Sunday, February 25, 2018


2. FBI Informant CampbellRussians Bragged That the Clintons Would Deliver the Uranium Sale

February 25, 2018 

While this information was sent to me on a secure channel, it is  completely unclassified and in the public domain.

Law Enforcement Secure Portal Access
                      426a7d6a-2ee9-4b4f-8b63-3c568c0a4144.png0c8617b6-8d18-47ff-96c6-afd75d6387b7.jpeg

Victoria Toensing, the lawyer for FBI informant William Campbell said that her client has told congressional committees that the Russians “bragged that the Clintons’ influence in the Obama Administration would ensure CIFUS (Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States) approval for [the] Uranium One deal.”

And, added attorney Victoria Toensing, her client “was right.”

Before CIFUS, on which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sat, approved the Uranium One deal, nine investors in Uranium One gave the Clinton Foundation a combined total of $145 million.

The deal called for the United States to allow Russia to purchase 20 percent of our uranium reserves, giving Russia access to vastly more uranium than we have.

Campbell testified that Russia’s goal was to achieve global hegemony over the supply of uranium.

The Russians sought the Uranium One deal very aggressively.

In the years before it came up for CIFUS approval, Russia deployed 10 spies in the United States with a single mission: To get close to Hillary Clinton to get her to approve the Uranium One deal.

Fortunately, the FBI uncovered the nest of spies one year before the deal came up for approval. (The Bureau acted to arrest the spies when it did because one of them had risen to a high position in a company owned by Hillary’s finance chairman.)

Then, to seal the deal, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin arranged for former president Bill Clinton to address the Renaissance Bank in Moscow, an institution closely connected to the Kremlin.

The ex-president was paid a fee (personal income for him and his wife, the secretary of state — in their joint checking account) of $500,000.

To try to keep word of the Uranium One deal under wraps and to bury the story about the Russian spies, FBI Director Robert Mueller arranged for the suspects to take plea bargains admitting to minor offenses and then spirited them out of the country quickly — in a prisoner exchange with Russia — before the media could interrogate them. The spies were arrested during the Labor Day weekend and sentenced over Christmas to minimize media coverage.

The Uranium One investigation has great salience in today’s news since the two attorneys who oversaw the investigation into the sale were current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and recently ousted Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe.
Mueller, as FBI director, was in ultimate charge.

Thursday, February 22, 2018

The Paradoxes of the Mueller Investigation
Victor Davis Hanson  Town Hall 2-22-18

https://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2018/02/22/the-paradoxes-of-the-mueller-investigation-n2452240?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=



Special counsel Robert Mueller has indicted 13 Russian nationals for allegedly conspiring to sow confusion in the 2016 presidential election. The chance of extraditing any of the accused from Vladimir Putin's Russia is zero.

Some of the Russians' Keystone Cops efforts to disrupt the election favored Donald Trump (as well as Bernie Sanders). Yet Mueller's team made it clear that the Russians neither colluded with any U.S. citizens nor had any material effect on the election's outcome.

But from here on out, there will be ironies, paradoxes and unintended consequences with just about everything Mueller does.

Is it now time to prosecute foreigners for attempting to interfere with a U.S. election? If so, then surely Christopher Steele, the author of the Fusion GPS dossier, is far more culpable and vulnerable than the 13 bumbling Russians.

Steele is not a U.S. citizen. Steele colluded with Russian interests in compiling his lurid dossier about Donald Trump. Steele did not register as a foreign agent. And Steele was paid by Hillary Clinton's campaign to find dirt on political rival Trump and his campaign.

In other words, Steele's position is far worse than that of the Russians for at a variety of reasons. One, he is easily extraditable while the Russians are not. Two, his efforts really did affect the race, given that the dossier was systematically leaked to major media and served as a basis for the U.S. government to spy on American citizens. Three, unlike with the Russians, no one disputes that American citizens -- Hillary Clinton, members of the Democratic National Committee, and anti-Trump partisan Glenn Simpson and his Fusion GPS team -- colluded by paying for Steele's work.

Mueller's team has also leveraged a guilty plea from former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn for making false statements to FBI investigators. If the Flynn case is now the Mueller standard, then we know that a number of high-ranking officials are vulnerable to such legal exposure.

Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr deliberately omitted on federal disclosure forms the fact that his wife, an expert on Russia, worked on the Fusion GPS dossier.

Steele himself probably lied to the FBI when he claimed he had not leaked the dossier's contents to the media.

Hillary Clinton aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills likely lied to FBI investigator Peter Strzok (who had also interviewed Flynn) when they claimed they had no idea that Clinton was using a private and illegal email server until the story went public. In fact, Abedin and Mills had communicated with Clinton over the same server -- as did then-President Barack Obama, who likewise denied that he knew about the improper server.

Former FBI Director James Comey likely lied to Congress when he claimed that his exoneration of Clinton came after he had interviewed her. We now know from documents that he drafted a statement about the conclusion of the investigation even before he met with her.

As far as obstruction charges go, Mueller has other possible targets. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch met secretly with Bill Clinton on a jet parked on a tarmac in Phoenix shortly before the Justice Department closed the probe of Hillary Clinton and chose not to pursue charges against her. Comey said Lynch asked him not to use the word "investigation" when discussing the Clinton email probe. Text messages between Strzok and fellow FBI official Lisa Page suggest that Lynch knew in advance about the conclusions Comey would reach in the investigation.

What is going on?

Mueller is under enormous pressure to find collusion between the Trump team and Russia, or to find that the Trump team obstructed justice by trying to hide such collusion. But neither likely happened. Mueller was appointed at a time of national hysteria, brought on by partisan journalism based on a leaked dossier -- itself a product of a discredited British agent working with Russian sources while being paid by the Clinton campaign.

Worse still, the effort to hide the origins and the use of that dossier to obtain court permission to spy on American citizens may be a classic case of obstruction of justice.

Mueller's existential problem has been with him from the start. Due to the shenanigans of his discredited friend Comey and a rabid media, he was appointed to investigate crimes that did not exist. But if they did exist, collusion and obstruction were committed by those associated with the Clinton campaign and even by members of the Obama administration.

Investigating any possible crimes committed by members of the Clinton campaign or the Obama administration apparently is taboo, given the exalted status of both. But every time Mueller seeks to find incidental wrongdoing by those around Trump, he only makes the case stronger that behavior by those involved in the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration should be investigated.


If such matters are not treated in an unbiased manner, we are not a nation of equality under the law, but a banana republic masquerading as a democracy.

Monday, February 19, 2018

What do the Palestinian citizens of Israel want?
Eric R. Mandel  February 19, 2018 

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/What-do-the-Palestinian-citizens-of-Israel-want-543070

While the world’s focus has been on the intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the assumption has been that dealing with the needs of Arab citizens of Israel would be eminently easier.

IT should be noted, the majority of Jerusalem’s Arab population prefers to live under Israeli rule.’.

What do Israel’s minority citizens want? That was the question I attempted to begin to answer with my annual MEPIN/Keshet seminar group, assessing the challenges and progress of Israel’s 20% minority population, consisting of Arab Muslims, Arab Christians, Aramaic Maronites, Druze and Beduin.

We visited and met with academics and school children, Israeli government officials and Arab mayors, Arab colleges, a leading demographer, teachers and human rights organizations, and that was just the tip of the iceberg. Today’s Israeli Arabs self-identify as Palestinian Israelis, or more precisely as Palestinian Citizens of Israel (PCI).

To deny that PCIs have faced discrimination in allocation of government funding, infrastructure, and employment opportunities would be to deny reality.

As Yossi Klein Halevi told us, “Palestinian Israelis have a profound sense of dislocation, humiliation, and grievance going back to 1948.

Palestinian Israelis are conflicted, as the country they reside in is at war” with their brothers over the Green Line.

I had thought that the concerns of PCIs were eminently more solvable than those of their Arab brothers living over the Green Line in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A recent poll of PCIs did favor a two-state solution, but here the semantics really matter as a window into the perspective of PCIs. For Palestinian Israelis, “two states” means one Palestinian state in the West Bank with no Jewish citizens, and the current State of Israel as a non-Jewish state for Arabs and Jews.

PCIs I met on this visit said Israel would never be a democracy until Israel ends the Jewish nature of the state and the Jewish right of return for Jews living in the Diaspora.

