Putin – The Seventh Floor

A Timeline of the New Assets

The Ongoing Relationship Between American Right-Wing Influencers and Russian Propaganda Farms

In recent years, the intricate web of Russian interference in Western democracies has continued to unravel, revealing a broad spectrum of financial and political influences. The Tenet Media Russian money scandal stands out as one of the more complex and covert operations in this ongoing saga. Tenet Media, a prominent media conglomerate, was thrust into the spotlight when a series of investigations revealed it had unknowingly accepted substantial financial investments linked to Russian oligarchs and entities under the influence of the Kremlin. These revelations ignited widespread concern about foreign influence on Western media and exposed how financial networks can be manipulated for strategic geopolitical gains.

The scandal began to surface in early 2023 when investigative journalists discovered unusual financial patterns involving Tenet Media. Tracing these funds back to their origins, they uncovered a network of offshore companies and financial transactions that pointed to Russian interests. Initial reports hinted that Tenet Media had been receiving indirect funding from entities connected to sanctioned Russian oligarchs, raising questions about the motivations behind these investments and whether they were intended to sway public opinion through media channels. This revelation triggered a chain of events that led to a full-scale investigation, involving multiple governments, financial institutions, and media watchdogs, all aiming to uncover the extent of Russian influence on Tenet Media’s operations.

As the investigations deepened, more startling details emerged. Key figures within Tenet Media were found to have had meetings and established relationships with individuals tied to Russian intelligence and financial networks. Leaked documents revealed that these relationships were not coincidental but were part of a coordinated effort to build soft power influence in Western media. One of the major turning points came when emails from a high-ranking Tenet executive were leaked, suggesting awareness of the questionable origins of some of their funding sources. This leak not only fueled public outcry but also led to intensified scrutiny from regulatory bodies.

The implications of the scandal were vast. For Tenet Media, it meant a substantial loss of credibility, the resignation of several top executives, and the implementation of new, stricter compliance measures to prevent such a breach of trust from recurring. For the wider media landscape, it underscored the vulnerability of even well-established media organizations to covert foreign influence operations. Governments and financial institutions responded by tightening regulations around foreign investments in media companies, ensuring greater transparency and accountability.

The timeline that follows chronicles the key events of the Tenet Media Russian money scandal, detailing the investigation’s progression, the critical moments that shaped public understanding, and the broader implications for media integrity and geopolitical dynamics. From the first whispers of suspicious financial activity to the fallout that ensued, the timeline provides a comprehensive look at how a single media company became entangled in the complex web of international politics and espionage.

The Simplified Timeline (So Far):

February 2022:

Russia invades Ukraine.
This invasion prompts a global response, including extensive sanctions targeting Russian state-controlled entities such as RT (Russia Today). These sanctions are intended to isolate Russia economically and politically on the international stage.

October 2023:

RT begins covertly funneling money to a U.S. media company.
RT, seeking to circumvent the sanctions and influence American public opinion, secretly transfers nearly $10 million to a Tennessee-based media company identified as U.S. Company-1. This company’s operations are designed to subtly promote pro-Russian narratives and undermine U.S. credibility.

November 2023:

Launch of Tenet Media.
U.S. Company-1 rebrands itself as Tenet Media. The company starts an aggressive social media campaign, posting content on platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube. The content often features anti-Ukrainian and anti-American themes, aligning with RT’s covert objectives.

March 2024:

Moscow music venue terrorist attack.
A terrorist attack occurs at a music venue in Moscow, causing significant casualties. The indictment alleges that RT operatives directed Tenet Media to propagate false narratives blaming Ukraine and the U.S. for the attack. This disinformation aims to create division and alter public perception in both Russia and the U.S.

May 22, 2023:

Tenet Media’s rebranding.
The company formally adopts a new name and identity to better align with its covert mission. This rebranding effort is a part of a broader strategy to disguise the company’s origins and operations.

August 2024:

Financial details of the scandal are revealed.
It is disclosed that RT’s financial support to U.S. Company-1 totals approximately $9.7 million, which constitutes nearly 90% of the company’s bank deposits. This financial dependence highlights the extent of RT’s control over the media operations and its significant influence on the company’s content.

Early September 2024:

Indictment unsealed.
The indictment against RT employees Konstantin Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva is made public by the Southern District of New York. The charges include conspiracy to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The indictment reveals the use of fake identities and shell companies to obscure the source of the funds and the manipulation of public opinion.

