WOO HOO

DOUBLE WOO HOO THANK YOU

Sunday, December 9, 2018

We're Not Crazy!!!

Nearly a year ago, I wrote this:

I've been watching cable news way too much lately...Why do I bother? It's not like I'm going to learn anything there I'm not going to lean on the internet. In fact, cable news is, for the most part, months behind. I mean, it's been pretty apparent since late 2016 that Trump's campaign had colluded with Russia to steal the election, and we knew in October 2016 that the New York branch of the FBI was conspiring against Hillary. Most of the news hasn't even gotten that far. But that's why I watch CNN. I learn just how far the press has gotten in their willingness to call a particular spade a spade. In the case of Trump/Russia, the press would barely acknowledge it at all until Buzzfeed published the Steele "dossier." They were skeptical about it for a long time, but hookers and pee make for good TV. The next big milestone was probably the Comey firing, when the talking heads could start musing about obstruction of justice. However, almost no one would actually discuss WHY Trump obstructed justice. As more Russia news came out, such as the Trump Tower meeting, much of it was discussed as more or less as a series of isolated incidents.
Things are changing now. Trump's attacks on Mueller, particularly the revelation that Trump tried to fire him, is starting to elicit talk of Trump actually covering up crimes, and sometimes, the TV personalities will even allude to those crimes being Russia related. Occasionally, they'll discuss whether or not a sitting President can be indicted.
But they haven't gotten to where we were (though that could've changed tonight; I haven't gotten my nightly Lemon fix yet) in December of 2016. We knew that Russia had meddled in the election, with the help of the Trump campaign, and that the election was stolen.
I don't know whether they'll get there, but I'd say the next steps are for the CNN types to acknowledge, on air, that Trump cheated. Then they'll need to discuss what the consequences should be for stealing an election. Finally, and I don't think this'll happen, CNN panelists and perhaps hosts will call for an overturning of the election. That's what I'm watching for.

How many of you have felt like you're out-of-control conspiracy-mongers while trying to explain #TrumpRussia to a friend or family member that doesn't pay attention to what's going on in the news obsessively? Virginia Hefferman suggests that we're in the clear now:

Perhaps in those days the story of Trump-Russia was too terrifying for media organizations determined to keep their professional cool. Or too far-fetched.
[David] Corn says he felt “lonely,” even as his stories about about the Russia affair gained traction. Others who reported early about curious Trump connections in Moscow — Franklin Foer in Slate, for example — have said the same thing.
But they’re not lonely now. And this is mostly because even while some media organizations sidelined, or cautiously framed, the Trump-Russia story, a much more important group of commenters were far less timid. Let’s give a round of retweets for the concerned citizens of the United States.
Take one look at Twitter: swelling numbers — initially thousands, then tens and perhaps even hundreds of thousands — gather now to raise their voices to undo Trump’s constant gaslighting about the Mueller investigation, which is decidedly not a witch hunt.
From all quarters, these citizens have kept the Trump-Russia story front and center for the electorate, and provided analysis and even scoops that clarify and help to remedy the global catastrophe that is Trump’s presidency.

Think about that. People ask me why I spend so much time reading about this topic, and here's why -- it's cliched, but knowledge is seriously powerful right now. We've all been learning what we've been learning and getting the word out. In the same way the Republicans and the Russians spent years fertilizing the ground to take out Hillary Clinton through endless talk of e-mails, and Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's health, and more, we have all spent the last two years pushing back -- for me, almost to the day:

We must be getting closer to the Democrats really doing something. From what I've read so far tonight, Trump (and by extension, probably Pence), McConnell, Ryan, Comey, and others could be implicated. Can Obama cut a deal to kill the investigation in exchange for a Clinton Presidency? Probably not, so we really need a new election.
It's gonna be an interesting next few days... I don't think this story is going anywhere.
I wrote that on December 10th, 2016, and that was the first day I engaged in Twitter activism. It seemed silly, yet important at the time. And while those "interesting next few days" didn't amount to much, our days certainly are getting interesting now, and our country is still mostly intact to see it.

