Russia-gate, then and now

The public status of the Russia-Russia-Russia scandal, aka, the Trump-Russia scandal, Russia-gate, in some ways is remarkably similar to what it was a year ago before Trump took office.

The NSA, the CIA and the FBI have all found that the Russian government leadership, i.e., Vladimir Putin, was behind the hacking of emails from the DNC. Qualified analysts outside the government have verified the plausibility of the claims. News about various meetings with Russian officials have now been publicly reported and acknowledged by participants, some of whom have been dishonest or remarkably reticent to talk about those meetings with law enforcement. As Digby Parton writes, "Trump's behavior" - and that of his campaign - "certainly appears to show what prosecutors call a 'consciousness of guilt.'" (More signs of guilt: Trump’s campaign was warned about Russia, and said nothing Salon 12/19/2017)

But lying about those meetings or Michael Flynn or failing to report business dealings with Russians that were required to be disclosed don't in themselves prove collusion. Although some of the emails that have made it into the public record] sound remarkably similar to what someone would say who was colluding.

But obviously, there are reasons disclosure laws affecting financial holdings and foreign contacts are there, including to avoid officials with high security clearances or major governmental responsibilities being subjected to pressure by a foreign government to commit illegal acts. The familiar saying that presumably emerged during the Watergate scandal that it's not the crime that gets you, it's the coverup, is misleading insofar as it might be taken to mean that laws broken in the process of a coverup aren't all that important in themselves.

The reports from the intelligence agencies on Russian election interference are serious. And they still deserve today as they did a year ago to be competently investigated by Congressional committees or independent commissions that will be able to access classified information that can't safely be released to the public. If the intelligence agencies were lying or incompetent in those reports, that needs to be known, too. That need is there today just as it was a year ago. Unfortunately, the Republican-led Congressional investigations aren't proceeding with the seriousness they deserve.

The Russia investigation is also likely to provide a lot of inconvenient details about the Trump family's business dealings, some of which could well be illegal though unrelated to collusion with Russia on the 2016 election interference.

But I've always been worried that warhawks of different varieties were jumping on the Russia-Russia-Russia bandwagon for purposes of promoting bad foreign policy rather than securing American elections.

And there were also people who wanted to use a Russia smear against people to the left of corporate Democrats, both within the Democratic Party and outside.

Hillary Clinton is at her best in this interview with Rachel Maddow, Hillary Clinton: President Donald Trump Opened Door To More Misogyny MSNBC 09/14/2017:

But I did a real double-take at just after the 5:00 point, where she is talking about potential female candidates for President in 2020: "And now that some of the potential 2020 candidates are starting to get public attention, they're getting hit, from both the left and the right, and sometimes, when it comes from the left, you're not sure if it's a Russian pretending to be an American on the left or not." (my emphasis) Just a gratuitous dig at lefties as being Commies ... uh, Russians. Now, sure, the Russian government might want to stir up animosities of all sorts. But from what we know of the much-reported Russian attempts to muddle up Western elections, the bulk of the interventions are on the side of promoting rightwing nationalist parties and movements. But there's Hillary, talking about sexism from "the left and the right" and it's the left she suspects of being Rooskies. Corporate Democrats sometimes just can't help themselves.

Prior to 2000, we called this Red-baiting. But through the mysteries of language evolution, "red" in the United States now typically refers to Republicans, not to Communists or Socialists. Go figure.

But that kind of thing has always been a double-edged sword for the center-left, of which corporate Democrats are the most visible expression in American politics right now. In the first part of that interview (separate video), Hillary talks about the demands of some Republicans to open new investigations against her. Talk that seems to be getting louder. And Democrats have good reason to be very dubious about the investigation of Jill Stein of the Green Party for possible collusion with Russia in the 2016 election.