Mid-September 2024:

RT operatives remain at large.
The indictment details that Konstantin Kalashnikov and Elena Afanasyeva are fugitives. The authorities are actively seeking their apprehension. The case is a significant example of how foreign actors attempt to infiltrate and influence U.S. media and public discourse.
Influencers and media figures associated with Tenet Media, including Tim Pool, Benny Johnson, Dave Rubin, and Lauren Southern, publicly react to the scandal. They claim ignorance of the true origins of their funding and express shock at the revelations. This public reaction highlights the complexity and far-reaching impact of the scandal on individuals and media platforms involved.

Tim Pool’s official response after days of mocking the allegations with sarcastic comments about flipping his allegiance to Ukraine

The Tenet Media Russian money scandal serves as a stark reminder of the pervasive and sophisticated nature of modern geopolitical influence operations. What began as a seemingly innocuous flow of investment into a media company turned out to be part of a broader strategy by Russian interests to subtly shape narratives and influence public opinion in the West. The scandal highlights how vulnerable even established media companies can be to covert financial manipulations, especially in an era where information is a powerful tool in the geopolitical arena.

Throughout the unfolding of the scandal, several lessons have become evident. First and foremost is the critical importance of transparency and due diligence in media financing. The Tenet Media case has demonstrated that without rigorous scrutiny of funding sources, media organizations risk becoming unwitting vehicles for foreign influence. This realization has led to a much-needed reassessment of regulatory frameworks governing foreign investments in media, pushing for more stringent checks and balances to safeguard media independence and integrity.

Another key takeaway is the evolving nature of state influence campaigns. The use of offshore accounts, shell companies, and intermediaries to mask the true origins of funds reflects a shift from more overt forms of propaganda to subtler, more insidious methods of shaping the information environment. This approach not only makes it harder to detect and counter such operations but also complicates the legal and ethical landscape for media organizations that must navigate these murky waters.

For Tenet Media, the fallout has been both swift and severe. The loss of public trust, the resignation of high-level executives, and the imposition of new compliance protocols are just the beginning of a long road to rebuilding credibility. While the company has taken steps to rectify its mistakes, the scandal will likely cast a long shadow over its operations for years to come.

At a broader level, the scandal has underscored the need for a coordinated global response to counter foreign influence in media. Governments, regulatory bodies, and the media industry itself must work together to ensure that such breaches of trust are prevented in the future. The Tenet Media case has set a precedent that will inform future policies and strategies, reminding us that in the information age, the battle for hearts and minds is fought not just with facts and narratives but also with the financial flows that underpin them.

In the end, the Tenet Media Russian money scandal is not just a story of one company’s failure to guard against covert influence; it is a cautionary tale for the entire media landscape. It reveals the complexities of navigating a world where economic and informational warfare are increasingly intertwined, demanding vigilance, integrity, and collaboration to preserve the principles of free and independent media.

No War is Civil

Featured ████ ███████Leave a comment

The NDAA and America’s Foreign Policy in Syria

I cannot deny having a personal bias for the people of Syria. I’ve seen the wreckage first hand in a way I wish I could explain further. I’m probably responsible for 60% of the views of HBO’s Cries from Syria since its release in 2017. I’ve played as large a part as possible in multiple charities trying desperately to help Syrian civilians, namely one whose aim is to build mobile hospitals in Syria’s most war-torn areas. I’ve sponsored a young girl there named Amira for seven years – a girl who I’ve watched grow into an incredibly strong young woman who I have no doubt will someday spread revolutionary ideals throughout her country – who thankfully has remained safe after all of these years of war and bloodshed in Syria. Amid all of this I knew to classify this as an opinion piece, because of my inability to remain unbiased on the subject.

Today, the U.S. Senate passed the NDAA, or National Defense Authorization Act, a yearly budget bill relating to national defense, the military, foreign aid, black budget money, intelligence, etc… This legislation was passed by the so-called “Do Nothing Democrats” last week, and is expected to receive the President’s signature within the week. This year’s NDAA contains a measure several years in the making: The Caesar Syrian Civilian Protection Act. A piece of legislation that provides for sanctions against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as well as members of his regime.

The bill’s history is an interesting one. The legislation shares its namesake with the pseudonym of a Syrian police officer who fled the country in 2016, smuggling with him a multitude of photographic evidence – some 50,000 images – of President Assad’s regime’s egregious and downright evil crimes against humanity. Spanning from torture to mass killing, the images are gruesome and not for the faint of heart, but many are available to the public. Caesar testified before Congress in disguise and presented the evidence he risked his own life, and the lives of his family, to smuggle out his homeland.

