As I was perusing the New York Times article on Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s woes, I was reminded that back on June 15th, 2016, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy was captured on tape confiding with Paul Ryan, Evan McMullin and others that he “swore to God” that Vladimir Putin was paying Rohrabacher and also Donald Trump. When the recording leaked, the House leadership tried to explain it away by saying it was just an attempt at humor. But McCarthy was serious and Ryan immediately swore everyone present to secrecy.
Some of the lawmakers laughed at McCarthy’s comment. Then McCarthy quickly added: “Swear to God.”
Ryan instructed his Republican lieutenants to keep the conversation private, saying: “No leaks. . . . This is how we know we’re a real family here.”
The remarks remained secret for nearly a year.
With the daily deluge of news and the constant exposure of new damaging facts, it’s easy to forget little details like the fact that the House leadership suspected Trump and Rohrabacher of being on the Kremlin payroll. They have, however, followed up on the Rohrabacher end of things. They’ve limited his travel, and Rep. Ed Royce, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, fired Rohrabacher’s top committee aide, Paul Behrends, because of his ties to pro-Russian lobbyists.
On the other hand, they’ve done precious little about Trump.
I want to do a little something here that I think will help you visualize the moment in time when McCarthy said Trump was being paid by Putin and Paul Ryan swore everyone to secrecy. That meeting occurred on 6/15/16, but I want to extend the timeline a bit in both directions so you can see what was going on and put McCarthy’s comments into their proper context.
We’re going to be looking at a pretty consequential two-week period of time. It’s important to know that just prior to the start of our timeline here, on May 26th, Trump finally secured the majority of the GOP delegates he needed to win the nomination. Also, you should know that on June 3rd, WikiLeaks created the torrent for their insurance file which included the DNC hack. So, we know that WikiLeaks had the material by that date, even if the public would not see it until later. Also on June 3rd, Rob Goldstone first contacted Donald Trump Jr. by email, and offered assistance from the Russian government.
In this very compressed time, we’re going to see a lot going on. You’ll probably remember most of it, but you may not have put it all together as having occurred in such a narrow window.
So, here goes, take a look:
6/7/16: At a speech in Moscow, Carter Page criticizes the United States and other Western democracies. Meets with Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich.
6/7/16: Rob Goldstone reveals to Donald Trump Jr. that Russian government contact will be Natalia Veselnitskaya.
6/7/16: Donald J Trump gives speech in which he promises to give a major speech about Hillary Clinton’s crimes on June 13th.
6/8/16: First tweet posted to Russian-controlled “DCLeaks” Twitter account.
6/9/16: Natalia Veselnitskaya and her entourage meet with Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner in Trump Tower.
6/12/16: Julian Assange announces he has documents relating to Hillary Clinton that would be “enough evidence” to indict her.
6/12/16: According to Guccifer 2.0, on this day the DNC reset their network, kicking “him” out of it.
6/14/16: Washington Post reports that the DNC was hacked by Russians.
6/14/16: DNC makes public announcement that it has been hacked.
6/15/16: Guccifer 2.0 appears, contacts The Smoking Gun.
6/15/16: Crowdstrike releases a detailed statement about Russian hacking of the DNC.
6/15/16: Rep. Kevin McCarthy confides in private Capitol Hill meeting, “There’s two people I think Putin pays: [Rep. Dana] Rohrabacher and Trump.”
6/15/16: Trump’s team issues a statement claiming the DNC hacked itself!
6/16/16: WikiLeaks uploads the torrent containing the insurance file for the hacked emails and files to their website.
6/17/16: Roger Stone’s friend, radio host Randy Credico (possibly Stone’s liaison to Julian Assange), tweets “Assange to drop coup de gras hammer on career criminal clinton!”
6/17/16: The United States expels two Russian diplomats in retaliation for an attack on an American diplomat in Moscow.
6/17/16: WikiLeaks publicly releases their insurance file for their hacked material, but the actual files are still not publicly accessible.
