Authors Seth Abramson
2/ Stone and Manafort are longtime business partners; we'd expect Manafort to tell Stone what Assange told him, and for him to expect Stone to then pressure the campaign not only to hire him but quickly elevate him.
And who was Stone in touch with at the campaign? Trump himself.
3/ I bet you Manafort's late March emails are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime business associate Roger Stone. And I bet Roger Stone's late March phone calls are very interesting and that some of them are to/from his longtime friend Donald Trump.
4/ At the end of March 2016, Trump suddenly convenes a NatSec meeting. At that meeting he directs his NatSec team to change the RNC platform in July to benefit Putin. Who later takes credit for that change?
Paul Manafort's business associate, Kremlin agent Konstantin Kilimnick.
5/ Why did Donald Trump suddenly convene a NatSec meeting 3 days after he finally hired Manafort? Why did he issue a pro-Kremlin directive at that meeting that Manafort's camp would later take credit for? What did Manafort tell Trump in the days leading up to that NatSec meeting?
1/ I must stress how unbelievably complex the "Grand Bargain" theory of the Trump-Russia case is—a different thing from saying it's not substantiated. It's substantiated in *almost every single particular*—it just *also* happens to be very confusing. Not byzantine—just confusing.
2/ The basics: Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the UAE all view Iran as their chief regional enemy. Iran is propped up by Russia. Therefore the Saudis, Israelis, and Emiratis all need a US government willing to find a way to get the Kremlin to *stop* supporting Iran in the Middle East.
3/ The best way to get Russia to stop supporting Iran—or reduce support—was/is to drop all sanctions on Russia over its 2014 annexation of Crimea, as that'd be worth *trillions* to the Kremlin over the next decade. Everyone knew that Clinton wouldn't do this—and that Trump would.
4/ Per the NYT, on August 3, 2016, Donald Trump Jr. met secretly at Trump Tower with a Saudi and Emirati emissary, George Nader, as well as an Israeli intelligence expert, Joel Zamel, with *significant* ties to both Israeli intelligence *and* Russian oligarchs allied with Putin.
1/ From 2014-17 Whitaker worked for World Patent Marketing—which during his tenure defrauded consumers out of $26 million and was successfully prosecuted by the feds. His involvement in the scam confirmed he had loose morals and that the feds would never want to employ him again.
2/ Despite the seeming impossibility of a man with Whitaker's background getting a job at Justice ever again—he'd been found to have used his former title as a US attorney to fraudulently threaten consumers with valid complaints with criminal penalties—Whitaker found an opening.
3/ Within 60 days of parachuting out of World Patent Marketing as it was being fined $26 million by the feds, Whitaker was working for CNN and telling a fellow attorney panelist that his purpose in working for CNN was to get noticed by one man—Donald Trump—and thereby get a job.
4/ Whitaker spent his time at CNN making ludicrous statements about the Mueller probe: there was no obstruction or collusion, he said; Mueller had no authority to look into any aspect of Trump's finances or to subpoena him, he said. All the while, he hoped Trump was watching him.
But—*but*—the blowback on Warren is useful as a reminder that facts, science, and really truth of any kind is now anathema to the GOP.
2/ If you're online trying to convince a Trumpist of *anything*—I mean *anything*—stop right now.
The Trumpists' reaction to Warren's DNA test—a cacophony of fact-free insanity about race and DNA and even just *the bare facts of what happened*—tells you you're wasting your time.
3/ I don't see the point in baiting Trumpists, or insulting them, or calling attention to their madness on a daily basis. These people are fundamentally unserious about truth, discourse, and anything resembling a community of ideas. So:
1) Ignore them—completely.
4/ I don't always live up to that standard, but I'm *trying*. I'm *trying* to ignore as beneath dialogic significance those who say "most people" have Native American ancestry, or who can't read basic studies to understand Warren's DNA test, or who say Trump never made a bet, &c.
5/ Trump wants to call Warren "Pocahontas" because he's a racist, wants to appeal to racists, and his cult-like following so ignores *everything bad he does* that they think that, had she lied—she didn't—*this* (this!) would be worse than anything Trump has done.
(2) Since 2016, Kushner has connived, with Saudi help, to force the Qataris (literally at a ship's gunpoint) to "loan" him $900 million.
(3) This is consistent with the Steele dossier.
(4) Kushner is unlikely to ever have to pay the "loan" back.
2/ So as you read about his tax practices, you should take from it that it's practices of this sort that ensure that he's able to extort money from foreign governments while Trump is POTUS without ever having to pay the money back. It also explains why he's in the Saudis' pocket.
3/ It's why the Saudis *say* he's in their pocket. It's why emoluments and federal bribery statutes matter. It's why Kushner was talking to the Saudi Crown Prince the day before the murdered Washington Post journalist was taken. It's why the Trump administration now does nothing.
