There is enough information in the public domain to conclude, with a high degree of confidence, that there is no illicit relationship between President Trump and the Russian government. Similarly, there is very likely no relationship of any consequence between associates of the President and the Russian government. We now believe that political motivations and agendas drove these suspicions. These suspicions are not supported by facts.
We examine in detail the bases for these critical conclusions. We review the events surrounding the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hacking affair, the major arrests inside of Russian intelligence and what those arrests tell us, and the circumstances surrounding U.S. intelligence and Michael Flynn. It’s a long story to tell, but it leads to a critical conclusion contrary to the oft-repeated claim of an untoward relationship between the President and the Russians. It’s a story that screams for further analysis.
Here’s what we can piece together so far regarding any possible illicit relationship between President Trump and the Russian government.
No Illicit Relationship Between President Trump and the Russians – It Starts With the U.S. Intelligence Reports of Russian Hacking
As everyone knows, President Obama instructed U.S. intelligence to investigate the theft of emails from the DNC. After an investigation, the U.S. government released two reports to the public. But neither report contained any actual proof of how the Russian perpetrated their hacking.
In fact, there was essentially no proof of the cyber-crime contained in either of the reports. Professional cyber-security specialists largely scoffed at the two reports. We previously published two pieces detailing the shortcomings of the government reports particularly from the cyber-evidence perspective. Readers can review these two pieces here and here.
The U.S. Government’s “High Confidence” In Its Russian Responsibility Conclusion Was Based On Human Intelligence
At the time the government published the hacking reports, the New York Times indicated that U.S. government intelligence agencies were unwilling to provide direct proof of Russian hacking. The Times attributed this unwillingness to the claim that such disclosures could risk compromising future U.S. data collection efforts.
But this claim that U.S. cyber-collection efforts might be compromised made little if any sense in the context of a hacking crime. In fact, cyber-experts pointed out that intelligence collection efforts would not be compromised were the U.S. to fully disclose the cyber-details of the crime. Therefore, the unwillingness to provide direct proof of Russian complicity implied, quite clearly, that the U.S. was relying on other evidence to support its conclusion. The source of the U.S. government’s definitive proof must have been human intelligence; leaked information from within Russia, and possibly Russian intelligence, to the U.S.
The U.S. Effectively Alerted the Russians That They Had a Mole in Their Midst
The leaked acknowledgment (inferring that the U.S. relied on human intelligence) from U.S. sources to the New York Times also alerted the Russians. They were given reliable indications that the U.S. had human sources inside of Russian intelligence. These sources, the Russians now knew, had direct knowledge of Russian complicity. They also had direct access to proof of Russian complicity, and the ability to disclose that proof to the Americans.
The Russians also now knew that there was a double agent in their midst. This double agent was likely highly placed inside their Federal Security Service (the “FSB”), the primary successor to the old KGB. They had to find this agent and quickly. It didn’t take long.
The Arrest of Sergei Mikhailov for Treason
On January 25, 2017 the Russians, in a very public act, announced through the Russian newspaper Kommersant the arrest of Sergei Mikhailov. Mikhailov was a senior official in the FSB. He faced treason charges. There have been few arrests for treason since the Soviet Union breakup, so this was a very unusual turn of events and a significant allegation by the Russian government.
Mikhailov was not just any senior official in the FSB. He was the second-most senior person in the FSBs Information Security Center (ISC), the cyber-intelligence branch of the FSB. According to Mark Galeotti, an expert on the Russian security services, the ISC is an “experienced cyber-espionage outfit. . . . Their job is to hoover up everything they can.” The U.S. government had effectively fingered the ISC as the branch of the FSB directly involved in U.S. government claims of Russian hacking. Mikhailov was also a key player in the FSB’s cyber-crime division.
The Russian’s executed Mikhailov’s arrest in dramatic fashion. During the middle of a congress of senior intelligence agency officers at FSB headquarters, FSB officers grabbed Mikhailov and put a bag over his head. He was then led away. An arrest in this fashion, and made widely known, was intended to intimidate others in the FSB and their associates. It also implies that the FSB itself was not sure whether other western intelligence moles were within its ranks. They also wanted to intimidate any such moles into shutting down their activities.
