U better listen.

(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?

(THREAD) Pre-election Russia collusion may take down Trump. It's equally possible the Trumps' pre- and post-election collusion with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel will do it—a course of collusion also connected to the Kremlin. I explain here. I hope you'll read on and retweet.

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 “Amazing Juan O'Savin Video: America's New Day Dawning, the Rebirth of America" 12.21

When Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated on June 6, 1968, Jacqueline Kennedy cried out, “If they’re killing Kennedys, then my children are targets. I want to get out of this country.”

2. Mrs. Kennedy had a heartbreaking reason and a compelling reason to say that.

President Kennedy’s family are either incredibly accident prone or possibly, and this is just my supposition, there was an underlying plot by the de*ep state to remove every Kennedy that they...

3. ... believed posed a threat to their envisaged defeat.

How can I make that claim?

Because both the de*ep state and the Alliance are in possession of Looking Glass technology. This advanced off-world tech enables one to see into everything: Akashic records, future, past,...

4. ... present, timelines, dimensions, 2020 U.S. elections, anything.

Gene Decode reported that POTUS was in a SCIF Election Night watching the Election fraud take place on Quantum Computers and that this was the second time the Alliance had watched the fraud. They’d already...

5. ... seen Election Night 2020 before Trump even became POTUS thanks to Looking Glass.

This technology could also explain why Q’s posts are so eerily accurate.

It is my theory that, perhaps, when the ca_bal looked into future timelines they could see that an essential...

(THREAD) The main problem with that @DanDrezner piece in the Post is that it's an international politics prof writing about the field in which I'm a professor—communications. No one in communications would *ever* compare the blogosphere to either Twitter or Substack. Here's why.

1/ Back in the mid-aughts, I was a Koufax Award-nominated political blogger (I don't know what Drezner was doing then; I first heard of him about a year ago). So I was into the blogosphere pretty deep, as I also ran a second high-traffic blog that was focused on the art world.

2/ The "blogosphere" was an outgrowth of MySpace and LiveJournal, inasmuch as in the heady early days of the internet people suddenly realized that they could engage in private diaristic writing—a very specific subgenre of writing—in the public square, and it was suddenly "okay."

3/ So the blogosphere as such had *nothing* to do with journalism, which needless to say was in a different state just 15 years ago (note: unlike Drezner, I also teach writing and journalism at the university level, so this thread is squarely "in my area," unlike his Post piece).

4/ The blogosphere was a manifestation of the transformation of the public-private binary at the dawn of the internet—and *also* connected to the "creative writing" explosion (what I did a PhD on); in the aughts, creative writing was the fastest-growing discipline *in the world*.

1. (On politics) I was once in a conversation with an elderly friend of mine who is American. He is deeply involved in politics in the States and I asked about what he had learnt. He said, "our movement pushed and mobilised and we got (.........) into the white house."

2. "However, we saw that our interests were not executed by him then we realised in a democratic setting sometimes its the people that surround the president or anyone in executive positions that really matter. Those he speaks to first and last.
We therefore changed our strategy"

3. We do support but now with the intent of placing people around the elected officers.
There is a lot of space for influence in positions that are non elective. Every executive leader leans on people to help in developing ideas and in executing them.

4. The young folks should be looking here. Elective positions like Governorship etc can be very expensive. Legitimate costs will run into hundreds of millions but there are positions for assistants, tech advisers, etc that wield alot of influence in shaping policy and direction.

5. If you want to change things you must get your foot into the room and have a seat at the table. The least position there will wield more power than being an critic on the outside. In positions like this skill, loyalty and confidentiality are the requirements and not money.