Trump Colluded With Russia—Here’s Proof

The excellent words below are not mine. They belong to attorney, author, and professor Seth Abramson. A few days ago he wrote a compelling Twitter thread explaining how we know that Trump has colluded with Russia. I asked for and received permission to republish that thread here, in longform, in order to expand its audience, with only a small amount of copy editing (you can read the original Twitter thread here). Members of the right—including moderates—are pushing the idea that even if there IS a Russia thing, we have no proof that Trump knew about any of it. That is untrue. Read on. 

Trump and Russia: Making the Case

By Seth Abramson/ed. Evelyn Stice

We DO have PROOF Trump and Russia colluded. This post PROVIDES it. Please read and SHARE so we can end the no-collusion canard.

What Is Collusion?

In counter-intelligence, the term “coordination” is used to describe what laypeople now discuss as “collusion,” so I use that term here. The Washington Post reports the FBI is investigating whether “coordination” was achieved between Trump and Russia via financial crimes. The assumption of this Washington Post report is that if Trump received Russian money during the campaign, he “coordinated” with Russia. This link to the WP confirms financial coordination would be “collusion.”

That is NOT what this post is about. I link to the WP to establish that transfers of money between Trump and Russia during the campaign would be considered “coordination.” The reason Trump-Russia money transfers in the campaign constitute “coordination” (“collusion”) is because Russia was at war with us. Homeland Security experts agree that cyberwar is a modern form of war, and in 2016 Russia unilaterally waged war on the United States.

What Trump Knew and When

The case for Trump-Russia coordination is very easy to make—it begins with when Trump learned Russia was waging cyberwar on America. We know that, at the latest, Trump himself learned that Russia was at war with the United States during the last week of July 2016. On July 26, 2016, in a major national news story, NBC reported “Experts Are Sure Russia Hacked” U.S. systems. (You’ll note the difference between the Twitter headline and the actual headline; click on the link to see, “Experts Are Sure …”)

We know Trump read NBC’s report because the very next day he gave a nationally televised press conference on the very same subject. In his big press conference, Trump said Russia “probably” had engaged in cyber-war against the United States. (As you see from the headline of this HuffPo article, Trump went further and said he also hoped it was true Russia was cyber-attacking America.) Trump’s admission (a) he believed Russia was at cyberwar with America, and (b) “hoped” it was, shocked the American political system. It’s easy—in hindsight—to forget Trump’s July 27, 2016 pronouncement was not just national news but considered infamously historic.

But equally important was that the Trump campaign was well aware how big a problem Trump’s statement was—which [we] know in two ways. First, and most importantly, that was the last major press conference Trump gave during the course of the 2016 presidential election. Consider that: a man whose attorneys, friends, family and staff can’t get him to shut up on Twitter stopped giving press conferences. And he stopped giving press conferences at a time he needed to give them to get attention and media wanted to give him attention. The second remarkable thing Trump did was that he publicly reversed course shortly thereafter. As we know, Trump hates to do this. Trump saying Russia “probably” was hacking U.S. systems meant (legally and otherwise) that he believed it to be “more likely than not.” After Trump and/or his aides pulled him from all future press conferences, he suddenly began to express doubt about Russian hacking. Suddenly Trump’s position—even as the intelligence community became more and more certain in its assessment—was that anyone could’ve done the hacking. But America never forgot his “probably” or “I hope” and disbelieved that Trump would then become less sure as the intelligence community became more.

If you’re reading this, I hope you will agree that all I’ve done here so far is relate American history as it happened. No conjectures.

Sessions and Flynn and Sanctions

Another mere fact is this one: Attorney General Jeff Sessions testified under oath that he discussed sanctions with Sergey Kislyak in September 2016. Sessions also made clear—under oath—that he didn’t discuss hacking with Kislyak at that meeting. He only discussed sanctions with him. So for instance, we could NOT say that Sessions was negotiating with Kislyak to drop sanctions if Russia stopped hacking America. No—what we know, from Sessions, is he engaged in negotiations over the dropping of sanctions against Russia with no such preconditions.