The actual arrest of Mikhailov occurred weeks before the public announcement of the arrest through Kommersant. Confirmed reports indicate that the arrest of Mikhailov occurred sometime in mid-December. A delay of approximately one month from the arrest to its announcement suggests that the Russians had more work to do before they alerted the world, for reasons that themselves deserve analysis. This likely included rounding up others who have may have been involved, and perhaps identifying more agents working for, or for the benefit of, the Americans.
As this story continues, it becomes increasingly evident, piece-by-piece, that there is no illicit relationship between President Trump and the Russians.
Mikhailov’s Co-Conspirators – A Very Major Scandal Inside of Russian Intelligence
Mikhailov was not the only one arrested. Ruslan Stoyanov, one of Russia’s top private-sector security experts who worked at Kaspersky Labs (which makes antivirus software), joined Mikhailov. Stoyanov was the head of computer incident response investigations at Kaspersky. Essentially, he was their lead researcher. The company put out a statement on January 25, 2017 that whatever Stoyanov had done “has nothing to do with Kaspersky Lab and its operations.” They stated that “Stoyanov is under investigation for a period predating his employment at Kaspersky Lab,” a dubious claim at best. Kaspersky Lab operations have continued since the arrest, suggesting that, indeed, Stoyanov was acting independent of Kaspersky.
The Russians arrested two more officers from within the FSB’s cyber-crime division. This included Dmitry Dokuchayev, who apparently worked under Mikhailov. Dokuchayev reportedly is a former hacker who was facing jail time for credit card fraud at the time he was recruited by the FSB. The second person was not named.
Andrei Gersimov, who had been head of the ISC since 2009, was not involved in the criminal charges. But he was apparently dismissed on January 12, 2017. Gerismov, according to reports, controlled Russia’s leading hackers and cyber-fighters.
In effect, by mid-January the Russian government had flushed out the FSB’s cyber-wing with the arrests of Mikhailov, Dokuchayev and the third unnamed person, along with Gersimov’s dismissal. Without question, there was a major scandal inside of Russia’s intelligence community.
Reasons for the Arrests – First, A Cover Story
The initial story that was publicly circulated on January 25, 2017 explaining the arrest of Mikhailov and Stoyanov was curious indeed. It was simply this. The Kommersant newspaper “cited sources who claimed the investigation [of Mikhailov and Stoyanov] was exploring the receipt of money from foreign companies by Stoyanov and his links to Mikhailov,” according to Forbes magazine.
This cover story also fit nicely with Stoyanov’s work for the Russians, both inside and outside of government. Between 2000 and 2006 Stoyanov had worked inside of Russia’s Ministry of Interior cyber-crime unit. According to the Forbes report and its sources,
he was a lead investigator into the hacker crew that was launching denial of service attacks on U.K. betting shops, extorting them for a total of $4 million. . . . In recent years, Stoyanov has assisted Russian authorities in some major investigations into cybercrime. . . . “Stoyanov was involved in every big arrest of cybercriminals in Russia in past years” [according to the source].
Reasons for the Arrests – Next, Leaking to Foreign Intelligence
But the Forbes’ report also cited sources who indicated the severity of the crimes that were formally alleged. Their sources told Forbes a different version of events. They stated that:
the details of the case were likely to remain private. The case has been filed under article 275 of Russia’s criminal code, the source said, meaning it should result in a secret military tribunal. Article 275 allows the government to prosecute when an individual provides assistance to a foreign state or organization regarding “hostile activities to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation.” According to the source, this can be applied broadly. For instance, furnishing the FBI with information on a botnet may amount to treason.
More specifically, Article 275, entitled “High Treason,” provides as follows:
High treason, that is espionage, disclosure of state secrets, or any other assistance rendered to a foreign State, a foreign organization, or their representatives in hostile activities to the detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation, committed by a citizen of the Russian Federation, shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of 12 to 20 years with confiscation of property or without such confiscation.