Yet paradoxically, recent polls of PCIs showed that over 50% are proud to be Israeli. So how do you unpackage these contradictory facts? I was expecting to find an Arab populace that saw a future for themselves in a Jewish state, and that despite the current economic inequalities, if the gaps continue to narrow, there would be an appreciation and acceptance of living in the only democratic state in the Middle East, imperfect as it for its minority citizens at this time.

When I asked Palestinian Israelis, if all the economic inequities were magically erased, would they then accept living in a Jewish state accepting the responsibilities of minority citizens? None said yes.

The narrative of too many well-meaning Jewish organizations and rabbis, who tell their members that PCIs just need economic equality and will then see themselves as being full partners of a Jewish state, may be far from the truth.

While the world’s focus has been on the intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the assumption has been that dealing with the needs of Arab citizens of Israel would be eminently easier. After all, Israel’s minority citizens, despite the economic inequalities, have freedom of speech, religion and the press, access to the Supreme Court, 15 Muslim Knesset members, and are freer than any other Arab citizens in the region.

Through Western eyes, economic advancement is the key issue to solve to have, if not loyal citizens of a Jewish state, ones who comfortably accept living as a minority in a Jewish state.

What I learned troubled me. With the exception of the Druze and the Christian Aramaic communities, Palestinian Israelis today do not believe Israel can ever be a democracy unless it ceases to be a Jewish state, in essence a binational state. Too many PCIs believe Judaism is only a religion, not a legitimate national movement of a people entitled to a national home. Zionism to them is racism. Compared to 15 years ago, my impression is that today’s Palestinian Israelis have become more strident as their identity has become more Palestinian.

Even if Israeli Arabs were to become economically equal to Jewish citizens, it will never be enough to satisfy their basic demands, namely the dismantlement of the Jewish nature of the state; until then they are unwilling to accept the responsibilities of full citizens.

Palestinian Israelis complain about job discrimination because employers favor Israelis who serve in the military.

But when presented with the option of compulsory non-military civil service to match fellow Jewish citizens, evening the playing field for employment opportunities, they overwhelmingly rejected that option. There was almost no acknowledgment that they too have responsibilities as Israeli citizens and they were uninterested in meeting the Jewish majority halfway, as they see the problems as primarily ones of Jewish discrimination.

The narrative of the Palestinian Israeli is that the Jews are racist, while the Palestinians are a people who have suffered the indignity of the being displaced by the interloping Jews, with the underlying conviction being that Jews have no right to be anywhere from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river Valley.

So where do we go from here? ALTHOUGH ISRAEL has not fulfilled all its obligations to its minority citizens over the years, under the current coalition government more has been done, and more funds have been committed to the minority population than ever before. Arab mayors I met with, who are no fans of this Israeli government, readily admit that the current government has begun to narrow the gaps of economic inequality with more balanced funding for infrastructure and education.

But the challenge of the PCI education system goes way beyond funding. Too many Palestinian Israeli schools willingly choose self-segregation.

The Israeli educational system, which funds at least four different school systems, allows for self-imposed segregation.

While Jewish secular schools seem willing to partner for co-existence projects, PCI schools prefer to isolate themselves as there is little desire to interact with Jewish students in a shared educational experience, undermining the Western perspective that integration of minority communities with the majority population will lead to better co-existence. It is no wonder that when well-qualified Palestinian Israeli graduates apply to jobs with Jewish employers, both groups eye one another with suspicion.

There are exceptions, like the Hand-in-Hand schools where Israeli and Arab students learn together in a 50:50 setting. Unfortunately in a nation that is 80% Jewish and 20% Arab, this model would need to be adapted to acknowledge the demographic reality. The problem still is, do PCI parents in large numbers want their children segregated, or to be a minority in majority Jewish classrooms? With regard to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, we often say that the maximum Israel can offer the Palestinians will never meet the minimum requirements the Palestinians of the West Bank can accept to resolve the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

We now also need to ask ourselves a similar question about the Palestinian Israelis.

