 |
| US Attorney David Weiss |
The indictment clears up the ambiguity, and is really quite disturbing. The indictment also follows the usual, and faintly absurd, federal practice of not naming anyone other than the defendant. It does refer to the Obama-Biden Administration, but always refers to Joe Biden as "Public Official 1" and his son, Hunter as "Business Person 1" as if we didn't know perfectly well who he was referring to.
The informant is international businessman Alexander Smirnov. No photograph available so far; all the pictures I have found are of a figure skater by the same name. Smirnov, of course, is a Russian name, and the fact that he spells it Smirnov instead of Smirnoff is a strong indication that he is a first or second generation Russian-American, not one whose ancestors moved here in the 19th century. That he spells his first name Alexander instead of Aleksandr may be an indication that he was born in the US, although he may have anglicized his name as well. Another indication that Smirnov is an American of recent vintage -- he speaks Russian, an obvious advantage doing business in Eastern Europe.
Smirnov has apparently been an FBI confidential source since 2010 (indictment, paragraph 4). He has also been authorized to engage in illegal activity for purposes of investigation on several (possibly five) occasions (paragraph 5). The indictment clears up the somewhat ambiguous paragraph in the 2020 report, saying that Smirnov "reported the foregoing," but also that he "briefly discussed" Hunter Biden in a manner that was "not relevant" to the main subject. The essence of the report was that Burisma was seeking to acquire a US petroleum business and might have overstated the value of its assets. It is not clear what the report said about Hunter Biden, other than that he was on the Burisma board of directors (paragraph 7). The indictment outlines Smirnov's activities with Burisma during 2017 and 2018 (all after Trump had become President), which appeared to be an unsuccessful attempt to interest them in US cryptocurrency. There were US associates involved who did not speak Russian and therefore did not understand all the meetings. (The indictment does not directly say that Smirnov knew Russian, but that is certainly implied). The details are rather dull, but make the point that Smirnov's dealing with Burisma began in 2017 (i.e., after Biden left office), they were completely unremarkable, and had nothing to do with Hunter Biden (paragraphs 30-31). The association appears to have ended in 2018, after Burisma officials said they were not interested in cryptocurrency.
That was the last Smirnov's handler heard about Burisma until May 19, 2020. That was after the first impeachment had failed and after Biden's pressure to fire Shokin had been thoroughly examined and determined to be backed by a broad bipartisan and international range of actors, and after Biden was clearly on track to be the Democratic nominee. An article came out in the Washington Post in which a pro-Russian Ukrainian lawmaker released "edited fragments" of Biden's conversations about firing Shokin. While the tapes showed Biden linking loan guarantees to firing Shokin, the Post was clearly skeptical, saying that the tapes "shed relatively little new light on Biden’s actions" and were used to make "an array of accusations not proven by the tapes." The Post also commented that the tapes contained no mention whatever of Hunter or Burisma.
Trump fans saw the tapes in a different light. Donald Trump, Jr. posted, “Yikes!!!! This is not a ‘perfect conversation.’” Smirnov saw the tapes as clear proof that Biden had been bribed and texted as much to his FBI handler. (Texts included in the indictment, paragraphs 8-21). The handler was skeptical, saying that his accounts showed no link between firing Shokin and Burisma (paragraph 12). He asked whether Smirnov was claiming "bride (sic) payment" to Biden or the aid withheld (paragraph 13). Smirnov texted back that he would find "those other recordings" of Hunter telling "Boriama (sic)" that his dad would take care of Shokin, and a bribe to Joe and Hunter Biden (paragraph 15). The handler answered "That would be a game changer." (paragraph 16). Two days later, Smirnov offered what he claimed to be the evidence -- a photograph purporting to be Joe and Hunter Biden with Zlochevsky, all apparently holding golf clubs (paragraph 21). The indictment said the picture was not what it purported to be. The faces are blacked out, so there is no way to tell from the indictment.
That should have been it. Smirnov was showing clear signs of paranoia and reporting plots without evidence. But at least he was attempting to chase real leads. Next comes the truly disturbing part. The Western District of Pennsylvania had been tasked with investigating information "from the public" about Ukraine (paragraph 22). As a practical matter "the public" largely referred to Rudy Giuliani, who was combing Ukraine for information, generally of a most dubious nature, that could be used to harm Biden's campaign. What are we to make of the decision to investigate? It is hard to say. Recall that Republicans' general response to "Operation Crossfire Hurricane," the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia was to say that Trump was running for President for the opposition party and therefore should be exempt from any investigation whatever. No less an authority than John Durham, the special counsel tasked to investigate the investigation of Trump, refuted that view in his Report (page 54). Durham confirmed that the FBI investigation began with a report from the Australian ambassador to Britain, saying that a suspected Russian agent had reached out to one of Trump's advisors with an offer of dirt on Hillary Clinton. "As an initial matter, there is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to closely examine the . . . information." Durham did criticize the FBI for opening a full investigation, rather than an assessment or preliminary investigation
Well, if what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, then I suppose the FBI had an obligation to do at least an assessment of the felgercarb Giuliani was sending them. Again, Trump supporters generally agree that when Christopher Steele presented his memos, the FBI should have covered its eyes and run screaming from the room upon learning that it came from Trump's political rivals. Rudy Giuliani was Trump's personal lawyer and certainly wanted to promote his candidacy against Biden. But if working for a political rival did not automatically disqualify information from Steele, then I suppose it would not automatically disqualify information from Giuliani. And I suppose it made at least some degree of sense to task just one office with sorting through Giuliani's felgercarb so as not to waste anyone else's time.