The filing of charges under Article 275 is powerful confirmation that Mikhailov was assisting U.S. intelligence. The grave nature of the charges also strongly suggests that the early story of a receipt of money from foreign companies was just that – a cover story slapped together to mislead. At most, a receipt of money might have been evidence that Stoyanov and/or Mikhailov had been paid for their work.
Mikhailov and Russian Cyber-Intelligence Regularly Recruited Russian Criminals to Work For the ISC
There are numerous published reports indicating that the FSB, and likely Mikhailov, regularly recruited Russian cyber criminals to work for the Russian government. The reports indicate that it was common for them to recruit hackers who were already in prison, typically by commuting sentences in exchange for their help in hacking foreign enemies. Both Mikhailov and Stoyanov worked deeply inside of Russian criminal hacking circles.
This reality is important to this story for a variety of reasons. Mikhailov undoubtedly had numerous enemies in the Russian cyber-underworld. A key working component of the ISC was to recruit the best possible hackers from that underworld, many of whom were facing criminal charges. Others of whom were already in prison and susceptible to recruitment by the ISC as a way out of jail.
At the same time the ISC was recruiting from the ranks of these criminals, it was compromising others of them, or worse. Mikhailov’s name and reputation were undoubtedly well-known in the Russian cyber-underworld. And the people they figuratively “hit” certainly had reasons for revenge. This may well have led to Mikhailov’s ultimate demise.
Russian Cyber-Criminals With a Motive to Turn In Mikhailov
After the public announcement of the arrests, leaks from inside of Russia’s intelligence community quickly filtered out to the public. One of these stories came in the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta. It reported on January 26, 2017 that Mikhailov’s arrest resulted from his passing information to the United States.
But the information they cited had nothing to do with the possibility that Mikhailov passed on information confirming Russian hacking of the DNC. Rather, its story claimed that Mikhailov had given the U.S. information about Vladimir Fomenko’s server rental company known as “King Servers.” The U.S. government, in its hacking reports, had identified King Servers as a nexus used by allegedly Russian hackers in attacks on U.S. electoral systems in Illinois and Arizona.
We believe the King Servers story is simply misdirection. The Russians wanted the Americans to know that Mikhailov and Stoyanov had been compromised. But they didn’t want to specify why. The King Servers story was an easy one to put out because the Americans were already aware of their existence and how they were used.
Nevertheless, what now seems clear is that Fomenko, and his long-time associate Russian businessman Pavel Vrublevsky, may well have been players in the exposure of Mikhailov to the Kremlin as an American agent. Cybersecurity journalist Brian Krebs, in a detailed post, illustrated that Fomenko and Vrublevsky certainly had a motive for revealing Mikhailov. In the shadowy cyber underworld they may well have had direct knowledge of Mikhailov’s activity.
Details Regarding Vrublevsky’s and Fomenko’s Motives
Krebs suggested that over the course of many years Mikhailov may have passed information regarding Russian cyber criminals to the FBI. This may well have included information regarding the activities of both Vrublevsky and Fomenko.
Vrublevsky was previously the CEO of ChronoPay, a credit card processing company. Thousands of email messages and documents had been stolen from ChornoPay and leaked to the FBI and Krebs. According to Krebs, the leaked information included
Spreadsheets chock full of bank account details tied to some of the world’s most active cybercriminals, and to a vast network of shell corporations created by Vrublevsky and ChronoPay to help launder the proceeds from his pharmacy, spam and fake antivirus operations.
The Russian government had arrested Vrublevsky for cyber-crimes. Vrublevsky firmly believed that Mikhailov was responsible for the release of the ChronoPay materials. Krebs stated that Vrubelvsky had
told me . . . that if ever he could prove for certain Mikhaylov was involved in leaking incriminating data on ChronoPay, he would have someone “tear him a new asshole.”
Vrublevsky had long suspected that Mikhailov and Stoyanov had leaked his company’s emails to the FBI and others. Krebs reported that Vrublevsky had told him years ago that he believed Mikhailov was taking information gathered by Russia’s cyber-crime investigators and feeding it to the FBI.