Suppose that the maximum Israel can offer Palestinian Israelis – full rights, recognition of their Arab identity, and economic empowerment, while simultaneously accepting the responsibilities of living as minority citizens in a Jewish state – doesn’t meet the minimum PCIs can accept, namely the eradication of the Jewish nature of the State of Israel? Yossi Klein Halevi told us, “We need a serious conversation about rights and responsibilities between Arabs and Jews.” His new book Letters to My Palestinian Neighbor begins to address these difficult conversations, which he says will make both the Left and the Right uncomfortable.

There is plenty Israel needs to do to for its PCIs. Israel has recently stepped up and now 20% of the relevant budget goes to Arab communities, and 40% goes for transportation in Arab communities.

Israel should set up programs to teach Arabic in its Jewish schools, for both inclusiveness and security.

But until the PCIs realize that they too have responsibilities as minority citizens of the state, progress will be slow. Educational opportunities are key for advancement, and even in the poorer sectors, such as the Beduin, real progress and even innovation are occurring in this regard.

Israeli Arab Christians matriculate to university at a higher rate than Jewish Israelis.

An accomplished Muslim Arab judge in Israel told us that to succeed as a Palestinian Israeli you must be the best of the best. Yet he acknowledged that part of the reason is that Arab university graduates are disadvantaged because they do not join the military or have compulsory civil service. His words should be taken to heart by the PCIs.

This is a key to solving so many of their complaints, but the Palestinian Israelis have chosen to throw away the key rather than unlocking the door to addressing economic inequality. They must get past blaming the Jewish state for all of their problems.

You can’t complain you aren’t getting your fare share when you refuse to do compulsory civil service to match the time young Jewish citizens give to the nation.

There are certainly individual exceptions and whole fields with full equality, especially in medicine. The catch 22 is that Arabs want what Israelis have materially and educationally, but do not want to become full citizens if that requires living in a Jewish state.

Even in the truly innovative educational situations I witnessed in Arab education that lead to improved Arab educational advancement, the goal is to strengthen Arab society, not to co-exist or find their place with a Jewish majority.

This is a counterproductive and a shortsighted strategy that will perpetuate Arab disenfranchisement.

Arab economic disenfranchisement will also not improve until the misogyny in Arab society subsides, letting the majority of Arab women work, so that their socio-economic status won’t continue to stagnate.

The Palestinian Israeli narrative is similar to that of their Palestinian brethren over the Green Line, seeing the Jewish presence as the cause of all of their troubles. A people needs a shared vision that is more than the dream of the destruction of the other, and the lamentation of tragedies that have befallen them.

Palestinian Israelis refuse to acknowledge the dilemma they put Jewish Israelis in when they choose to align themselves with the enemies of the Jewish state. Although they are a minority within Jewish Israel majority, they are also aligned with the majority of Arabs and Muslims that surround Israel and threaten its existence.

The harshly critical human rights organization Adalah told us Israel couldn’t be a Jewish and democratic state.

It says PCIs cannot be protected as Palestinian Israelis if there is Jewish privilege, and until the Jewish Law of Return is ended. If PCIs continue to embrace this Adalah narrative, it’s a sure path to perpetual conflict.

Hopefully Palestinian citizens of Israel will choose a better and wiser path by embracing educational opportunities that include co-existence, accept full non-military civil service post high school, and accept the responsibilities of being a minority population in a majority Jewish state.

There is a way forward, but it is a two-way street.


The writer is director of MEPIN™, the Middle East Political and Information Network™. He regularly briefs members of Congress and think tanks on the Middle East. He is a regular contributor to The Jerusalem Post.

Sunday, February 18, 2018


 Excerpts from: “Mueller Patched Together Much of His  Indictment from 2015 Radio Free Europe Article”

by Jim Hoft

After sixteen months of investigations  Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced  charges against Russian operatives who interfered with the US election process both before  the 2016 election and then after, following Donald Trump’s victory.

The indictment named 13 Russian operatives from the internet Research Center LLC. in St. Petersburg who attempted to “interfere” with the 2016 US presidential election.

russians-indicted-600x379.jpg

But this information is not new. It appears Mueller and his team copied much of their report from an earlier Radio Free Europe article.

4chan has a thread alleging Robert Mueller and his investigators got all the names and the idea for his Russian indictment from a 2015 Radio Free Europe article.