Working together, we've kept this story alive, and it finally feels like it has legs. I mean, Olympic squat champion (is that a thing?) legs. This was an actual, non-opinion, headline in the New York Times today:



And parts of the story that weren't getting enough play before now are starting to come out:




The changes in media coverage the last month or so have been nothing short of seismic. And people are starting to figure things out. I had a copy of Seth Abramson's Proof of Collusion sent to a friend last week, and if I'd done something like that a year ago... well, forget that, I just wouldn't have done it. But I was totally comfortable doing that now, and I received an e-mail from that friend saying:

"When I received the Proof of Collusion this am, [his husband]'s response, was 'Jason is really an exceptional young man' - I agree."

Trump cheated to steal an election -- and people are finally starting to understand.


Thursday, November 29, 2018

My FINAL Take on 2016



Now that the evidence of the Trump-Russia relationship is so in the open that even Chris Cillizza has to acknowledge it, I think I'm ready to firmly stand on this take that I've found myself having to defend every time I've floated over the last year or two.

Once we can finally all admit that Trump and Russia stole the 2016 election, we need to also begin to understand that everything we thought we learned from that election is completely wrong.

Yes, Trump's base is racist. The Republican base has been racist for a long time. But the few million who changed their minds from Hillary to Trump or third party in the last month did so because they were duped by the Russians and Trump into thinking Clinton was crooked.

Going into the 2016 election, I thought our electorate looked more like the 2018 one than what we saw on 11/8/16. It's been hard to say that because it bucks widespread conventional wisdom, but I think it's OK to say now. Hillary was a fine candidate. Her campaign was quite good.

We all remember how amazing and optimistic we felt during the 2016 DNC (Russian-encouraged Bernie supporters notwithstanding). We all remember how she kicked Trump's ass in all three debates. We remember that she had a good ground game and he had none (though it turns out under the radar the Kochs had put together some semblance of one). We remember she had a more or less stable team while Trump's whole campaign was a dumpster fire.

This was all true all along and we let ourselves get gaslit (very much in Russian style) into thinking "Oh shit, Hillary didn't go to Wisconsin!" or "The Democrats need to cater more towards racist white voters in the exurbs!" We came to believe that people like Brad Parscale, Jared Kushner, and Steve Bannon were secret geniuses all along. It was bullshit.

At the end of the day, the story is that we're always within a 5-10 point margin of either party being able to win a Presidential election because there are enough established Republicans and Democrats, and that in 2016, a substantial number of the 15-20 percent of undecideds broke hard for Trump because the floodgates of an international conspiracy against Hillary Clinton (and probably would've been the case with any other Democrat) that had had wave after wave after wave thrown at it for a year crashed through due to a perfect storm of pre-arranged factors -- Wikileaks; the Republicans pressuring Comey into conducting an investigation he had absolutely no rational reason to conduct in the first place; Giuliani and diGenova working retired FBI agents and agents into a frenzy to pressure Comey to reopen said investigation at the last minute; illicit Facebook and Twitter campaigns aimed at swing voters with stolen data -- happened in the month before an election that was comfortably in the blue column until October 2016.

The polls weren't wrong; they tracked it happening even though it seemed unbelievable at the time. This also probably cost the Democrats the Senate in 2016. THAT, in a thready nutshell, is the story of the 2016 election. And I'm sticking to it.

NOW we need to figure out what that means for the future.

Mueller Can Blow It Up

What a massive day...

Sunday, November 18, 2018

Thread of the Day -- Jen Kirkman on Ocasio-Cortez

For months, I've been wrestling with the primary victory of congresscritter-elect Alexandria Ocasio Cortez:

ME: "Wow. That's an impressive victory."

"How dare she challenge a sitting leader of the Democrats during a crisis?" :EM

ME: "But she fits her district better than Crowley did, and she's who her constituents wanted."

"But she's an ardent Berniecrat who seems to want to upend the status quo and might intentionally or unintentionally elect Republicans." :EM

ME: "Come on, you're overreacting. And her policy goals are pretty good."

"Dude, her first major interview was with the goddamned Intercept." :EM

ME: "She's new. She doesn't know any better."

"Bernie's 72. He knows better." :EM

ME: "But she brings a great new energy to the Democrats"

"Look at her protesting Nancy Pelosi!" :EM

ME: "That doesn't really look like a protest to me."

"The media certainly is describing it as a protest." :EM

ME: "Well, Nancy is handling it well. I'm sure she'll teach her. Oh, and look! there's a thread on Twitter which explains that AOC wasn't even protesting her at all!"

"She's saying out loud that she's going to be primarying goddamned incumbent Democrats around the country." :EM

ME: "Hmmm... let me read that. Oh, huh. And who are the Justice Democrats?"

"They're a group started by CENK FUCKING UYHUR!" :EM

ME: "But she's still young and she just doesn't know better.

:EM



ME: Oh, bloody fuckguts.


Jen Kirkman helps sort the whole thing out in the most lucid way I've seen:


Read the whole thread.

Oh, bloody fuckguts.

My Read of Seth Abramson's Proof of Collusion -- Chapter 7



This is part of a series. You can find Chapter 6 here.



On to Chapter 8.

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

The Trump Era in a Nutshell



Seriously... this says everything:

Saturday, October 27, 2018

That




There's nothing more to add.

Monday, October 22, 2018

Earworm of the Afternoon -- Teenage Dirtbag

Sorry, just had to...

#BlueWave Trailer


I've been ridiculously busy and haven't had a lot of time to weigh in lately.

I'm feeling great about our chances in the House, and not as great about our chances in the Senate. I've been saying for almost a year that if we don't take *both* the House and the Senate this year (the race for the latter could go on past November 6th because of the possibility of a runoff in the second Mississippi Senate race we're not hearing a lot about), our country is screwed. I stand by that. However, damned if this doesn't make me feel good about being one of the good guys:



Bam.

Saturday, September 22, 2018

Thread of the Day -- The Fabian Society vs. Pwofit!


I may have a longer post coming later this weekend about the bizarreness of the Kavanaugh situation, but for now I wanted to flag a thread by Jeet Heer. In trying to explain away the Kavanaugh hearings, HUD Secretary and brilliant-until-he-Thackeried-his-brain Ben Carson blamed it on a plot by a previously unknown to me 19th Century British democratic socialist group named the Fabian Society. Jeet Heer explains where Carson got this bonkers idea, and while it is in SOME loose way connected to history, it is INDEED bonkers:

And yes, Elmer Fudd does play into the story. Read Jeet's thread.

Saturday, August 11, 2018

Do We Need an Avenatti?



A reminder as we strain to find some outside-the-box savior who can beat Trump in 2020.

We need to realize how exceptional 2016 was. In the absence of the types of factors HRC ended up facing, not only would she have beaten Trump, but likely any of our last four nominees (Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Gore) would have as well.

HRC was a perfectly good candidate. Clinton had to fight almost every media outlet, Cambridge Analytica, the FBI (if you read the IG report -- which I did so you didn't have to -- he couldn't figure out after months of investigating why in hell Comey, Page, Strzok, McCabe, etc were investigating HRC in the first place, why they continued three months after they'd realized there was nothing there, why Comey did the July press conference, and why they all have collective amnesia about anything that happened between the day they found out about Weiner's computer and when Comey issued his letter) and the Russians in 2016 and *still* would've won by what would've been considered a landslide had the Comey letter not dropped when it did.

The Russians and the Mercer/Bannon/ex-CA crew could still be very active in 2020, but at least we'll be aware of them.

Trump was incredibly unpopular (36%!) on Election Day 2016, but the Comey letter rode a wave generated by a perfect storm to swamp Hillary in the end. You can like her or not (and full disclosure, I think she's great and took two months off from work to volunteer for her and in fact watched the election results at her Brooklyn HQ), but by nearly every conventional measure of a campaign, hers was better than Trump's. We remember her "gaffes," but we remember them specifically because there were so few but they were so picked over by the media while Trump's could only be covered for 15 minutes before he threw out another shiny object. She gave three great performances in the debates, and had a solid GOTV effort that was built on Obama's and Trump had very little (though we found out later the Kochs were sending out busloads of volunteers). Other than the Russian-generated Sanders supporter meltdown at the DNC, put on the best, most positive convention I can remember. She ran on undeniably the most progressive platform of my lifetime and talked constantly about the issues, though you wouldn't know it because the TV networks would rather talk about her e-mails while showing an empty Trump podium for an hour on splitscreen.

No, she didn't go to Wisconsin or Michigan down the stretch, but we're not sure how much the candidate having rallies in a place actually matters (Republicans were telling us Romney had bigger turnouts than Obama in 2012; HRC put tons of time, money, and effort into Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania (for a lot of the stretch run, we didn't have enough seats to accommodate all of the buses the campaign was sending to canvas in suburban Philly) but didn't win them; and I remember laughing at the absurdity of Trump making appearances in deep blue Connecticut and New Jersey, which of course he lost. She had three times the field offices Trump did, and most of Trump's were ghost towns. Not as many as Obama's, but it didn't make sense to have that many when Trump barely had any. She had superstar surrogates like the Obamas, Biden, Bill, LeBron James, and Queen Bey, while Trump had, um, Jeff Sessions, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Flynn, and Pam Bondi. She did have a lot of very enthusiastic supporters -- on the night of the election, HQ was overwhelmed with volunteers. I was on tech support duty in the phone bank and I must've had to support 500 people, not just in the packed volunteer office, but in a huge overflow room and sitting on the floor lining the halls throughout HQ.

If the election had been held on October 25th, as far as conventional campaigns go, political scientists would've put hers right up there with Obama's. That 3-4 point Comey slide moved her from a 6-7 point popular vote margin and around 330 EVs, to a 3 point margin and losing the EV by 70,000 votes in three states.

With that pro-Hillary rant off my chest...

Other than the incomprehensible exception of the NYT, most of the media is doing a much better job than in 2016 (particularly CNN's prime-time lineup, most of whom have openly turned against Trump since Helsinki, and in some cases, before that).

Trump's approval is only staying afloat because the economy is doing well. The Obama economy appears to have crested; not that it couldn't potentially do better, but Trump's policies seem tailor-made to kill it. Even if we don't have a total collapse like 2008 (and I don't think it'll get that bad), I unfortunately think we'll be in undeniably worse shape two years from now. It'll suck for America, but at some point I'm guessing Trump, just on the economic merits, will be parked permanently in sub-40% approval territory.

Assuming Manafort goes down (and short of a member of the jury being paid off or threatened by Russians), Trump is not coming out of the Mueller investigation unscathed. I don't believe he'll be indicted, and I think more likely than not he'll serve out the rest of his term, but Mueller is going to be picking off people significant to Trump for at least the next year.

It's looking pretty damned likely that the Dems will take the House in November. If so, as many have pointed out, chairpeople like Nadler and Schiff are going to be dumping everything they can about Trump. Democratic members involved with the investigations in both houses have insinuated that there's a heck of a lot more there on Trump than we've seen, but that the Republicans are blocking it from coming out.

I didn't think liberals could build the energy we did in January 2017, let alone sustain it until November of 2018, but here we are less than three months before the midterms and we're still finding ourselves on the verge of winning R+11 congressional races. After Bush's fuckups became too terrible to deny, we had a pickup of progressive energy for a year or so until we all got knocked off our game by the "Tea Party;" I think Trump has fueled our fire much more than Bush did and he's not going to stop. As Bob Cesca says, "Trump always makes things worse for himself."

Trump's base is a collective primal scream that is so loud because conservative whites know that they need to take more and more desperate measures (colluding with a foreign power, increased voter suppression). I figured going into 2016 that as their numbers dwindled, those white Republicans would nominate someone like Trump, but that would be one or two more cycles away and at that point it would be too late for them... it turned out they were close enough for a Hail Mary to eke out a win in 2016, but those demographics aren't getting any better for them over four years.

Our 2016 field, outside of HRC and Sanders (before he turned into a petulant brat -- thank you Tad Devine), was shit. When your third-best candidate is Martin O'Malley? Yikes. Our 2020 field (and it's SO early still) feels like a cornucopia of riches, like 2008, when we had Obama, Clinton, Edwards (sans his dumb penis), and Biden, all of whom could've been great candidates. I mean, I'd enthusiastically get behind any of Warren, Gillibrand, Booker, Swalwell, Merkley, Harris, Holder, Patrick, Murphy, or Biden. I'd be OK with candidates I've had differences with in the past but who have improved as our party has moved left, like Cuomo or McAuliffe (both of whom the WaPo mentioned as potential candidates a month ago). The Trump crisis has turned all of these into household names (or at least names known by people who casually pay attention to politics), so they have a headstart. I'm pretty familiar with the Democratic presidential fields since 1988, and if the above is in fact the field, it's the deepest I've seen. We don't need a billionaire, Hollywood personality, or wild card.