Jill Stein Denounces Probe over 'Collusion with Russians' The Real News 12/19/2017

This report features former Ambassador Michael McFaul on the Stein "collusion" issues, Senate Investigates 2016 Candidate Jill Stein's Campaign For Russian Ties Velshi & Ruhle/MSNBC 09/14/2017:

McFaul was US Ambassador to Russia 2012-14, so he has high-level experience diplomatic subtleties. But it's hard to imagine that he doesn't know he's really reaching in this interview to make Stein sound like a Russian colluder. His argument is that she has appeared voluntarily on RT and, while she was in Russia for the now-infamous RT celebration, she had some compliments for Russian foreign policy. Good grief! If the standard for "collusion" is expressing an opinion about US foreign policy while in a foreign country, at least half the tourists in other countries would be guilty of collusion. Unless I've missed Congress passing a law requiring US travelers abroad to clear every comment they make with political implications to be pre-screened by the State Department, this kind of criticism McFaul makes here is clearly off the tracks.

Cenk Uygur had a spot-on commentary about the Jill Stein collaboration accusation, including McFaul's version, in this Young Turks segment. He makes the very sensible point that the Democrats playing along with this is just the sort of thing that will help the Republicans undercut the Democrats' insistence that seriously investigating the Russian intervention in the 2016 election, including the role of Trump campaign staff who may have actively colluded with it. Jill Stein Targeted By Russia Investigation 12/21/2017:

The TYT team also followed up with this report, Jill Stein On Russia Inquiry 12/21/2017:

Michael Tracey reports on this in Jill Stein Staffer Undecided on Whether to Share Communications with Senate TYT Investigations 12/21/2017 and Jill Stein Says Senate Russia Inquiry Is “Full Of Crap,” But Urges Staff To Comply 12/21/2017:

Stein has discussed the circumstances of the dinner on numerous occasions, and even publicized the event herself at the time. “No names were exchanged, no eye contact, nada,” she reiterated. “Just a quick handshake—that’s it. There was nothing meaningful at that dinner.”

But Stein says transparency should trump any other concern, and she intends to comply to the fullest possible extent with the Senate committee—if only to highlight its inanity. “There’s plenty of room to critique what this investigation is about, and we will do that in parallel,” she said.

Stein characterized the Senate inquest as part of a political climate which has seen “a resurgence of McCarthyism,” and asserts that media coverage that portrays her as party to some sinister global conspiracy is wildly irresponsible. “The standards of journalism exercised in the discussion of Russia-gate are abysmal,” she said. “There are no consequences for the reporters who basically launched these extremely irresponsible and destructive stories that diminish the stature of the press and that legitimizes the charge of fake news. So yeah, it’s full of crap.”

Jill Stein and the flap over her Russia connections

Politico has a piece about how Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein is still getting criticism from various sources, mostly establishment Democrats, about her effect on the outcome of last year's election. And, of course, about the Russia-Russia-Russia connection. (Ben Schreckinger, Jill Stein Isn’t Sorry 06/20/2017)

She was also at Vladimir Putin's table at the RT gala in Russia in 2015 along with now-resigned National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

It's not until the seventh paragraph of the story that we read that she doesn't sound like a person who has anything to hide:

Stein isn’t sorry about any of it. She says she’d welcome the opportunity to testify before Congress and dismisses the idea that she was a spoiler or that her campaign was co-opted as a tool of Russian influence as Democrats’ “pathetic excuses” for losing the election.

Unlike Flynn — whose initially undisclosed $45,000 RT payout landed him in hot water with congressional investigators — Stein has said she was not offered any speaking fee and that she declined the Russian network’s offer to cover her travel. She tells POLITICO that she was accompanied by a single aide and that her presidential campaign paid for the travel, which included a stop in Paris. The campaign’s Federal Election Commission reports from that period show modest disbursements to multiple airlines, including Air France, and a travel agency.

Stein says that to her knowledge, neither she, her campaign nor the Green Party have taken money from Russian entities: “I am certainly not aware of any ties whatsoever, financial or otherwise, to the Russian government.”