This was public knowledge for those inclined to care well before news of Smirnov's report broke. My initial thought at the time was that it was at least one point in favor of the report that it did not originate with Giuliani, but was independently provided by a long-time informant. Not quite. It appears that the Western District of Pennsylvania was not just passively accepting felgercarb from Giuliani. It was also combing through old files for anything that might relate to Joe or Hunter Biden in Ukraine. In the course of its investigation, the Pittsburg FBI ran across Smirnov's old 2017 report and noticed that it contained a brief, non-relevant mention of Hunter Biden serving on the Burisma board of directors. The FBI reported that finding to the US Attorney, who directed Smirnov's handler to talk to him and learn more (paragraph 23). In other words, the Pittsburg FBI and US Attorney's officer were not just investigating any rumors, however implausible, that came their way. They were actually seeking to scrounge up information on Hunter from their files. In other words, the "deep state" was being employed to do opposition research. Let people alarmed by "weaponization of government" take note.
Smirnov's handler called him on June 26, 2020 and Smirnov gave his extraordinary report, alleging for the first time that Zlochevsky had told him that he paid Joe and Hunter Biden each a $5 million bribe to remove Shokin as prosecutor, and that the money was laundered so well that it would take ten years to trace (paragraphs 24-26). The indictment does not say so, but it seems a safe assumption that the handler was skeptical. This was a man, after all, who had been an informant for ten years, suddenly coming forward and alleging four reports of highly criminal behavior by the Bidens, in conversations that supposedly took place in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2019 that he was only now coming forward to report. In fact, just a month earlier, Smirnov had made clear that he believed these stories, but did not claim any personal knowledge, only that he would find the tapes to prove it.
The indictment set forth at least seven "routine business contacts" between Smirnov and Burisma, all during 2017 and 2018, which Smirnov presumably duly reported to his handler (paragraph 31). The only mention of Hunter Biden in these contacts was that in the "spring of 2017," Smirnov sent a link of the Burisma board of directors to an American cryptocurrency businessman who he (Smirnov) wanted to introduce to Burisma. Smirnov pointed to Hunter's place on the board as evidence that Burisma was someone his colleague could do business with (paragraph 30). Presumably the source for this was an e-mail the FBI retrieved, although it might also be an interview with the associate. Either way, given that the only mention of Hunter in the reports was a "brief, non-relevant" discussion on March 1, 2017, it seems likely that the "brief, non-relevant" discussion was the use of Hunter's role on the board of directors to reassure Smirnov's associate.
Skeptical though he may have been, the handler asked Smirnov for his travel records (paragraph 39). The indictment goes into painstaking detail about how Smirnov's alleged contacts with Burisma were contradicted by his travel records (paragraphs 27-29, 32-34, 36). Presumably the travel details disproved Smirnov's allegations when he handler requested them in 2020 as well. However, the indictment does not go into that. It simply says that the FBI closed the case in August, 2020. Obviously, no charges were brought. As someone who knows nothing whatever about how the FBI handles confidential sources, I have no idea whether charges were warranted at the time. One would think, however, that such a blatant lie would at be grounds for firing. It appears, however, that Smirnov was not fired at the time. The indictment lists him as continuing to be an informant up through 2021, 2022 and 2023.
The indictment does not say what happened after the case was closed. Instead it jumps directly from closing the case in August, 2020 and reopening it in July, 2023. This apparently happened right after Republicans in Contress released the report (paragraph 43). The FBI's first action was to interview the handler, in August. The handler confirmed that he spoke to Smirnov after Republicans released the report, and that Smirnov stood by his story (paragraph 43). The handler also showed the FBI Smirnov's travel records and e-mails to associates, which clearly contradicted what Smirnov had said (paragraph 44). It surpasses belief that the handler had not figured that out. Most likely, the handler closed the assessment because it did not check out, but kept Smirnov as an informant. The FBI then interviewed Smirnov, who stood by his story (paragraphs 45-46). When confronted with contradictory travel records and e-mails, he became slippery and changes his story several times (paragraphs 47-50).
Smirnov also said that Hunter had stayed at the Premier Palace Hotel in Kiev, that the hotel was wired by the Russians, and that they had incriminating evidence on him. He said that this information came from four high-ranking Russian officials (paragraph 51-53). The FBI knew that Smirnov was either lying or a useful idiot, because Hunter Biden had never been to Ukraine and only attended Burisma board meetings in other countries (paragraph 53).
Aside from its painstaking detail about how Smirnov's story was contradicted by his travel records, the indictment also takes pains to point out that Smirnov made some remarkable changes in his story in just one month. After all, in May, 2020, Smirnov was confident that the recordings being released of Biden's phone conversations proved that he had been bribed and pledged that he would find the complete recordings. But he never said that he had any inside information about the Bidens being bribed (paragraph 37). Obviously that would have been highly relevant information! Yet a month later, when approached, Smirnov made all sorts of sensational allegations that he had never seen fit to mention before.
And here is where the temptation of paranoia becomes strong. Because it is hard to escape the conclusion that during that one-month interval something persuaded Smirnov to stop searching for evidence and start fabricating it. And if that is so, then something sounds very much like a euphemism for someone.
No comments:
Post a Comment