6/19/16: George Papadopolous offers to make “off the record” trip to Russia
6/20/16: Date of first Christopher Steele memo in dossier, asserting Kremlin had been helping Trump for at least 5 years.
6/20/16: Guccifer 2.0 first appears on Twitter, restates that the “DNC’s servers hacked by a lone hacker” and releases the DNC’s opposition research on Trump.
6/21/16: Guccifer 2.0 interview with Vice News published. Outed as NOT Romanian.
6/21/16: Guccifer 2.0 posts documents stolen from the DNC on Clinton’s vulnerabilities as well as potential responses to lines of attack.
6/22/16: WikiLeaks publishes the first in a series of hacked emails taken from the DNC.
There’s a lot to digest there. And this is just a little something I put together and is not supposed to be comprehensive. It looks like a billowing five-alarm fire to me.
How does it look to you?
It does not matter. It’s more important how it looks to Bobby Three Sticks.
Thanks for putting this together, BooMan!
Something is definitely rotten in Denmark.
The way it looks to me is that the people who continue to come here and elsewhere to defend the Russian Federation on these issues have thoroughly trashed their credibility.
It’s frankly unbelievable to me that these people refuse to understand that their favorite politicians and future candidates will be targeted by data thefts and propagandistic attacks if we don’t get with the fucking program. The people conducting these attacks are trying to permanently fracture progressives and moderates so racist, sexist, oligarchic, truly anti-democratic politicians and political movements can gain permanent power.
Clinton/DNC hatred, it’s a helluva drug.
And this thread is important to consider:
Chris Hayes
@chrislhayes
Again, if you think what Russia did had no impact, you should publish your entire inbox to the internet & see if it changes your life.
6:48 AM – 3 Nov 2017
Parker Molloy
@ParkerMolloy
But seriously, Chris is right. Wikileaks was a massive story during the final months of the campaign.
Parker Molloy
@ParkerMolloy
(Which isn’t to say one way or another whether or not the outcome would have been different, just that it was clearly important)
Parker Molloy
@ParkerMolloy
And it wasn’t a straight-up e-mail dump. It was a curated collection meant to highlight a very specific narrative.
Parker Molloy
@ParkerMolloy
I imagine that had another candidate won, there would have been a different bunch of e-mails/documents leaked to highlight another narrative
Parker Molloy
@ParkerMolloy
Which is why it’s important to get to the bottom of what happened, who knew about it, and how to prevent it from happening again.
Parker Molloy
@ParkerMolloy
Because next time it won’t be Clinton hit by something like this, it’ll be a different candidate.
Parker Molloy
@ParkerMolloy
“Hillary bad so curated leak of hacked e-mails good.” is just… so… so… ridiculous
10:00 AM – 3 Nov 2017
Yeah, but the US neoliberal order needs to be destroyed so those who are organized can pick up the pieces and re-order it. It can’t possibly be worse when those liberal socialist democrats like Viktor Orban, Sebastian Kurz, Beata Szydło, Xi Jinping, and of course Vladimir Putin rewrite that the global order.
Looks to me, if I may say so, as if the file Natalya Veselnitskaya brought to the June 9 meeting, not as she described it (nothing but the memorandum about Bill Browder) but as Rinat Akhmetshin did–
—really did contain sample pages from the hacked DNC emails (Finance Contributions Status reports and Donor Vet Committee reports, which turned out not to have any scandalous information, but they were still pretty secret). It was being brought to Trump Tower to prove to the campaign, without risking electronic detection, that the Russians had hacked the DNC and to ask commitment on Trump’s part to lifting sanctions in return for the effort (which the Trump campaign delivered in August when they rewrote the Ukraine plank in the RNC platform under Sergey Kislyak’s watchful eyes).
How does it look to me?
How much of that time line could have been put together before the Republican National Convention?
Why was the US intelligence community not clear about what it said anytime before the election?
Why did it fall on the Clinton campaign to be the sole agents trying to make the case that Russia was involved and why were they so hamhanded about it to the point that they never put up what was available of this timeline?
Why did the intelligence community not organize its presentation to make the case? The weakness pointed to disagreements among the agencies.
This timeline and other information that might fall out from it should help Mueller with everything but jury nullification.
That is a hell of an indictment of the democrats, campaign and government.
Not the Republicans, whose due diligence Kevin McCarthy was calling for? And whose recklessness Paul Ryan shielded.
If all that is alledged in that timeline is true, the Democrats failed in their due diligence for data security.
The government failed in its due diligence against cyberattack (if they want to come back and call this a cyberattack). I’m still more of the opinion that this was an old-style covert action with USB-drive drops instead of a remote hack over the internet.
What is clear is that the government has the capabilities to clear up the communications right now. Maybe they have provided the content information to Mueller’s investigation. Or they are scared that if they provide what they have (per William Binney) that they will let slip over a decade of violation of the Constitution despite Congressional action to make it all good.
The reality is that there is not a proportional penalty against Russia for doing much less than the US did in StuxNet, which resulted in Iran adopting a policy of negotiation. There is the policy option of better defensive communications security, which has long been neglected for aggressive offensive cyberwarfare and weaponry.
Willful ignorance is the most flattering thing I can say, and it ain’t flattering.
The narrative is that Killery Clinton was the worst possible candidate, ever. Admitting anything else gives tacit complaint that Clinton lost by a thousand cuts, with a whole lot of people holding the knives.
Yet today many still don’t believe the DNC was hacked, and that is both sides of the aisle.
Very useful, detailed and at times technical article at The Nation by Patrick Lawrence about the hack allegation, heavily relying on the most recent VIPS (Veteran Intel Professionals for Sanity) study of the DNC server issue. VIPS concludes (most of its members agreeing) that it was a leak not a hack. I find their study very persuasive.
Meanwhile Crowdstrike is not very credible. And their co-founder, a very anti-Russian/Putin type, is a fellow at the neocon interventionist Atlantic Council, hardly an unbiased group.
Btw, has the FBI still not been given access to the DNC server?
please stop. just stop.
Google Ray McGovern and Randy Credico together and you’ll find your answer.
I did, but could only easily access one interview with Credico, someone I’m not familiar with. Apparently a WBAI host in NY who recently has been under fire by his station mgr — for his skeptical Russiagate views?
Otherwise, have no idea what you’re referring to.
Do you also have a problem with Bill Binney?
Robert Parry?
Been debunked and trashed and run over as roadkill, yet you people still cite that fucking article:
The Nation Article About the DNC Hack Is Too Incoherent to Even Debunk
Just stop. Fucking stop peddling bullshit.
The alleged debunking by the hack at NYM has in fact been debunked and trashed and run over as roadkill.
Holy shit. Please learn how to internet before you hurt somebody.
my 2 cents: the crisis is of such magnitude that ppl are grasping at straws in order not to see it.
It’s exactly that simple.
“jury nullification”
In the current political climate, those are 2 very chilling words.
Indeed. That’s why someone better make a strong case and have some of that data we pay $10 billion a year to collect and store remove the ambiguity about the communications.
It looks like the Russians hacked the DNC and, in return for promises to lift sanctions, paid some money to their favorite Orange Turd. And we are still suffering from that.
I truly don’t understand the Republican Party, and their willingness to harm people. But more than that the support Trump continues to get from his base. Or maybe the worst thing is the hate that emanates from the whole fucking bunch!
Russians obtained DNC internal information, especially emails, by human intelligence or signals intelligence methods (not yet known) in exchange for promises to lift sanctions.
Only the US intelligence community can deliver the evidence to the pubic that will provide convincing proof of whether it was humint or sigint that delivered the leaked material released through Wikileaks and Guccifer.