Congress, though slowly, began drafting a bill that became part of the NDAA. A provision that not only imposes sanctions and censures against President Assad and members of his regime, but also imposes consequences against foreign actors such as Iran and Russia, have had boots on the ground in Syria for almost a decade attempting to squash revolutionary uprisings against Assad. Doing so using not just guerrilla tactics, but going as far as to drop illegal dirty bombs on civilian centers such as Huraytan, a town northwest of Aleppo, where bombs were dropped on hospitals and schools.

Child pulled from the rubble of a school by civilian volunteer medical force known as The White Helmets after Russian airstrikes north of Aleppo.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “The measure establishes as U.S. policy the use of ‘diplomatic and coercive means…to compel the government of Bashar al-Assad to halt its murderous attacks on the Syrian people and to support a transition to a government in Syria that respects the rule of law, human rights and peaceful co-existence with its neighbors.'”

The bill also adds measures against civilian or non-governmental militias, such as Hezbollah, which has also come to the aid of Assad’s regime, and even targets financial centers. Administration officials are now investigating whether or not the Central Bank of Syria has been engaging in money laundering. If this is found to be true, which it likely is, the U.S. will impose penalties on the institution, though those penalties aren’t very well outlined in what is publicly available from bill at the moment.

The bill goes further in restricting the transfer of funds, technology, and property, and bans any and all violators from entry in the U.S. in the future.

The bill contains language that will allow President Trump, or future presidents to lift the sanctions in the future if Assad and his allies produce evidence that their human rights violations have come to an end. They will have to prove they are no longer targeting civilians, restricting international humanitarian assistance, and of course, they must prove they are no longer using chemical weapons on their own citizens, meaning both civilians and rebel army militants.

With this bill, the United States severely escalates sanctions, joining its Western allies in targeting Assad and his regime. The U.S. has had sanctions on Syria since 2005, and those sanctions increased drastically under President Barack Obama, namely after 2011, when what was a series of massive civilian protests turned into bloodshed and civil war. You can find a list of sanctions against Syria dating back to 2004 here from the U.S. Department of Treasury.

With such a history of sanctions, however, one must wonder just how effective they are. One must also wonder how you sanction a government, but not its civilians. Also, why the sudden change? This comes months after President Donald Trump ordered the removal of U.S. troops in Northern Syria, claiming the war against ISIL was over in the region. As if to say, “Thank you for your help, and now you’re on your own to fight your government, Islamist rebel groups, ISIL, oh, and Turkey.” As anyone familiar with the situation remembers, only three days later, Turkish air strikes began in the border towns of Turkey and Syria – towns the United States was helping to protect just days before. The air strikes resulted in the death of 70 Syrian citizens, and the displacement of over 300,000. During the military act, both Turkish forces and Turkish-allied Syrian forces were accused of committing atrocious war crimes, including summary killings and unlawful acts, including, but not limited to, public executions and even public rape.

According to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – who I’ve written about recently in timeline of the prosecution of Michael Flynn found here – was to expel Syrian Democratic Forces – a rebel army mostly made up of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) – who is viewed as a terrorist group by the Turkish government due to its ties to the Kurdistan Workers Party. The SDF is considered an ally of the United States and Western allies, though, namely in its war against ISIL, as the SDF has helped the United States in a monumental fashion in the removal of ISIL from the region.

The flag of the Syrian Democratic Forces. (Wikipedia Commons)

However, the problem with war is that it’s complicated. It’s unfortunately not just made up of good guys and bad guys like the comics. It’s not made up of clear cut good people, or clear cut evil people, or even demon with the heart of gold anti-heroes who don’t get along with the other good guys, but fight for what’s right in the end. War, just like life, is rarely black and white. By the previous couple of paragraphs, it would appear that there is a narrative to present the Turkish government as awful people, and their armies as the evil invading scourge that wants to watch the world burn. On the contrary.

The Turks were the first to condemn the actions of Bashar al-Assad, who cracked down on peaceful protests in 2011, which led to the exorbitant bloodshed and murder of unarmed Syrian citizens, and kicked off one of the longest civil wars in recent world history. Turkey went as far as to create safe zones for Syrian refugees fleeing the violence, and even backed and funded the Free Syrian Army, which was the first organized revolutionary group to stand up to Assad’s tyrannical regime.

Turkey is responsible for a lot of the military funding toward the revolutionary groups working against Assad. Yet, what is the Free Syrian Army today? It’s a group that is made up of primarily radicalized Islamists, probably partially because of their relationship with ISIL in their growing phase. Now they’re a group backed by the Turks, and are taking part in the public rape and murder of North-Eastern Syrians, who are merely fighting for statehood.