The site claims “We plugged the article into google translate (It’s in Ukrainian), and the article reads like the Mueller indictment.”
rfe-trolls--600x200.jpg
Here is the Mueller indictment describing the Internet Research Agency LLC:
mueller-indict-600x475.jpg
And here is the RFE article from 2015:

For the third year, first in St. Petersburg, in the village of Ol’hina, and then in the city itself, on the street Savushkina, in the building number 55 there is a mysterious organization, which is officially called the Limited Liability Company Internet Research, and unofficially nicknamed by its employees, the so-called “Kremlin trolls”, “the Ministry of Truth” .

The official founder and director general of this organization is the retired militia colonel Mikhail Bystrov , and is funded by the Concord holding, headed by friend and chef of President Vladimir Putin Yevgeny Prigozhin . Since 2000, this holding organizes banquets in the Kremlin, as well as cooperates with “Vointorg” and the Ministry of Defense.

In the “Trust Ministry”, approximately 400 people, who change one at a time for 12 hours, sit around the computer around the clock and write in blogs – mostly in “Live Journal” or “VKontakte”. There are several departments. In one they are engaged in the blogosphere, in another they are preparing TK – technical tasks, in the third one – they comment on the news in Russian and foreign media , in the fourth – mount photos in the photoshop, forcing, say, heads of Navalny and Obama to the bodies of animals, and so on.

The article even has a photo of the Ministry of Justice headquarters on Savushkin Street in St. Petersburg–
st.-petersburg-building-spy-.jpg
It appears the  Mueller team produced their report with the help of a report written back in 2015.

And there’s this…
The Russian ads mentioned in Mueller’s indictment were already released by the House Intelligence Committee in November 2017.

Facebook previously announced the Russian ads comprised .004% of their advertising during the election.

As previously reported…
The House Intelligence Committee released a sampling of Facebook ads linked to Russia. One of the ads released was a sponsored post for the Nov. 12 anti-Trump march at Union Square against Trump in New York City after the election.


Mueller’s  indictment contained information that was previously publicly reported.


by Jim Hoft

After sixteen months of investigations  Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced  charges against Russian operatives who interfered with the US election process both before  the 2016 election and then after, following Donald Trump’s victory.

The indictment named 13 Russian operatives from the internet Research Center LLC. in St. Petersburg who attempted to “interfere” with the 2016 US presidential election.

russians-indicted-600x379.jpg

But this information is not new. It appears Mueller and his team copied much of their report from an earlier Radio Free Europe article.

4chan has a thread alleging Robert Mueller and his investigators got all the names and the idea for his Russian indictment from a 2015 Radio Free Europe article.

The site claims “We plugged the article into google translate (It’s in Ukrainian), and the article reads like the Mueller indictment.”
rfe-trolls--600x200.jpg
Here is the Mueller indictment describing the Internet Research Agency LLC:
mueller-indict-600x475.jpg
And here is the RFE article from 2015:

For the third year, first in St. Petersburg, in the village of Ol’hina, and then in the city itself, on the street Savushkina, in the building number 55 there is a mysterious organization, which is officially called the Limited Liability Company Internet Research, and unofficially nicknamed by its employees, the so-called “Kremlin trolls”, “the Ministry of Truth” .

The official founder and director general of this organization is the retired militia colonel Mikhail Bystrov , and is funded by the Concord holding, headed by friend and chef of President Vladimir Putin Yevgeny Prigozhin . Since 2000, this holding organizes banquets in the Kremlin, as well as cooperates with “Vointorg” and the Ministry of Defense.

In the “Trust Ministry”, approximately 400 people, who change one at a time for 12 hours, sit around the computer around the clock and write in blogs – mostly in “Live Journal” or “VKontakte”. There are several departments. In one they are engaged in the blogosphere, in another they are preparing TK – technical tasks, in the third one – they comment on the news in Russian and foreign media , in the fourth – mount photos in the photoshop, forcing, say, heads of Navalny and Obama to the bodies of animals, and so on.

The article even has a photo of the Ministry of Justice headquarters on Savushkin Street in St. Petersburg–
st.-petersburg-building-spy-.jpg
It appears the  Mueller team produced their report with the help of a report written back in 2015.

