed 12 numbered questions. I posted the Graham/Grassley letter in “Rice papers the file.” By letter dated February 23, 2018, white collar criminal defense lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler has now responded to the Grassley/Graham letter on Rice’s behalf. I posted Ruemmler’s letter nearby this morning in “Susan Rice responds, sort of,” and am embedding it again at the »

Susan Rice responds, sort of

Featured image Barack Obama installed Susan Rice as his National Security Advisor in recognition of her service to him as knave and fool in the matter of Benghazi. As National Security Advisor she sent an email on Obama’s last day in office shortly before President Trump inauguration. Released in redacted form on February 12, the email is one of the most intriguing bits of evidence to have emerged in the alleged Russian »

Vlad & him

Featured image Yesterday in “Facebook footnotes” I posted the Facebook ad promoting the protest produced by the friends of Vladimir Putin against President Trump outside Trump Tower in the immediate aftermath of the election. The creative efforts of the Russians toiling away in the troll factory did not go for naught. They attracted Michael Moore to the event. The Daily Caller takes a look back at the action via the tweet below »

Trump vs. The Hill

Featured image President Trump has been tweeting up a storm. Some of his tweets have been about Robert Mueller’s indictment of a number of Russians, which we have written about extensively here. For example: If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are laughing their »

Facebook footnotes

Featured image It’s hard to pick up in the clatter of the Democrats’ media adjunct, but Facebook vice president of advertising Rob Goldman has taken to Twitter to make a point or two congenial to President Trump. Indeed, he sounds a little like President Trump in the Tweets below. He makes the point that Russian spending on Facebook ads after the election exceeded spending before the election. I didn’t know that. Why »

Silence of the Bern

Featured image The indictments handed up on Friday allege that the Russian defendants supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries and Donald Trump in the Republican primaries. Quoting the indictment, Politico’s Gabriel Debenedetti notes that Russian “specialists were instructed to post content that focused on ‘politics in the USA’ and to ‘use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them.)’” The internal quote is derived from »

Why Mueller Didn’t Indict the Russians For Meddling In the Presidential Election [Updated]

Featured image I wrote here about Robert Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russian citizens and three Russian companies. The indictment is an odd one, as I pointed out: Its very first paragraph recites that it is against the law for foreign nationals to spend money to influence US elections, or for agents of foreign countries to engage in political activities without registering. But no one is charged with these crimes. Instead, the indictment »

Notes on the indictment

Featured image John and Steve have written good posts on the indictment against Internet Research Agency et al. handed up by the grand jury in the Special Counsel investigation yesterday. The government has posted the indictment here. My comments follow on theirs. I will try not to repeat their points. There is no substitute for reviewing the primary documents with your own eyes. I have embedded the indictment at the bottom of »

What Were the Russians Up To?

Featured image John has offered his take on the Mueller news just below. Here’s my first pass at it: The indictment of 13 Russians handed down today by special prosecutor Robert Mueller is going to dominate the news cycle at least through the weekend and likely beyond. This is a “Groundhog Day” event, assuring at least six more weeks (if not months) of the Trump-Russia story line. The indictment provides details of »

Mueller Indicts Russians For 2016 Election Interference (Media Alert)

Featured image Earlier today, Robert Mueller indicted thirteen Russian citizens and three Russian entities in connection with their activities concerning the 2016 election. I will be on the Howie Carr Show in Boston at 4:35 Eastern to talk about the indictment. You can listen at the link. I may have more to say later, but for now, these are my observations on the indictment: * There is no allegation that the Russians »