And what is the U.S. to say one way or the other? During the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, we trained soldiers to fight for their independence, and those soldiers went on to become Al Qeada. We fought with the best intentions against South American drug lords, but all we did was make a mess out of Central America by cutting off their Caribbean pipeline, splitting one cartel into seven. We made a mess out of Iraq and Afghanistan and ultimately created ISIL in the first place, while giving radical groups free-reign in Iraq after removing their strongest opposition. Maybe the same might be the case in Syria, creating another militant group aligned to a particular world religion, thus creating another Bosnia, where people of three separate religions are killing one another, but we think of creative names for them so that the general public doesn’t realize religion does nothing but create war.

I wish I had the answers. I hope against hope that what this year’s NDAA was meant to accomplish will make change. I hope every night for the citizens of Syria, trapped in a civil war that seems to be going in three directions between the government, the Islamist revolutionaries, and the Kurds. A civil war that is little more than a proxy battle between foreign governments inside of a country with convenient resources, or adjacent to said resources. Above any of this, I just hope that a young woman named Amira, who I love with all my heart, grows up and holds onto her idealism, and doesn’t allow herself to get swept into a war in one way, or the other, or the other. I hope she is on the cover of TIME someday, as she should be, for uniting Syria, and establishing a democratic state in the region, aligned with U.S. and other Western forces, and never wavers in the face of adversity, as she doesn’t now, even when asked why her grades are slipping amid bloodshed happening outside her front door. At the risk of this being another 20,000 word timeline, I’ll stop this here, but I hope you learned something about the black and white politics we’re presented in the United States every day, and I hope Amira is the next revolutionary that hipsters wear on T-shirts without ever actually knowing her politics or background, just like Ernesto Guevara.

For more information on Syria and what you can do to help trapped civilians there, please visit https://app.mobilecause.com/vf/Sami4syria or text Sami4Syria to 71777. These poor people are caught up in a near decades long civil war they had nothing to do with, and deserve our help, as the poorest among us are living better than any of them. Please consider my request. Even a dollar helps.

Thank you for reading, and I hope this wasn’t as much of a slog as my normal articles.

Republicans and the IG Report

Featured ████ ███████1 Comment

Media Bias and the Review of “Four” (One) FISA Application(s) and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) appreciates the OIG’s crucial independent oversight role and the thoroughness and professionalism your office brought to this work. The Report’s findings and recommendations represent constructive criticism that will make us stronger as an organization. We also appreciate the Report’s recognition that the FBI cooperated fully with this review and provided broad and timely access to all information requested by the OIG, including highly classified and sensitive material involving national security.

The Report concludes that the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation and related investigations of certain individuals were opened in 2016 for an authorized purpose and with adequate factual predication. The Report also details instances in which certain FBI personnel, at times during the 2016-2017 period reviewed by the OIG, did not comply with existing policies, neglected to exercise appropriate diligence, or otherwise failed to meet the standard of conduct that the FBI expects of its employees — and that our country expects of the FBI. We are vested with significant authorities, and it is our obligation as public servants to ensure that these authorities are exercised with objectivity and integrity. Anything less falls short of the FBI’s duty to the American people.”

– Director Christopher Wray to Inspector General Horowitz

If the quote above confuses you, it may be because of the president’s, William Barr’s and the right-wing media’s representation of the investigation performed by the Inspector General’s office into the initial opening of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation into possible Trump-Russia connections. A report that has been mischaracterized to insinuate the FBI’s investigation was based in left-wing bias, and was influenced by then-president Barack Obama. This, of course, couldn’t be further from the truth.

In multiple areas of the report, the findings clearly state that there was no wrong-doing or bias involved in the opening of the investigation. Also, judging by the results of the long-term investigation (over 40 indictments, many of whom members of Trump’s cabinet) one could say the investigation was obviously necessary. Yet, the media doesn’t seem to mention much of that. Here are some quotes from the actual report that you can download from this site in the Important Documents of 2019 tab.