And there’s this…
The Russian ads mentioned in Mueller’s indictment were already released by the House Intelligence Committee in November 2017.

Facebook previously announced the Russian ads comprised .004% of their advertising during the election.

As previously reported…
The House Intelligence Committee released a sampling of Facebook ads linked to Russia. One of the ads released was a sponsored post for the Nov. 12 anti-Trump march at Union Square against Trump in New York City after the election.


Mueller’s  indictment contained information that was previously publicly reported.


 Excerpts from: “Mueller Patched Together Much of His  Indictment from 2015 Radio Free Europe Article”

by Jim Hoft

After sixteen months of investigations  Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced  charges against Russian operatives who interfered with the US election process both before  the 2016 election and then after, following Donald Trump’s victory.

The indictment named 13 Russian operatives from the internet Research Center LLC. in St. Petersburg who attempted to “interfere” with the 2016 US presidential election.

russians-indicted-600x379.jpg

But this information is not new. It appears Mueller and his team copied much of their report from an earlier Radio Free Europe article.

4chan has a thread alleging Robert Mueller and his investigators got all the names and the idea for his Russian indictment from a 2015 Radio Free Europe article.

The site claims “We plugged the article into google translate (It’s in Ukrainian), and the article reads like the Mueller indictment.”
rfe-trolls--600x200.jpg
Here is the Mueller indictment describing the Internet Research Agency LLC:
mueller-indict-600x475.jpg
And here is the RFE article from 2015:

For the third year, first in St. Petersburg, in the village of Ol’hina, and then in the city itself, on the street Savushkina, in the building number 55 there is a mysterious organization, which is officially called the Limited Liability Company Internet Research, and unofficially nicknamed by its employees, the so-called “Kremlin trolls”, “the Ministry of Truth” .

The official founder and director general of this organization is the retired militia colonel Mikhail Bystrov , and is funded by the Concord holding, headed by friend and chef of President Vladimir Putin Yevgeny Prigozhin . Since 2000, this holding organizes banquets in the Kremlin, as well as cooperates with “Vointorg” and the Ministry of Defense.

In the “Trust Ministry”, approximately 400 people, who change one at a time for 12 hours, sit around the computer around the clock and write in blogs – mostly in “Live Journal” or “VKontakte”. There are several departments. In one they are engaged in the blogosphere, in another they are preparing TK – technical tasks, in the third one – they comment on the news in Russian and foreign media , in the fourth – mount photos in the photoshop, forcing, say, heads of Navalny and Obama to the bodies of animals, and so on.

The article even has a photo of the Ministry of Justice headquarters on Savushkin Street in St. Petersburg–
st.-petersburg-building-spy-.jpg
It appears the  Mueller team produced their report with the help of a report written back in 2015.

And there’s this…
The Russian ads mentioned in Mueller’s indictment were already released by the House Intelligence Committee in November 2017.

Facebook previously announced the Russian ads comprised .004% of their advertising during the election.

As previously reported…
The House Intelligence Committee released a sampling of Facebook ads linked to Russia. One of the ads released was a sponsored post for the Nov. 12 anti-Trump march at Union Square against Trump in New York City after the election.


Mueller’s  indictment contained information that was previously publicly reported.

Saturday, February 17, 2018

Russia Launches ‘Information’ War, U.S. Responds with Lawsuit and Self-Destruction
Andrew C. McCarthy  National Review February 17, 2018

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/russia-launches-information-war-us-responds-with-lawsuit/ 

Mueller’s indictment is an ineffectual response to a provocation by Russia.

The Russians are engaged in “information warfare” against the United States. That was the big soundbite at Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s press conference Friday afternoon, announcing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s election-meddling indictment against 13 Russians and three Russian businesses.

That is certainly a fair assessment of what the indictment alleges. The account is disturbing, but its form leaves many of us underwhelmed. Our government says Russia is levying war. It is attacking a foundational institution — the electoral system of our democratic society and, more basically, our society’s cohesion as such. Our response should not be, nor appear to be, the filing of a lawsuit. That is provocatively weak.

The Russia probe has been a counterintelligence investigation, as it should be. That is why I’ve complained from the first that it was inappropriate to put a prosecutor in charge of it. This contention is reiterated in my weekend column. The main thrust of this complaint has been that a prosecutor should not be assigned unless there is first strong evidence of a crime. But that is not the half of it.