I'm not being pollyannish; in fact, I'm scared as hell. I've been saying on Twitter for months that if any of these three things happen -- the Mueller investigation being shut down, Kavanaugh getting confirmed, or the Dems failing to win BOTH houses (yes, we need the Senate so we can stop further Trump nominees), our democracy will basically be over. But if come 2019 none of those things have happened, it's not looking for some dream candidate that we need to focus on -- it's making sure that a perfect storm like 2016 is not allowed to materialize.

First and foremost, we need to protect our democratic institutions. I really could foresee Trump declaring himself a dictator while the Republicans in Congress cheer him on and his packed court system decides that the original intent of the Founding Fathers was, in fact, to eventually put a clown king in power for life.

Then we need to combat the Russians and those who enable them, to make sure the media sees Trump for who he is and to fight "Dems in disarray" and mendacious Republican-invented teardown stories, to minimize voter suppression, and to keep up popular progressive momentum.

If we do those things, we will be starting to turn America around in 2021 with a pretty good President.

If not, well, um... fuck.

Saturday, July 21, 2018

Reading It So You Don't Have To: The Carter Page Warrants




Thread by @tgconsolidation: "@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 Yeah. I was going to live tweet my reading of it, but it hardly seems worth it. @DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 […]" #Candidate1 #YESCOLLUSION #CandidateOne #CANDIDATEONESDAUGHTER