“Crossfire Hurricane was opened as a Full Investigation and all of the senior FBI officials who participated in discussions about whether to open a case told us the information warranted opening it. For example, then Counterintelligence Division (CD) Assistant Director (AD) E.W. “Bill” Priestap, who approved the case opening, told us that the combination of the FFG information and the FBI’s ongoing cyber intrusion investigation of the July 2016 hacks of the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) emails, created a counterintelligence concern that the FBI was “obligated” to investigate. Priestap stated that he considered whether the FBI should conduct defensive briefings for the Trump campaign but ultimately decided that providing such briefings created t he risk that “if someone on the campaign was engaged with the Russians, he/she would very likely change his/her tactics and/or otherwise seek to cover-up his/her activities, thereby preventing us from finding the truth.” We did not identify any Department or FBI policy that applied to this decision and therefore determined that the decision was a judgment call that Department and FBI policy leaves to the discretion of FBI officials. We also concluded that, under the AG Guidelines and the DIOG, the FBI had an authorized purpose when it opened Crossfire Hurricane to obtain information about, or protect against, a national security threat or federal crime, even though the investigation also had the potential to impact constitutionally protected activity.”
Page iii of the Executive Summary of the Report

Moving ahead a few pages, the report repeats its conclusion of there being no evidence of political bias in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane and the investigations into four individuals related to the Trump campaign.

“As discussed in Chapter Ten, we determined that, during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Crossfire Hurricane team tasked several CHSs, which resulted in multiple interactions with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, both before and after they were affiliated with the Trump campaign, and one with a high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation. All of these CHS interactions were consensually monitored and recorded by the FBI. As noted above, under Department and FBI policy, the use of a CHS to conduct consensual monitoring is a matter of investigative judgment that, absent certain circumstances, can be authorized by a first-line supervisor (a supervisory special agent). We determined that the CHS operations conducted during Crossfire Hurricane received the necessary FBI approvals, and that AD Priestap knew about, and approved of, all of the Crossfire Hurricane CHS operations, even in circumstances where a first-level supervisory special agent could have approved the operations. We found no evidence that the FBI used CHSs or UCEs to interact with members of the Trump campaign prior to the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. After the opening of the investigation, we found no evidence that the FBI placed any CHSs or UCEs within the Trump campaign or tasked any CHSs or UCEs to report on the Trump campaign. Finally, we also found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI’s decision to use CHSs or UCEs to interact with Trump campaign officials in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”
Pages xvi – xvii of the Executive Summary

One must wonder, then, how did William Barr come to the conclusion he insisted upon during his summary of the report? We’re not even through the Executive Summary at this point, and we’ve already read twice that the Office of the Inspector General found no evidence of bias or wrong-doing when opening the investigation. Including his, and the right-wing media’s characterization of the initiation of the investigation essentially being a propaganda piece orchestrated by the Obama Administration, and the Clinton campaign. Here’s how the report details the reasons for the opening of the investigation:

“At the time the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened in July 2016, the U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC), which includes the FBI, was aware of Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. The Russian efforts included cyber intrusions into various political organizations, including the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Throughout spring and early summer 2016, the FBI became aware of specific cyber intrusions for which the Russian government was responsible, through ongoing investigations into Russian hacking operations conducted by the FBI’s Cyber Division and the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division (CD).
In March and May 2016, FBI field offices identified a spear phishing campaign by the Russian military intelligence agency, known as the General Staff Intelligence Directorate (GRU), targeting email addresses associated with the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, as well as efforts to place malware on DNC and DCCC computer networks. In June and July 2016, stolen materials were released online through the fictitious personas ‘Guccifer 2.0″ and “DCLeaks.” In addition, in late July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails obtained from DNC servers as part of its “Hillary Leak Series.’
By August 2016, the USIC assessed that in the weeks leading up to the 2016 U.S. elections, Russia was considering further intelligence operations to impact or disrupt the elections. In addition to the Russian infiltration of DNC and DCCC computer systems, between March and August 2016, the FBI became aware of numerous attempts to hack into state election systems. These included confirmed access into elements of multiple state or local electoral boards using tactics, techniques, and procedures associated with Russian state-sponsored actors. 163 The FBI learned that Russian efforts also included cyber-enabled scanning and probing of election related infrastructure in several states.
It was in this context that the FBI received information on July 28, 2016, about a conversation between Papadopoulos and an official of a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) in May 2016 during which Papadopoulos ‘suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion’ from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to candidate Clinton and President Obama. As described below, the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation 3 days after receiving this information.”
Pages 49 – 50, Chapter Three of the IG Report

I may have missed the part where it said the investigation was a fraudulent orchestration of the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaign, but I may have missed it. I’ll read on. Here’s what the court said about the related investigations into Carter Page, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and George Papadopoulos:

“The opening EC for the Carter Page investigation stated that there was an articulable factual basis that Carter Page ‘may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.’ The EC cross-referenced the predication for Crossfire Hurricane and stated that Page was a senior foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign, had extensive ties to various Russia-owned entities, and had traveled to Russia as recently as July 2016. The EC also noted that Carter Page was the subject of an open, ongoing counterintelligence investigation assigned to the FBI’s New York Field Office (NYFO), which we describe in the next section.
The opening EC for the Manafort investigation stated that there was an articulable factual basis that Manafort ‘may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.’ The EC cross-referenced the predication for Crossfire Hurricane and stated that Manafort was designated the Delegate Process and Convention Manager for the Trump campaign, was promoted to Campaign Manager for the Trump campaign, and had extensive ties to pro-Russian entities of the Ukrainian government.
The opening EC for the Papadopoulos investigation stated that there was an articulable factual basis that Papadopoulos ‘may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.’ The EC cross-referenced the predication for Crossfire Hurricane and stated that Papadopoulos was a senior foreign adviser for the Trump campaign and had ‘made statements indicating that he is knowledgeable that the Russians made a suggestion to the Trump team that they could assist the Trump campaign with an anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign.’
The opening EC for the Flynn investigation stated that there was an articulable factual basis that Flynn ‘may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.’ The EC cross-referenced the predication for Crossfire Hurricane and stated that Flynn was an advisor to the Trump campaign, had various ties to state-affiliated entities of Russia, and traveled to Russia in December 2015.”
Page 60 of the IG Report

In the very next section of the report, it notes that Carter Page was already part of a pre-existing FBI NY field office counterintelligence investigation. As is further explained on page vi of the Executive Summary regarding the investigation into Page:

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page”
Page vi of the Executive Summary of the IG Report

What’s worse if the media characterization that this investigation involved multiple “illegal” FISA warrants. In reality, not only were all of the FISA warrants found to be perfectly justified, but there was never more than one in the first place. The only FISA warrant into an individual involved in Crossfire Hurricane was Carter Page himself.

“On September 19, 2016, the same day that the Crossfire Hurricane team first received Steele’s election reporting, the team contacted FBI OGC again about seeking a FISA order for Page and specifically focused on Steele’s reporting in drafting the FISA request. Two days later, on September 21, the FBI OGC Unit Chief contacted the NSD 01 Unit Chief to advise him that the FBI believed it was ready to submit a formal FISA request to 01 relating to Page. Almost immediately thereafter, 01 assigned an attorney (01 Attorney) to begin preparation of the application.
Although the team also was interested in seeking FISA surveillance targeting Papadopoulos, the FBI OGC attorneys were not supportive. FBI and NSD officials told us that the Crossfire Hurricane team ultimately did not seek FISA surveillance of Papadopoulos, and we are aware of no information indicating that the team requested or seriously considered FISA surveillance of Manafort or Flynn.”
Page vi of the Executive Summary of the IG Report

Furthermore, now that the right-wing media’s claims that the investigation was politically motivated, and that the FISA warrants were unlawful have been thoroughly debunked, how about that popular claim that the Steele Dossier was the primary reason for opening the investigation in the first place? Had these commentators read past the cover, they would’ve seen this inconvenient quote from page ii of the Executive Summary:

“We did not find information in FBI or Department ECs, emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating that any information other than the FFG information was relied upon to predicate the opening of t he Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Although not mentioned in the EC, at the time, FBI officials involved in opening the investigation had reason to believe that Russia may have been connected to the Wikileaks disclosures that occurred earlier in July 2016, and were aware of information regarding Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele’s election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.”
Page ii of the Executive Summary of the IG Report

So where are all of these accusations of corruption coming from? They stem from a small part of the report regarding private communications between two FBI agents involved in the investigation, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Keep in mind, these were private communications. Being federal employees, there are many rules that one must follow in the public light, which includes not endorsing or disparaging a political candidate or party, or taking certain political stances not related to their line of work. However, these were entirely private communications, wherein there are no rules of the like. As a federal employee, you are perfectly entitled to a political opinion, in fact, one might argue your opinion to be far more valid than those of the general public because of your proximity to federal issues.