One could fairly question whether a shady-figure such as Vrublevsky could bring down Mikhailov. But if Vrublevsky could somehow prove to Russian government authorities that Mikhailov and/or Stoyanov were leaking information to the U.S., that would be an altogether different matter.
Mikhailov was betrayed by one or more persons. Fomenko and Vrublevsky certainly had motives. And they may well have had the connections inside of the FSB.
Mikhailov and Stoyanov Leaks Went Beyond the FBI – They Leaked to an American Foreign Intelligence Agency
The next link in this chain of investigating a possible illicit relationship between President Trump and the Russians involves Mikhailov’s leaking activities. There are two types of information-sharing activities that Mikhailov was involved in. One likely related to the FBI. The other likely involved American foreign intelligence agencies.
Mikhailov and the FBI
There is little doubt that Mikhailov leaked information about cyber-crime activity to the FBI. His leaks of that type of activity to the FBI were at the least tolerated, but more likely outwardly condoned. Indeed, it is possible that the Russian government may have a mutually beneficial and semi-cooperative relationship with the FBI and other western law-enforcement agencies regarding cyber-crime activities. This would likely be a selective cooperation relationship by both sides. It’s certainly reasonable to conclude that Mikhailov’s communications with the FBI were sanctioned by the Kremlin.
Mikhailov and American Foreign Intelligence Agencies
It’s clear that Mikhailov’s arrest was not the result of ordinary-course leaks to the FBI. Instead, in late January Interfax, the privately-held independent news agency in Russia, quoted sources who stated that Mikhailov and Dokuchayev “are accused of betraying their oath and working with the CIA.” The story of leaks to the CIA quickly generated momentum. The Moscow Times also indicated that Mikhailov was accused of leaking information to the U.S. intelligence community.
Leaks of cybercrime activity to the FBI would not be a treasonous offense. Intelligence leaks to the CIA or other American intelligence agencies, particularly of highly sensitive information implicating the Kremlin in hacking of the DNC, would be.
Here are the critical points to bear in mind. Mikhailov was obviously well-positioned for direct espionage on behalf of American intelligence. He would be a very major, highly placed asset for the Americans. He certainly had knowledge of any FSB hacking operations, including those involving the United States. It is not a far leap to conclude that he had first-hand knowledge of any Kremlin directive to infiltrate the electronic systems of the American political parties. If an order came from Vladimir Putin, he not only certainly knew it, but he may have received the order directly.
As Steven Hall, a former CIA head of Russian operations stated, it is very tempting and certainly reasonable” to connect Mikhailov’s and Stoyanov’s arrests to the U.S. government’s Russian hacking report. To us, the connection is that Mikhailov personally knew the Kremlin directive, and could provide the Americans with needed proof of that directive. We suspect Stoyanov likely made the necessary disclosures on behalf of Mikhailov in an attempt to evade detection by the FSB.
The probability that Mikhailov and his underling Dokuchayev were the source of leaks to American intelligence confirming Russian complicity in the hacks is very high. Stoyanov was a participant in the conspiracy to leak to the Americans. The Kommersant story alleging their receipt of funds from foreign companies was likely true as far as it went. American intelligence probably paid them for their information through a foreign corporate account.
Mikhailov Was the Source Relied Upon By the U.S. Government To Determine Russian Hacking Responsibility With “High Confidence”
It is a straight line from the arrests of Mikhailov and the others to the U.S. government hacking report conclusions. He, and they, were the human intelligence that allowed the U.S. intelligence community to conclude with “high confidence” that the Russian government hacked the DNC. As Mark Galeotti points out “I have long assumed there has to be some human resource for U.S. intelligence.” Further, “it was pretty obvious that [the U.S. government] had more than just the computer evidence. The arrests are a big deal.”
The Americans essentially confirmed Mikhailov’s complicity. On January 27, 2016 the New York Times made this clear. They reported that one former and one current U.S. official stated that human intelligence had played a major role in helping U.S. authorities conclude that the Russians were responsible for the hacks. This points directly back to Mikhailov.