48 tweets2 hours ago


@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 Yeah. I was going to live tweet my reading of it, but it hardly seems worth it.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 But holy fuck: "the FBI believes that the Russian Government's efforts to influence the 2016 Presidential election were being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1's campaign..." #Candidate1 #YESCOLLUSION
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 "As discussed below, Page has established relationships with Russian Government officials, including Russian intelligence officers..."
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 "from approximately 2004-2007, Page lived in Russia... during this time, Page began business dealings with Gazprom... According to information provided by Page during a... interview with the FBI... Page... " Tease!
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 I think this is stuff we haven't seen before: Three Russian agents who were charged in Jan 2015 by a sealed complaint for being agents of Russia. One was undercover as an employee in the Manhattan branch of a Russian bank. They were attempting to recruit NYCers as sources.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 "Page's Coordination with Russian Government Officials on 2016 U.S. Presidential Influence Activies." The FBI was monitoring him on a trip to Russia in July 2016.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 Whoa: the information came from "Source #1," who, from context is clearly Christopher Steele! The FBI says it compensated him but suspended its relationship with him in October 2016 for leaking to the press.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 However, the FBI said they believe his reporting to be "credible."
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 Hello, Dossier! Hello, Pee Pee Tape!
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 "... during the meeting, Page and Sechin discussed future bilateral energy cooperation and the prospects for an associated move to lift Ukraine-related Western sanctions against Russia." Tit, meet tat.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 Boy, did Page meet with a lot of Russians who were close to Putin during the campaign. Whoda thunk it?
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 This might be bigger than the Butina drop, and I'm only a quarter of the way through.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 The warrant goes on to cite articles that say that Trump (Candidate #1) softened the RNC's platform toward Ukraine and that after that, "while the reason for Candidate #1's shirt was not clear, [Trump's] more conciliatory words...
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 "which contradict Political Party #1's (guess who?) official platform, follow Candidate #1's recent association with several people sympathetic to Russian influence in Ukraine, including foreign policy advisor Carter Page." BOOM.#YESCOLLUSION Trump fucking knew.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 "According to the September 23rd News Article, certain members of Congress were 'taken aback' after being briefed on the alleged meetings between Page and Russian officials and viewed the meetings as a possible back channel to the Russians that could undercut foreign policy."
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 I think I may now have to refer to the Dems as "certain members."
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 It then goes on to say that Steele released his info to the press because he was upset about Comey's letter and "believed it world likely influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential election." The FBI again says its relationship w/ Steele was suspended, but they believe him reliable.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 It said Reid wrote to Comey (we know) citing "'significant and disturbing ties' between Candidate #1's campaign and the Kremlin that needed to be investigated by the FBI.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 In response to an article from September 23rd and other articles confirming it, it says Candidate #1's campaign tried to distance itself from Page. It lists a couple of BS quotes from the campaign that, in my eyes, the FBI does not appear to believe.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 Page then wrote back to the FBI saying it was all lies.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 My god, if black-lined redactions could talk...
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 "Based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, the FBI submits that there is probable cause to believe that Page... knowingly engage in clandestine intelligence activities... and, therefore, is an agent of a foreign power... there is probably cause to believe..."
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 "... that such activities involve or are about to involve violations of the criminal statutes of the United States." If Page hasn't been given immunity, he's going to prison.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 I'm wondering if he's one of Mueller's five.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 And that this came out now as a shot across Trump's bow.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 It's journalistic malpractice that neither CNN nor MSNBC are live and are talking about this right now.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 "The authorities requested show not automatically terminate when... information has first been obtained.... The type of foreign intelligence information being sought and the fact that the activities of this target are ongoing preclude the conclusion, that, at a given time..."
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 "... all such information has been obtained and collection can be ended." So, the FBI is taking this case *particularly* seriously.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 The warrant then goes on for several pages about the methods of surveillance the FBI is authorized to use on Page, but it's all redacted.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 "... the FBI believes that the Russian government engaged in efforts to undermine and influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election." I believe that earlier when the document (I think I'm actually now reading a renewal), talked about those efforts...
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 ... they were saying that it was publications that were making that assertion. By this point, the FBI was making that assertion directly.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 "On or about November 8, 2016, Candidate #1 was elected President. Although Candidate #1 is now the President... unless otherwise stated, the original references to Candidate #1 and... team will remain the same as in previous applications filed..." So it is a renewal.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 In 9/16, Clapper gave an interview to a news organization and asserted that Russia had had a history of "interfering with elections."
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 Talks about the DNC e-mail drop and then about how Putin denied responsibility, and then says "Despite Russian's denial...." then more redactions.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 It then talks about Jeh Johnson's October warning and the Obama administration's December 29th statement about it.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 "Based on the Russian Government's historical efforts to influence U.S. and foreign elections, and the information discussed herein regarding Russia's coordination with Carter Page... to attempt an undermine and improperly and illegally influence the... election." #YESCOLLUSION
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 @realDonaldTrump "In or about March 2016, George Papadapolous and Carter Page... were publicly identified by Candidate #1 as part of his/her foreign policy team... the FBI believes that the Russian Government's efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential election..."
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 @realDonaldTrump "... were being coordinated with Page and perhaps other individuals associated with Candidate #1's campaign." Hmmm.. Whoever this #CandidateOne is must be sweating bullets right now. "NO COLLUSION! NO COLLUSION! WHERE'S #CANDIDATEONESDAUGHTER?"
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 @realDonaldTrump "Divyekin... had met secretly with Page and that their agenda for the meeting included Divyekin raising a dossier or "kompromat' that the Kremlin possessed on Candidate # [the good one, obvs,] and the possibility of it being released to Candidate #1's campaign." That's direct.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 @realDonaldTrump LOL! I'm not sure if we knew this already, but in February 2017, Page sent the FBI accusing Hillary of "severe election fraud in the form of disinformation, suppression of dissent, hate crimes, and other extensive abuses."
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 @realDonaldTrump I love that. "Hate crimes." Page has decided he's a protected class.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 @realDonaldTrump "Page further claims that the information... are lies that were completed fabricated by Candidate #2's paid consultants and private investigators." Poor widdle Carter.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 @realDonaldTrump Onto the next warrant -- April 2017. Hey! I'm learning how to read a warrant!
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 @realDonaldTrump "... Putin said ... that Russia was not responsibile for the hack, but said that the release of the DNC documents was a net positive: 'The important thing is the content that was given to the public.'" That's some Grade A Russian trolling.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 @realDonaldTrump Really nothing new in the final warrant, other than that McCabe signed off on it instead of Comey, who did the first three. It was also signed off on by Rosenstein.
@DemocracyJourno @worldflood1 @realDonaldTrump Anyway, the bottom line is that Mueller has all of this, including the 75% or so that's been redacted. To be a fly on the wall at Bedminster right now...