This is irrelevant, though, as I said before. These were private communications, and have now even led to a lawsuit from Lisa Page against the FBI for releasing the private communications, as there is question regarding their validity to the investigation. No matter, the report itself may be critical of the communications, it also clearly states the following:

“As part of our review, we also sought to determine whether there was evidence that political bias or other improper considerations affected decision making in Crossfire Hurricane, including the decision to open the investigation. We discussed the issue of political bias in a prior OIG report, Review of Various Actions in Advance of the 2016 Election, where we described text and instant messages between then Special Counsel to the Deputy Director Lisa Page and then Section Chief Peter Strzok, among others, that included statements of hostility toward then candidate Trump and statements of support for then candidate Hillary Clinton. In this review, we found that, while Lisa Page attended some of the discussions regarding the opening of the investigations, she did not play a role in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane or the four individual cases. We further found that while Strzok was directly involved in the decisions to open Crossfire Hurricane and the four individual cases, he was not the sole, or even the highest-level, decision maker as to any of those matters.
As noted above, then CD AD Priestap, Strzok’s supervisor, was the official who ultimately made the decision to open the investigation, and evidence reflected that this decision by Priestap was reached by consensus after multiple days of discussions and meetings that included Strzok and other leadership in CD, the FBI Deputy Director, the FBI General Counsel, and a FBI Deputy General Counsel. We concluded that Priestap’s exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision. We similarly found that, while the formal documentation opening each of the four individual investigations was approved by Strzok (as required by the DIOG), the Executive Summary Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation decisions to do so were reached by a consensus among the Crossfire Hurricane agents and analysts who identified individuals associated with the Trump campaign who had recently traveled to Russia or had other alleged ties to Russia. Priestap was involved in these decisions. We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations.”
Pages iii and iv of the Executive Summary of the IG Report

In conclusion, while the IG did recommend specific new FBI policies be put in place as precaution, the report did not conclude under any terms that there was any wrong-doing involved in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, nor in the investigations into Papadopoulos, Manafort, or Flynn, nor in the FISA warrant in the investigation into Carter Page.

Let us not forget, Paul Manafort was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison; Michael Flynn was convicted of lying to the FBI in 2017, and his sentencing was delayed so that he could further cooperate with the Mueller probe; Papadopoulos was convicted of lying to the FBI and sentenced to twelve days in prison, one year of probation,and was fined almost $10,000; and while Carter Page has not been convicted to date, he is still part of an on-going investigation as of this writing. Looking at this track record, it would be hard to create a narrative that these men were under investigation for no other reason than political motivation.

While the right-wing press is still spinning their narratives, without a single quote from the actual report, mind you, remember how important it is to seek information for yourself. You can download the complete redacted report below. The redactions are likely due to on-going investigations, much like the Mueller Report redactions were upon its first public release. See above regarding Carter Page.

ig-fbi-report-1 Download

What Constitutes Election Interference?

Featured ████ ███████Leave a comment

How the GOP Fabricated a Conspiracy Theory to Counter an Actual Conspiracy

“Foreign electoral interventions are attempts by governments, covertly or overtly, to influence elections in another country. There are many ways that nations have accomplished regime change abroad, and electoral intervention is only one of those methods.”

This is the definition given by Wikipedia to define what constitutes election interference. Notice the wording: “covertly or overtly.” This would suggest such interference would likely be performed via clandestine means, and/or cause a measurable influence in swaying an election toward one candidate. So where, I wonder, between the words covert and overt would we measure the devastating and devious effects of writing a simple op-ed?

Special Counsel Robert Mueller testifying to congress.

In July of 2016, the FBI covertly began to investigate suspicious ties between the Trump presidential campaign and Russian operatives. This was code named Crossfire Hurricane. (A catchy title if I’ve ever heard one.) Shortly after this was revealed to the public, President Donald Trump promptly dismissed FBI Director James Comey, allegedly for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton and her infamous emails.

The response to Comey’s dismissal, as well as the reason given by President Trump, was prompt and reasonably critical. It appeared to be a pretty incredible coincidence that a president would fire a man who he had always claimed to admire, only after finding out about such an investigation into Donald Trump and his suspicious ties to Russia. Eight days after Comey’s unceremonious dismissal, Democratic lawmakers, as well as numerous revelations from Comey, even including allegations of obstruction of justice, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller, a very esteemed former FBI director, as Special Counsel to take over the FBI’s investigation into allegations of links and coordination between the Russian Government and associates and members of the Trump campaign.

Nearly two years, thirty-four individual indictments, three corporate indictments, eight guilty pleas and convictions (and a few more since then), the Mueller Report into Russian interference into the 2016 elections was released to the public. A report that showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russia had interfered in our election, had infiltrated US lobby groups, hacked Democratic campaign servers, colluded with Wikileaks to release emails, and that there had been multiple cases of campaign finance crimes. Though, very few among the GOP will admit to collusion, despite President Trump literally asking Russia for help on live television on several occasions, the evidence is far too overwhelming to deny Russian interference alone.