If the intelligence community cannot do this, after failing to see 9/11 coming and other major intelligence failures, is it not time to question why we have sacrificed the Bill of Rights and $60 billion a year to keep the ability to lie and commit crimes with “credible denial” going. Qpen information seems to provide more actual intelligence analysis than all of the purported and charismatic “tradecraft”.
Open information also tends to exert better domestic and international international norms.
Transparency (contra the anonymity of Citizens United) seems to provide better political norms than does secrecy. And better reliability of accountabiity.
I don’t want to sound like a simple-minded Reagan-era “anti-government” type, but the cumulative sense I’ve been getting from all of this — sharpened by BooMan’s specific argument here — is that the U. S. Government, individually and collectively, is (at this moment in time, for whatever collective reasons) just absolutely incapable of doing anything; of responding in any reasonable or expedient way to any legitimate threat.
I mean sure, if there’s a natural disaster or a bank crisis or something, the agencies step in (amid a certain amount of grandstanding). But with no specific constituencies in jeopardy, you can have a situation like this where a foreign government is tampering with our elections and all the evidence is right there but nobody does anything about it, because each representative or senator is mired in their own problems and staff and obligations and speeches and inertia (and, now, Twitter and YouTube and Facebook and etc.) and it’s just all such a bureaucratic mess that nothing ever happens because nothing can happen.
Yes, Presidents can make things happen, unfortunately through Cheney-style executive-branch overreach (this applies to Obama too; he was in retrospect extremely effective despite ridiculous across-the-board congressional opposition). But the U. S. Government, as a collective force for good, or for anything, these days seems to combine all the worst elements of bloated, corrupt corporations while possessing none of the advantages.
So we get situations like this, where the Russians install Trump and Trump wrecks Washington…and everyone just keeps blithely tooling along. Fix the problem? Who, me? What problem? I just work here. My committee has a bill on the floor. I have to talk to my constituents/donors. I’m campaigning for re-election. That’s not my department. And, nothing happens. It’s extremely disquieting; it’s not quite the Reichtag but it’s getting close.
If they installed Trump (rolling eyes, shaking head …), why did those stupid Russkies allow so much anti-Trump news and commentary to appear on their own RT-America news channel during the campaign, and instead of hiring so many anti-Trump libs and lefties as show hosts in the leadup to 2016, why didn’t they saturate their programming with pro-Trump propagandists?
Good troll!
First of all, you offer your claim that RT aired “so much anti-Trump news and commentary” without evidence. I see evidence that RT brought pro-Clinton and pro-Trump people on air to bash each other’s candidates, but I’m afraid that doesn’t meet your claim here at fucking all.
“…why didn’t they saturate their airwaves with pro-Trump propagandists?”
Let WikiLeaks explain it to you:
“”Hey Don. We have an unusual idea,” WikiLeaks wrote on October 21, 2016. “Leak us one or more of your father’s tax returns.” WikiLeaks then laid out three reasons why this would benefit both the Trumps and WikiLeaks. One, The New York Times had already published a fragment of Trump’s tax returns on October 1; two, the rest could come out any time “through the most biased source (e.g. NYT/MSNBC).”
It is the third reason, though, WikiLeaks wrote, that “is the real kicker.” “If we publish them it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality,” WikiLeaks explained. “That means that the vast amount of stuff that we are publishing on Clinton will have much higher impact, because it won’t be perceived as coming from a `pro-Trump’ `pro-Russia’ source.” It then provided an email address and link where the Trump campaign could send the tax returns, and adds, “The same for any other negative stuff (documents, recordings) that you think has a decent chance of coming out. Let us put it out.”
But that’s not all.
Listen to RT give airtime to Julian Assange so he can lie, lie shamelessly, lie with his desire to hurt the citizens of the United States. And check out the completely supportive frame by the reporter:
And listen to Trump send his public signal to Russia that he’s totally interested in collusion:
Hand wave it all away, troll.
Apparently a “troll” for dissent-intolerant cfdj is someone who disagrees with him.