To review: July 27, Trump accepts Russia is likely at war with America; weeks later he lets Sessions talk sanctions (no preconditions). Note that Sessions, in hours of testimony, couldn’t remember a single key detail about his three meetings with Kislyak. Except one. The one detail Sessions chose to recall on Kislyak—and repeated in both testimonies—is the September meeting was “contentious.” Why did Sessions go to such extraordinary lengths—even contradicting his own “meeting amnesia”—to establish the tone of one meeting?

Here—for the first time in the post—I move from  fact to the sort of circumstantial evidence the FBI uses in criminal cases daily.

The reflexivity shown by Trump and Sessions on two issues—Russian hacking and the September meeting—suggest a consciousness of guilt. It’s shocking that weeks after Trump admitted Russia was at war with us he let his top foreign policy aide negotiate sanctions. So: a) Trump would want us to think he doubted Russian hacking, b) Sessions would want his September meeting to seem contentious. Fortunately for Trump, he kept repeating so often that he doubted the intelligence community analysis on hacking that we forgot he first accepted it. Fortunately for Sessions, he broke protocol by taking no notes, then not reporting his meeting, then committing multiple perjuries. So investigators must determine what Trump and Russia negotiated with respect to sanctions by some other means. And—good news—they can.

FBI investigators now know Trump’s transition was engaged in ongoing sanctions negotiation with Russia and committed felonies to hide it. Mike Flynn risked more than a decade in prison to try to hide from the federal government that Team Trump was negotiating sanctions. And Trump risked aiding and abetting Flynn by not firing him for weeks. Why? To keep Flynn on his side—to keep him from squawking. Even in (finally) firing him, Trump a) underscored that Flynn was a “good man” and b) wouldn’t say he fired him over lies to the FBI.

FBI investigators also know Trump planned to—as one of his first acts in office—drop all sanctions on Russia. Trump’s plan to drop sanctions was—yet again—without preconditions and at a time our intelligence community confirmed unilateral Russian aggression. Indeed, Trump’s plan to drop sanctions without preconditions was at a time Russia’s behavior toward the United States had worsened. Trump’s plan to drop sanctions on Russia without preconditions constitutes a transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars to Russia. To transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to an enemy currently waging war upon you—without preconditions—constitutes coordination. And all the evidence we have right now underscores Trump was negotiating dropping sanctions during the campaign and the transition. And Trump’s own televised statements—plus his later attempts to cover them up—confirm he knew Russia was waging war upon America.

The media may assume that collusion only occurs when money flows from Russia to Trump—the FBI makes no such mistake, be sure of it.

Trump used his top national security/foreign policy aides—Sessions and Flynn—to negotiate dropping sanctions on Russia without preconditions in a time of war. The FBI does not need proof that the Russians paid Trump, because it already has proof Trump made long-term plans to pay Russia. The FBI doesn’t need proof Team Trump gave intel to the Russians, as Trump merely needed to know what Russia was doing. And he did. During the campaign and transition Trump plotted with Sessions and Flynn to provide material aid and comfort to an active US adversary. That that illegal aid and comfort was contingent upon Trump being president didn’t even need to be said, because it was self-evident. The moment Sessions and Flynn confirmed they negotiated dropping sanctions in a “hot” cyberwar—without preconditions—we had collusion. There’s no doubt whatsoever that Trump, Sessions, and Flynn thereby offered inducements to Russian hacking as it was happening to us.

Additional Evidence

Note—the evidence I’ve presented thus far is only a fraction of the evidence the FBI has on this issue. I’ll let you in on some more. Public reports from late July 2016—when Trump was learning about Russian cyberwar on America—confirm many steps taken on sanctions.

The next paragraph is based on widespread—even ubiquitous—national news reports from July 2016. Feel free to Google.

At the RNC, Trump’s #2 foreign policy aide—J.D. Gordon—negotiated sanctions with the Russians then lied to the national press about it. Prior to Gordon’s lie, Trump’s Campaign Manager—Paul Manafort—lied to the national press about whether Trump was negotiating sanctions. In his first Congressional testimony, Trump’s top foreign policy aide—Sessions—perjured to hide that he too met with Russia at the RNC. The fact Sessions had already discussed sanctions with Kislyak in late July belies his claim their September meeting was contentious. The FBI couldn’t fail to miss this M.O.—Trump’s top national security/foreign policy aides lie to Americans, Congress, and the FBI on sanctions. Moreover the FBI knows a) all negotiations lacked preconditions, and b) all negotiations occurred when Trump knew about Russia hacking.