This brings us to our current impeachment inquiry, and drafting of articles of impeachment, though I must note, the impeachment itself is unrelated to the Russia probe. Our current impeachment proceedings involves President Trump committing the very same crime again, however, which is requesting a foreign government to dig up dirt on a rival. Yes, apparently President Trump thought he could get away with the same crime twice after his Justice Department gave him the notion that he was above the law.

This time, however, it is not Russia who Trump is imploring, but it is Ukraine. I’m sure you are all familiar with the story by now. President Trump withheld promised foreign military aid until Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky announced an investigation into Hunter Biden and his association with Burisma Holdings, which is a major Ukrainian natural gas company. While this is based on a pure conspiracy theory, this is not the conspiracy theory today’s GOP are using to counter the Russia probe findings.

No, there is a new conspiracy theory afoot. The following quote is from the December 8, 2019 edition of meet the press.

“Because Russia interfered, the media pretends nobody else did. Ukraine blatantly interfered in our election. The sitting ambassador from Ukraine wrote an op-ed blasting Donald Trump during the election season. … It’s hysterical two years ago there was article after article after article in the mainstream media about Ukrainian interference in the elections, but now, the Democrats have no evidence of a crime. No evidence of violating the law. And so suddenly Ukraine interference is treated as the media clutches their pearls, oh my goodness, you can’t say that! Last week, Chuck, you called Sen. John Kennedy basically a stooge for Putin.”
—Ted Cruz to Chuck Todd
“Meet the Press,” December 8, 2019, NBC News

The “interference” Ted Cruz is talking about is based on an op-ed written in The Hill by Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S. Valeriy Chaly. An op-ed apparently falls into the definition at the top of this article regarding election interference. Here’s the backstory.

In 2014, Russia invaded, occupied, and annexed Crimea from Ukraine. As a result of Russia’s military actions, the United States, and most NATO countries denounced the military action of Russian president Vladimir Putin, and also refused to recognize Russia’s annexation of the peninsula. While most of the world stood in agreement in denouncing Russia, then candidate Donald Trump had a different view of the situation altogether. He said he would consider recognizing Crimea as a Russian territory. This was only one of many public statements from then candidate Trump in support of Russia and president Vladimir Putin.

This led to an op-ed being written in The Hill where Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, where she criticized then candidate Trump for his unwavering support of Russia, as well as Russia’s initiatives across the world. An op-ed that would profoundly prophetic in light of President Trump’s actions since taking the oath of office.

This brings us up to date. This past October White House acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, said in defense of President Trump’s withholding of promised and approved Ukrainian military support, that President Trump was actually withholding the financial support until Ukraine investigated its own election interference in the 2016 election. Mulvaney, of course, later walked that statement back, but unfortunately it stuck as a talking point for the GOP.

During the November impeachment inquiries, multiple GOP members of the House Intelligence Committee continued bringing up the Ukrainian election interference, all the while their only example is the op-ed spoken about above. Apparently, when grasping at straws, you grab whatever tiny one you can and just keep repeating and repeating until people believe this op-ed probably only read by political junkies, (not a whole lot of kids walking around quoting articles from The Hill) somehow swayed an entire election. Even though the candidate the op-ed criticized still obtained the office, even after losing by three million votes, but that’s a whole different piece altogether.

This has led to several other conspiracy theories on the Alex Jones tinfoil hat level, being touted by elected officials, such as the accusation that Ukraine is hiding all of Hillary’s “missing emails” or that they are conspiring to rig the 2020 elections in Biden’s favor, as if they have the same resources as Russia. Or even that one of the most respected and celebrated anti-corruption ambassadors in history was removed from her post because of massive corruption and political collusion. An ambassador conveniently removed not long after President Trump took office. It’s almost as if she would’ve stood in the way of something.

In the end, I suppose Ambassador Chaly should feel honored that her op-ed critical of candidate Trump could’ve been such a literary masterpiece it nearly swayed an entire election. She should feel very proud that merely criticizing a candidate’s support for a hostile foreign leader (not just to the Ukraine, but the U.S. as well) could’ve made such a vast dent in candidate Trump’s electoral victory However, I can think of very few ways to describe such a notion that could be said in a piece I’d like to keep PG. In fact, the article was very well-written and well-devised, and I wish I could piece together pros in any of my secondary languages the way that she does. However, it wasn’t going to inspire a revolution against a candidate who was already unpopular, even according to Fox News polls. So, I think it’s safe to refer to this defense as, well, I guess we’ll just go ahead and call it Malarkey.