"It's a question of which is to be master, that's all."
Saturday, June 27, 2020
And How They GRU
This story, reported last night by
Charlie Savage, Eric Schmitt and Michael Schwirtz in The Times, is nuts: that the Russian GRU unit 29155, implicated in the attempted
murder of Bulgarian arms dealer Emilian Gebrev in Sofia in 2015, the attempt
to assassinate the Montenegrin prime minister and overturn that country's
government in 2016, the attempted murder of Sergey Skripal and his daughter in
Salisbury in 2018, has also been active in Afghanistan, orchestrating attacks
by Taliban-linked militants on American and other NATO troops there and paying
them bounties for success in some fraction of those killings (something like
50 Americans
have been killed in hostile fire and IED attacks in Afghanistan since
2017).
Let's just say that again: Russian intelligence helping Afghan insurgents kill
Americans, and paying them for it. The report doesn't offer any conclusions
about how far up the Russian chain of command it goes, but we're always told
that nothing big happens without Vladimir Putin's approval.
The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White
House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency
meeting in late March, the officials said. Officials developed a menu of
potential options — starting with making a diplomatic complaint to Moscow
and a demand that it stop, along with an escalating series of sanctions
and other possible responses, but
the White House has yet to authorize any step, the officials
said.
The White House has been sitting on this information for close to four months,
apparently unable to make up its mind to do anything, though. Except to keep
it secret, apparently. Though Trump has been conducting his own Russia policy
of pushing the readmission of Russia to the former G8, now G7, even though the
crimes in Ukraine for which Russia was expelled (the annexation of Crimea and
collaborating in an insurgency in the Donbass region) are ongoing, doubling
down on the idea of invitating Putin to attend a G7 summit.. As Twitter was
quick to note:
Treason's not a silly accusation at this point.
I can see how a
real president might have had good reason for not making a public fuss, but
the work to reintegrate the rogue state into the international system AFTER
the intelligence looks like something a lot worse.
https://t.co/hm8pi8kHsD
Am I exaggerating? I've resisted the word "treason" up to now, even as I
continue to be convinced that the Trump administration's refusal to act on
Russia sanctions is meant to be paying
Putin for
something, but this really looks like Russia waging war against the United States and
Trump not merely averting his eyes but rewarding them, even though
it's a kind of stupid reward, since there's no chance of the other G7 countries
acceding to the idea.
The other big thing that's happened in the Trump-Russia world is the Justice
Department's release
a week or so ago
of a new version of the Mueller Report, with some important redactions
removed—those that were meant to avoid "harm to the ongoing matter" of Roger
Stone's trial, which the trial judge, Reggie Walton, had said were
unnecessary, in particular after the trial was concluded.
Mr. Barr had put forward a “distorted” and “misleading” account of the
Mueller report findings in a fashion that downplayed the special counsel’s
more damaging findings and shaped the public narrative in the president’s
favor, Judge Walton wrote.
“These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor
specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr’s credibility,” he
wrote — and in turn, cast doubt on the department’s statements to him that
the redactions were lawful.
Thanks to the trial, we already know most of what the unredacted pages tell us
about Stone—that he served as the liaison between the Trump campaign and
WikiLeaks in coordinating the timing of the WikiLeaks release of the
GRU-stolen emails of the Democratic National Committee in July 2016 and of
the Clinton campaign's John Podesta in October. What's new is the
establishment of how involved Trump was in the process, which you could infer
from the 302s of Rick Gates's FBI interviews last November but not
demonstrate, since Stone was also redacted from there.
Response to Question ll, Part (g): I spoke by telephone with Roger Stone
from time to time during the campaign. I have no recollection of the
specifics of any conversations I had with Mr. Stone between June 1.2016
and November 8, 2016. I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with him, nor
do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with
individuals associated with my campaign, although I was aware that
WikiLeaks was the subject of media reporting and campaign-related
discussion at the time.
Though naturally you can't prove he didn't remember.
Looking back from this to the timeline, you get a much refreshed picture of
what candidate Trump must have known regarding Stone, WikiLeaks, and the
Russians:
April-June:
Rick Gates
observes that "interest is racheting up" within the Trump campaign in some
collection of emails that will help the campaign, possibly reflecting the
FBI's work on Hillary Clinton's former server, Russia's offer to the
campaign of "dirt" in thousands of emails (hacked Podesta emails?) through
Papadopoulos, other Russian démarches of that spring, or all of the
above
14 June: Washington Post publishes first public report of Russian hack of
DNC databases and theft of their opposition research and emails
15 June: Trump campaign issues statement accusing DNC of hacking
themselves; also, House majority leader Kevin McCarthy, coming out of a
meeting
"with Ukrainian Prime Minister Vladimir Groysman, who had described a
Kremlin tactic of financing populist politicians to undercut Eastern
European democratic institutions", makes his famous "joke" about Putin
paying Trump (and Rohrabacher, who was present)
18 July: At convention in Cleveland, anti-Russia language removed from
Republican platform at instance of Trump campaign
20 July: Kislyak meets with Republicans at a Cleveland lunch
22 July: WikiLeaks begins publishing DNC emails
24 July:
New York Times
reports evidence that the emails were stolen by Russians; Trump tweets,
"The new joke in town is that Russia leaked the disastrous DNC e-mails,
which should never have been written (stupid), because Putin likes me"
27 July: at a press conference, Trump calls “this whole thing with
Russia... a total deflection”, “farfetched” and “ridiculous”, although it
would give him “no pause” if Russia had Clinton’s emails: “Russia, if
you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are
missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
We never think of noting the context of those two "jokes"—McCarthy's after a
formal meeting where they'd been informed of Putin's habit of buying foreign
politicians, making it sound more like a sudden insight (OMG if he's doing it
here I know who he must be doing it with); Trump in the context of his fourth
straight day of denying that Russians had hacked the DNC, though (as usual)
without any indication of how he would know whether they had or not, but with
that typical Trumpian flourish (if it was true, there'd be nothing wrong with
it, in fact I'm asking them to do it right now!), which is supposed to
make the denial sound more sincere. But there's also the genuine Trumpy note
of resentment (wish they had sent that good stuff to The Times
instead of this dumb DNC shit I don't know how to use").
Anyway, the new unredactions certainly reinforce the picture of a Trump
campaign that was obsessed with the "dirt" in the form of emails that was
going to come to them out of nowhere like presents down the chimney and rescue
their hopeless endeavor.
And the new material on murderous Russian misbehavior in Afghanistan to which
Trump turns a blind eye reinforces the sense of a Trump helplessly indebted to
Russians and unable to do anything about them. So I'm more convinced than
ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment