Thread: Mueller's Russian Interference investigation

I was wondering about Sessions. There was that whole kerfuffle a few months back with Trump publicly lambasting him and then... *Crickets*

I posted an article a page or two back that explained how bad it was for Sessions that George Papadopoulos has flipped but here is a new one from today.

Mueller Revelations Put Sessions in Awkward Political Spot


Attorney General Jeff Sessions is facing renewed questions over how much he knew about Russian efforts to interfere with the U.S. election, after it was revealed this week that he attended meetings with a Trump campaign adviser who claimed to have extensive contacts with Russians.

Sessions, who as a Republican senator served as a top foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump during his presidential campaign, testified in January that he wasn’t aware of any campaign contacts with Russia. But court documents filed this week by Special Counsel Robert Mueller revealed that George Papadopoulos, an unpaid foreign policy adviser, said he had interactions with Russians and was told Moscow had “dirt” on Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Papadopoulos -- who boasted of his Russian connection in at least one meeting Sessions attended -- pleaded guilty to lying about the timing of those contacts, becoming the first person who served on Trump’s campaign to admit to committing a crime.

The revelations revived questions about Sessions’s credibility.

Franken’s Letter

Senator Al Franken, whose exchange with Sessions in January has prompted a continuing dispute, said in a letter to Sessions on Thursday that the Papadopoulos revelations are “another example in an alarming pattern in which you, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, apparently failed to tell the truth, under oath, about the Trump team’s contacts with agents of Russia.” The Minnesota Democrat said the latest disclosure suggests that the American people “cannot trust your word.”

Judiciary Committee Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont issued a statement calling on Sessions to return to the panel and "explain why he cannot seem to provide truthful, complete answers to these important and relevant questions." Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal, also a member of the panel, asked Sessions to "correct any omissions and any statements that may have been incorrect or misleading."

Even so, it’s unclear how hard Democrats will go after Sessions even if they conclude that he lied to Congress. Many objected over the summer when Trump fumed at Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation and began hinting he would fire his attorney general. If Sessions were pushed out, it would give Trump the chance to appoint a new attorney general -- who would have the authority to fire Mueller and take over the Russia probe.

Papadopoulos was named by Trump as a member of his foreign policy advisory panel in March 2016, when the candidate was trying to bolster his credentials as he moved to secure the Republican nomination for president. Sessions was head of the panel. In reality, the group met only once or twice and didn’t really function.

Papadopoulos said he received the information in April 2016 that Russians had “dirt” on Clinton and thousands of emails -- about three months before the WikiLeaks organization began releasing troves of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee, according to the court filing. While prosecutors say Papadopoulos shared information about his Russian contacts with the campaign, they don’t say whether he told superiors about the emails.

But an FBI agent’s affidavit supporting criminal charges against Papadopoulos said he also claimed in an email that top Trump campaign officials, who weren’t identified, approved a pre-election meeting with representatives of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

During a March 2016 meeting of the foreign policy advisory committee that Sessions chaired and Trump attended, Papadopoulos said he could help arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin, according to the court filing.

Sessions immediately rejected the proposal to arrange a meeting and thought that put an end to the idea, according to a person familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified commenting on private discussions. Sessions has no clear recollection of Papadopoulos and doesn’t recall any further interactions with him, including phone calls or emails, the person said.

It’s possible Papadopoulos may have been at Trump events that Sessions also attended, including a dinner at the Capitol Hill Club with some members of the foreign policy committee during the summer of 2016, the person said.

The Key Exchange

Nonetheless, the court filing on Papadopoulos is now being contrasted with long-disputed answers Sessions gave the Senate Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearing about Trump’s campaign, including the exchange with Franken.

Franken asked: “If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?”

Sessions replied: “I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have -- did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”

The attorney general has since said that he interpreted questions from Franken and other senators to be about whether he knew of continuous, improper contacts between Trump surrogates and Russian operatives, and that he didn’t.

The person familiar with Sessions’ activity during the campaign said his testimony has been truthful and consistent. He wasn’t aware of any ongoing exchanges of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, the person said.

‘What Happened?’

Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, said it makes sense to ask Sessions to clarify the chain of events and how he reconciles it with his testimony before the committee.

“It might be worth writing a letter and saying ‘What happened?’ I wouldn’t mind writing a letter, because he was pretty definitive he never had that discussion about Russia,” Graham of South Carolina said in an interview.

Senator Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who’s chairman of the committee, said he needs to look at the issue before commenting.

While Democrats made clear that the Papadopoulos revelations raise new questions about whether Sessions told the truth to Congress, there was little indication they’d pursue the politically and legally uncertain possibility that the nation’s top law enforcement official could be prosecuted for perjury.

“He may still have technically answered the question correctly,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University law school, said he views a perjury case against Sessions as weak.

“The clarity of the question and the answer could be easily challenged,” Turley said in an email. “It is rare to see cases for perjury to Congress generally because the exchanges are often imprecise or rather fluid in nature. ”

Josh Chafetz, a professor at Cornell University Law School, said lawmakers could try to use “various other tools in the congressional arsenal,” from reducing Justice Department appropriations to refusing to confirm appointees reporting to him.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...tical-position

Session is either a serial liar, senile or an alzheimer's victim. In any case needs to be fired. Or jailed.

Originally Posted by Norton

In any case needs to be fired.

I do not think that would be a good idea. Sessions will never fire Meuller. From what I have been seeing and reading that is exactly what Steve Bannon and the alt right camp wants. With Sessions out of the way the can bring in someone who would be willing to fire Meuller. If that happens we have a constitutional crisis on our hands.

Originally Posted by bsnub

constitutional crisis on our hands.

How so?
Political crisis for Trump camp, but constitutional crisis?

Pretty damning. You’d think Sessions would have called the FBI at the first sniff of Russians if he really had no involvement.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

How so?

This article explains it best;

Mueller charges pitch US towards constitutional crisis


Is this the beginning of the end for Donald Trump? Only Robert Mueller, the special counsel, is in any position to answer that, and perhaps not even then. But his target is clear.

The decision to indict Paul Manafort, Mr Trump’s former campaign manager, for money laundering, tax evasion, and ten other criminal counts, is dramatic enough. Never before has a presidential campaign manager been charged with laundering millions while working for a foreign agent — nowhere close.

That Mr Mueller swiftly followed up with the disclosure that George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign adviser, had confessed to having lied to the FBI over his contacts with Russia cemented the message. Mr Mueller could have published the Papadopolous charge sheet weeks ago. He did so within two hours of releasing the Manafort indictment.

Three things are clear. First, Mr Mueller aims to prove that Mr Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia. We cannot know whether he will succeed. But it is clear that he is shaking every tree and pursuing every lead available.

Papadopolous has clearly “flipped” and is co-operating with his investigation. Mr Manafort, and his business associate, Richard Gates, are now under pressure to follow suit. The multiple charges against them could result in many years behind bars. They will be highly incentivised to strike a plea deal with Mr Mueller to slim down their charge sheets.

Others in Mr Mueller’s sights include Michael Flynn, Mr Trump’s first national security adviser, who resigned shortly after he took the job over having failed to disclose his campaign contacts with the Russian government.

Further up the chain, Mr Mueller’s targets could include Donald Trump Jr, the president’s eldest son, and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, both of whom joined Mr Manafort for a meeting with a Russian government-linked lawyer during the campaign.

The more Mr Mueller squeezes, the more indictments are likely to follow. As the most seasoned investigator in the US, it is safe to say Mr Mueller knows what he is doing. When and how he moves will be carefully thought out.

Second, Mr Trump is an expert at diversion. Expect dramatic fireworks in the coming hours and days. Over the weekend, Mr Trump sent a flurry of tweets about Hillary Clinton’s alleged collusion with a Russian-owned uranium company while she was secretary of state. The story has been relentlessly pursued by Fox News, Breitbart and other pro-Trump outlets.

Republican legislators are threatening to set up congressional inquiries into Mrs Clinton’s role in approving the sale of a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-owned company that mines roughly a fifth of US uranium extraction. That story is likely to intensify. Mr Trump urged nameless entities on Twitter on Sunday to “DO SOMETHING” about Mrs Clinton’s “crimes”. Either way, the “lock her up” mantra is back in the headlines and is directly related to Mr Trump’s sense of vulnerability.

Meanwhile, Mr Trump’s 11-day trip to Asia, which is his most strategically-important since becoming president, is likely to be overshadowed, if not consumed, by the fire back in Washington. He leaves on Friday. Should we expect a new round of rhetorical salvos on North Korea?

Third — and most critically — the judgment that matters most is that of the Republican party. Mr Trump has made it clear he would like to fire Mr Mueller. Most people would see that as obstruction of justice, which is an impeachable offence. No court can prevent Mr Trump from firing Mr Mueller. Mr Trump can only be impeached by Congress, which is Republican controlled. Nor can any court stop Mr Trump from pardoning people whom Mr Mueller indicts. Only Republicans can hold Mr Trump to account.

So far very few elected Republicans have said anything about the Manafort indictment. Nor have they drawn a red line against the firing of Mr Mueller.

