Scott Horton, a lawyer with an eye for news -- who produced keen reporting on the Don Siegelman case -- exposes Elon Musk's ties to Putin; Horton's insights on my UAB termination speak to attacks on a free press

(VOA)

The FBI for years tracked Elon Musk's interactions with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but the bureau kept what they learned from the public, ensuring voters would know nothing about it when they went to the polls last November 5 and gave Donald Trump a victory over Democrat Kamala Harris, including wins in seven swing states. Despite spending almost all of his professional life on the East Coast, Trump even won the western states of Arizona and Nevada, right next door to Harris' home state of California. It was a stunning performance that almost certainly would not have happened without the assistance of Musk, who endorsed Trump in July 2024, shortly after an alleged assassination attempt of the candidate in Butler, PA. 

Robert Scott Horton, who long has been one of our most articulate voices on matters of justice in the United States and beyond, writes at his Facebook page that Americans had a vested interest in knowing about Musk's connections to Putin because the billionaire -- reportedly worth $335.2 billion (per Forbes) and long touted as the world's richest person -- has made a habit of parroting Kremlin talking points, Horton writes:

As we will shortly learn, for years the FBI tracked Elon Musk's nefarious dealings with Vladimir Putin and his agents and decided to do nothing whatsoever about it. Indeed, they decided to keep what they learned secret, so that American voters knew nothing about it when they went to the polls in 2024. "For years, he has increasingly regurgitated Kremlin talking points, especially regarding Ukraine. In late 2022, with Russian troops starting to be pushed out of much of eastern Ukraine, Musk began broadcasting Kremlin talking points to halt Ukrainian advances. He started peddling Russian propaganda claims that Ukrainian territories like Crimea are “absolutely seen as a core part of Russia by Russia”—and that Russia would resort to nuclear war if Crimea was threatened by Kyiv. He further peddled a supposed “peace plan” that would not only return Ukraine to neutrality—the same neutrality Ukraine enjoyed when Russia first invaded in 2014—but further force Ukraine to give up its claims to Crimea.

Does Horton know what he's talking about? He's had a long and distinguished career in law, journalism, and academia, with an emphasis on human rights. In Alabama he is well known for his extensive reporting on the political prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman during the George W. Bush administration. (Also see The Pork Barrel World of Judge Mark Fuller, Judge Fuller: A Siegelman Grudge Match? and 2003 Affidavit Raises More Serious Questions About Siegelman Judge.)

Horton earned his J.D. at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin. He worked at two New York-based law firms (Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, along with DLA Piper in London). He was a lecturer at Columbia University and a contributing editor at Harper's Magazine.

I should note that I have first-hand experience with how Scott Horton handles a sensitive story. On Dec. 31, 2008, he reported at Harper's about my unlawful termination at UAB (For more details on what happened to me at UAB, please see this link, and this link.) Under the headline "The Argus-Eyed University," Horton wrote about my dreadful experience in the workplace with professionalism and care.

While some official types at UAB probably did not care for the story, Horton was fair to everyone involved. The following paragraphs are examples of how Horton approached his work:

We could hardly end 2008 without delivering a George Orwell Honorable Mention to the University of Alabama at Birmingham for its truly extraordinary “acceptable use” policy on employee Internet use. There’s nothing strange about the language of the policy–in fact it’s pedestrian (the Internet “may not be used for any activity which is destructive, disruptive, or illegal” it says). But how the university interprets and applies this prohibition might surprise an observer–unless, of course, the observer is attuned to the peculiarities of Alabama politics.

Case in point: The university recently fired Roger Shuler, a long-time public relations employee who blogs on legal developments under the moniker “the Legal Schnauzer,” apparently expressing concern in a grievance hearing over the fact that he regularly visited and read Harper’s. After The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on the firing, the university posted a credibility-straining assertion that the firing was “based solely on work performance.” Also according to the Chronicle:

The university told The Raw Story that Mr. Shuler had not been fired for blogging, but it would not comment further. In June an appeals committee at the university voted to overturn Mr. Shuler’s dismissal. But he says the university recently told him that, while he could be rehired, he would not get his former job back.

Shuler says the decision to fire him was based on the political content of his blog posts, which were critical of Alabama Governor Bob Riley and one of his key allies, U.S. Attorney Alice Martin. According to Shuler, the firing occurred only a few months after one of Riley’s political cronies threatened him with the loss of his job because of his blogging. Indeed, to the university’s chagrin, his final review session was taped, and portions which have now been published suggest that the primary concern of his reviewers was that he was publicly critical of the state’s political powers.

That is spot-on accurate and fair to everyone involved. If some folks at UAB didn't like it, well, that's because they were lying when they said I was fired because of my work performance. Anita Bonasera, the university's own HR specialist, admitted to me -- in a phone conversation I recorded -- that I was fired because of my blog, especially my reporting on the Siegelman case. You can read the relevant parts of the transcript and view a video that features audio of the Bonasera phone call at this link. Horton portrayed UAB's spokespeople as liars, and that is exactly what they are.

My main point: Scott Horton is a bright, talented guy and a world-class journalist and lawyer. When he writes about Elon Musk -- probably the most controversial person on the planet right now -- the public would be wise to pay attention. Horton states in clear, straightforward language that Musk is a deceptive individual, particularly when it comes to the interests of Vladimir Putin:

In late 2022, with Russian troops starting to be pushed out of much of eastern Ukraine, Musk began broadcasting Kremlin talking points to halt Ukrainian advances. He started peddling Russian propaganda claims that Ukrainian territories like Crimea are “absolutely seen as a core part of Russia by Russia”—and that Russia would resort to nuclear war if Crimea was threatened by Kyiv. He further peddled a supposed “peace plan” that would not only return Ukraine to neutrality—the same neutrality Ukraine enjoyed when Russia first invaded in 2014—but further force Ukraine to give up its claims to Crimea.

All of it added up to a sudden pro-Kremlin shift in Musk’s public rhetoric—and a complete shift away from the backing for Ukraine he’d initially exhibited. For those familiar with the region and Russian politics, Musk’s additional calls to have Ukrainian water flow to the peninsula, while also dubbing Ukraine’s claims to Crimea as “Khruschev’s mistake,” were immediate red flags, directly parroting Kremlin rhetoric. “It’s very clear that Elon Musk is transmitting a message for Putin,” Russia expert Fiona Hill said at the time. Soon thereafter, we learned that Musk had specifically blocked a Ukrainian military mission from targeting the peninsula, with Musk waffling in the face of Russian nuclear threats—arguably the only time Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling has actually worked.

 

Now we know how, and why, Musk suddenly lurched toward supporting Putin—and why he’s continued down that path since. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Musk has spoken multiple times, including this year, with high-level Russian officials—including Putin. In addition to pushing the kinds of talking points Musk then regurgitated, the Kremlin further encouraged Musk to block his Starlink satellites from operating over Taiwan, “as a favor to Chinese leader Xi Jinping.”