2/ For those who missed the first set of excerpts from PROOF OF COLLUSION, they can be seen in the tweet below—click on the link to see the tweet. For the link to preorder PROOF OF COLLUSION, see my currently pinned tweet or the link in my Twitter profile.
(EXCERPT) Here are the first excerpts to be published from my forthcoming 450-page, 1,650-endnote book PROOF OF COLLUSION. More excerpts will be released each Monday until the book's November 13 release. I hope you'll RETWEET and consider preordering here: https://t.co/ZJsnHcVwGi pic.twitter.com/LDu7deiPJU— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) October 15, 2018
PS/ To see a larger, more readily readable version of any of these excerpts, right-click and download the picture to your desktop. Then open the file and it will be much larger and easier to read.
BONUS FACT/ In the last excerpt, I refer to "any aide with whom Trump shared the classified intelligence he received in the [August 17, 2016] briefing." Well you might wonder—who did he share it with? Answer: we don't know.
But we DO know who was WITH HIM at the briefing: FLYNN.
BONUS FACT 2/ According to Mother Jones and Washington Post reporting, then, we know Flynn attended the August 17, 2016 briefing at which Trump was informed of Russian aggression, and THEREAFTER—but BEFORE the election—engaged in clandestine contacts with the Russian ambassador.
2/ Each of the 14 chapters in the book is divided into three sections: Summary, Facts, and Annotated History. Summary and Facts sections are present tense; Annotated Histories are past tense. Endnote numerals follow sentences, with the endnotes themselves at the back of the book.
3/ There are zero tweets from this feed in the book. The book is written in the style of a government report, chronologically ordered. The timeframe covered by the book begins in 1987 (Chapter 1) and quickly moves to a month-by-month analysis of Trump's campaign from June '15 on.
4/ The book's 1,650 endnotes comprise about 2,000 total citations. The number of media outlets cited in the book is in the hundreds, and includes reliable media institutions from around the world. The number of people discussed is so large that we'll have to put the Index online.
5/ This book is the public record of the public investigation into Trump-Russia collusion. That means it's composed of the best investigative reporting done on this topic—including any leaks directly from Congressional and DOJ/FBI sources that were later published in major media.
2/ Trump had two opportunities to formally name Flynn and his co-conspirator Erik Prince to his NatSec team during the 2016 campaign—he declined to do so *both times*. In the criminal justice system this is evidence of consciousness of guilt. Trump knew what these men were doing.
3/ That Trump sought out Flynn—not the other way around—in August '15, and began using him as his chief NatSec adviser right away, but never put him on his National Security Advisory Committee is critical evidence that Flynn was working on projects that had to be "off the books."
2/ The Mueller probe will go down as one of the most successful and professionally run probes of its kind in US history. Even Trump's legal team says that new indictments—*on collusion*—are coming. That doesn't even count Stone and Prince getting pinched for lying (at a minimum).
3/ I'm getting emails from people saying they are "tired" or "losing hope" or "fearful nothing will happen" and I admit these notes make me angry. Mueller is KICKING TRUMP'S ASS in a timeframe NO ONE imagined was possible and Trump critics act like someone's spit in their coffee.
4/ THE RESULTS
TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER
TRUMP'S DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER
TRUMP'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
TRUMP'S PERSONAL ATTORNEY/RNC DEPUTY FINANCE CHAIR
5/ RESULTS (CONTINUED)
TRUMP'S LONGEST-SERVING NATIONAL SECURITY AIDE
Charges Expected Soon
TRUMP'S SHADOW NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
1/ *Everyone* knows that the next step in the Mueller probe will come after the November 6 election, as Mueller is currently foregoing any additional steps in his work because of the DOJ's recommended "60-day pre-election" rule against action on cases with political implications.
2/ *Everyone* knows that Mueller has completed or nearly completed the Obstruction portion of his investigation (indeed, might have completed it long ago), so even news that Mueller would be ready to issue findings on Obstruction sometime after November 6 would not be surprising.
3/ *Everyone* knows that Rosenstein fears for his job, and fears for Sessions' job, and fears for Mueller's job, so *no one* would be surprised to learn that Rosenstein was pressuring Mueller to release *some* sort of report shortly after November 6 in order to show his progress.
4/ *Everyone* knows that behind the scenes Trump has been pressuring the FBI/DOJ to "wrap up" their work, so—while it was not just inappropriate but possibly illegal for Trump to pressure Rosenstein during a recent plane trip—*no one* would be surprised to learn that he did that.
2/ No, I'm serious: the only people the White House is trying to reach here are those who don't use the internet for news—ever—or those radicals who only read fringe publications that lie to them daily. If you've been following the Kavanaugh nomination online, you know the truth.