Opinion polls suggest Republican voters remain strongly behind Mr Trump, which is the number that matters most to Republican legislators. Unless that changes, Mr Trump may feel that he can get away with sacking Mr Mueller. At that point America would be plunged into a constitutional crisis. I would now put the chances of that happening at more than 50-50.

https://www.ft.com/content/46f00ce2-...3-38a6e068f464

This is an example of the type of post and ads that Russian-linked groups were posting around the election:





Kinda comical until you realise that there would've been Trumptards 'liking' and disseminating them as fact.

^ The lemmings took to it like flies to shit.

I've yet to talk anybody who's seen one or read of anyone. Doubt they made much of an impact on persuading anyone's vote.

^ Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. Have you been on facebook or twitter lately? It is all over the place. Anyone who uses either site on a regular basis will have encountered it at some point.

I saw plenty around the election being shared by right-wing friends / acquaintances with comments along the lines of 'OMG that's so true!'.

A few times I pointed out that they were actually factually incorrect and baseless and the answer was invariably 'well it doesn't matter because me feelz'.

But you're probably right - those people were going to support Drumpf no matter what anyways. It certainly fanned the flames of what was already an election being decided on hate and fear though.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

those people were going to support Drumpf no matter what anyways.

Not all of them. There is no doubt that the fake news coupled with the Russian bots hitting 128 million people before the election had an affect. To say that it didn't/couldn't is well absurd. The data is there to support that it did. But in all honesty this conversation belongs in the bot thread as it has nothing to do with Drumpfs Russian ties.

I didn't word that very clearly... What I meant to say is that those people were a foregone conclusion (i.e. at least the ones I know) however there was definitely potential to sway others.

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. Have you been on facebook or twitter lately? It is all over the place. Anyone who uses either site on a regular basis will have encountered it at some point.

I use Facebook daily to keep in touch with friends and family,I have yet to see anything like this on Facebook,don't use twitter.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I have yet to see anything like this on Facebook

Then you are blind it is all over facebook. My guess is the reason you are not seeing these types of posts is because you think it is real so in your mind it is just another post in your feed.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Then you are blind it is all over facebook. My guess is the reason you are not seeing these types of posts is because you think it is real so in your mind it is just another post in your feed.

Your guess would be wrong.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Your guess would be wrong.

Umm no I wouldn't you have posted tons of propaganda bullshit on this forum. My post is spot on.

Wasn't it Repeater who used to constantly post Facebook posts and email FWD:fwd:fwd:fwd's?

Or was that someone else?

In my defense the right-wing echo-chamber cut 'n paste merchants on here do have a sameness and tendency to blur into one.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Wasn't it Repeater who used to constantly post Facebook posts and email FWD:fwd:fwd:fwd's?

Yes it was. He has not done it recently mostly he quotes off breitbart or some other retard. But yes he posted a lot of fake shit. Forwarded emails and facebook posts. So the irony is.....derp

Originally Posted by bsnub

Umm no I wouldn't you have posted tons of propaganda bullshit on this forum. My post is spot on.

Your wrong again and what I have posted on this forum has nothing to do with whether I have seen similar posts to your examples on Facebook

Originally Posted by bsnub

Yes it was. He has not done it recently mostly he quotes off breitbart or some other retard. But yes he posted a lot of fake shit. Forwarded emails and facebook posts. So the irony is.....derp

The real question is,what does all this have to do with Trump colluding with the Russians?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The real question is,what does all this have to do with Trump colluding with the Russians?

"I'll launder money for you if you help me win"?

One possibility.

Russia probes spotlight 'deniable' Kremlin intelligence tactic

Carter Page and George Papadopoulos may be just two of several Trump associates ensnared by Moscow's reliance on 'cut-outs' to gather intelligence and recruit accomplices.

For Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, it was a professor he met on a trip to Italy. For Carter Page, a bank official in New York. And for Donald Trump Jr., a lawyer and a lobbyist peddling dirt on Hillary Clinton.


While early revelations about the Trump campaign and Russia focused on the role of Kremlin officials like former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, federal probes have recently homed in on several unofficial intermediaries suspected of doing some of the Kremlin's most important, and potentially incriminating, dirty work.




“Of course, they’ve asked about that,” said a source familiar with the questions being posed to Trump associates by federal investigators. The source said investigators are “trying to gather every single bit of information they can” about any contacts Trump campaign aides and advisers had with seemingly independent actors who turned out to be peddling a Kremlin agenda.


Current and former U.S. officials say the Trump-Russia case is spotlighting the way Russia’s intelligence services rely on a worldwide network of shadowy figures — some undercover agents, others paid accomplices in fields like academia, activism and even journalism — to infiltrate and influence western politics and government.


In Papadopoulos’ case, court records show that the young Trump foreign policy adviser had extensive contacts with a London-based Maltese professor whose academic credentials appear mysteriously thin. The professor, identified in media reports as Joseph Mifsud, in turn introduced Papadopoulos to the Russian ambassador in London and a woman he told the Trump aide was the niece of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Their goal was to set up meetings to talk about improving U.S.-Russia ties in a Trump presidency.


It was the professor who told Papadopoulos that the Kremlin had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, and after what he said was a meeting in Moscow with Russian officials, that the Kremlin had “thousands” of Clinton emails, according to court documents unsealed this week


“[T]he Russian government and its intelligence and security services frequently make use of non-governmental intermediaries to achieve their foreign intelligence objectives,” FBI Special Agent Robert Gibbs said in a sworn affidavit in Papadopoulos' plea agreement, in which the energy consultant pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents in exchange for his cooperation in the ongoing probe. “This structure serves in part to hide the overt involvement of the Russian government and provides deniability about the involvement of the government and its intelligence and security services.”


“I am aware that the Russian government has used individuals associated with academia and think tanks in such a capacity,” Gibbs wrote, in a clear reference to Mifsud. “As a result, the investigation has included the extent to which such intermediaries had contact with individuals associated with the Campaign,” including Papadopoulos.


Mifsud acknowledged to reporters this week that he was the professor in question, but denied any wrongdoing.


The U.S. intelligence community’s January 2017 assessment of Russian election meddling also cited the role of “third-party intermediaries,” calling them part of past covert Kremlin influence campaigns that are “designed to be deniable.”


Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a former CIA Moscow station chief, said Russia has long used such intermediaries to obtain information from unsuspecting targets and to “signal” people to see whether they are open to collusion and susceptible to blackmail. In some cases, they can also set up those people so that they can be blackmailed, he said.


Unknown but significant numbers of Russian agents are believed to be working in the U.S. and abroad to target and test Americans — including academics, journalists, think tank experts and activists, said Mowatt-Larssen, now director of Intelligence and Defense Projects for the Harvard Kennedy School.


“There’s a whole subculture; the illegals, the nongovernmental people,” he added. “They loved recruiting academics.”
The nation’s top spooks and G-men have known since the dawn of the Cold War about Russia’s extensive use of cutouts, and work hard to identify them.


And while some are actual agents of the Soviet Union’s formidable KBG and successor organizations like Russia’s FSB, GRU and SVR, many others really are who they say they are. They just don’t disclose that they are helping — or in some cases being coerced into helping — Russian agents.


Experts say that an international array think tanks, policy institutes and activist organizations, many focusing on "Eurasian affairs," likely include people who serve as Kremlin intermediaries. Others work solo or in small teams to stay under the radar in target-rich environments like Washington and London.


The Kremlin is also suspected of masking agents as journalists. In June, a man claiming to be a reporter with the French newspaper Le Monde tried to murder a prominent anti-Russian Ukrainian couple during a phony interview in Kiev. Ukrainian officials have also accused a German man named Mirko Mebius of posing as a journalist in their country to collect intelligence for pro-Russian separatist forces in the country.


But many others have burrowed deep into the fabric of the United States and other countries where Americans travel and work.


A decade-long counterespionage effort known as “Operation Ghost Stories” ended in July 2010 with the arrest of 10 suspected Russian spies who had been posing as ordinary citizens in the U.S. The sleeper agents were deployed in what U.S. authorities described as Russia’s “Illegals Program,” because they used nonofficial “deep cover” to spend years or even decades cultivating relationships with anyone who might have insight into U.S. politics, policy and intelligence. (Their story inspired the FX television series “The Americans.”)


One of the Russians, financial services adviser Lidiya Guriyeva — who lived in Montclair, New Jersey under the name Cynthia Murphy — was allegedly trying to build a relationship with Alan Patricof, a venture capitalist who co-chaired Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.


Page, an energy consultant like Papadopoulos, met Russian intelligence operative Victor Podobnyy in January 2013 at an energy conference in New York, according to the FBI. Page also met and spent time with two other alleged Russian spies operating under cover, including one as a bank official.


Page provided documents to Podobnyy about the energy business, but has denied any wrongdoing, noting that it occurred well before he joined the Trump campaign as an unpaid volunteer adviser. The three Russians were charged in January 2015 with acting as unregistered agents of a foreign government, after authorities busted a Russian spy ring seeking information on U.S. sanctions and alternative energy plans.


Page is now under scrutiny for a July 2016 trip to Moscow that campaign officials approved on the condition he not represent Trump.


To what extent Trump campaign associates, from Papadapoulos all the way up to Manafort, Kushner and Flynn knew who they were dealing with in associations with Russian cutouts goes straight to the heart of the current investigations, and the possibility of collusion in influencing the outcome of the election.


In all but the rarest of few cases, most Americans who were lured, or blackmailed, into assisting America’s enemies had no idea of the true background of the people they were dealing with, at least at first.


From a legal standpoint, it makes little difference.


When testifying before the House Intelligence Committee last May, former CIA Director John Brennan said Russia’s brazen interference in the election included active contact with Trump campaign members, who may have had no idea what was happening.


"Frequently,” Brennan said, cryptically, “people who go along a treasonous path do not know they are on a treasonous path until it is too late.”


A former CIA operations officer wrote under the alias of Alex Finley last monththat, “Sometimes, such people make the best assets.”


“They are so sure in their convictions that they are acting in their own best interest or in the best interest of their country that they have no idea they are being completely manipulated,” Finley wrote. “The Russians know all this, too.”


“While the question of collusion remains open, it’s beyond dispute that Russia tried to get people around the president to cooperate,” Finley wrote. “The June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower is indication enough, but other encounters bolster the argument.”


Two figures involved in that Trump Tower meeting — whose attendees included Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort — were the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and the Russian-American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, a longtime Washington lobbyist with known ties to Russian intelligence.
Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin — who have denied working for Russia — initially seemed to fit the profile of “nongovernmental intermediaries.”


But authorities are trying to determine whether they actually worked for the Kremlin, and studying parallels between their Trump Tower meeting and the similar overtures made to Papadopoulos. Investigators also are asking potential witnesses if there are ties between both of those cases and Page’s July 2016 visit to Moscow.


Gibbs’s affidavit describes the way “Putin’s niece,” whose identity has not been confirmed, eagerly offered to help Papadopoulos arrange meetings between Trump campaign representatives and top Russian officials — even a possible face-to-face between Trump and Putin.


“I have already alerted my personal links to our conversation,” the woman emailed Papadopoulos. “As mentioned we are all very excited by the possibility of a good relationship with Mr. Trump. The Russian Federation would love to welcome him once his candidature would be officially announced.”


Of particular interest to U.S. investigators is what happened next: According to emails cited in the court documents, Papadopoulos relayed her offer to at least four senior campaign officials, including Manafort, then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former campaign co-chair and policy adviser Sam Clovis.


“Great work,” responded one of the officials — confirmed by POLITICO to be Clovis. He promised to “work it through the campaign.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ability-244492

US could charge six Russian officials over DNC email hacking

Prosecutors reportedly have enough evidence to bring charges next year.

Is Russia's hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails a "hoax," as Donald Trump maintains? The US Department of Justice reportedly doesn't think so. It has identified six Russian government officials involved in hacking the DNC and using the information against candidate Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election. Prosecutors have enough evidence to bring charges against those individuals by next year, according to a report from the WSJ.

The information supports claims that Russian President Vladimir Putin is behind a coordinated effort to influence US elections, as US intelligence has claimed since last year. Talks about a criminal case are in the early stages. The inquiry is being conducted by Robert Mueller, in cooperation with federal prosecutors and agents in Washington, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Philadelphia, according to the report. The team has identified both military and intelligence hackers.

Russians hacked DNC emails and the account of 2016 Democrat campaign chairman John Podesta, according to insiders. Thousands of those emails were made public by Wikileaks at the time, something that likely impactedvoting in the 2016 presidential election. No charges were ever brought against Clinton or any Democrats over the contents of the emails.

Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.
Trump has called the claims of Russian DNC hacking "a big Dem scam and excuse for losing the election." US intelligence officials, however, have maintained that Russians were indeed behind the hacking. "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election," it assessed in January.
Mueller's team has already obtained a guilty plea from Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos in relation to his Russian dealings, and has filed numerous, serious charges against Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his business associate, Richard Gates.

Facebook recently admitted that a Russian disinformation campaign reached 126 million users during the presidential election with ads that attempted to influence US users by exploiting social and political divisions, among other tactics. Sources say the Russian DNC hacking is not unlike the Yahoo attack, which allowed Russian hackers to steal the information from at least 500 million accounts, among the largest in US history.

It would difficult for the Department of justice to arrest any Russian officials. However, charges would make it nearly impossible for those folks to travel. More importantly, if charges are brought sometime next year, they will no doubt shine a floodlight on a case about which, so far, there has been little information.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/02/us-doj-charges-russian-officials-dnc-hacking/