The source for the Interfax CIA-story indicated that the charges included both treason and illegal hacking. Other reports indicate that only treason charges were made. Four people had been arrested with a total of eight identified as accomplices. The source indicated that the uncharged-four could be used as witnesses. A second alleged source described the conspiracy as follows:
Each of the suspects performed his own role. One person developed and deployed the cyberattacks, and another person collaborated with foreign intelligence agents. And these operations were parallel and, as a rule, they didn’t intersect. . . . And the main link in this chain wasn’t the person with the most senior position and rank.
Trump’s Post-Election Behavior Confirms Mikhailov Was the Source for U.S. Intelligence
So how do we get from the espionage by Sergei Mikhailov and friends to the conclusion that there is no illicit relationship between President Trump and the Russians?
Trump Initially Receives No Evidence of Russian Hacking
The timeline of events here is important and revealing. Recall that for an extended period both before and after the U.S. election, President Trump insisted that the Russian government was not involved in hacking of the DNC. Throughout most of the time prior to the election Trump had limited access to U.S. intelligence information. Beginning on November 15, 2016, he started receiving top secret briefings.
But we doubt that President Obama would have authorized a full briefing of Mr. Trump regarding the DNC hacking episode, particularly given repeated Democratic inferences of an incestuous and potentially illegal Trump-Russia relationship. The lure of these inferences creates powerful impressions and is hard to disabuse. The inferences are fabulous tools for Trump’s political adversaries. The inferences continue to this day.
We find it implausible that President Obama would have permitted communication to Donald Trump of anything material regarding the hacking matter, certainly not before the election. And likely not until President-elect Trump was on the verge of taking power.
Trump Gets Access to the Evidence in January
During the second week of January, 2017 President Trump suddenly changed his opinion of possible Russian complicity in the DNC hacking scandal. Shortly before his inauguration he recognized and acknowledged, without explanation, that the Russians were, indeed, responsible for hacking of the DNC email systems.
The two U.S. government reports regarding Russian hacking were both scant on details and evidence. We believe that the publicly available information contained in these two reports, at most, is all that Trump may have seen before he learned more in January, 2017.
As we now know, the conclusion in the published U.S. government reports was based on information received from human sources inside of Russia. Those sources included Mikhailov, who was arrested in mid-December. In January, President-elect Trump received full access to all of the information relied upon by U.S. intelligence. He thereupon learned that the source of the proof of Russian complicity was agents inside of the FSB. He can’t deny this, and publicly acknowledges Russian complicity right before his inauguration.
The Mikhailov Leak to U.S. Intelligence Proves That There’s No Illicit Relationship Between President Trump and the Russians
So let’s review what happened here and put it into context. The U.S. government under President Obama frantically wants proof of Russian complicity in the DNC email hacks. They had a highly-placed mole inside of the Russian FSB. Or, they had someone who at least in this instance was willing to play ball. That mole has intimate knowledge of, and direct access to, Russian cyber-espionage. The mole, Sergei Mikhailov, has also made many enemies in the Russian cyber-criminal community.
The Americans push, prod, or are otherwise able to entice Mikhailov to give up the proof of Kremlin complicity that they so desperately need. President Obama may have pressured American intelligence to get what they could before he left office. At the least he was politically motivated to demonstrate to the American public before he left office that the Russians “interfered” in the election. He would have fairly assumed that if he failed, President Trump would have little motive to follow through.
American Intelligence Was Highly Motivated To Uncover a Trump-Russia Relationship
But take this thinking to a level deeper. What would be a greater coup for anti-Trump political forces than actually demonstrating Russian hacking complicity? Proof of any connection between Donald Trump (or his associates) and either Putin or others within the Russian government. If American intelligence pushed Mikhailov to provide them with evidence of Russian complicity in the hacks, it is highly likely they also sought proof of something much more important. That more important thing would be evidence of a relationship between Trump and the Russians, evidence that would be explosive.