As to RT, notice I never claimed, as your straw man argument implies, that it was a 100% pro-Clinton media outfit, just that for an alleged pro-Trump org, it had an unusual way of going about promoting him. As with its regular M-F shows, constituting hundreds, thousands of hours of broadcasting, predominantly from a left perspective, going back to 2015.
A few RT hosts: Nice guy progressive Thom Hartmann, 5 hrs/week, who voted Clinton (though a Bernie supporter). Not often seen touting something Donald did or said. Yes, like one or two other hosts, he would have on supporters of both nominees to have at it, but such a (fairly tired) format is par for the course in media land, and something Msnbc has been doing for many yrs.
Other hosts: Blue-collar-worker-friendly Ed Schultz, supposedly fired from Msnbc (the alleged liberal network) for his strong anti-TPP/Nafta views which clashed w/views of his corp bosses and sponsors. Lib Lee Camp (Redacted Tonight), RT’s version of Jon Stewart’s old show. Watching the Hawks (3 Hollywood hip progs). Pro-Bernie indies, not robotic party faithful like many here.
Their network, unlike the US msm, offers a platform for alternative non-aligned often liberal points of view. A show or two are more libertarian oriented, as with Cross Talk’s host, a lively show devoted largely to FP, with perspectives never seen in the US media, including tough but fair criticism of US FP, which for that reason alone you would probably find anti-American and worthy of censorship.
As for Assange, thanks for the interview excerpt. Very important segment starts around 1:50 re her acknowledgment that US ally SA (and Qatar) have been funding/supporting ISIS, the same allies who were (presumably) hugely funding the Clinton Foundation. A rather important piece of news that RT brought to the public watching that network, and both the reporter and interviewer were right to point out the malign connection.
Was that interview, conducted by progressive Aussie filmmaker John Pilger, ever shown on Msnbc? Or did the NBC memo go out that Assange is the enemy?
Overall people like Assange, with his biases like the rest of us, and Snowden provide an important public service and I support them. Neo McCarthyites would probably differ.
Get a grip.
Oh sure sure. The Third Reich worked out so well for the Russians — only 20-27m Soviets/Russians killed — Putin must be thinking, how about another round with a Fourth Reich on our western border. We could use another severe population thinning out.
Now, who needs to get a grip here?
No official finding by any Euro country to connect Putin with destabilizing of their elections, as most of the western media allege with no evidence. Get back to me when such official findings are published.
As for the rise of the Right in EU, this is not hard to figure out. And it owes to the unthinking immigration policy of many of its leaders, particularly in Germany and UK, which has resulted in an appallingly large number of immigrants flooding Europe from the ME and Africa in too short a period of time, many of these immigrants being unwilling or unable to assimilate. An anti-immigrant political reaction from the right was inevitable.
Was Putin also to blame for that Euro policy? Or was it the Euro leaders themselves, and ultimately the US leaders with their numerous ME wars and military entanglements who created the conditions which caused the refugee crisis.
Russian leaders have traditionally preferred politically stability on their
borders as, unlike the US, their country has no natural barriers as protection. Putin is in that tradition and, unlike the US, has not been the initiator of destabilizing activities in Europe, as any honest assessment of the situation attests.
They literally rolled the tanks, you dolt.
Delete those emphasized bits and you might (arguably) be able to continue pretending to objective, open-minded, Reality-Based, unbiased, good-faith “analysis” or debate.
Not anymore. With that, you gave away the game, let the cat out of the bag, and forgot to dog-whistle.
. . . speak native, unaccented German/English from day 1, and never, ever dare to wear a hijab or any other indicator of one’s original culture.”]
Assange is now revealed to have communicated with Donald Trump Jr. on multiple occasions in order to help Daddy Trump’s campaign.
