Not to belabor the point, but on the matter of potential Russiagate prosecutions, here’s something I should’ve mentioned in my unplanned debate yesterday with Matt Taibbi: my general position is that “Russiagate,” broadly construed, is best understood circa 2026 as an unresolved
You just spent hours looking up words that serve no purpose other than to DESCRIBE YOU OWN POMPOUS IGNORANCE of the facts in the "Russiagate" matter.
"Russiagate" isn't and never was the major problem.
"SPYGATE" which preceded "Russiagate" and directly TRIGGERED it in its entirety is THE PROBLEM!
So what is "Spygate."
"Spygate" is quite simply The Obama Administration WEAPONIZING the entire Executive Branch of The United States Federal Government to SPY ON and ATTACK their POLITICAL opposition.
It began with Lois Learner and The IRS scandal. Then after getting CAUGHT doing that, Team Obama went nuclear. They just started using the nation's most top secret spying powers and authorities against their opposition. Access to the Top Secret NSA Database was given to partisan DNC operatives(A terminal was installed in a Perkins Coie Office FFS), subsequently The FISA court, FISA warrants and National Security Letters were issued after NSA cut off contractor access to The NSA Database. You might remember Admiral Rodgers of The NSA SHUTTING THIS DOWN in early 2016.
Obama BROKE EVERY RULE IN THE CONSTITUTION! He did it knowingly and blatantly. WHICH IS WHY "RUSSIAGATE" happened. Barack Obama is a criminal. He HAD TO COVER UP HIS CRIMES!
So Obama took Hillary's risible "Russia Collusion Hoax" and injected it right into the mainstream of The CIA, The FBI, The DOJ and The DOJ National Security division. Which led directly to all of the events you mentioned in your article.
How YOU MISSED THE GENESIS of that stupid hoax is beyond me. Why on earth would Obama be so damn stupid as to let all of this mess happen?
Because he WAS GUILTY of MASSIVE CRIMES against The American People.
It's the only thing that makes any sense Michael. The arrogant bastard never thought his side would lose an election again. He made a fatal miscalculation.
He's about to go down in flames for it. THAT is the outcome Trump and his supporters are looking for Michael, it's not "retribution." It's known by it's actual name....JUSTICE!
Americans will settle for nothing less. Research more, look up fancy words less, you won't look so ignorant of the actual facts in the future.
I honestly didn't look up a single word in the thesaurus to write this article. If you need some remedial English Language lessons, DM me, I might even do it for no charge.
Curiously, I just saw a complaint that people with good vocabularies are getting accused of actually being LLMs. Apparently we do not strike the ignorant and poorly read as possibly just being verbally well armed.
Only asked two questions Gary. Only two. You must have had a Jesuit education. Can't think of another way you would utilize the word "prolix." Obsequious semantic quibbling which you seem to revel in is the hallmark of mediocre minds. You have nothing to say, so you say nothing in words regular people have to look up. What a giant charade you are. GL to you mate, it's a small, small world you inhabit. Hope you're not claustrophobic.
A JESUIT education is often pretty good. I hope I don't come across as having a MEDIOCRE mind? I have to hand it to you though that getting to a 'Jesuit education' from the use of 'prolix' is some feat. Michael's writing style is quite good in fact and quite clear.
Nonsense. "Russergate was a fiasco"; however it did cause Trump to obstruct justice, which was an unforced error on his behalf and actually impeachable: ironic really and the farce, including the behavior of the moron Trump is well outlined by Michael Tracey here.
Trump did welcome 'dirt' from foreign powers, what's new? The hard to understand security 'law breaking' he engaged in was marginal and irrelevant. Probably some of it was unconsitutional and illegal, who cares it was marginal, especially in light of his subsequent corruption of the whole office of the Presidency. No doubt, in common with most Presidents, Obama did allow the 'security state' to overreach.
In fact Presidential candidates should be talking to foreign leaders about policy in my view. Trump's shiftiness made him look bad. Since he is obviously in deep with Russian oligarchs and probably money laundering for them he was a bit confused as to how to approach things. He had no idea how gullible his MAGA base was.
The elephant in the room, Paul Manafort, is not even mentioned now: he constructed a campaign, exactly like the "Crooked Hilary" one, in Ukraine against Yulia Tymoshenko. Equally phony one too, though I am no fan of either of those politicians. They were better than the thugs they opposed though in both cases arguably, though a close call.
Further legalistic moves against Trump over the years were equally opaque to most of us. Apart from the insurrection on Jan 6th for which he should be in jail for and ironically was the one thing Biden let slide. Funny that eh?
Trump also, and impeachably, tried to strongarm Zelensky into opening some kind of idiotic inquiry into Hunter Biden, that would have engaged and ramped up his idiotic MAGA base. Those are side issues though really. Obama was quite consistent with other Presidents regarding the over reach of our 'security state', killing Ameircans abroad and so on with out warrant.
As Michael says, these are political issues and should be treated as such. I do remember the hysterics from GOP acquaintances about 'Fast and Furious' and other non events, especially 'wearing a tan suit while President', 'you didn't build that', 'Solyndra' and other fake scandals that look laughable in retrospect and in light of far worse aspects of the current regime.
No reply, just repetition of your previous unhinged remarks. No one KNOWS anything? That includes you then? And with that example of the Liar Paradox I leave you to your fantasy.
Must have been tough for you when a Black person won the Presidency? One which, I am, in fact, highly critical of. Surveillance and problems for privacy have been out of control under all Presidents, including Obama, since 911 and before.
Here is the explainer, I seriously doubt you will take the time to read it. However, you may surprise us all. The article linked is FACT. The evidence supporting it is either hyperlinked or footnoted in the article itself.
Your mind might not be ready for the truth. But the truth just sits there. Whether YOU are ready for it or not. It's still there.
Every word I have stated is provably true. Go see for yourself.
No it isn't provably true. Believe what you want. If anything the "targeting" is the other way round. In fact Trump's current campaign of spiteful revenge is appalling. That is apparently what his idiotic base like though.
The details of Russiagate, the checks Trump forged to make the Daniels story 'go away', which were all over played by the Dems, you can argue about.
However Trump did obstruct justice, for no good reason in fact, showing what an idiot he is along with his base. However you have no interest in actually engaging with anything I say, just repeating your rather shallow grand conspiracy theory.
Yes, Michael. Unlike the unseemly riot of J6, Russigate was an actual coup d'é·tat. Insular and cryptically guarded, but a legit attempt to undermine and eventually overthrow a duly elected President. I enjoyed the debate between you and Matt, but I gotta go with Matt on this one.
That you even brought up Jan 6 is indicative of you viewing this through the same old tit-for-tat partisan retribution frame. Feel free to go read my old articles on Jan 6.
Your work on J6, like Epstein, is fantastic. I'm a fan, dude. I brought up J6 because it is constantly used as the counterfactual to Russigate: one was a highly sophisticated psyop/coup, the other was a motley crew spillover that landed people like Brandon Straka in jail for filming outside the capitol. An ugly riot with flagpoles and chants of: 'Hang Mike Pence!' does not make a coup, yet this is the Democratic position.
Alright, but that's never been my position re: Jan 6, and in fact I was excoriated by most of the internet for ridiculing the overwrought "coup" declarations, including on the very day of Jan 6. So it's strange you'd raise this point in your comment as some kind of ostensible counter to me.
That wasn't my intention, Michael. I meant to reflect the broader narrative, not your reporting which, as I said before, is great. I know you don't like the moniker 'contrarian', but I do think it's part of your investigative DNA, and a net positive when it comes to the torch and pitchfork crowd. It shows integrity to hold the line when the mob is beating at your door. But I agree with Matt that Russigate is worthy of prison time for some of the key players. He mentioned Brennan. As you know, Brennen lied to congress about the Steele Dossier playing no role in the ICA when he is the one who insisted on it being there. The Steele Dossier is the nexus of Russigate. It turned the country upside-down. It was all bullshit and Brennen knew it. Fuck him.
I think you and Matt are talking past each other somewhat. Matt’s view, from extensive reporting, is that Russiagate involved violations that can be prosecuted under current law (and should be, in his view).
I don’t think you are refuting this reporting, so much as saying 1) Trump has no interest in reform, or principle, only himself; 2) From the podcast, you apparently have a radical anti-carceral view that almost no one should be prosecuted for anything. So things like leaking classified information, lying to Congress, abuse of power, etc. should not be illegal.
I think it’s obvious that Trump isn’t motivated by ideals. But that’s a separate issue from the questions of whether certain actions should be illegal; what should happen when high-ranking officials violate the law; and whether they did violate the law during Russiagate.
I still don't follow what specific statutes were allegedly violated, and by who, such that prosecuting unspecified persons "for Russiagate" would be such an obviously open-and-shut case? That's why I maintain it's fundamentally a political problem, to be redressed with political remedies, rather than with the blunt instrument of punitive criminal law.
I don't have a "radical anti-carceral view," per se, I just have an instinctive skepticism of, and oftentimes, yes, antipathy toward, the aggressive prosecutorial powers of the state. Hence my instinctive general affinity for defense attorneys (trying to keep people out of prison) versus prosecutors (trying to throw people in prison) and my instinctive affinity for civil liberties (limiting the government's ability to throw people in prison).
This doesn't mean I'm espousing some "radical abolitionism" ideology or anything. But sure, in general, my view is that whether to throw someone in prison should ideally be dictated by their harm-causing potential, and evaluating whether depriving their liberty is necessary to prevent future harm. Go back and read the stuff I wrote in 2021-2022 about the January 6 defendants who were ridiculously thrown in prison, even if the state was able to establish to a jury that they technically did something "illegal." There are ways to penalize things like "lying to Congress" without immediately leaping to "throw them in prison." That reflexive carceral impulse is a uniquely American pathology.
And yeah, I do think the classification regimen is almost entirely bullshit, so why would I support throwing people in prison for technically violating some vague bullshit law around information concealment protocols? I want more information leaked, not less...? Unless the leaker is somehow an active threat to the public, in a manner that can be rationally established, I see no reason why they should be thrown in prison? Whereas, if a genuinely sadistic serial child rapist would continue raping children but for being locked in a government cage, that seems like a far more defensible case for incarceration.
So are you not opposed to punishing people for their involvement with “Russiagate”, but simply opposed to punishing them with incarceration? I agree that incarceration is a punishment that is way too common in American law and doesn’t make sense for a lot of crimes that it is applied to. But I think some of the kinds of things people did in Russiagate should be punishable by law. And those things should be punished regardless of party affiliation. Do you disagree with that?
I do agree with you that current attempts to go after russiagate peddler’s judicially is stupid. But not because it’s wrong, but because it’s being done in a pig headed way that won’t result in anything .
Russiagate resulted in real harm and damage, which, theoretically, should be somehow compensated, either financially or at least morally.
So I’d argue that there are grounds for criminal pursuit there, just not in a way it’s being done.
Every example of improper use of the judiciary you cite has been damaging, but I still find myself disagreeing with you in relation to Russiagate. If we use the near impossible thought of the Dems bringing the prosecution for example, I think the reason becomes clear. Matt seemed very sure that there's a very strong case for prosecution (though didn't articulate it very well in the face of you demanding he name specific statutes as if he's a lawyer!) I trust he knows what he's talking about in that regard as he'll have certainly talked to lawyers during his investigation - and I genuinely hope he gets the chance to articulate it further. So if the Dems brought a successful prosecution it would help re-establish faith in the fairness of the system, expose the truth of what actually happened even past what we already know and assuming the punishment for the people responsible was substantial enough act as a deterrent for the future.
If that's correct, there's still value in the GOP bringing the case, even if it adds to the dangerous nonsense of using the judiciary to go after your political opponents. i.e. if the case is serious enough and helps the polity at large, who brings the case is irrelevant. The issue of it whether it's being brought for the "right reasons" is far less important. And this case is just so damaging - the blatant political manipulation of elections from the intelligence services - that leads down a very dark path if they feel empowered to do so under an assumption they will never be held to account.
It was an actual soft coup. If you think that is strictly a political event, with no legal consequences, that's your opinion. As a counterpoint, here are example of lawyers with Constitutional expertise who differ:
>Jonathan Turley (GWU constitutional law professor, Fox contributor): Strongly criticizes Russiagate as a "hoax"; has highlighted potential perjury/false statement liability for figures like Brennan and Comey, arguing for accountability.
>Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law professor emeritus): Longtime critic of the Russia probe as overreach/political; has called for investigations and opposed treating it as unpunishable.
>John Yoo (UC Berkeley law professor, former Bush OLC): Explicitly advocated "revenge prosecutions" against Democrats/officials involved in what he sees as abusive investigations of Trump.
>Glenn Greenwald (constitutional lawyer/journalist): Vocal opponent of Russiagate as a fabricated scandal; argues it involved serious abuses warranting legal and institutional reckoning.
Read Jacob Siegel’s recent response to DiResta, who’d been smearing his book, here on Substack. They get into this. And Fang and some others have discussed it. I forget the specifics, but there were 22 million tweets flagged as “misinformation incidents,” and the smaller number referred to groups of tweets that contained huge amounts, or something.
Most of Hasan and DiResta’s attacks on the work were semantics, or claiming Matt had said things he hadn’t said. It’s insane because all of the actual source materials were published for all to read and they ignored all of that, and instead went for gotchas on tiny errors, which mostly weren’t even errors.
Edit: This somehow got posted in the wrong place, it's a response to someone below.
Michael is at least consistent. Has Matt ever addressed Renee Diresta’s questions about his work? Say what you want about MT, i don’t think he’s ever been caught being this sloppy,
This is like tara palmeri/julie k brown level of sloppy. I can’t even see any scenario of MT handing Mehdi a W like that if they ever square up on the topic of Epstein
Yes, Matt and others addressed this at length. There's even a Lee Fang article showing that everything that Hasan claims here was actually wrong, and Matt was right. The only real niggle was CIS v. CISA, but it wasn't really an error, since one of the organizations is inside the other. This was a Medhi Hasan partisan hit job. Matt's mistake was thinking that Hasan was going to have an actual conversation about the reporting on the merits.
The real trick to decoding Renee DiResta is realizing that every single thing she ever says is a partisan lie. She'll probably show up here now, since she appears at every mention of her name. Like Beetlejuice, but you only have to say her name once, and she's much more terrifying looking.
I do not know how to judge who is telling the truth here. Has this been discussed by anyone outside the ones involved in the twitter files (taibbi, shellenberger, fang)? The impression I got from all this was that this was like a Julie Brown/Bradley Edwards type situation (like how MT claims that all "investigative work" Julie ever did was just repeat what the victim's lawyers were trying to argue in court). I think that Matt served a similar role to Elon.
You can actually read the materials available! There’s actually printed evidence of all of Matt’s “claims.” Hasan and DiResta have only ever cast cowardly aspersions, without ever referencing the actual reporting.
I read all of it when it was happening. Most decent journalists didn’t dispute any of the material. DiResta is one of the main players in the whole thing. She’s never really backed up any of her counterclaims, just attacked the messenger.
Lots of people have backed Matt’s reporting up. Matt’s an award-winning, respected journalist. DiResta is a partisan actor.
What do you make of the 22 million tweets flagged claim dispute? Because the other side is claiming the actual flagged tweet number is 2890. I don't see that addressed in the Lee Fang article you shared.
Read Jacob Siegel’s recent response to DiResta, who’d been smearing his book, here on Substack. They get into this. And Fang and some others have discussed it. I forget the specifics, but there were 22 million tweets flagged as “misinformation incidents,” and the smaller number referred to groups of tweets that contained huge amounts, or something.
Most of Hasan and DiResta’s attacks on the work were semantics, or claiming Matt had said things he hadn’t said. It’s insane because all of the actual source materials were published for all to read and they ignored all of that, and instead went for gotchas on tiny errors, which mostly weren’t even errors.
Hi Michael, this is a great opinion piece! When do you get to the facts? I am eight books deep on the history of the CIA and the whole JFK/RFK synopsis of leading the charge to assassinate foreign leaders is thin, really thin. Allen Dulles was a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell - where he maintained status throughout his tenure as CIA Director - the first coupe he perpetrated was the 1953 overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran's democratically elected leader. Hmmm, then we usher in the "Iran Oil Consortium" and Standard (Rockefeller) Oil is very happy. Then you have the United Fruit Company (UFC) calling Allen really pissed off that the democratically elected official of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, was going to reapportion UFC owned fallow land to poor farmers. So, Seymour Hersch is a tool - probably the CIA's.
Also, can you address falsifying information to the FISA court to obtain a warrant to spy on a political campaign? Sounds illegal to me.
After the subprime mortgage scandal, housing crash, government bank bailouts and no one going to jail over any of that, I guess we live in a world where we go out of our way now to defend no one being held liable for any action, no matter how egregious, unless it's Donald Trump. Luigi and Tyler are next. Ain't it grand.
I'm surprised you didn't mention how Jim Acosta and the media's voracious complicity in the Get Trump plot that was Russiagate, merits no accountability, seeing as how you're magnanimously pardoning everyone.
And who is to say that the whole Jeffrey Epstein saga isn't Russiagate 2.0 embroiling Trump 2.0 in another endless scandal of a different nature? And what Deep State actors lie beneath the surface driving it? You can seriously say with a straight face that Trump has everything locked down?
Agree or disagree, I admire Michael Tracey's Holden Caulfield of journalism routine and a lot can be learned from this man.
I keep thinking about Hillary's public attack on Tulsi Gabbard. Hillary knew the role her own campaign had played in Russiagate. She knew Russiagate was built on a foundation of bogus 'evidence'. Knowing this, she effectively accused a member of the U.S. military of treason. Is this just "political"?
No, the “federal law enforcement apparatus” didn’t deem itself “authorized to barrel head-first into the political arena with unprecedented audacity”… it conducted a well-rehearsed, fabricated and nefarious effort to circumvent the political process.
That egregious overreach must be punished, lest it continue unabated.
Well, at least you said the necessary about those two unfortunate three-letter guys ridiculously sanctified ever after. America's Scumbag Dynasty.
Re Russiagate? Don't all these things seem awfully seditiousy and insurrectiony? But I guess they always iz, ain't they? Me, I voted for Trump for the first and presumably only time in 2024 and I'd like him to put all the bums in jail, or at least bankrupt them via legal expenses--though even that might be denied us since dark money will likely pay their lawyers--and--cue that line from Shakespeare. Truer words, etc.
Oh well. Political systems seem to follow not the Roman or Greek models but that of the Egyptian priesthood bureaucracy which allowed no heresies against their minutely-crafted orthodoxies. So we haven't evolved at all, have we?
Last I checked it's legal to lie. The whole legal system is based on that shit and what charge exactly can they be imprisoned on?
The idea that a president works for some other nation is a fairy tale that is used to distract from the fact that presidents always work for the "mafia" of corporations, many of which are trans national.
Politics has been and still is pro wrestling drama. One side acts the heel and the other side acts the face.
The corrosive effect of what democrats did, Spygate, Russiagate, J6, Laptop Russian disinformation left un prosecuted or even publicly un investigated is leading the country more and more down a dark path. Are republicans/Trump now trying the same thing? Maybe. It all needs to stop, all of it. Individuals need to be prosecuted, three letter rogue agencies need to be redirected to just do the job that’s in their charter. The country is paying a big price for all these illegal, immoral, unethical shenanigans! It was greatly accelerated after JFK was assasinated. If you think the J6 committee was a joke, just look at the Warren Commission. It must all stop for the good of us all.
JFC dude... PUT THE THESAURUS DOWN!
You just spent hours looking up words that serve no purpose other than to DESCRIBE YOU OWN POMPOUS IGNORANCE of the facts in the "Russiagate" matter.
"Russiagate" isn't and never was the major problem.
"SPYGATE" which preceded "Russiagate" and directly TRIGGERED it in its entirety is THE PROBLEM!
So what is "Spygate."
"Spygate" is quite simply The Obama Administration WEAPONIZING the entire Executive Branch of The United States Federal Government to SPY ON and ATTACK their POLITICAL opposition.
It began with Lois Learner and The IRS scandal. Then after getting CAUGHT doing that, Team Obama went nuclear. They just started using the nation's most top secret spying powers and authorities against their opposition. Access to the Top Secret NSA Database was given to partisan DNC operatives(A terminal was installed in a Perkins Coie Office FFS), subsequently The FISA court, FISA warrants and National Security Letters were issued after NSA cut off contractor access to The NSA Database. You might remember Admiral Rodgers of The NSA SHUTTING THIS DOWN in early 2016.
Obama BROKE EVERY RULE IN THE CONSTITUTION! He did it knowingly and blatantly. WHICH IS WHY "RUSSIAGATE" happened. Barack Obama is a criminal. He HAD TO COVER UP HIS CRIMES!
So Obama took Hillary's risible "Russia Collusion Hoax" and injected it right into the mainstream of The CIA, The FBI, The DOJ and The DOJ National Security division. Which led directly to all of the events you mentioned in your article.
How YOU MISSED THE GENESIS of that stupid hoax is beyond me. Why on earth would Obama be so damn stupid as to let all of this mess happen?
Because he WAS GUILTY of MASSIVE CRIMES against The American People.
It's the only thing that makes any sense Michael. The arrogant bastard never thought his side would lose an election again. He made a fatal miscalculation.
He's about to go down in flames for it. THAT is the outcome Trump and his supporters are looking for Michael, it's not "retribution." It's known by it's actual name....JUSTICE!
Americans will settle for nothing less. Research more, look up fancy words less, you won't look so ignorant of the actual facts in the future.
I honestly didn't look up a single word in the thesaurus to write this article. If you need some remedial English Language lessons, DM me, I might even do it for no charge.
Curiously, I just saw a complaint that people with good vocabularies are getting accused of actually being LLMs. Apparently we do not strike the ignorant and poorly read as possibly just being verbally well armed.
Ever read Hemingway? Was he a verbose pedant? There you go Gary, you just learned something useful.
Yes, no, and no. Is this still too prolix for you?
Only asked two questions Gary. Only two. You must have had a Jesuit education. Can't think of another way you would utilize the word "prolix." Obsequious semantic quibbling which you seem to revel in is the hallmark of mediocre minds. You have nothing to say, so you say nothing in words regular people have to look up. What a giant charade you are. GL to you mate, it's a small, small world you inhabit. Hope you're not claustrophobic.
Ironically, ‘utilize’ is the grandaddy of pretentious words.
A JESUIT education is often pretty good. I hope I don't come across as having a MEDIOCRE mind? I have to hand it to you though that getting to a 'Jesuit education' from the use of 'prolix' is some feat. Michael's writing style is quite good in fact and quite clear.
How about the fact that YOU MISSED the entire story with your fake article about "Russiagate?"
No mention of that GLARING ERROR?
Sort of typical of your self-aggrandizing style of onanistic journalism.
It's not about you, it's about TREASON by Obama and The Chicago Communists that run him.
JFC you are almost as usless as the mainstream media, Michael.
Do the damn research. Tulsi Gabbard has basically de-classified EVERYTHING for you, all you have to do is type it up.
Leave Roget in the drawer. It's not helping your work.
Like Trump, this singular idiot appears to believe that writing in caps means SUPER HONESTY! Or SUPER TRUTH!
Mouth-breathing Communist skips the germane subject matter and critiques syntax.
Dude, you are a caricature of a literate human.
The REAL STORY is Spygate.
Michael just wafted right on by that, he spent a thousand words on THE COVER UP!
Actual journalistic malpractice, but hey we're all here FOR YOUR CRITIQUES MATE!
Check my spelling for me would ya?
That bullshit seven if true
Go do some more drinking.
Knowing how to write is a liability, and Jim Acosta is a “journalist”. Make it make sense.
Nonsense. "Russergate was a fiasco"; however it did cause Trump to obstruct justice, which was an unforced error on his behalf and actually impeachable: ironic really and the farce, including the behavior of the moron Trump is well outlined by Michael Tracey here.
Trump did welcome 'dirt' from foreign powers, what's new? The hard to understand security 'law breaking' he engaged in was marginal and irrelevant. Probably some of it was unconsitutional and illegal, who cares it was marginal, especially in light of his subsequent corruption of the whole office of the Presidency. No doubt, in common with most Presidents, Obama did allow the 'security state' to overreach.
In fact Presidential candidates should be talking to foreign leaders about policy in my view. Trump's shiftiness made him look bad. Since he is obviously in deep with Russian oligarchs and probably money laundering for them he was a bit confused as to how to approach things. He had no idea how gullible his MAGA base was.
The elephant in the room, Paul Manafort, is not even mentioned now: he constructed a campaign, exactly like the "Crooked Hilary" one, in Ukraine against Yulia Tymoshenko. Equally phony one too, though I am no fan of either of those politicians. They were better than the thugs they opposed though in both cases arguably, though a close call.
Further legalistic moves against Trump over the years were equally opaque to most of us. Apart from the insurrection on Jan 6th for which he should be in jail for and ironically was the one thing Biden let slide. Funny that eh?
Trump also, and impeachably, tried to strongarm Zelensky into opening some kind of idiotic inquiry into Hunter Biden, that would have engaged and ramped up his idiotic MAGA base. Those are side issues though really. Obama was quite consistent with other Presidents regarding the over reach of our 'security state', killing Ameircans abroad and so on with out warrant.
As Michael says, these are political issues and should be treated as such. I do remember the hysterics from GOP acquaintances about 'Fast and Furious' and other non events, especially 'wearing a tan suit while President', 'you didn't build that', 'Solyndra' and other fake scandals that look laughable in retrospect and in light of far worse aspects of the current regime.
No one actually KNOWS anything anymore.
It's incredibly disheartening.
OBAMA SPIED ON HIS POLITICAL OPPOSITION UTILIZING THE CIA, THE NSA, THE FBI and THE IRS during his entire term in office.
Read that sentence again.
Understand HOW MANY LAWS BARACK OBAMA BROKE BY DOING THAT!!!!
NOW UNDERSTAND:
The ENTIRE "Russiagate" Hoax was just THE COVER-UP for Obama's ILLEGAL spying.
Now re-think EVERYTHING you "thought" you knew.
Because you are not even in the right universe on this matter.
No reply, just repetition of your previous unhinged remarks. No one KNOWS anything? That includes you then? And with that example of the Liar Paradox I leave you to your fantasy.
Must have been tough for you when a Black person won the Presidency? One which, I am, in fact, highly critical of. Surveillance and problems for privacy have been out of control under all Presidents, including Obama, since 911 and before.
Here is the explainer, I seriously doubt you will take the time to read it. However, you may surprise us all. The article linked is FACT. The evidence supporting it is either hyperlinked or footnoted in the article itself.
Your mind might not be ready for the truth. But the truth just sits there. Whether YOU are ready for it or not. It's still there.
Every word I have stated is provably true. Go see for yourself.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/04/20/spygate-russiagate-ic-impeachment-jack-smith-targeting-and-lawfare/#more-282684
No it isn't provably true. Believe what you want. If anything the "targeting" is the other way round. In fact Trump's current campaign of spiteful revenge is appalling. That is apparently what his idiotic base like though.
The details of Russiagate, the checks Trump forged to make the Daniels story 'go away', which were all over played by the Dems, you can argue about.
However Trump did obstruct justice, for no good reason in fact, showing what an idiot he is along with his base. However you have no interest in actually engaging with anything I say, just repeating your rather shallow grand conspiracy theory.
So YOU DID NOT READ THE ARTICLE?
I suspected you would not.
You are not worth any more of my time. Remain ignorant, it suits you.
Dumb comment.
Which words in the article are you referring to, in terms of being outside regular vocabulary?
I often fantasize about a pallet of thesauruses landing on Tracy’s head.
Do you? Why? What a strange bird you are.
Yes, Michael. Unlike the unseemly riot of J6, Russigate was an actual coup d'é·tat. Insular and cryptically guarded, but a legit attempt to undermine and eventually overthrow a duly elected President. I enjoyed the debate between you and Matt, but I gotta go with Matt on this one.
That you even brought up Jan 6 is indicative of you viewing this through the same old tit-for-tat partisan retribution frame. Feel free to go read my old articles on Jan 6.
Your work on J6, like Epstein, is fantastic. I'm a fan, dude. I brought up J6 because it is constantly used as the counterfactual to Russigate: one was a highly sophisticated psyop/coup, the other was a motley crew spillover that landed people like Brandon Straka in jail for filming outside the capitol. An ugly riot with flagpoles and chants of: 'Hang Mike Pence!' does not make a coup, yet this is the Democratic position.
Alright, but that's never been my position re: Jan 6, and in fact I was excoriated by most of the internet for ridiculing the overwrought "coup" declarations, including on the very day of Jan 6. So it's strange you'd raise this point in your comment as some kind of ostensible counter to me.
That wasn't my intention, Michael. I meant to reflect the broader narrative, not your reporting which, as I said before, is great. I know you don't like the moniker 'contrarian', but I do think it's part of your investigative DNA, and a net positive when it comes to the torch and pitchfork crowd. It shows integrity to hold the line when the mob is beating at your door. But I agree with Matt that Russigate is worthy of prison time for some of the key players. He mentioned Brennan. As you know, Brennen lied to congress about the Steele Dossier playing no role in the ICA when he is the one who insisted on it being there. The Steele Dossier is the nexus of Russigate. It turned the country upside-down. It was all bullshit and Brennen knew it. Fuck him.
Well, I appreciate your repeated praise of me otherwise. Consider upgrading to a paid subscription in that case!!! C'mon, it's only $5!
Lol. You convinced me. I'm in. 🍻
I think you and Matt are talking past each other somewhat. Matt’s view, from extensive reporting, is that Russiagate involved violations that can be prosecuted under current law (and should be, in his view).
I don’t think you are refuting this reporting, so much as saying 1) Trump has no interest in reform, or principle, only himself; 2) From the podcast, you apparently have a radical anti-carceral view that almost no one should be prosecuted for anything. So things like leaking classified information, lying to Congress, abuse of power, etc. should not be illegal.
I think it’s obvious that Trump isn’t motivated by ideals. But that’s a separate issue from the questions of whether certain actions should be illegal; what should happen when high-ranking officials violate the law; and whether they did violate the law during Russiagate.
I still don't follow what specific statutes were allegedly violated, and by who, such that prosecuting unspecified persons "for Russiagate" would be such an obviously open-and-shut case? That's why I maintain it's fundamentally a political problem, to be redressed with political remedies, rather than with the blunt instrument of punitive criminal law.
I don't have a "radical anti-carceral view," per se, I just have an instinctive skepticism of, and oftentimes, yes, antipathy toward, the aggressive prosecutorial powers of the state. Hence my instinctive general affinity for defense attorneys (trying to keep people out of prison) versus prosecutors (trying to throw people in prison) and my instinctive affinity for civil liberties (limiting the government's ability to throw people in prison).
This doesn't mean I'm espousing some "radical abolitionism" ideology or anything. But sure, in general, my view is that whether to throw someone in prison should ideally be dictated by their harm-causing potential, and evaluating whether depriving their liberty is necessary to prevent future harm. Go back and read the stuff I wrote in 2021-2022 about the January 6 defendants who were ridiculously thrown in prison, even if the state was able to establish to a jury that they technically did something "illegal." There are ways to penalize things like "lying to Congress" without immediately leaping to "throw them in prison." That reflexive carceral impulse is a uniquely American pathology.
And yeah, I do think the classification regimen is almost entirely bullshit, so why would I support throwing people in prison for technically violating some vague bullshit law around information concealment protocols? I want more information leaked, not less...? Unless the leaker is somehow an active threat to the public, in a manner that can be rationally established, I see no reason why they should be thrown in prison? Whereas, if a genuinely sadistic serial child rapist would continue raping children but for being locked in a government cage, that seems like a far more defensible case for incarceration.
So are you not opposed to punishing people for their involvement with “Russiagate”, but simply opposed to punishing them with incarceration? I agree that incarceration is a punishment that is way too common in American law and doesn’t make sense for a lot of crimes that it is applied to. But I think some of the kinds of things people did in Russiagate should be punishable by law. And those things should be punished regardless of party affiliation. Do you disagree with that?
Even if you could identify a crime, the alleged criminal acts took place in 2016, and the 5-year statute of limitations has long since run.
I do agree with you that current attempts to go after russiagate peddler’s judicially is stupid. But not because it’s wrong, but because it’s being done in a pig headed way that won’t result in anything .
Russiagate resulted in real harm and damage, which, theoretically, should be somehow compensated, either financially or at least morally.
So I’d argue that there are grounds for criminal pursuit there, just not in a way it’s being done.
Every example of improper use of the judiciary you cite has been damaging, but I still find myself disagreeing with you in relation to Russiagate. If we use the near impossible thought of the Dems bringing the prosecution for example, I think the reason becomes clear. Matt seemed very sure that there's a very strong case for prosecution (though didn't articulate it very well in the face of you demanding he name specific statutes as if he's a lawyer!) I trust he knows what he's talking about in that regard as he'll have certainly talked to lawyers during his investigation - and I genuinely hope he gets the chance to articulate it further. So if the Dems brought a successful prosecution it would help re-establish faith in the fairness of the system, expose the truth of what actually happened even past what we already know and assuming the punishment for the people responsible was substantial enough act as a deterrent for the future.
If that's correct, there's still value in the GOP bringing the case, even if it adds to the dangerous nonsense of using the judiciary to go after your political opponents. i.e. if the case is serious enough and helps the polity at large, who brings the case is irrelevant. The issue of it whether it's being brought for the "right reasons" is far less important. And this case is just so damaging - the blatant political manipulation of elections from the intelligence services - that leads down a very dark path if they feel empowered to do so under an assumption they will never be held to account.
It was an actual soft coup. If you think that is strictly a political event, with no legal consequences, that's your opinion. As a counterpoint, here are example of lawyers with Constitutional expertise who differ:
>Jonathan Turley (GWU constitutional law professor, Fox contributor): Strongly criticizes Russiagate as a "hoax"; has highlighted potential perjury/false statement liability for figures like Brennan and Comey, arguing for accountability.
>Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law professor emeritus): Longtime critic of the Russia probe as overreach/political; has called for investigations and opposed treating it as unpunishable.
>John Yoo (UC Berkeley law professor, former Bush OLC): Explicitly advocated "revenge prosecutions" against Democrats/officials involved in what he sees as abusive investigations of Trump.
>Glenn Greenwald (constitutional lawyer/journalist): Vocal opponent of Russiagate as a fabricated scandal; argues it involved serious abuses warranting legal and institutional reckoning.
Government officials who intervene in elections by manufacturing defamatory misinformation about the opposition party's candidate should go to jail.
I still think it's funny that somebody as temperant as Matt even got pissed at Michael. 🤣
Read Jacob Siegel’s recent response to DiResta, who’d been smearing his book, here on Substack. They get into this. And Fang and some others have discussed it. I forget the specifics, but there were 22 million tweets flagged as “misinformation incidents,” and the smaller number referred to groups of tweets that contained huge amounts, or something.
Most of Hasan and DiResta’s attacks on the work were semantics, or claiming Matt had said things he hadn’t said. It’s insane because all of the actual source materials were published for all to read and they ignored all of that, and instead went for gotchas on tiny errors, which mostly weren’t even errors.
Edit: This somehow got posted in the wrong place, it's a response to someone below.
Michael is at least consistent. Has Matt ever addressed Renee Diresta’s questions about his work? Say what you want about MT, i don’t think he’s ever been caught being this sloppy,
https://substack.com/@reneediresta/note/c-241475559?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=2l277o
This is like tara palmeri/julie k brown level of sloppy. I can’t even see any scenario of MT handing Mehdi a W like that if they ever square up on the topic of Epstein
Yes, Matt and others addressed this at length. There's even a Lee Fang article showing that everything that Hasan claims here was actually wrong, and Matt was right. The only real niggle was CIS v. CISA, but it wasn't really an error, since one of the organizations is inside the other. This was a Medhi Hasan partisan hit job. Matt's mistake was thinking that Hasan was going to have an actual conversation about the reporting on the merits.
The real trick to decoding Renee DiResta is realizing that every single thing she ever says is a partisan lie. She'll probably show up here now, since she appears at every mention of her name. Like Beetlejuice, but you only have to say her name once, and she's much more terrifying looking.
Edit: Here's Fang's piece: https://www.leefang.com/p/msnbcs-mehdi-hasan-gets-basic-facts This has all been talked about elsewhere.
I do not know how to judge who is telling the truth here. Has this been discussed by anyone outside the ones involved in the twitter files (taibbi, shellenberger, fang)? The impression I got from all this was that this was like a Julie Brown/Bradley Edwards type situation (like how MT claims that all "investigative work" Julie ever did was just repeat what the victim's lawyers were trying to argue in court). I think that Matt served a similar role to Elon.
You can actually read the materials available! There’s actually printed evidence of all of Matt’s “claims.” Hasan and DiResta have only ever cast cowardly aspersions, without ever referencing the actual reporting.
I read all of it when it was happening. Most decent journalists didn’t dispute any of the material. DiResta is one of the main players in the whole thing. She’s never really backed up any of her counterclaims, just attacked the messenger.
Lots of people have backed Matt’s reporting up. Matt’s an award-winning, respected journalist. DiResta is a partisan actor.
Try reading some of it.
What do you make of the 22 million tweets flagged claim dispute? Because the other side is claiming the actual flagged tweet number is 2890. I don't see that addressed in the Lee Fang article you shared.
Read Jacob Siegel’s recent response to DiResta, who’d been smearing his book, here on Substack. They get into this. And Fang and some others have discussed it. I forget the specifics, but there were 22 million tweets flagged as “misinformation incidents,” and the smaller number referred to groups of tweets that contained huge amounts, or something.
Most of Hasan and DiResta’s attacks on the work were semantics, or claiming Matt had said things he hadn’t said. It’s insane because all of the actual source materials were published for all to read and they ignored all of that, and instead went for gotchas on tiny errors, which mostly weren’t even errors.
Hi Michael, this is a great opinion piece! When do you get to the facts? I am eight books deep on the history of the CIA and the whole JFK/RFK synopsis of leading the charge to assassinate foreign leaders is thin, really thin. Allen Dulles was a partner at Sullivan & Cromwell - where he maintained status throughout his tenure as CIA Director - the first coupe he perpetrated was the 1953 overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran's democratically elected leader. Hmmm, then we usher in the "Iran Oil Consortium" and Standard (Rockefeller) Oil is very happy. Then you have the United Fruit Company (UFC) calling Allen really pissed off that the democratically elected official of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, was going to reapportion UFC owned fallow land to poor farmers. So, Seymour Hersch is a tool - probably the CIA's.
Also, can you address falsifying information to the FISA court to obtain a warrant to spy on a political campaign? Sounds illegal to me.
After the subprime mortgage scandal, housing crash, government bank bailouts and no one going to jail over any of that, I guess we live in a world where we go out of our way now to defend no one being held liable for any action, no matter how egregious, unless it's Donald Trump. Luigi and Tyler are next. Ain't it grand.
I'm surprised you didn't mention how Jim Acosta and the media's voracious complicity in the Get Trump plot that was Russiagate, merits no accountability, seeing as how you're magnanimously pardoning everyone.
And who is to say that the whole Jeffrey Epstein saga isn't Russiagate 2.0 embroiling Trump 2.0 in another endless scandal of a different nature? And what Deep State actors lie beneath the surface driving it? You can seriously say with a straight face that Trump has everything locked down?
Agree or disagree, I admire Michael Tracey's Holden Caulfield of journalism routine and a lot can be learned from this man.
I keep thinking about Hillary's public attack on Tulsi Gabbard. Hillary knew the role her own campaign had played in Russiagate. She knew Russiagate was built on a foundation of bogus 'evidence'. Knowing this, she effectively accused a member of the U.S. military of treason. Is this just "political"?
No, the “federal law enforcement apparatus” didn’t deem itself “authorized to barrel head-first into the political arena with unprecedented audacity”… it conducted a well-rehearsed, fabricated and nefarious effort to circumvent the political process.
That egregious overreach must be punished, lest it continue unabated.
Well, at least you said the necessary about those two unfortunate three-letter guys ridiculously sanctified ever after. America's Scumbag Dynasty.
Re Russiagate? Don't all these things seem awfully seditiousy and insurrectiony? But I guess they always iz, ain't they? Me, I voted for Trump for the first and presumably only time in 2024 and I'd like him to put all the bums in jail, or at least bankrupt them via legal expenses--though even that might be denied us since dark money will likely pay their lawyers--and--cue that line from Shakespeare. Truer words, etc.
Oh well. Political systems seem to follow not the Roman or Greek models but that of the Egyptian priesthood bureaucracy which allowed no heresies against their minutely-crafted orthodoxies. So we haven't evolved at all, have we?
Throw them in prison for what? Lying?
Last I checked it's legal to lie. The whole legal system is based on that shit and what charge exactly can they be imprisoned on?
The idea that a president works for some other nation is a fairy tale that is used to distract from the fact that presidents always work for the "mafia" of corporations, many of which are trans national.
Politics has been and still is pro wrestling drama. One side acts the heel and the other side acts the face.
Typical Trumpian hypocrisy
The corrosive effect of what democrats did, Spygate, Russiagate, J6, Laptop Russian disinformation left un prosecuted or even publicly un investigated is leading the country more and more down a dark path. Are republicans/Trump now trying the same thing? Maybe. It all needs to stop, all of it. Individuals need to be prosecuted, three letter rogue agencies need to be redirected to just do the job that’s in their charter. The country is paying a big price for all these illegal, immoral, unethical shenanigans! It was greatly accelerated after JFK was assasinated. If you think the J6 committee was a joke, just look at the Warren Commission. It must all stop for the good of us all.