Thread by @ClimateAudit

THREAD: given current interest in Ukraine, I think readers will be interested in Andrew Weissmann's extremely strong views on Crimea and the extent to which he thought that candidate Trump's phlegmatic and practical perspective constituted a law enforcement issue.

Crimea is mentioned on multiple occasions in Weissmann's book. First, W complained that Trump was "notably unbothered" by Crimea, which Weissmann characterized (IMO falsely) as "invasion and forced annexation" (as opposed to authentic repudiation of Ukraine and separation)

3/ Weissmann asserted that Crimean separation from Ukraine was a "threat to our national security interests" and that Ukraine was "standing in defense of Europe and the Baltic". I'll omit obvious editorial comment other than noting that Ukraine's location is well south of Baltic

4/ candidate Trump pointed out that, much as Dems wanted to blame him, Crimean separation from Ukraine occurred two years earlier under Obama administration
abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/trump…

5/ candidate Trump accurately observed - and this infuriated both Dems and never-Trumpers - that, according to his understanding, people of Crimea chose Russia over Ukraine. Unfortunately, Trump administration, besieged by Dem-NeverTrump insurgency, resiled from this sanity

6/ Weissmann was revulsed by Trump's phlegmatic and practical policy. He contrasted it to Clinton's "strong rebuke" of Clinton and praised Clinton's hostility to democratically elected Yanukovych govt (ultimately overthrown by Biden-Obama-Nuland coup)

7/ Weissmann's unction over Manafort's "illegal lobbying" seems to be motivated more by fact that Manafort et al were lobbying for Yanukovych faction (based in eastern Ukraine) rather than his arch-rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, who was buds with Hillary and Victoria Nuland.

8/ Tymoshenko was the sort of "unifying" influence that we've come to recognize in Biden administration. Asked what Ukraine should do with ethnic Russians in separatist regions, Tymoshenko wanted to genocide them with nuclear weapons. Someone that Sen Wicker would like as well

9/ contact with US officials for Manafort's "illegal lobbying" was actually carried out by Podesta Group and Mercury, who had even more direct responsibility for FARA registration than Manafort. However, they had Democrat privilege and Weissmann shut his eyes to their offenses

10/ later, Weissmann returns to his Crimea concerns a third time, this time making a weird comparison to siding with Britain against America in Revolutionary War. In fact, if US was entitled to separate from Britain, Crimea was even more entitled to separate from Ukraine.

11/ but what a bizarre and deranged analogy. I won't belabor it, other than to observe that US is a third party to Ukraine, just as Sweden was in Revolutionary War. One could hardly challenge morality of a Swede in 1776 for preferring one side or the other.

12/ Weissman later returned to Crimea a fourth time, displaying even more inanity. Weissmann (publishing as Nordstream 2 is nearing completion) asserts that "Putin needs" Ukraine to "transmit oil and gas to Europe" while correctly noting that Ukraine needed Russia more.

13/ but one of the major points of Nordstream 2 was to avoid Ukraine, where greedy oligarchs (including Tymoshenko at various times) had enriched themselves with tolls and mark-ups on Russian natural gas.

14/ Nor is Weissmann's characterization of 2014 remotely accurate. US under Biden-Obama adminstration allied itself with literal neo-Nazi factions to overthrow democratically elected Yanukovich government.

15/ the first act of legislature of newly installed US puppet regime was to curtail minority (Russian) language rights. Crimea, which was over 90% Russian-speaking and ethnic Russian and which had long been part of Russia (before administrative inclusion with Ukraine in 1950)

16/ immediately began referendum to separate, exactly copying referendum procedure in Kosovo that US had backed and approved in the 1990s. There is NO evidence that Russia moved troops into Crimea. They didn't need to. They were already there.

17/ Sevastopol had been long-time Russian naval base, since long before the Soviet Union. In the break up of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation retained their military base in Sevastopol (controlling Black Sea access) plus right to locate 25,000 troops in Crimea.

18/ so yes, there were 25,000 Russian troops in Russian-speaking Crimea but there was no "invasion". However, the mere presence of Russian troops meant that Ukraine partisans couldn't interfere or prevent a referendum in Crimea.

19/ the outcome of the referendum was a massive (90+%) approval of separation from Ukraine and joining with Russia. Nor is there a shred of evidence suggesting that this was not the actual will of Crimean people or that Crimeans want a re-do.

20/ net result is that Weissmann was vehemently, even viscerally, opposed to candidate Trump's phlegmatic policy on Crimea. But why is this of such interest to Weissmann as a law enforcement official?

21/ And Crimea was one of Weissmann's top concerns in his law enforcement capacity. In closing section of his book, Weissmann expressed extreme frustration at being denied the opportunity to cross-examine Trump, with Crimea being one of the four questions at top of his list.

22/ Weissmann wanted to ask Trump why he "supported, rather than condemned, Russia's invasion of Crimea, a region of Ukraine"?

Leaving aside the tendentiousness of editorial framing of question, that is surely a question for a candidate foreign policy debate, not law enforcement

23/ Weissmann asks this question not just once, but twice in his book. Earlier in a paragraph describing the "job" for Mueller et al, the investigation of Trump's Crimea policy by law enforcement officials was among Weissmann's top concerns.