(2 of 2) I believe this is a coincidence. That said, because I don't think Manafort aiding and abetting a rally that ended in insurrection is coincidence, I have to assume that—out of an abundance of caution—law enforcement will investigate any possible Manafort-Liebengood link.
(PS) It is vital that no one presume connections where there may be none. My point is that as a criminal investigative matter, Manafort will be investigated for any role he had in the Save America March, and Liebengood's suicide would naturally be investigated due to its context.
(PS2) I'm sure there'll be those who say that a Donald Trump event giving tons of money to a company that enriches Paul Manafort at a time when Trump continues to need Manafort to stay quiet and Manafort is having money problems is a mere coincidence.
*That* I do not agree with.
(PS3) By the same token, as a federal criminal investigative matter, when you are about to have numerous investigations into whether security at a government building had been pre-compromised and someone who worked security at that building commits suicide, it gets investigated.
Republicans ALSO want to devise a NEW STANDARD never before applied in the history of the Supreme Court: that MULTIPLE PERJURIES by the nominee—CONFIRMED by BOTH testimonial AND documentary evidence—AREN'T an automatic disqualifier from confirmation. But they ARE. They're CRIMES.
2/ As GP rails against Mueller to help sell movie rights to his story (or whatever), here's what his attorneys actually said in court: "Our firm would in a second stand up if we saw prosecutorial or governmental misconduct. We have seen no such thing." But they didn't stop there.
3/ George's attorneys added, "We have seen no entrapment. We have seen no set-up by U.S. intelligence people. Everything we saw, they’ve been on the square." So apparently on the same day my world "collapses," George's lawyers will *also* experience a massive temporal distortion.
2/ Mind you, we have two *direct* (sworn) eyewitnesses to Kavanaugh committing multiple sexual assaults: Swetnick and Accuser #4, whose affidavits corroborate one another. But we also have multiple *contemporaneous disclosures* (as close to an eyewitness as it gets) for Ramirez.
3/ We also have 10 prior disclosures for Dr. Ford, all preceding Kavanaugh being nominated. This too is a form of corroborating evidence. And the testimonial evidence establishing that Kavanaugh lied under oath is now... legion. At least six to ten witnesses. Where was the media?
4/ To attorneys, the "no corroboration" claim is a *farce*. But it's been allowed to stand by the media because apparently there were too few analysts out there given the time or space to discuss what "corroboration" means in the US legal system. So we get a travesty of justice.
By the time I introduced Donald Trump to the Egyptian president in September 2016, a politically motivated surveillance operation by at least the UK and Australia was targeted at me and the campaign for seven months. Who authorized that? Congress has the answers.— George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) October 7, 2018
2/ Trump's legal duty under the federal aiding and abetting statute not to do anything that might induce further Russian attacks was officially triggered on August 17, 2016, at his first classified briefing. Why was he meeting with a "Kremlin intermediary" weeks after this date?
1/ If you haven't yet seen my analysis of Trump's January 6 "incitement to insurrection" speech, you can find it at the link below. This thread will look at four shorter—but deeply consequential—speeches just before Trump's, all by Trump allies or family.
(THREAD) Media has yet to do a deep dive on precisely what Trump *said* in his January 6 speech in DC\u2014a speech now called an "incitement to insurrection," and the basis for an article of impeachment coming Monday. This thread unpacks the speech. I hope you'll read on and RETWEET. pic.twitter.com/ba6eaNScNW— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) January 9, 2021
2/ DONALD TRUMP JR.
Trump Jr.'s speech on January 6—which ended less than an hour before his father incited an insurrection—is one of the most inscrutable of the day, because its beginning includes some promisingly responsible rhetoric. Then it descends into madness and chaos.
3/ "I'm looking at the crowd here, and you did it all [congregate here] without burning down buildings! You did it without ripping down churches! Without looting! I didn't know that that was possible!" Within 2 hours of his speech, Don Jr.'s audience would be looting the Capitol.
4/ So obviously Don Jr.'s opening is ironic to a historic degree, but this isn't the first time we've heard this rhetoric from him. He habitually ignores right-wing violence because he knows that his chief rhetorical canard—which marries progressivism and violences—gets applause.
PS/ Broidy has a *lot* to tell federal investigators about Trump's illicit dealings in the Middle East. As with pedophile/now-federal-convict George Nader—one of Broidy's chief co-conspirators—if the feds don't cut a deal with Broidy to get info on Trump, Barr has put the fix in.
PS2/ Today is a day I want to reach out with warmth and appreciation to all readers of the Proof series—who've known this indictment was coming for well over a year and are probably as excited as I am that a key Proof-series figure is being taken down *just* as he deserves to be.
PS3/ There are associations between Broidy and Trump's mistresses, Broidy and Prince's mercenary companies, Broidy and Michael Cohen, Broidy and George Nader's illicit work with Saudi Arabia and the UAE... this is a *big* get for federal investigators, if they *want* it to be.