It sounds like she was more discrete about the financing of her presence at the RT gala than Flynn was. Flynn was a retired general who was required to report any payments like the one he received for that event.

I don't encourage RT-phobia. It isn't illegal to appear on RT. And someone like Chris Hedges (who Politico mentions) is appearing on RT and delivering his own perspective, it probably is the case that RT, which is a Russian statement media organization now routinely described in the American press as Russia's propaganda channel, thinks they get some advantage from his appearing, Chris could also argue that if RT is "using" him, he is also "using" them. And it's not illegal for an American to appear on RT. Or to be a paid contributor to RT. Where Flynn messed up in that regard was not properly disclosing the payment he received as required by the regulations to which he was subject as a retired officer.

It's also legal for Americans to travel to Russia and to do business with Russian companies, insofar as they aren't covered by sanctions or other legislation.

Stein alluded in the quote I gave to her being willing to testify before Congress about her involvement with RT. An earlier paragraph reported:

“We're certainly interested in any efforts the Russians made to influence our election,” says California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, which is investigating Russia’s alleged meddling in the election. “There have been public reports, I think, that Jill Stein was also in Russia attending the RT function, so we’re going to need to look at any efforts the Russians made through whatever means to influence our elections."

Here, I worry that this could shade over into potential political intimidation. But Stein herself says she would be happy to testify.

It's also worth remembering that it's also perfectly legal and intellectually legitimate to agree with something a foreign government is saying. The fact that a particular position or perspective may be agreeable to another country's leadership at a given moment is not in itself a token that someone is serving a foreign government if they agree with them on some political point. Political ideas don't stay confined in a single country any more than scientific or religious ones. Neither Democrats or Republicans feel much constrained in expressing support for the ideas and programs of various foreign parties. The Republicans in 2015 invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to give an address to a joint session of Congress even without President Obama's approval and in spite of the fact that Netanyahu was trying to generate opposition to the nuclear agreement the Administration had been working on with Iran.

I hesitate to make comparisons or analogies between the Cold War (or Cold War 1.0?) and today's situation. Because Cold War dogma in the United was often simplistic and unrealistic, even with (perhaps especially with) direct policymakers. But in this context, it's helpful to recall that with the Soviet-line Communist Parties, including the always-small US Communist Party, were more-or-less explicit in most phases of their existence that they saw the Soviet Union as a model to be emulated. But this was not illegal, either. Some Communists were involved in actual espionage, although after the Second World War the Soviets tended to rely on people persuaded by other means than ideology in recruiting people to do actual spying.

In the case of Jill Stein and her Greens, they are not holding up Putinism as a political model:

Stein has also hit back at “fake news” claiming she has praised Putin. For the record, Stein says, “Putin is an authoritarian and has a very troubled, disturbing record.” But, she adds, “It’s important to look at where Putin comes from. … It was Larry Summers and the guys from Harvard who basically privatized the public domain [in post-Soviet Russia] and created the oligarchs” (the culpability of American economic advice for the collapse of the Russian economy in the 1990s remains hotly debated).

The suspicions and official findings of the FBI, CIA and NSA about Russian interference in the 2016 election also don't have to do with ideology as such. The actions at issue involve cyber intrusions into American systems and specific efforts to influence the outcome of a particular Presidential elections. There are laws governing foreign money from US elections. And one of the things that needs to be clarified is just what kind of violation of laws there may have been and what kinds of collusion in illegal acts may have been occurred. Outside of taking money illegally or strong evidence of direct involvement by people from the Trump campaign with illegal Russian actions, finding criminal collusion will be a big stretch. Although active collusion with the Russians could be embarrassing and possibly politically damaging to Trump and the Republicans without rising to the level of crimes that could be successfully prosecuted.

There are also big questions about dubious and/or illegal dealings with Russian companies and governmental entities that could subject members of the Trump Family Business Administration to pressure from the Russian government.

And the Administration has created some very specific legal problems for itself by trying to block official investigations.