emptywheel

Interview states that based on the email she edited the response provided by the Russian government to a US questionnaire (authorized by a US court) re: her client. The point is she/RU gov't were to be independent of each other and they weren't.

No Q, based on emails, that she advised the Prosecutor General on RU govt's response to USG request for coop in obtaining documents potentially harmful to *her client* in a U.S. criminal prosecution. That undoubtedly crossed some lines, at least in terms of U.S. practice.+

The U.S. case in which she was involved was politically sensitive for the Russians. So maybe not a total surprise they'd be guided by someone known to and trusted by them, who was on the spot in the courtroom.+

Issue is whether that, together w/ her acknowledgement that she has been, since 2013, a 'confidential informant' for Prosecutor General (meaning only, perhaps, she tells him things she picks up from time to time) makes her a full-blown "agent" and a seasoned 'operative.'+

Thousands of East Germans were 'confidential informants' for the Stasi in GDR, and same in Poland. Anyone needing or wanting to preserve useful govt. access played the game. Question is whether she's more than that.+

Ah, but almost all of those those Germans were not informing the head of Stasi!

True enough. But some were, no doubt. Depends on where they stood in the pecking order. Whatever else she may prove to be, NV was certainly well connected, and came from rags to riches quickly as a result.

The key difference in this case I think is that informing is passive, but actively working on behalf is no longer informing, it's being full agent - which is exactly what she did, but used weaker word that misrepresents her actions in vain hope to explain