American intelligence agencies’ desire to uncover a Trump-Russian relationship would exist with or without political prompting. To the extent there was a view that Trump was compromised or worse, the intelligence agencies were highly motivated to uncover that information. They would presumably pay any price for this information. And this task would be easier to achieve if Mikhailov was simply a willing transmitter of information. If he would serve up Putin’s complicity, then what would prevent him from serving up Donald Trump?
Mikhailov Was the Perfect Tool to Help the Americans Uncover a Trump-Russian Relationship. He Had Access to Whatever Proof Existed
If there was an illicit relationship between President Trump and the Russians, it also seems highly likely, if not probable, that Sergei Mikhailov was perfectly positioned to know about it. He was also in a perfect position to prove it. If the Russian government or its intelligence operatives had contacts with Trump or any Trump associates, the FSB would have proof. Calls would have been recorded, photographs would have been taken, other cyber-evidence would exist. And all of this would be in the repository of the FSB. If Mikhailov was willing to give up Vladimir Putin to the Americans, it would be just as easy for him to give up Trump.
Would Mikhailov Reveal a Trump-Russia Relationship? Various Considerations
If there was a Trump-Russia relationship, what reasons might exist for Mikhailov not to give up Trump? Perhaps the Trump-Russia relationship was simply too sensitive, too important to the Russians in the context of Russia positioning itself for influence, if not more, over Trump. That could be possible. It is the single strongest reason for a continued investigation of a possible Trump-Russia relationship.
Reasons to Expose any Illicit Relationship Between President Trump and the Kremlin
But we consider that possibility within the context of several countervailing salient considerations. First, the Americans were undoubtedly seeking proof of a Trump relationship much earlier during the election cycle. All throughout that cycle Trump was a significant electoral underdog. The Russians may not have placed a high value on Trump, making it more likely that Mikhailov would be willing to give him up to the Americans. He would have then concluded that offering up Trump would not damage Russia.
Further, if the Russians had a “get Trump” program in place, it is likely that they utilized many intelligence resources to do so. Therefore, a tip-off by Mikhailov to the Americans would not likely result in Mikhailov exposing himself to his superiors. Said another way, there were likely many FSB agents involved in a get-Trump program, each of whom would be suspected in any disclosure to the Americans, providing cover to Mikhailov.
In addition, Mikhailov might have revealed a Trump-Russia relationship simply by providing kernels of information that would lead the Americans down a path. We recognize that this assumes a level of caution by Mikhailov that he obviously forswore when he leaked the Putin hacking directive. But Mikhailov’s Putin-leak seemingly occurred after the U.S. election. He likely concluded that there would be no material damage to the Russians as a result of his Putin-leak to the Americans. Therefore, he may have let his guard down. On the other hand he would easily conclude that a post-election disclosure of a Trump-Russia relationship could have lasting damage to Russia. If he played ball in that scenario, caution would clearly be the rule of the day. And, of course, the price for Trump-Russia information would be that much higher.
A Post-Election Scenario
And then there’s another post-election consideration. Mikhailov might have been willing to tip off the Americans to an illicit relationship between President Trump and the Russians in order to hurt the Americans. A revelation of this sort would throw the United States into a constitutional and geopolitical crisis. That information, as we know, would be so damaging to the United States that, perhaps, American intelligence might not want to know it. But we doubt that.
Could There be An Undisclosed Relationship Between Trump Associates and the Russians?
Let’s go one further step and assume that there was no Trump-Russian relationship and no Russian covert attempt to ensnare Trump. What about possible connections between associates of Trump (either within the Trump campaign or otherwise) and the Russians?
American Intelligence Leaks About Communications Between Trump Associates and Russian Intelligence
The New York Times reported on February 14, 2017 what we believe was true. American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted communications between “members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign” as well as “other associates of Mr. Trump” and “senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.” The Times recited that “on the Russian side, the contacts also included members of the government outside of the intelligence services.” These American intercepts occurred “around the same time” the agencies were developing evidence of Russian hacking.
In addition to “call logs and intercepted communications” the FBI “has obtained banking and travel records and conducted interviews,” according to these “American officials.”