I don’t know all your motivations here. But your constant attempts to obfusgate are revealing. I don’t see you as a liberal at all. You’re still defending Assange while ignoring his lies (aren’t you angry that Mr. Transparency hid so much from you?), and your other statements here about Russia and our investigations of their actions are unconvincing. They certainly act as attempts to defend Trump and his staffs.
Protest these conclusions all you want. I don’t care.
No, they act to defend the truth, namely that the core Russiagate charges are still lacking in actual evidence.
As for Donald, there was never a question of my voting for him — never voted R in my life, not even for dogcatcher. And generally, I don’t care for bullies and con men, let alone intellectually lazy pols demagoguing the issues to appeal to the ignorant and bigoted. I also don’t care for outright baseless propaganda, spewed by the morally-challenged IC and repeated as truth by the cowards and careerists in the MSM. If challenging their dangerous lies means as a secondary effect that it works to Donald’s benefit, that’s an unfortunate but unavoidable outcome but far preferable to badly damaged relations w/Russia which are leading us to the brink.
Please try to remember that dissent does not equal treasonable activity, and that in this country, home of the 1st Amendment, we are supposed to have the opportunity to express our views, however unpopular. I clearly sense, with your overripe and often ad hom posts, that you have very little tolerance for strongly-asserted contrary views.
Again, I would suggest you and others need to be reading more widely on the Russiagate nonsense, if for no other reason than to check your reasoning for your own rigidly held and probably unexamined position. Steve Cohen at The Nation is a good place to start (and his radio interviews w/John Batchelor). The VIPS group and Rbt Parry at Consortiumnews. Max Blumenthal on YT and Alternet.
All of their voices are being shut out of the discussion in the MSM, with the occasional exception of invites from the unlikely and normally annoying Tucker Carlson, who has actually been almost alone in asking the right, skeptical Qs about the Russiagate nonsense. His sharp questioning of pseudo scandal promoters like neocon Max Boot and Rep Schiff (D-Russiagate), available on YT, are what the careerist cowardly libs at Msnbc should be doing but aren’t.
Last post on this for me.
VIPS and Assange are hand and first with Putin, which is why I told you to google.
“No, they act to defend the truth, namely that the core Russiagate charges are still lacking in actual evidence.”
That’s simply untrue. It can’t be allowed to stand as a factual claim.
Assange hid from you that he was secretly communicating with the Trump campaign in 2016 and offering them direct help and advice. You are curiously indifferent to this set of actions by Mr. Transparency.
And you haven’t even dealt with the meeting that Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner admitted they took with Russians who…
…”would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father,” read the email, written by a trusted intermediary, who added, “This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
If the future president’s eldest son was surprised or disturbed by the provenance of the promised material — or the notion that it was part of a continuing effort by the Russian government to aid his father’s campaign — he gave no indication.
He replied within minutes: “If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”
Four days later, after a flurry of emails, the intermediary wrote back, proposing a meeting in New York on Thursday with a “Russian government attorney.”
Hard to imagine why you or booman continue to bother with this one.
He’s either an actual troll, knowingly obfuscating, or a complete dupe, incapable of critically assessing evidence objectively, i.e., non-selectively*, to arrive at reasonable conclusions from the preponderance of the available evidence. This is clear from (as you pointed out) his determined non-acknowledgment of inconvenient (but uncontested, public-record) facts.
Unreachable, either way.
*though, of course, employing classic rightwingnut projection jiu-jitsu, he constantly falsely accuses his detractors and would-be correctors of precisely the same failure
The donald paid a 10 million fine for laundering Russian money thru his casino. His university was a fraud. His tower in Panama was empty. That’s just 3 off the top of my head. So why no PAC, left or right, never ran that issue in ads is something I will never understand. Both side knew and said nothing…what fools.
It doesn’t matter what happened or why.
…what?!
Here is why it doesn’t matter.
Is it explanatory? Only from a level at which anything could be explanatory.
Is it predictive? Absolutely not.
