(MAJOR NOTE) The reason Manafort took over Trump's campaign in just 3 weeks despite being hired as a mere delegate counter is that ROGER STONE initiated a whisper campaign against Corey Lewandowski. That campaign started...days after Manafort returned from meeting with WikiLeaks.

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?
6/ A reasonable theory of the case is that Paul Manafort gave Donald Trump information about WikiLeaks' pre-election plans, and that led Trump to days later order a platform change at the RNC that Manafort's circle would later take credit for. That's collusion and a quid pro quo.

More from Seth Abramson

As I know from my many years as a criminal defense attorney, GP, inmates can usually get books if they're sent directly from the publisher. What is your inmate number going to be? I will try to get you a copy of PROOF OF COLLUSION to help you pass the time while you're in prison.


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.
MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: Donald Trump Is Now Privately Confirming His Support of a Summer Coup of the Biden Administration; If the Former President Has Engaged in Even a Single Act to Advance This Treacherous Plot He is Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy and Must Be Arrested Immediately


1/ Journalists need to be very careful in how they discuss this breaking news. Individuals who have provided cover for Trump repeatedly in the past—like Maggie Haberman—are reporting evidence of a possible seditious conspiracy as mere loose talk from an addled man. Sorry, but no.

2/ There are efforts afoot now in GA, AZ, NV, and WI to delegitimize Biden's victories there. Meanwhile, Trump advisors Flynn and Powell are saying that once those victories are delegitimized, the military should move in. If Trump is in on the conversations, it's a coup attempt.

3/ As anyone who has ever read a book or watched a movie or taken a history course knows, the most important element of a coup is the agreement of the individual who'll be installed as a nation's new president to participate in the installation. Without that there can be no coup.

4/ What Trump is privately doing, according to the NYT, is the *opposite* of what Lyndon Johnson famously did in saying that even if nominated he wouldn't run for president. Trump is telling the coup conspirators that he *will accept a re-installation* if they can make it happen.

More from Politics

This is partly what makes it impossible to have a constructive conversation nowadays. The stubborn refusal to accept that opposition to Trumpism and GOP nationalism is about more than simply holding different beliefs about things in and of itself. 👇


It's fine for people to hold different beliefs. But that doesn't mean all beliefs deserve equal treatment or tolerance and it doesn't mean intolerance of some beliefs makes a person intolerant of every belief which they don't share.

So if I said I don't think Trumpism deserves to be tolerated because it's just a fresh 21st century coat of cheap paint on a failed, dangerous 20th century ideology (fascism) that doesn't mean I'm intolerant of all beliefs with which I disagree. You'd think this would be obvious.

Another important facet. People who support fascist movements tend to give what they think are valid reasons for supporting them. That doesn't mean anyone is obliged to tolerate fascism or accept their proffered excuse.


Say you joined a neighborhood group that sets up community gardens and does roadside beautification projects. All good, right? Say one day you're having a meeting and you notice the President and exec board of this group are saying some bizarre things about certain neighbors.

You May Also Like