The “American Officials” Confirm That There’s No Evidence of a Relationship Between Trumps Team and Russian Intelligence
The Times reported that “the intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.” The information leaked by the “American officials” contains snippets of information and related inferences. But they provided only one conclusion in their leaks. And it is a critical one. As the Times reported, “the officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen “no evidence” of cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
Given that simple conclusion, we wonder why these “American officials” leaked to the Times in the first place. But let’s look a little further.
These Leaks Were Noteworthy For What They Failed to Include – General Thoughts
The Times’ report is interesting not for what its sources disclosed. Rather, it is interesting because of what is missing if there was a real Trump-Russia trail. The Times’ sources for the story were “four current and former American officials.” And “all of the . . . [these] officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the continuing investigation is classified.” We find this entire leak to be curious indeed. There is nothing of substance in this leak. Contacts allegedly occurred. But there is “no evidence” of cooperation. And it’s not for lack of trying by the FBI.
Did the Trump campaign have contacts with foreign nationals from any other country on earth? We raise that point in all seriousness, as we suspect that all major presidential campaigns have contacts with foreign nationals, and representatives of foreign governments, on a regular basis during the term of the campaign. So what is there in any of these conversations with Russians that suggests or demonstrates an illicit relationship?
Why would any “American officials” (presumably in or from the intelligence agencies) leak a story with so little in it? Why would they do so given that the investigation is “continuing” and is “classified?” Do these “American officials” have their own agenda for providing the Times with very small kernels of information containing nothing of consequence?
THESE LEAKS WERE NOTEWORTHY FOR WHAT THEY FAILED TO INCLUDE – Detailed THOUGHTS
Now, let’s pick through what is not in this leak.
Only Paul Manafort Was Identified – And That Was Already Known
The sources indicated, in the words of the Times’ reporters, that “one of the [Trump] advisers picked up on the calls was Paul Manafort,” the former Trump campaign chairman. Yet, the sources “declined to identify the other Trump associates on the call.” Dropping Manafort’s name was easy. It’s a familiar one that would make headlines and allow political inferences to be drawn. But not one other name from the sources?1
Trump Associates Would Not Have Known They Were Speaking With Russian Intelligence
The leaks from these “American officials” ignore a rather obvious series of considerations. Did the Trump-side participants know they were speaking with “senior Russian intelligence officials?” Even the Times’ reporters pointed out that “it is not unusual for American businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly. . .”
Did those senior Russian intelligence officials identify themselves as such anytime during any of those communications? Has American intelligence been able to show that any one on the Trump-side in any of those communications in any way acknowledged the identify of the person to whom they were speaking?
Isn’t it implausible that “senior Russian intelligence officials” identify themselves as spies when attempting to infiltrate an American political campaign? Isn’t it far more likely that the Trump-side had no idea that they were speaking with “senior Russian intelligence officials?” We suggest that it is just as likely, if not highly probable, that the Russians would surreptitiously attempt to infiltrate Trump’s circles for rather obvious reasons.
Nothing From Banking and Other Records
The Times’ story indicates that the FBI “has obtained banking and travel records and conducted interviews.” Yet, there was no mention by the “American officials” as to the substance revealed by this activity. Do travel records indicate or suggest actual physical meetings between anyone on the Trump side and Russian intelligence? That information, if it existed, would be a major development.
The Times noted that “the [American] officials would not disclose many details, including what was discussed on the calls, the identity of the Russian intelligence officials who participated, and how many of Mr. Trump’s advisers were talking to the Russians. It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Mr. Trump himself.”
So these “American officials” provided nothing other than the one and only conclusion that they offered. And that conclusion? “They have seen no evidence of . . . cooperation” between anyone on Trump’s team and the Russians.
Mikhailov Would Have Revealed a “Trump Associates”-Russia Connection if It Existed
In our view the “value” to the Russians of any connections between them and more attenuated Trump associates is significantly less than the value of a direct Trump-Russia connection. For Mikhailov, giving proof to the Americans of any such Trump associates-Russia relationship would also not be difficult. And the exposure to the Americans of this type of relationship would likely be no less risky to Mikhailov than fingering Putin.