Can it be used to impose accountability? Again, absolutely not. This is not to say that nobody will be indicted, convicted, or sentenced; only to say that whatever such outcomes occur, their legitimacy will be rejected out of hand by the people who would need to pay attention to them. This does not and will not add up to accountability.
What matters is what happens next, what hasn’t happened yet, what we can make happen, what we can prevent.
Nothing in the OP comes to those things.
Yes, it is important for the guilty to be punished, and punished effectively. Under present conditions, that is completely impossible. It is not even thinkable. There is a long road between here and now and that. Map that road. The rest is background noise.
. . . (6/17/2017):
looks to me like it’s going to make for one hell of a movie. they will need to green light the project soon so that Iggy Pop can play Kelly Anne.
“No leaks. . . . This is how we know we’re a real family here.”
— La Cosa Nostra
(I.e., “omerta”)
Yes, June 2016 was indeed a very “busy” month for anyone — NOT in The Clinton Campaign. During these “15” days, an incredible amount of “stuff” was going on, AGAIN, involving folks NOT in the Clinton Campaign. So, kind of wonder why John Podesta or someone with “time” on their hands INSIDE the Clinton Campaign did not do even a rudimentary TIMELINE themselves. Then walk across the street and shove it up Comey’s ARSE! (To “Counter” His Hillary Email Jihad!) Maybe it’s just all “hindsight” now, but, hopefully Robert Mueller has “seen” this. At the very least, even though there’s lots of “moving parts” — it ALL points to prodigious amounts of energy being expended by RUSSIAN “interests” to burrow their way into the “enemy of my enemy’s” camp — Donald J. Trump. Trump is a micro-manager — he knew EVERYTHING that went on around him. NOTHING slipped by him, not for long!
and not June 22, 2016 was the date of the first release of DNC files by Wikileaks. A large enough unacceptable error in your timeline that it immediately popped out at me.
Your 6/16/16 and 6/17/17 (Wikileaks) links don’t work. Perhaps you meant reference a 2017-06-06 upload.
A timeline on this — that many have been working on putting together for over a year — doesn’t (yet) answer the central questions. And highly selective (with errors) timelines aren’t helpful.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
You’ve gone all the way around the bend to become a consistent defender of Trump on these issues. It’s quite the display from The Last Honest Liberal.
Goldstone emailed Trump Jr. in early June to arrange a meeting between Jr. and a person connected to Russian Federation leaders who had dirt on Clinton. In that email, Goldstone casually mentioned that this was part of Russia’s support for Trump’s campaign. Trump Jr. emailed Goldstone back to say “I love it,” and went on to arrange and execute the meeting, a meeting also attended by Manafort and Kushner. All parties admitted that this meeting took place in June in a way that fits with the timeline BooMan shares here.
Goodness gracious, let’s see you hand wave that away.
Well, Patribotics says, citing intelligence sources, that Trump, Pence, and Ryan are all going down. Trump looked quite possible – the only thing that would stop it is the determination of the Republican Party – Pence seemed far-fateched, but perhaps not out of the question. But Ryan?
But if this conversation is proven, I think Ryan is toast. This is conspiracy/RICO stuff. Patribotics cited another conversation where Ryan acknowledged Russian money going into the campaign. Both could be true, or the second could be a distorted version of the first, but it no longer looks impossible to me that Ryan will go down too.
. . . in presidential succession?
(Actually, that scenario still looks far-fetched, much as I’d love to see it play out.)
Orrin Hatch, President pro tem of the Senate.
And I agree it still looks far-fetched, but a bit less far given this info.
try googling patribotics fake news
the top hit:
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch
thanks charon. it’s her site? never mind.
I’m not saying it’s true, just that this fact makes it a little less outrageous. What she says seems very far-fetched, but she did scoop all the professionals, so she has some kind of source with some kind of info.
Nailed it: 6/17/16: Roger Stone’s friend, radio host Randy Credico (possibly Stone’s liaison to Julian Assange), tweets “Assange to drop coup de gras hammer on career criminal clinton!”
link