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.
-
-
Replying to @blankslate2017 @emptywheel and
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.+
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RickPetree @blankslate2017 and
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.+
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RickPetree @blankslate2017 and
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.'+
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RickPetree @blankslate2017 and
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.+
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RickPetree @blankslate2017 and
Ah, but almost all of those those Germans were not informing the head of Stasi!
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @DmitryDibenko @blankslate2017 and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RickPetree @blankslate2017 and
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
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @DmitryDibenko @blankslate2017 and
Suggesting case-specific edits to govt. response to USG docs request doesn't per se = 'actively working on behalf of Russian govt.' She was 'actively working' on behalf of her client, and did what most lawyers wd do to strengthen a govt. response that directly affected her client
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RickPetree @blankslate2017 and
I am talking about her meeting with Trump Jn and others
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @DmitryDibenko @RickPetree and
Which, for the fifth time, is entirely unrelated to what she says she was an "informant" on. Which is why this context matters.
0 replies
1 retweet
2 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.