A government lawyer is a hammer who sees every problem as the nail of a lawsuit. As we saw in the Clinton and Obama years (and will tend to see in transnational-progressive governments that prize legal processes over the pursuit of national interests by the most effective means available), administrations dominated by government lawyers find even belligerent provocations by foreign power to be fit for judicial resolution.

To the contrary, we use counterintelligence rather than criminal investigation to thwart foreign adversaries because prosecution is a woefully inadequate response. The point of counterintelligence is to gather information so we can stop our enemies, through meaningful retaliation and discouragement. Generally, that means diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and, in extreme cases, military means. It could mean deploying our own cyber capabilities. The idea is not to invade every rogue nation. It is to respond to provocations in a manner that hurts our rivals — conveying that the prohibitive cost we will exact makes attacking us against their interests.

That cannot be accomplished by a mere indictment on which no one will be tried.

When prosecutors are serious about nabbing law-breakers who are at large, they do not file an indictment publicly. That would just induce the offenders to flee to or remain in their safe havens. Instead, prosecutors file their indictment under seal, ask the court to issue arrest warrants, and quietly go about the business of locating and apprehending the defendants charged. In the Russia case, however, the indictment was filed publicly even though the defendants are at large. That is because the Justice Department and the special counsel know the Russians will stay safely in Russia.

Mueller’s allegations will never be tested in court. That makes his indictment more a political statement than a charging instrument. To the extent there are questions about whether Russia truly meddled in the election, the special counsel wants to end that discussion (although his indictment will not satisfy those skeptical about Russia’s responsibility for hacking Democratic accounts, or who wonder why the FBI and Justice Department never physically examined DNC servers). Otherwise, the indictment demonstrates that the special counsel has been hard at work.

 That is as it should be. Through all the months of public debate over whether there was criminal-collusion evidence against the president, we have stressed that the main focus of the counterintelligence investigation is the Kremlin, not the White House. It is good, then, that Russia has gotten so much of the special counsel’s attention.

What is not good is that he is a special counsel as opposed to, say, a high-ranking intelligence or defense official. It is only natural that a prosecutor sees his job as making a criminal case, but that is not really what is called for under the circumstances.

Obviously, if there were strong evidence that Americans had aided and abetted our foreign adversaries in their hostile acts, it would be essential to prosecute them. My objection has been that a special counsel was assigned despite the absence of strong evidence that crimes were committed by Trump-campaign figures. It is freely conceded that I do not favor special-counsel appointments except when a severe Justice Department conflict of interest leaves no other option.

 Thus, I do not see why a special counsel would have been needed for any Russia case involving suspects unconnected to the Trump campaign. But all that said, I have never contended that the assignment of a Justice Department prosecutor would be inappropriate if there were concrete grounds to believe Americans were guilty of crimes.

Nevertheless, we are talking now about the foreign adversary. The Justice Department’s comments Friday elucidated that information warfare is being orchestrated by Russia — i.e., the regime — not a random bunch of Russians. As we’ve stressed over the years in connection with many terrorism indictments, if a foreign power is engaged in warfare against the United States, an indictment is not a serious response — especially an indictment on which no one is ever going to be prosecuted. Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein suggested on Friday that, with formal charges now filed, the Justice Department will turn to the next step in the legal process: seeking the defendants’ extradition. Once the Russians stop laughing, I imagine they’ll send us a curt note in Cyrillic — or maybe they’ll just flip us the bird, the universal language.

There are reasons besides ineffectiveness to be concerned about turning this diplomatic dispute into a criminal-justice issue.

This is a dangerous game to play. Our government, American organizations, and individual Americans regularly take actions and engage in political expression (including pseudonymous expression) with the intention of affecting foreign political campaigns — or that could be understood that way regardless of American intent. In its lead story on Mueller’s indictment, the New York Times observes that “for decades,” the CIA has “work[ed] covertly to influence political outcomes abroad.” The Obama administration, on the American taxpayer’s dime, tried to get Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu defeated and agitated against Brexit. The Bush administration tried to democratize the Middle East. It is de rigueur to tut-tut that such meddling is unseemly, but it is what governments do and have always done. They have interests, and those interests can be profoundly affected by who is governing other countries.

