Flowers For Socrates

By ann summers

Today’s long-form NY Times story by Shane and Mazzetti is worth reading if only to remind oneself about the relentless work of rigged Russian witches, and that there’s a viable timeline for #TrumpRussia. One can only hope that the paper of record is also following the money, not parroting Glenn Greenwald’s theories.

The NY Times tries to frame as seemingly random what seems structurally obvious: the Russian kleptocracy found their perfect 2016 dupe in Trump, ignoring what the Dallas News among others found as obvious and pernicious Russian influence, especially in terms of money. It’s like Shane and Mazzetti never read The New Republic.

It is a strange article despite its useful infographics, telling the Russian story as if no one was getting paid — Russian money to GOP PACs, or that someone was always getting paid or as we know with Michael Cohen’s Prague trip, wanting to get paid. Fortunately Stormy Daniels reminds us of the stakes of knowing that images from Mario Kart are worth at least $130k to someone. Somebody bought that banner. Someone pays for the shout-fest. We just don’t know it yet, or we just don’t know “yeti pubes”.

For many Americans, the Trump-Russia story as it has been voluminously reported over the past two years is a confusing tangle of unfamiliar names and cyberjargon, further obscured by the shout-fest of partisan politics. What Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel in charge of the investigation, may know or may yet discover is still uncertain. President Trump’s Twitter outbursts that it is all a “hoax” and a “witch hunt,” in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, have taken a toll on public comprehension.

But to travel back to 2016 and trace the major plotlines of the Russian attack is to underscore what we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign.

To many Americans, the intervention seemed to be a surprise attack, a stealth cyberage Pearl Harbor, carried out by an inexplicably sinister Russia. For Mr. Putin, however, it was long-overdue payback, a justified response to years of “provocations” from the United States.

.

Whether Mr. Trump or any of his associates conspired with the Russians is a central question of the investigation by Mr. Mueller, who has already charged 26 Russians and won convictions or guilty pleas from the former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn; the former campaign chairman, Paul J. Manafort, and his deputy, Rick Gates; and from Mr. Papadopoulos. Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, has pleaded guilty in a separate case.

But none of the convictions to date involve conspiracy. There remains an alternative explanation to the collusion theory: that the Trump aides, far from certain their candidate would win, were happy to meet the Russians because they thought it might lead to moneymaking deals after the election. “Black Caviar,” read the subject line of an email Mr. Manafort got in July 2016 from his associate in Kiev, Ukraine, hinting at the possibility of new largess from a Russian oligarch with whom they had done business.

[…]

Mr. Trump’s frustration with the Russian investigation is not surprising. He is right that no public evidence has emerged showing that his campaign conspired with Russia in the election interference or accepted Russian money. But the inquiry has buffeted his presidency, provoked concern that his attempts to thwart the investigation amount to obstruction of justice and fed his suspicion that the F.B.I. and intelligence agencies — what he calls “the deep state” — are conspiring against him.

Hacking, social media fraud and suspected spies: A special New York Times report about the Trump campaign and Russia’s plot to subvert an election https://t.co/HWl7JoJxsU

— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 20, 2018