So Why Doesn’t Everyone Realize This?

Republicans have used disinformation to convince the media and its viewers that coordination/collusion requires “hacking assistance.” Republicans also use disinformation to convince the media and its viewers that coordination/collusion requires Russia paying Trump. The FBI is investigating hacking assistance—how did Russian bots micro-target competitive U.S. districts?—but they needn’t find it. The FBI is investigating Russian payments to Trump associates via money laundering—per The Washington Post—but they needn’t find it.

And what the FBI certainly doesn’t need to find is the Dick Tracy-like “smoking gun” the GOP is, like mob-movie fanboys, demanding. Criminal investigators—and I was one—know the coordination most likely to work, and stay hidden, is the simplest sort of collusion. If media wants to keep saying “no evidence of collusion yet!” it needs to educate itself on what international collusion can look like. Instead they rely on quotes from pols—but of course pols will wait for a smoking gun that’ll convince everyone. Why shouldn’t they? As long as the possibility of a Dick Tracy-like “smoking gun” remains out there—and it very much does—pols can stay “mum” on collusion.

But journos and social media users should say clearly and unambiguously that we have evidence of collusion and now seek even more. And if the media would start researching coordination via sanctions we might get lots of new information we don’t already have.

The Takeaway

So the next time someone says to you, “There’s been a year of investigation and no proof of any collusion!” you should simply say this: “We have REAMS of evidence Trump’s team committed MULTIPLE CRIMES to give Russia sanctions relief in exchange for continued cyber-war.” Then go further: “EVERY REVELATION in the Russia probe—on Sessions, Flynn, Manafort and Trump—CONFIRMS collusion via sanctions relief.”

When those of us who don’t want to see America run by an autocrat concede the collusion question to friends and family, America loses. So fight for your country by telling anyone who’ll listen that we know Trump colluded with Russia. And show them this post.

Note on Cyberwarfare

This post uses “war” to mean “cyberwarfare.” The analyses here presume only a known hostile actor—not a formal declaration of war. A US person/entity materially aiding/abetting a hostile foreign actor engaged in cyberwarfare against America is coordinating by law. Pre-election assurances the US would drop sanctions on Russia—without conditions—at a time America was under cyber-attack are illegal. All that’s needed is for a person to know the future transfer of billions they’re promising is to a foreign power engaged in cyberwar. The evidence we have now—from public reports, Congressional testimony and Trump’s own statements—confirms all elements of collusion.

Quick Review and Further Reading

Trump to Russia: Hack Clinton, and Also Let’s Talk Sanctions

Many videos—like this BBC one—cut off Trump’s next eight words: “Let’s see if that happens—that’ll be next.” In fact, “next” was Trump’s top foreign policy aide secretly discussing dropping Russian sanctions—without conditions—with Kislyak.

Trump’s Silence on Hacking: Why?

All this underscores why Trump continues denying Russian hacking. His knowledge of it is key to collusion.

But We Actually Knew This Months Ago

Please don’t forget what U.S. media was saying after Trump urged Russia to cyber-attack the United States.

Trump Knew … Of Course He Did

As early as 7/25—weeks before Sessions talked sanctions with Kislyak—Trump knew the FBI’s Russia assessment. When did Trump start getting regular security briefings? Early August—before the Sessions/Kislyak meeting.

Even Sessions’ excuse AFTER he was caught on perjury over Kislyak was a lie. Sanctions ARE campaign-related. By his second sworn testimony before Congress, Sessions had shifted 180˚, from “no campaign-related talk” to “we discussed sanctions.” Trump’s claims about what he believed—and when—are immaterial. The FBI will interview witnesses and look at circumstantial evidence. The good news is, Trump’s critics are just starting to get clued into the fact they should be asking about the Summer 2016 timeline.

In conclusion: On September 1, the Trump campaign COULD NOT OFFER Russia conditions-free sanctions relief WITHOUT it being collusion.

 

Follow, like, or share: