Peter W. Smith Is Dead, After Talking to WSJ About Flynn

[Deleted]

Deceased GOP operative hunted for hacked Clinton emails, implied he worked with Trump adviser Michael Flynn

www.marketwatch.com/story/gop-operative-hunted-for-hacked-clinton-emails-implied-he-worked-with-flynn-2017-06-29



June 30, 2017


A Republican opposition researcher hunted for copies of missing emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server — which he believed had been hacked — before the 2016 election and implied to associates he was working with then Trump adviser Michael Flynn, according to a report.

The Wall Street Journal said that GOP operative Peter W. Smith was scouring the world of hackers, including Russians, to get the Clinton emails, which the former Democratic presidential candidate said were deleted because they were personal.

Smith considered Flynn — who was at the time an adviser to Donald Trump’s campaign — an ally in his search, according to emails written by Smith and obtained by the Journal.

“He said, ‘I’m talking to Michael Flynn about this — if you find anything, can you let me know?’” Eric York, an Atlanta computer-security expert, told the paper.

The Journal cautioned that it was unclear what role Flynn might have played in Smith’s email hack hunt — which turned up nothing. Flynn did not respond to the paper’s requests for comment

And Smith —who died at age 81 shortly after talking to the Journal — told the paper he knew Flynn, but he never said Flynn was involved.

The Journal said that, according to sources, that federal investigators probing Russian interference in the election have looked at intelligence reports showing Russian hackers talked about how to get the deleted Clinton emails and hand them over to Flynn though a third party.

Flynn was fired earlier this year as Trump’s National Security Advisor for not coming clean to administration officials about his talks with Russia’s ambassador to the US.

In his interview with the Journal, Smith said his group found groups of hackers — including two that were Russian — claiming to have missing Clinton emails.

He said he couldn’t be sure the emails were legitimate, however, and told the sources to “give them to WikiLeaks,” which has never published such emails.

This report originally appeared on NYPost.com.

[Deleted]

Collusion is back: The strange tale of Michael Flynn, his son and a now-deceased Republican operative
Report: Trump’s former national security adviser implicated in attempted hack of Hillary Clinton’s emails

www.salon.com/2017/06/30/michael-flynn-his-son-and-a-now-deceased-gop-operative-just-revived-the-russian-collusion-question/



June 30, 2017

Ever since a Justice Department special counsel was named to oversee an investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election after President Donald Trump’s abrupt firing of former FBI director James Comey, one question has hung over the whole affair. Why did Trump back himself into such a precarious situation in order to protect Michael Flynn, his former national security adviser?

For those who have long speculated that Flynn could hold the key to possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and the Russians, a new report from the Wall Street Journal adds yet another bit of evidence pointing in that direction.

In an interview with the Journal last month, a now-deceased GOP operative admitted that during the campaign he asked cybersecurity experts to look for the 33,000 emails supposedly missing from Hillary Clinton’s private server. Peter W. Smith, a moderately well-known Republican researcher who helped peddle allegations from four Arkansas state troopers that they had helped Bill Clinton cheat on Hillary with “dozens of women” in the 1990s, made a series of stunning claims to his close associates and the Journal. Smith said that he sought to obtain Clinton’s emails from hacker forums, that he had contact with Russia’s ambassador during the campaign, and implied that he had worked with Flynn — who also sought to uncover the emails.

Ten days after being interviewed by the Journal, Smith passed away at the age of 81.

According to the Journal, Smith’s shenanigans began last summer, about a month after Trump jokingly called on Russia to release Clinton’s private emails. Beginning over the Labor Day weekend of 2016, Smith mounted a private campaign to obtain stolen emails that he believed had been on Clinton’s private server. Smith assembled a team of technology experts, lawyers and a Russian-speaking investigator and made contact with a number of groups — including, he claimed, some in Russia. Smith also implied in conversations with associates that he was working with Flynn, citing a working relationship with Flynn’s consulting firm, Flynn Intel Group, when trying to recruit new team members.

“He said, ‘I’m talking to Michael Flynn about this — if you find anything, can you let me know?’” said Eric York, a computer-security expert from Atlanta who searched hacker forums on Mr. Smith’s behalf for people who might have access to the emails.

[…]

In phone conversations, Mr. Smith told a computer expert he was in direct contact with Mr. Flynn and his son, according to this expert. … The expert said that based on his conversations with Mr. Smith, he understood the elder Mr. Flynn to be coordinating with Mr. Smith’s group in his capacity as a Trump campaign adviser.

Furthermore, in emails examined by the Journal, Smith said that Flynn’s son and chief of staff in his company, Michael G. Flynn, was helping with the operation.

The Journal also noted that Smith’s operation “is consistent with information that has been examined by U.S. investigators probing Russian interference in the elections.” Robert Mueller, the special counsel tasked with leading the investigation into Trump’s campaign ties to Russia, has reportedly “examined reports from intelligence agencies that describe Russian hackers discussing how to obtain emails from Mrs. Clinton’s server and then transmit them to Mr. Flynn via an intermediary.”

Smith claimed he was eventually able to get ahold of Clinton’s deleted emails through a hack. Since those emails were never released or published, those he acquired were likely fakes, the Journal speculates. Clinton has always maintained that her private server was not hacked.

After the presidential election, Smith made the curious claim on Twitter that “no nation-states were involved in hacking.”

esp. when blaming Russians when no nation-states were involved in hacking t.co/8FlyU6SQYJ

— Peter W. Smith (@ptrsih) December 11, 2016

Still, on the heels of this May CNN report that claimed Russian officials bragged about their close relationship to Flynn last year, Trump and his former national security — and Flynn’s son! — have a lot to worry about. Perhaps that’s why the White House’s pushback on Thursday’s intriguing story was less than confidence inspiring.

“A Trump campaign official said that Mr. Smith didn’t work for the campaign,” the Journal reported, “and that if Mr. Flynn coordinated with him in any way, it would have been in his capacity as a private individual.”

[Deleted]

Does anyone know the cause of death?

Paul W. Smith is now the 10th potential witness in the Trump-Putin nexus who has suddenly died since December.

One key person was found dead in his car in Moscow, one was shot in Kiev, and at least one was thrown out of a window.

[Deleted]

dailycaller.com/2017/06/20/nyt-columnist-calls-it-striking-how-little-evidence-there-is-for-trump-russia-collusion/

NYT Columnist Calls It ‘Striking How Little Evidence’ There Is For Trump, Russia Collusion

Jack Crowe


NYTimes columnist David Brooks challenged the paper’s dominant narrative in a Tuesday op-ed in which he cautioned critics of President Donald Trump to show restraint in light of the absence of evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

“There may be a giant revelation still to come. But as the Trump-Russia story has evolved, it is striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred — that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians,” Brooks wrote.

Brooks’ explicit admission that there is no evidence to suggest the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials to interfere in the 2016 presidential election represents a significant departure from what has been the NYTimes editorial position since the multiple ongoing investigations began.

Brooks’ skepticism echoes statements by lawmakers and officials on both sides of the aisle who have addressed the lack of evidence of collusion.

Maxine Waters, one of Trump’s most ardent congressional critics, replied in the negative when asked if evidence of collusion had been uncovered during an April interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” (RELATED: Even Maxine Waters Says There’s No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion

[Deleted]

Jul 2, 2017 8:58:02 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

dailycaller.com/2017/06/20/nyt-columnist-calls-it-striking-how-little-evidence-there-is-for-trump-russia-collusion/

NYT Columnist Calls It ‘Striking How Little Evidence’ There Is For Trump, Russia Collusion

Jack Crowe


NYTimes columnist David Brooks challenged the paper’s dominant narrative in a Tuesday op-ed in which he cautioned critics of President Donald Trump to show restraint in light of the absence of evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

“There may be a giant revelation still to come. But as the Trump-Russia story has evolved, it is striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred — that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians,” Brooks wrote.

Brooks’ explicit admission that there is no evidence to suggest the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials to interfere in the 2016 presidential election represents a significant departure from what has been the NYTimes editorial position since the multiple ongoing investigations began.

Brooks’ skepticism echoes statements by lawmakers and officials on both sides of the aisle who have addressed the lack of evidence of collusion.

Maxine Waters, one of Trump’s most ardent congressional critics, replied in the negative when asked if evidence of collusion had been uncovered during an April interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” (RELATED: Even Maxine Waters Says There’s No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion

Fred,

     Your article above was published on June 20, 2017-- prior to Peter W. Smith's revelations in WSJ about his contacts with Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon regarding the hacked Clinton Emails.

     Nice try, but no cigar.

[AlaCowboy]

Jul 2, 2017 12:56:27 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Jul 2, 2017 8:58:02 GMT -5 @kelliers said:

dailycaller.com/2017/06/20/nyt-columnist-calls-it-striking-how-little-evidence-there-is-for-trump-russia-collusion/

NYT Columnist Calls It ‘Striking How Little Evidence’ There Is For Trump, Russia Collusion

Jack Crowe


NYTimes columnist David Brooks challenged the paper’s dominant narrative in a Tuesday op-ed in which he cautioned critics of President Donald Trump to show restraint in light of the absence of evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

“There may be a giant revelation still to come. But as the Trump-Russia story has evolved, it is striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred — that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians,” Brooks wrote.

Brooks’ explicit admission that there is no evidence to suggest the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials to interfere in the 2016 presidential election represents a significant departure from what has been the NYTimes editorial position since the multiple ongoing investigations began.

Brooks’ skepticism echoes statements by lawmakers and officials on both sides of the aisle who have addressed the lack of evidence of collusion.

Maxine Waters, one of Trump’s most ardent congressional critics, replied in the negative when asked if evidence of collusion had been uncovered during an April interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” (RELATED: Even Maxine Waters Says There’s No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion

Fred,

     Your article above was published on June 20, 2017-- prior to Peter W. Smith's revelations in WSJ about his contacts with Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon regarding the hacked Clinton Emails.

     Nice try, but no cigar.

Peter W. Smith didn't make those revelations in the WSJ, Dr. Nie der hut. Some person made an unsubstantiated claim that some dead guy told him something. Please don't post lies here that you can't prove.

[Walter]

Jul 2, 2017 15:13:40 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Jul 2, 2017 12:56:27 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Fred,

     Your article above was published on June 20, 2017-- prior to Peter W. Smith's revelations in WSJ about his contacts with Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon regarding the hacked Clinton Emails.

     Nice try, but no cigar.

Peter W. Smith didn't make those revelations in the WSJ, Dr. Nie der hut. Some person made an unsubstantiated claim that some dead guy told him something. Please don't post lies here that you can't prove.

Actually, there are documents from the guy's company that back up what he was saying to the reporter.

[AlaCowboy]

Jul 2, 2017 15:58:15 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jul 2, 2017 15:13:40 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Peter W. Smith didn't make those revelations in the WSJ, Dr. Nie der hut. Some person made an unsubstantiated claim that some dead guy told him something. Please don't post lies here that you can't prove.

Actually, there are documents from the guy's company that back up what he was saying to the reporter.

I suppose we'll see them after Mueller finishes his investigation, just before the 2020 election.

[Deleted]

Mueller will be fired before the end of summer.

[Deleted]

      Peter w. Smith's death is beginning to sound stranger than ever.  WSJ reporter Shane Harris said that Smith looked very healthy when they met on May 4th to discuss Smith's contacts with Michael Flynn in 2016.  Smith planned to meet Harris again, but died on May 14th.  Still no news about the circumstances of his death, as far as I know...


Peter W. Smith / Trump / Russia – Something Doesn’t Add Up – Someone is Lying


ir.net/news/politics/125720/peter-w-smith-trump-russia-something-doesnt-add-someone-lying/



July 3, 2017

The bombshell story which broke last week from the Wall Street Journal has shed additional light on the Trump Campaign’s possible, perhaps even likely, collusion with Russia to tilt the election in their favor. The interview of the GOP operative Peter W. Smith would have certainly led to dozens of media outlets reaching out to him for follow-up questions, but that’s now impossible. Peter W. Smith passed away on May 14th, just 10 days after the WSJ talked to him.

This story has intrigued me, not only because it is the first such story to actually link Trump campaign officials to possible Russian hackers, but also because of the fact that we don’t know the circumstances of Smith’s death. The coroner and his family have remained quiet up until this point. Yes, I do understand that any 81-year-old man, even one who appears to be in great health, could die at any time, but it’s not just the timing of his death which perplexes me.

Like most journalists covering this story likely have done, I have paid a visit to Smith’s personal blog at PeterWSmith.com. At first glance, the website appears to be just an ordinary blog with a political slant to it, but once I began reading Smith’s entries I realized that it’s a direct line into the man’s head. Perhaps I could get a better feel for what Smith was thinking leading up to his death. After all, he even made two short entries into the blog on May 13, the day before he passed away.

Before I get into his blog entries, let’s first look back at the circumstances of the Wall Street Journal interview, on or around May 4th. Smith actually reached out to the WSJ as he seemed very interested in providing his story to them. Staff writer Shane Harris met with Smith, who he said seemed to be in very good health. Following the interview, Harris believed he’d likely meet with him several more times in the weeks and months to follow, but Smith’s death obviously prevented such meetings. Smith also seemed very happy to discuss the matter, was seemingly proud of his work and extremely forthright.

Smith went on to explain to Harris that he had created a group which he hoped could acquired the 33,000 missing emails that Clinton deleted. In doing so, he talked to five different hacking groups who claimed to have access to the emails, 2 of which were likely from Russia, working with or on behalf of the Russian government. Smith also implicated Michael Flynn and Michael Flynn Jr. by showing documents alleging that both men were working with his group. Later documents obtained by the WSJ that Smith used to try and recruit computer experts for his group showed that Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway and others within the Trump campaign were also tied to his work in some way. Smith’s interview basically linked those working for the Trump Campaign to Russian Hackers, showing that Flynn and others within the campaign were in fact at least trying to work with foreign hostile powers in order to obtain dirt on Trump’s opponent.

On or around May 4th, the time of the interview with Shane Harris from the WSJ, Smith was completely forthcoming with this information. Meanwhile, what he began posting publicly to his blog shortly after, told an entirely different story.

On May 6th, just two days after his interview with Harris, Smith posted an article he wrote, titled “Tinfoil Hat Coalition Reaches End of Line With Trump- Russia Connection.” It reads as follows:

“No less a source than FBI Director James Comey has said there is no bear there on the Trump-Russia connection. Comey’s comment came in the response noted in the New York Post story linked here. This is significant because Comey is not only the investigator, but he also steps into the role of judge and jury.

Other parties who have reached the same conclusion are: former acting CIA Director Mike Morell, who said there is no connection, as did former intel czar General James Clapper. The press and the Dems have no storyline, other than their campaign theme that the Russians caused Hillary’s loss.

This story will play through slowly, as numerous House and Senate committees want in on the action, and the same witnesses will be taken over the coals in numerous forms.

The real story is the manner in which information on the key Republican targets, General Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, and Carter Page, were outed by the Obama administration. Former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice can with a straight face say she did not leak information to the press, as she did not need to. The Obama administration shared with all of the countless intel agencies information gathered just prior to their departure, ensuring that a leak would occur somewhere.”

Then again Smith posted another story on May 13th, a day prior to his sudden death, titled “Three Agencies, Not 17, Behind Russian Interference Allegations”. This story tried to dissuade readers from the Russian narrative by arguing that only three agencies, the NSA, CIA and FBI were alleging Russian interference into our elections, not 17 like the mainstream media had been claiming. Smith also tried to say that these three agencies are all “suspect in terms of their credibility”, and pro-Democratic.

So the question must be asked, why, just a couple days after being so liberal in his interview with the WSJ, revealing information which seemed to point to the Trump Campaign colluding with Russia, was Smith now suddenly posting the opposite on his public blog? Did Smith perhaps receive some sort of threat? Did he realize that he took things too far and may have blown the cover of those he had worked with?

I’m certainly not one for conspiracy theories, and I’m not by any means suggesting that Smith’s death was some sort of murder/cover-up, but I’m also pointing out that something doesn’t add up here and things should be investigated further. Someone is lying here. Is it the right-leaning Wall Street Journal publishing accounts of Smith’s interview incorrectly? I doubt it. So is Smith himself a liar here? If so, who did he lie to? Was it the WSJ in the interview, or the readers of his public blog in his efforts to perhaps appease someone threatening him for speaking to the media?

[oujour76]

Jul 3, 2017 14:25:28 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

      Peter w. Smith's death is beginning to sound stranger than ever.  WSJ reporter Shane Harris said that Smith looked very healthy when they met on May 4th to discuss Smith's contacts with Michael Flynn in 2016.  Smith planned to meet Harris again, but died on May 14th.  Still no news about the circumstances of his death, as far as I know...


Peter W. Smith / Trump / Russia – Something Doesn’t Add Up – Someone is Lying


ir.net/news/politics/125720/peter-w-smith-trump-russia-something-doesnt-add-someone-lying/



July 3, 2017

The bombshell story which broke last week from the Wall Street Journal has shed additional light on the Trump Campaign’s possible, perhaps even likely, collusion with Russia to tilt the election in their favor. The interview of the GOP operative Peter W. Smith would have certainly led to dozens of media outlets reaching out to him for follow-up questions, but that’s now impossible. Peter W. Smith passed away on May 14th, just 10 days after the WSJ talked to him.

This story has intrigued me, not only because it is the first such story to actually link Trump campaign officials to possible Russian hackers, but also because of the fact that we don’t know the circumstances of Smith’s death. The coroner and his family have remained quiet up until this point. Yes, I do understand that any 81-year-old man, even one who appears to be in great health, could die at any time, but it’s not just the timing of his death which perplexes me.

Like most journalists covering this story likely have done, I have paid a visit to Smith’s personal blog at PeterWSmith.com. At first glance, the website appears to be just an ordinary blog with a political slant to it, but once I began reading Smith’s entries I realized that it’s a direct line into the man’s head. Perhaps I could get a better feel for what Smith was thinking leading up to his death. After all, he even made two short entries into the blog on May 13, the day before he passed away.

Before I get into his blog entries, let’s first look back at the circumstances of the Wall Street Journal interview, on or around May 4th. Smith actually reached out to the WSJ as he seemed very interested in providing his story to them. Staff writer Shane Harris met with Smith, who he said seemed to be in very good health. Following the interview, Harris believed he’d likely meet with him several more times in the weeks and months to follow, but Smith’s death obviously prevented such meetings. Smith also seemed very happy to discuss the matter, was seemingly proud of his work and extremely forthright.

Smith went on to explain to Harris that he had created a group which he hoped could acquired the 33,000 missing emails that Clinton deleted. In doing so, he talked to five different hacking groups who claimed to have access to the emails, 2 of which were likely from Russia, working with or on behalf of the Russian government. Smith also implicated Michael Flynn and Michael Flynn Jr. by showing documents alleging that both men were working with his group. Later documents obtained by the WSJ that Smith used to try and recruit computer experts for his group showed that Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway and others within the Trump campaign were also tied to his work in some way. Smith’s interview basically linked those working for the Trump Campaign to Russian Hackers, showing that Flynn and others within the campaign were in fact at least trying to work with foreign hostile powers in order to obtain dirt on Trump’s opponent.

On or around May 4th, the time of the interview with Shane Harris from the WSJ, Smith was completely forthcoming with this information. Meanwhile, what he began posting publicly to his blog shortly after, told an entirely different story.

On May 6th, just two days after his interview with Harris, Smith posted an article he wrote, titled “Tinfoil Hat Coalition Reaches End of Line With Trump- Russia Connection.” It reads as follows:

“No less a source than FBI Director James Comey has said there is no bear there on the Trump-Russia connection. Comey’s comment came in the response noted in the New York Post story linked here. This is significant because Comey is not only the investigator, but he also steps into the role of judge and jury.

Other parties who have reached the same conclusion are: former acting CIA Director Mike Morell, who said there is no connection, as did former intel czar General James Clapper. The press and the Dems have no storyline, other than their campaign theme that the Russians caused Hillary’s loss.

This story will play through slowly, as numerous House and Senate committees want in on the action, and the same witnesses will be taken over the coals in numerous forms.

The real story is the manner in which information on the key Republican targets, General Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, and Carter Page, were outed by the Obama administration. Former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice can with a straight face say she did not leak information to the press, as she did not need to. The Obama administration shared with all of the countless intel agencies information gathered just prior to their departure, ensuring that a leak would occur somewhere.”

Then again Smith posted another story on May 13th, a day prior to his sudden death, titled “Three Agencies, Not 17, Behind Russian Interference Allegations”. This story tried to dissuade readers from the Russian narrative by arguing that only three agencies, the NSA, CIA and FBI were alleging Russian interference into our elections, not 17 like the mainstream media had been claiming. Smith also tried to say that these three agencies are all “suspect in terms of their credibility”, and pro-Democratic.

So the question must be asked, why, just a couple days after being so liberal in his interview with the WSJ, revealing information which seemed to point to the Trump Campaign colluding with Russia, was Smith now suddenly posting the opposite on his public blog? Did Smith perhaps receive some sort of threat? Did he realize that he took things too far and may have blown the cover of those he had worked with?

I’m certainly not one for conspiracy theories, and I’m not by any means suggesting that Smith’s death was some sort of murder/cover-up, but I’m also pointing out that something doesn’t add up here and things should be investigated further. Someone is lying here. Is it the right-leaning Wall Street Journal publishing accounts of Smith’s interview incorrectly? I doubt it. So is Smith himself a liar here? If so, who did he lie to? Was it the WSJ in the interview, or the readers of his public blog in his efforts to perhaps appease someone threatening him for speaking to the media?

So...on May 4, Smith tries to find Hillary's missing emails. On May 14, Smith is dead. Carry on.

[Deleted]

Huh, Harry?  Smith died 10 days after talking to the WSJ about his contacts with the Trump campaign and Email hackers.

Ben Palmer posted today that the state of Illinois (where Smith died) will not release death certificates unless there is a property dispute.

Is that true?

My questions;

1)  Why did the WSJ wait almost two months before publishing Smith's story about Michael Flynn and Clinton's Emails?

2)  How did Smith die?

3)  Was there an autopsy?

4)  Why would Smith tell his Trump-Russia collusion story to WSJ, then write a blog stating that there was no collusion?

[oujour76]

Jul 3, 2017 19:26:14 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Ben Palmer posted today that the state of Illinois (where Smith died) will not release death certificates unless there is a property dispute.

Is that true?

No.

[Deleted]

The Chicago Tribune has a story out today claiming that Smith committed suicide at a hotel near the Mayo clinic.

Reportedly, he used helium, and was concerned about an expiring life insurance policy.

There were reports of skepticism about the suicide ruling from one of the hotel staff, but not much detail. He, reportedly, left a suicide letter, etc.

[Deleted]

Here's something that was published by the New Yorker late last night...


Republican Who Sought Clinton Emails from Russian Hackers Did Not Die of Natural Causes

nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/republican-who-sought-clinton-emails-didnt-die-of-old-age.html



by Jonathan Chait


July 13, 2017

Two weeks ago, Wall Street Journal reporter Shane Harris broke an explosive story that received relatively little attention in the national media. Harris found that Peter W. Smith, a Republican operative with a history of partisan skullduggery going back years, sought to obtain hacked Clinton emails on behalf of the Trump presidential campaign. (Smith told people he approached he was working for Michael Flynn.) Smith died shortly after speaking to Harris. Now the Chicago Tribune reports that Smith died of an apparent suicide.

Smith’s suicide note declares, “No foul play whatsoever,” “recent bad turn in health since January, 2017,” “life insurance of $5 million expiring.” It is entirely possible this is true. But there is at least some reason to doubt that Smith decided to take his own life to claim an expiring life-insurance payment due to a sudden turn in his health.

Harris reports that when he spoke with Smith, he saw no indication of bad health or any suicidal behavior:

When I spoke to Peter Smith I had no indication that he was ill or planning to take his own life.
— Shane Harris (@shaneharris) July 13, 2017

On the basis of his occupation (“For more than 40 years, Peter directed private equity firms in corporate acquisitions and venture investments, says his obituary”), Smith also appears to have been quite wealthy. It’s possible his fortunes took a turn for the worse. Plus, of course, Trump surrounds himself with some extremely disreputable people as a general habit.

Could Smith’s death, just days after his interview with Harris, be related to the scandal? His role is potentially very significant. Matt Tait, a cybersecurity expert, recounts in detail Smith’s attempt to recruit him to obtain the emails, and his complete lack of concern that he might be entangled in a Russian influence campaign contrary to American interests. Harris reported as well that American officials “have examined reports from intelligence agencies that describe Russian hackers discussing how to obtain emails from Mrs. Clinton’s server and then transmit them to Mr. Flynn via an intermediary.”

In tandem, these reports deliver both sides of a transaction: an operative purporting to work for Flynn attempting to obtain stolen emails from Russia, and Russians attempting to get them to Flynn. This account is not conclusive evidence of criminal conspiracy, because it is missing evidence that the transaction was completed. It will be harder to find such evidence, should it exist, now that Smith is dead. The FBI will probably want to take a close look at this death.