If a material or meaningful relationship existing between Russian intelligence and persons surrounding Donald Trump then Mikhailov would know it. American intelligence assuredly would have pressed Mikhailov and associates for any proof. And Mikhailov would have had little reason not to provide it.
U.S. Intelligence Would Have Recorded Any Unsecured Calls Between Trump and the Russians
Now let’s also look at all of this from the side of American intelligence. As the Michael Flynn affair makes evident, American intelligence records all unsecured Russian communications, at least inside of the U.S. For that matter, American intelligence may also have the capability to record secure conversations. But not to trifle. And, of course, they could have sought and secured FISA warrants on particular American citizens of interest.
We now know with certainty that American intelligence recorded calls made by Flynn to the Russian ambassador over unsecured lines. It’s safe to conclude similarly that calls made by Donald Trump and/or Trump associates over unsecured lines to Russian intelligence or Russian government officials, if any, were also recorded by U.S. intelligence. Who would doubt that now?
If calls occurred from the Trump side to the Russians, U.S. intelligence would already have leaked evidence of those calls. Again, who would doubt that now? Further, any type of evidence implicating President Trump or his associates with the Russians, would have been leaked by now. Perhaps Flynn’s leakers thought they were doing the right thing. If so, then they would leak on President Trump for the same reason. Perhaps Flynn’s leakers believed they were exposing criminal conduct by Flynn (Flynn’s conduct was not as we analyzed here). If so, then for the same reason they would have leaked on President Trump by now.
An Illicit Relationship Between President Trump and the Russians? A Political Consideration
There are aspects of this entire situation that are disturbing on many levels. But we focus on one more. When U.S. intelligence leaked to the New York Times that its Russia hacking report relied on human intelligence, they were effectively exposing Mikhailov and associates to great risk. As we now see, in fact, Mikhailov and friends face treason charges, and their lives may be in serious jeopardy.
Certainly U.S. intelligence realized that they were putting Mikhailov in danger. And that’s no small matter. The fact that he played with the Americans at all suggests he was a major U.S. intelligence asset. This is true even if the U.S. had co-opted Mikhailov only on the Putin matter. Yet U.S. intelligence nevertheless risked losing that asset. It did so in order to be sure of its analysis. It also took the risk because it needed verifiable proof of Russian complicity.
Who would authorize them to do this? Certainly, we suggest, the highest levels of U.S. intelligence made that decision. And, we would also suggest, it implies that the President himself may have green-lighted assuming this risk. If that is the case, and we believe it is a reasonable assumption, then domestic political considerations were the primary, if not sole, driver of this entire affair.
That, we suggest, is in the worst tradition of American politics and American governance. And we end with one final consideration. If the President was willing to authorize (tacitly or otherwise) these types of actions, then it is certainly conceivable that attempts by elements within U.S. intelligence to compromise Donald Trump were also authorized and, thus, politically motivated.
Is there an illicit relationship between President Trump and the Russian government? We seriously doubt it. In fact, there is no evidence in a public record full of intelligence leaks to suggest it.
Our Editorial Acknowledgment
We recognize that we are drawing numerous lines throughout this piece. We lack access to U.S. intelligence sources to confirm, or refute, the many assumptions in this article. That is for others to pursue. Our purpose here is simply to suspend disbelief and put on our thinking caps. We should all consider what these events are signaling and where they might lead.
We intend this as an apolitical analysis. One neither need support or oppose President Trump to be very concerned about these events. It matters not whether the President in this instance is Democrat or Republican. American political reports and political analyses regularly focus on alleged corruption within the highest office in the land. In that context, critical thinking must begin somewhere. We owe it to ourselves. And we owe it to our country.
Footnotes
- We note that the Times reporters stated that the FBI has “closely examined three other people close to Mr. Trump, although it is unclear if their calls were intercepted.” To us, this implies the Times relied on other sources for this detail regarding the FBI. And further, these other people are “Carter Page, a businessman and former olicy adviser to the campaign; Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative; and [Michael] Flynn.”
