Daily Archives: July 25, 2017

It is always an important moment the first time in a scandal when we get to hear from the scandals subjects not the allegations against them but their responses to those allegations, not the obligatory comments, no-comments, or denials in the story itself but the subjects own version of the story. These moments are particularly clarifying when that story comes not in the form of some impulsive reaction say, an angry presidential tweet but instead as a carefully prepared presentation, one put together by competent counsel based on an extensive review of the record available to the subject. Such a presentation can be particularly useful when criminal consequences will attach to any knowing lies within it; this can happen either because the subject gives the statement under oath or because he or she gives it under circumstances in which false statements are otherwise barred by federal law.

In such situations, and Jared Kushers statement on Monday presents one such situation, we can with reasonable confidence make a few working, though always rebuttable, presumptions:

These are the presumptions with which the careful reader should peruse Kushners 11-page statement given today to congressional committees. The document reflects his lawyers review of a large volume of emails, phone records, calendar entries, and other documents available to them. It also reflects his memory. It is carefully prepared. And he could face prosecution if any of it is knowingly and intentionally false on a material point.

Kushners statement responds more confidently and convincingly on some allegations than on others. And in at least one major area, the statement maintains a conspicuous silence. Given that Kushners discussions with the committee on Monday, and others today, were closed, we do not know whether it held up well under questioning. But based on the document alone, here are seven observations about Kushners conduct we think are safe to tentatively advance at this stage.

The first notable feature of the document is that Kushner released it at all. Lawyers who believe their clients have potentially serious criminal exposure generally do not let them make public statements to congressional committees, particularly not public statements rife with firm factual claims the record may come to contradict. The very existence of this statement, in other words, is itself a show of confidence to some degree that Kusher whatever problems he might have is not in the sort of legal jeopardy which counsels silence. That he was apparently willing to answer questions about these matters from the Senate Intelligence Committee on Monday and the House Intelligence Committee today without asserting his Fifth Amendment rights further suggests his attorneys feel relatively good about their legal position.

Second, Kushner shows particular confidence on matters related to his meetings with Russians during the campaign. He describes what purports to be all of his contacts, certain or possible, with Russian government officials, and disputes some alleged contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak reported by Reuters. He treats all of the contacts as trivial, incidental interactions. As he will be in rather grave potential jeopardy if any evidence of more serious interactions emerges, its probably reasonable to expect that he and his lawyers are fairly certain that no more serious interactions will come to light. Notably, Kushner only disavows other contacts or any collusion with a narrow category of individuals those who were or seemed like they might be representatives of the Russian government. The statement thus leaves some ambiguity about contacts with figures whom a reasonable person in Kushners position might be understand as cutouts.

Third, to minimize his own contacts with Russian government representatives, Kushner rather casually throws his brother-in-law Donald Trump Jr. under the bus on the subject of the now-infamous meeting at Trump Tower with the Russian lawyer peddling dirt on Hillary Clinton on behalf of the Russian government. In Kushners version of the story, he arrived late and left early thereby conveniently missing all of the untoward stuff about the dirt; he didnt read the relevant emails, nor the subject line; and when his lawyers discovered the matter, he disclosed it:

I arrived at the meeting a little late. When I got there, the person who has since been identified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time was not well-spent at this meeting. Reviewing emails recently confirmed my memory that the meeting was a waste of our time and that, in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work, I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting. I had not met the attorney before the meeting nor spoken with her since. I thought nothing more of this short meeting until it came to my attention recently. I did not read or recall this email exchange before it was shown to me by my lawyers when reviewing documents for submission to the committees. No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names), and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted. Finally, after seeing the email, I disclosed this meeting prior to it being reported in the press on a supplement to my security clearance form, even if that was not required as meeting the definitions of the form.

This strategy of exculpating himself at the expense of his fellows shows up also, albeit in a softer way, during his discussion of his transition contacts with Russian actors. In his account of the December 1 meeting with Kislyak and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn at Trump Tower, he writes that:

[A]fter pleasantries were exchanged, as I had done in many of the meetings I had and would have with foreign officials, I stated our desire for a fresh start in relations. Also, as I had done in other meetings with foreign officials, I asked Ambassador Kislyak if he would identify the best person (whether the ambassador or someone else) with whom to have direct discussions and who had contact with his President. The fact that I was asking about ways to start a dialogue after Election Day should of course be viewed as strong evidence that I was not aware of one that existed before Election Day [emphasis in original].

Note here that in the bolded passage, Kushner is not denying that a relationship existed before Election Day. He is merely contending that there is strong evidence that he was not aware of any relationship that existed before Election Day. He makes a similar move right at the end of the statement, where he declares that I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. This is Kushners code for saying that he knows he did nothing wrong but cannot and will not vouch for anyone else. A reasonable reader should conclude that these statements might be stronger were Kusher more confident of the behavior of his fellows.

Fourth, Kushners account of the back-channel communications system he proposed to Kislyak during the campaign is more damaging to himself. But again, the fact that hes willing to talk about it suggests that he does not fear criminal charges related to the subject. And, indeed, his explanation is at least a little bit less bizarre than the news stories that suggested he had proposed a secret ongoing line of communications to get around U.S. intelligence. In Kushners telling:

The Ambassador expressed similar sentiments about relations, and then said he especially wanted to address U.S. policy in Syria, and that he wanted to convey information from what he called his generals. He said he wanted to provide information that would help inform the new administration. He said the generals could not easily come to the U.S. to convey this information and he asked if there was a secure line in the transition office to conduct a conversation. General Flynn or I explained that there were no such lines. I believed developing a thoughtful approach on Syria was a very high priority given the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and I asked if they had an existing communications channel at his embassy we could use where they would be comfortable transmitting the information they wanted to relay to General Flynn. The Ambassador said that would not be possible and so we all agreed that we would receive this information after the Inauguration. Nothing else occurred. I did not suggest a secret back channel. I did not suggest an on-going secret form of communication for then or for when the administration took office. I did not raise the possibility of using the embassy or any other Russian facility for any purpose other than this one possible conversation in the transition period. We did not discuss sanctions.

To be clear, Kushner is admitting here a gross impropriety. The right approach in this situation would have been to call the State Department and ask how to handle a sensitive communication from Russian generals who couldnt travel to the United States. Proposing the solution he advanced here could not have been better calculated to raise the hairs on the necks of FBI counterintelligence investigators.

Nor does Kushers statement address the substantive concerns about his being willing to have such talks at all during the transition period. For the relevant period, President Barack Obama was still the commander-in-chief. Holding talks with foreign governments regarding ongoing military engagements without any input from or visibility to the Department of Defense is highly unusual during a transition period. It violates the fundamental rule that the country has one president at a time. Recall that much of the scandal regarding Flynns contacts with Kislyak stemmed from concerns that he might have been working to undermine the sanctions policy of the sitting U.S. president.

If Kushner appreciates in retrospect the impropriety, he does not say so, but he and his lawyers have clearly decided to absorb the criticism he will and should face for it. They also appear to have decided that there was nothing criminal in the impropriety, and thus it is better to put out there so he can take the heat and move on.

Fifth, Kushners explanation of his meeting with a Russian banker close to Putin, by contrast, is actually reassuring. There has been a lot of speculation that this meeting was really about Kushners business. This had a menacing edge because the banker in question, Sergey Gorkov, is known to be close to Putin, so the idea of his lending money to Kushner or doing business with him raised obvious national security concerns much as the payments to Flynn continue to.

But on this point, Kushner claims that Gorkov appeared not in his capacity as a banker but as an emissary from the Russian president and that they did not discuss business matters at all:

My assistant reported that the Ambassador had requested that I meet with a person named Sergey Gorkov who he said was a banker and someone with a direct line to the Russian President who could give insight into how Putin was viewing the new administration and best ways to work together. I agreed to meet Mr. Gorkov because the Ambassador has been so insistent, said he had a direct relationship with the President, and because Mr. Gorkov was only in New York for a couple days. I made room on my schedule for the meeting that occurred the next day, on December 13.

The meeting with Mr. Gorkov lasted twenty to twenty-five minutes. He introduced himself and gave me two gifts one was a piece of art from Nvgorod, the village where my grandparents were from in Belarus, and the other was a bag of dirt from that same village. (Any notion that I tried to conceal this meeting or that I took it thinking it was in my capacity as a businessman is false. In fact, I gave my assistant these gifts to formally register them with the transition office). After that, he told me a little about his bank and made some statements about the Russian economy. He said that he was friendly with President Putin, expressed disappointment with U.S.-Russia relations under President Obama and hopes for a better relationship in the future. As I did at the meeting with Ambassador Kislyak, I expressed the same sentiments I had with other foreign officials I met. There were no specific policies discussed. We had no discussion about the sanctions imposed by the Obama Administration. At no time was there any discussion about my companies, business transactions, real estate projects, loans, banking arrangements or any private business of any kind. At the end of the short meeting, we thanked each other and I went on to other meetings. I did not know or have any contact with Mr. Gorkov before that meeting, and I have had no reason to connect with him since.

Sixth, Kushners account of his security clearance forms describes, at best, a terribly careless process. In his account, he didnt lie on his SF-86 form. An underling submitted it prematurely before it contained not just Russian but any foreign contact information. He then quickly notified the transition office that it needed to be supplemented but took many months to do so completely.

This is remarkably bad management. The Trump administration blames LAffaire Russe on media obsessions and bias, but at least as far as Kushner goes and this by his own account its largely a function of his failure over time to correct his own errors. After all, had each incremental development in the scandal not contradicted his SF-86 (assuming, of course, that his underlying narrative is accurate) the scandal would never have developed as it has. Kushner Met with Russian Ambassador as Disclosed on His Clearance Forms just isnt much of a headline.

The degree of carelessness with which Kushner apparently approached his SF-86 also reveals the perils of nepotism. Of course, mistakes happen. But most people fill out the SF-86 as if their job depends on getting it right. This is because for most people, their jobs do depend on their getting it right. Evidently, that assumption does not hold when youre married to the presidents daughter. Kusher showed the care of an individual confident he would not face any consequences for many errors uncorrected over a long period of time, and indeed, he hasnt.

Finally, theres at least one big area that is not discussed at all in Kushners statement. That is the question of the Trump campaigns and Cambridge Analyticas use of data analytics to target voters and the apparent micro-targeting of voters in key swing states by Russian trolls and bots. This is a matter of ongoing concern to the Senate Intelligence Committee, as Vice Chairman Mark Warner said recently on CBSs Face the Nation:

John Dickerson (host): You- Another area that it appears youre interested in is the data operation of the Trump campaign, which Jared Kushner was overseeing. Explain that. And is that, again, another extrapolation? Or do you have some evidence for that inquiry?

Sen. Mark Warner: Well, we do know that there was a series of Russian trolls, paid individuals, who worked for the Russian services that were trying to interfere and put fake news out. We also know they created whats called bots. In effect, internet robots that actually could interfere as well.

The question we have is: Did they somehow get information from some of the Trump campaign efforts to target that interference? We dont know that for sure. But what we do want to know is Id like to talk to the folks with Cambridge Analytica. Id like to talk to some of the folks from the Trump digital campaign.

We do know as well that Facebook, for example, that denied any responsibility during our election, by the time the French elections took place this past spring, they literally took down 30,000 fake sites. So they have in effect got religion about the need to police fake news.

We also know that Twitter its been reported that literally 8% of the Twitter accounts are fake. So those accounts can be manipulated as well. Id like not to re-litigate 2016. But I think the whole role of these social media platforms, in terms of disseminating fake news, is a policy question that were going to have to address.

Kushner did nothing to reassure on this point for reasons that are unclear.

All in all, Kushner did himself some good with this statement. Without seeing how he held up under examination from skeptical senators, it is hard to know how much good. But narrowing the field of contested facts is critical to isolating the signal from the noise in this sprawling scandal. Kushners statement is one small step in that direction. Putting an end to LAffaire Russe will take many more, much larger steps from many other people including President Donald Trump himself.

Photo credit:YURI GRIPAS/AFP/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

View post:
Seven Observations About Jared Kushner's Statement - Foreign Policy (blog)

O.J. Simpson will serve the remainder of his prison time in protected custody. Officials changed his status for safety reasons after a parole board voted unanimously last week to approve his release.

Simpson could walk out as soon as October 1, after serving nine years for armed robbery in Nevada.

65 Photos

From football fields to Hollywood to courtrooms, see O.J. through the years

In 1995, he was acquitted of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman.

CBS News correspondent Jericka Duncan reports the case is still an open investigation for the Los Angeles Police Department.

A reported 13.5 million people tuned into Simpson's parole hearing last week. That's far fewer than the estimated 150 million people who watched his 1995 acquittal.

Still, it shows the O.J. obsession lives on, as well as the debate over who killed Nicole Brown and Goldman.

"I'd just like to get back to my family and friends and believe it or not, I do have some real friends," Simpson said in court last week.

It's unclear what life outside prison will look like for Simpson. But one thing is certain it'll be a world well acquainted with his past.

"People will always want to be a part of the O.J. case," Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levinson said. "They'll always be looking for evidence that the LAPD missed. That's because it's a mystery that to some has not been solved."

28 Photos

On October 3, 1995 "The Trial of the Century" ended with the acquittal of former football star O.J. Simpson for double-murder - Where are all the...

A string of TV films this past year reignited America's fascination with Simpson's acquittal.

"The word 'open' for an investigation can mean so many things," Levinson said. "It may simply mean that because O.J. was acquitted, and they've never found another murderer, there's no reason to shut it down."

Immediately following the 1995 verdict, Simpson vowed to find justice for his ex-wife in a statement read by his son, Jason: "I will pursue as my primary goal in life, the killer or killer who slaughtered Nicole and Mr. Goldman."

But no additional arrests were made. Simpson went on to release what was called a fictional account of the crime entitled, "If I did it." That book caused former Simpson trial juror Lionel Cryer to have a change of heart.

"The book was the turning point for me to go to the feeling that he probably did kill those people," Cryer said.

Simpson has repeatedly maintained his innocence. Last year, there appeared to be a possible break in the case when a knife was reportedly discovered on the property Simpson once owned. But the tip led nowhere, leaving the case largely where it was in the 1990s.

"O.J. cannot be tried again because of double jeopardy, but he certainly can be questioned," Levinson said. "In fact, he doesn't have Fifth Amendment protection anymore."

The LAPD wouldn't provide any additional details in the case. Legal experts say there are plenty of challenges that go with investigating a crime that is more than 20 years old. Among them, the fact that prosecutors are dealing with decades-old evidence and memories.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Continued here:
Who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman? - CBS News