Skip to main content

Alleged Crimes are Not the Worst Thing About the Former Guy

It’s time for us to accept what the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge: that Donald Trump is a Russian asset and, as such, a grave security risk to the nation.

Witting or not. Criminal or not. Whether he’s a master spy or a useful idiot, it doesn’t matter how he got there. Trump is a longtime front man, money launderer, and generally shady operator for both the criminal organizations and intelligence communities of eastern Europe. And while the details may never be fully revealed, the big picture couldn’t be clearer.

This is neither supposition nor revelation. There is a rich and eye-popping literature of Trump corruption, chronicling his deep business ties to one mob boss or another, both here and abroad.

Yet for some reason, the press goes out of its way to avoid the subject. We can only hope the justice system is more on top of it.

Because there’s a mountain of evidence, and it goes back forty years. Whether that evidence rises to the level of criminality is a matter for law enforcement, but it absolutely rises to the level of extreme danger for Western democracy. Crimes are the least of our problems.

So why is this story not being shouted from the rooftops?

Craig Unger, who has written numerous articles and books about the Trump-Russia connection, marvels at how much of the story is common knowledge — easily discoverable in the public record — yet still not widely known to the public at large. In his words:

Specifically, I knew that:

·      Starting in 1980, an alleged “spotter agent” for the KGB began cultivating Trump as a new asset for Soviet intelligence.

·      The Russian mafia laundered millions of dollars through Donald Trump’s real estate by purchasing condos in all-cash transactions through anonymous corporations that did not disclose real ownership.

·      Trump Tower was a home away from home for Vyacheslav Ivankov, one of the most brutal leaders of the Russian mafia, and at least 13 people with known or alleged links to the mafia held the deeds to, lived in, or ran alleged criminal operations out of Trump Tower in New York or other Trump properties.

·      Trump was some $4 billion in debt when the Russians came to bail him out via the Bayrock Group, a real estate firm that was largely staffed, owned, and financed by Soviet émigrés who had ties to Russian intelligence and/or organized crime.

Unger’s writing, which goes broad and deep, is profusely detailed, well-documented, and informed by a long trail of official investigations and legal filings going back decades. And I’m guessing he’s barely scratched the surface. It all begs to be further investigated.

Because, like his father before him, Trump has spent a lifetime doing business with crooks. Until the nineties, it was largely with the old Italian Cosa Nostra families of the eastern seaboard. From then on, it was with the Russian mobs, who used their vast financial resources, plus a prodigious capacity for violence, to sweep aside the Italian rackets and take over the American underworld.

They also took over Trump, though he was engaged long before then with mafias in Russia and various eastern European countries. In that murky milieu, there is considerable overlap between the intelligence services and organized crime — and Trump served both.

His first wife, Ivana, was the daughter of a Czechoslovakian intelligence officer. They got married in 1977, and Trump has almost certainly been on the radar of Russian intelligence ever since, though he probably wasn’t approached until a few years later. (Fun fact: Donald Junior spent a lot of his childhood behind the Iron Curtain with his maternal grandfather, and speaks fluent Czech.)

Like any experienced high-level mobster, Trump cultivated ties to law enforcement. His contacts go back decades, especially with the FBI, and they have presumably come in handy in his many confrontations with both the justice system and the counterintelligence community.

A fair number of those confrontations involved names we all know from the Mueller investigation — Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Christopher Steele, and Robert Mueller himself — all of whom were experts on Russian organized crime, and all of whom were past antagonists of Trump’s. As president, he singled out each of them for special harassment — and, wherever possible, revenge — for reasons that we now know go back much further than his presidency.

Greg Olear, another seasoned Trump watcher, has long been convinced that Trump was, in fact, an FBI informant. Olear has written of several dicey episodes in the eighties and nineties, when Trump, along with key organized crime figures, was on the very cusp of being indicted on a variety of racketeering statutes. Each time, Trump skated, while the mob guys went to prison. Olear writes:

The only way to know for sure if Donald John Trump is a Confidential Informant is if he admits it himself (unlikely), or if law enforcement comes forward (illegal). But the circumstantial evidence is compelling. The pattern is: 1) Trump deals with mobsters as usual; 2) Law enforcement begins investigating Trump; 3) Mobsters suddenly get busted, while 4) investigation into Trump is scuttled. This happened three times that we know about. 

 I think we need to recognize the difference between legal matters and counterintelligence matters. In counterintelligence, the concern isn’t so much the legality of the target’s actions, as it is the harm that the target is doing, or could do, to the nation.

This is an important distinction. Because quite apart from Trump’s myriad alleged crimes, we also have to conclude — from the Mueller investigation, two impeachments, and the January 6 committee — that he’s among the most serious security threats the nation has ever faced. Yet we can detect little sense of urgency, either from the government or the media.

From the government, a certain opacity is understandable, especially regarding open investigations. But the media has no such excuse. Among its many failings is an obvious reluctance to chase down the thousands of threads that unquestionably tie Trump to organized crime.

Even worse, I suspect that many of these threads have, in fact, been chased down, but for one reason or another were edited out of the mainstream narrative.

So we can only hope there are still dedicated counterintelligence professionals on the case — people who understand the threat, are working to mitigate it, and are not, as yet, on the payroll of Oleg Deripaska.

That might be too much to ask. Trump eviscerated the State Department and, as far as we know, the CIA as well. And it’s quite clear that the FBI has been compromised, though we have no idea how much. The arrest of Charles McGonigal, once the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, is a five-alarm fire that might soon tell us the extent to which the nation’s law enforcement community — our very ability to police ourselves — has been sabotaged.

But let’s be clear. Trump is an ongoing counterintelligence nightmare, and we still can’t begin to estimate the damage he has already done to national security. And continues to do.

That he also happens to be a lifelong criminal, who may or may not be brought to justice, is almost beside the point.

 

The list of writers who have done deep dives into this subject matter is a lengthy one. Unger and Olear, to be sure. But also David Corn, Malcolm Nance, Catherine Belton, David Enrich, and a woman known as Lincoln’s Bible — to name just a few. Some are journalists, some are academics, some are just concerned citizens combing through the information that’s out there. All are trying to get us to see what’s in front of our noses.

 

Comments

  1. I always wonder if the reason the press doesn't cover this and justice is not done is the specter of threat or violence to ones family or self. I would put nothing past him and his allies. Terrifying....

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

France and Britain Just Gave the Finger to Fascism

There is now ample evidence that people with democratic systems of government actually like them, and would just as soon keep them, flaws and all. There seems to be a strong backlash occurring in several European countries, a trend toward shoring up democracies threatened by toxic authoritarian forces. In Poland last year, then in France and Britain last week, actual voters — as opposed to deeply compromised opinion polls — gave a big middle finger to the fascists in their midst. I don’t pretend to understand the electoral systems of these countries — let alone their political currents — but I’m struck by the apparent connections between different elections in different countries, and what they might be saying to us. I’ve spoken before of Poland , where ten years of vicious minority rule was overturned at the ballot box. A ban on abortion was the galvanizing issue — sound familiar? — and it brought an overwhelming number of voters to the polls, many for the fir

Don’t Let the New York Times Do Your Thinking

  My father would not live any place where the New York Times couldn’t be delivered before 7:00 a.m. To him, the Times was “the newspaper of record,” the keeper of the first drafts of history. It had the reach and the resources to be anywhere history was being made, and the skills to report it accurately. He trusted it more than any other news source, including Walter Cronkite. Like my dad, I grew to associate the Times with serious journalism, the first place one goes for the straight story. Their news was always assumed to be objectively presented, with the facts front-and-center. Their op-ed writers were well-reasoned and erudite, even when I thought they were full of shit. But there was more. The Times became — for me, at least — a sort of guide to critical thinking. It helped teach me, at an impressionable age, to weigh the facts before forming an opinion. And many of my opinions — including deeply-held ones — were formed around facts I might have read

Democrats, Step Away from the Ledge

  Anxiety comes easily to Democrats. We’re highly practiced at perceiving a crisis, wanting to fix it immediately, and being consistently frustrated when we can’t. Democrats understand consequences, which is why we always have plenty to worry about. Republicans don’t give a rat’s ass about consequences — which is, let’s face it, their superpower. I wasn’t intending to write about last Thursday’s debate, mostly because I post on Tuesdays, and this could be old news by the time it gets to you. But then the New York Times weighed in with a wildly disingenuous editorial calling for Joe Biden to drop out of the race, and the rest of the mainstream media piled on. In the Times' not-so-humble opinion, Biden needs to consider “the good of the country,” something their own paper has repeatedly failed to do for almost a decade. And since this is now the crisis du jour for virtually every Democrat who watched that shitshow, I thought I might at l