Moreover, it is the proud boast of the United States that we promote the virtues and benefits of liberty throughout the world and encourage oppressed peoples to stand up against tyrants. Our government funds Radio

Free Europe/Radio Liberty precisely to expose people to news and ideas that their despotic governments censor. Do we really want to signal that we see such agitation-by-information as an indictable crime, in response to which the affected government should issue arrest warrants that will inevitably make it risky for Americans to travel outside the U.S.?

Remember, we are talking here about a case in which Russia’s campaign, despite its energy and funding, was a drop in the ocean of American campaign spending and messaging. It barely registered. It had no impact. And, again, the indictment that has been filed is a gesture that will result in no prosecutions. Is it really worth opening this can of worms?

I know what you’re going to tell me: It’s not the same thing because we don’t do what they do: When we meddle, it is not through the kind of fraudulent activities that Mueller alleges the Russians engaged in — including bank fraud, wire fraud, and identity theft. But don’t kid yourself: What we are green-lighting here is criminal prosecution as a response to “interference” by alleged agents of a foreign power in another country’s elections and public debates. Once that is the rule of the road, we are not going to be able to control decision-making in other countries about what kind of conduct constitutes actionable “interference.”

Finally, since the indictment is a political document, we should evaluate its political impact at home. On balance, it is good for President Trump. The Russian election-meddling scheme stretches back to the years before he became a political candidate. To the extent there was Russian outreach to the Trump campaign, the indictment makes clear that the campaign acted unwittingly. Not only does that mean there was no collusion on the face of things; it means there was almost surely no collusion at all. Had there been an established framework of Trump–Russia coordination, there would have been no need for Russians to reach out to unwitting Trump-campaign officials.

All that said, the indictment — perhaps unwittingly, if I may say so — tells an unflattering story about the state of our country.

When we are attacked by forcible warfare, we instantly grasp the nature of the threat and tend to pull together as a people. Information warfare is a different beast, one that plays on our vulnerabilities, dividing us. The Russians are masters of this game. They understand that unlike bombs and missiles, attacks by political messaging are filtered through our politicized media before Americans internalize them. The messages are not conveyed to us as “the Russians are trying to divide and destabilize us.” They are taken at face value if the commentators and partisans calculate that doing so is helpful to their political agenda. Thus, we get nonsense like, “The Kremlin wanted Trump to win” and “Putin was motivated by his fear and loathing of Hillary Clinton,” etc., etc.

What happened here could not be more patent: The Kremlin hoped to sow discord in our society and thus paralyze our government’s capacity to pursue American interests.
In reality, what happened here could not be more patent: The Kremlin hoped to sow discord in our society and thus paralyze our government’s capacity to pursue American interests. The Russian strategy was to stir up the resentments of sizable losing factions. It is not that Putin wanted Trump to win; it is that Putin figured Trump was going to lose. That is why the Kremlin tried to galvanize Trump supporters against Clinton, just as it tried to galvanize Sanders supporters against Clinton, and Trump supporters against Cruz and Rubio, during the primaries. It is why the Russians suddenly choreographed anti-Trump rallies after Trump won. The palpable goal was to promote dysfunction: Cripple a likely President Clinton before she could even get started, wound President Trump from the get-go when he unexpectedly won, and otherwise set American against American whenever possible.

That should be the upshot of coverage of the indictment. Instead, it’s the usual cherry-picking to bolster our partisan arguments. For example, in its aforementioned report, the New York Times rejects out of hand the president’s matter-of-fact observation that because Russia’s “anti-U.S. campaign” started long before Trump announced his candidacy, the indictment cuts against the narrative of Trump–Russia collusion. The Times counters: “Mr. Trump’s statement ignored the government’s conclusion that, by 2016, the Russians were ‘supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump’ and disparaging Hillary Clinton, his opponent.” The Gray Lady is then off to the races, framing Mueller’s indictment as confirming “a startling example — unprecedented in its scope and audacity — of a foreign government working to help elect an American president.”
And so it goes.


We don’t have collusion. We have division. And we have an adversary that thrives on our division.