(UPDATE) WASHINGTON POST and MOTHER JONES articles confirm that Trump Jr. had *two* encounters with the Butina/Torshin team at the 2016 NRA conference in Louisville.
(UPDATE2) On May 19, 2016, Butina was a "last-minute" addition as a speaker at an offsite dinner, the Heroes for Freedom and Liberty Dinner—cocktails at 5PM, dinner at 7PM. She spoke for only 5 minutes—which is odd.
(UPDATE3) The reason that Maria Butina appearing for only 5 minutes at the May 19, 2016 offsite dinner is so odd is that it was this *very dinner* that Alexander Torshin had invited Donald Trump Sr. to (via two separate communications) two weeks earlier. nytimes.com/2017/11/17/us/…
(UPDATE4) Flight data for Trump Sr.'s plane, obtained via FOIA, confirms that Trump Sr. didn't arrive in Louisville until Friday, May 20, 2016, the day after his son dined with Torshin *onsite* (at the conference), i.e. Thursday, May 19. That same night, Butina spoke *offsite*.
(UPDATE5)
1) Butina didn't meet Jr. when Torshin did (onsite, May 19). 2) Torshin invited Jr. to an offsite event on May 19. 3) Butina appeared instead as a "last-minute" add. 4) The event began at 5. 5) Butina told Byrne she brought Jr. to a second site at 2PM the day they met.
(UPDATE6) There are many ways this could have played out, and one *is* that Butina met Jr. separately from Torshin, but only briefly.
But the timeline is also consistent with Butina bringing Jr. to an offsite location the afternoon of his *onsite* dinner meeting with Torshin.
(UPDATE7) So why, when they were mentor/mentee, would Torshin/Butina have met Jr. at different times and/or locations? Why not at the same time/location? Our assumption would be "same"; Butina told Byrne "different" and indeed events confirm Butina and Torshin split up on May 19.
(UPDATE8) So Byrne's story accords with the facts in a way that seems prescient and isn't what one would've assumed were one spitballing. Butina told Byrne she met Jr. offsite—and lo and behold, she went offsite "last-minute" and indeed did *not* meet Jr. when Torshin did onsite.
(UPDATE9) So Torshin invited the Trump campaign to send someone to meet him at a dinner he (Torshin) ultimately *skipped*. Instead, Torshin changed his plans and went to the dinner Jr. was at. How did he know to do that? Butina meeting Jr. that afternoon at 2PM would explain it.
(UPDATE10) It'd also explain Butina being a "last-minute" add to a dinner *she and Torshin had been planning to go to for weeks*. Once she got Jr. offsite at 2PM she wasn't sure—post-meet—which of the dinners she'd go to. Torshin sent her to the original one—as he met Jr. onsite.
(UPDATE11) I want to make sure everyone follows:
1/ Putin tells Torshin to meet Trump in Louisville. 2/ Torshin invites Trump to a specific dinner—twice. 3/ Torshin says he'll give Trump a gift for Melania at the dinner. 4/ Torshin skips the dinner. 5/ But ends up where Jr. is.
(UPDATE12)
6/ Butina tells Byrne she met Jr. in Louisville. 7/ Articles confirm. 8/ Torshin/Jr. say Butina wasn't at their meetup. 9/ Articles confirm a second (Butina-Jr.) meetup. 10/ Butina says she met Jr. offsite. 11/ Butina was offsite. 12/ But oddly unsure of her schedule.
(UPDATE13) Nearly every Trump-Russia suspect has had a lawyer lie for them. Butina's lawyer now says "no second meeting"—which if true (but it *isn't*), would mean either Butina was at the Torshin-Jr. meeting (and they lied) or she lied about meeting Jr. *and* the news lied, too.
(UPDATE14) When you consider that Butina is a convicted Kremlin agent, Torshin has fled the country, Jr. repeatedly lied to Congress, and Trump-Russia suspects' lawyers have lied front to back, we have to go by the news and things people said when they didn't know it'd be public.
(UPDATE15) *Well before* she knew she was going to get in trouble, Butina told her boyfriend she'd met Jr. offsite. Articles confirm she met Jr. and was offsite.
Torshin, Jr., and Butina's lawyers now say Butina never met Jr. and there was no second meeting.
Oh, who to believe!
(PS) There's nothing about Torshin/Butina in the Mueller Report. Mueller sent the case to another prosecutor—which kept it from being shut down if he was fired—and referred all counterintelligence info (which includes all info he got on Butina/Torshin) to FBI counterintelligence.
(PS2) So if you're wondering, "Why haven't we heard more about May '16?" the answer is that a) it was addressed in another case, b) even in that case, any information about Trump campaign-Russian collusion *not attached to a criminal statute* would've gone to counterintelligence.
(PS3) You'll note I haven't called a secret Butina-Jr. meeting illegal. I've said what would be illegal would be Jr. thereafter lying about a meeting—as he's lied about other items—under circumstances in which lying is a crime. That no one will investigate it doesn't change that.
(PS4) That said, if Jr. did at the meeting what his conduct thereafter almost guarantees he would've done—asked for Russian aid, which is a crime—*then* you'd have a crime (as well as the necessary evidence of "concealment" from authorities that suggests a criminal mens rea).
(PS5) As ever, this feed is a public cri de coeur for Congress to launch a full Trump-Russia investigation and for FBI Counterintelligence to release the report it's still withholding—to a large extent—even from Congress. But there's little here I/we can say we "know" for *sure*.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(🧵) THREAD: There’s no purpose in debating Trump supporters on Venezuela. They lack the background to participate in a coherent conversation. Do they know Trump is backing a socialist despot over a capitalist who won the 2024 election by 34 points? No.
It gets worse from there.
1/ People without principles, like MAGAs, desperately alight on random anecdotes to try to “prove” points—as they don’t know how to *actually* prove a point, make an argument, hold a consistent position, marshal evidence, or maintain logical throughlines across diverse scenarios.
2/ So for instance, they’ll tell you that the justness of what Trump did is “proven” by how some Venezuelans reacted to it. But these are the same folks whose political ideology has long been grounded in denying international law and the sovereignty or interests of other nations.
As detailed in 2020 bestseller Proof of Corruption, Trump used Erik Prince, Rudy Giuliani and a megadonor to launch clandestine negotiations in Venezuela that would've effectuated some version of the deal. America is being lied to every which way.
What the NYT-bestselling Proof Series has shown—across 2,500 pages and over 15,000 reliable major media citations from around the world—is that what we think of as many different scandals is *one* scandal: the Trump-Russia Scandal. Ukraine, Israel, KSA, Venezuela... even Epstein.
The Trump-Russia Scandal, as a research topic, is so vast—it covers so many continents, decades, and scandals in various nations—that we can analogize being a scholar of it to being a scholar of the Cold War or the Gilded Age.
We keep speaking of trees without seeing the forest.
So blowing up the dead body of the man Trump deliriously claims stole the 2020 presidential election from him was part of a *law enforcement operation* targeting an entirely different leader? Pull the other leg now. en.apa.az/america/us-str…
It was almost exactly six years ago that Trump told us he thirsted to destroy key foreign cultural sites just to desecrate them and was told in reply—unambiguously—that this was a war crime.
Corporate media appears to be under-reporting or not reporting the mausoleum strike—a media victory for Trump because it at once hides a war crime, hides a fact that debunks Trump’s claims of this being a law enforcement op, and hides a key Venezuelan justification for vengeance.
This anodyne BS is how the NYT summarizes the most corrupt presidency in US history.
Trump said he didn't know what Project 2025 was; he lied.
He said he would get prices down; he lied.
He said he'd only deport criminals; he lied.
He started wars and attacked his own people.
He destroyed the White House. He took bribes. He pardoned monsters. He grifted taxpayers and investors out of billions. He covered up pedophilia. He committed war crimes. He enabled genocide. He savaged federal agencies. He engaged in stochastic terrorism. He simped for the rich.
He cut off student loan forgiveness. He did special business favors for the CCP. He destroyed small farms. His tariffs constituted the largest tax increase on Americans in decades. He told thousands of lies in public. He hid major medical issues. He spread racist disinformation.
UPDATE: CNN confirms that "the envelope [holding the Epstein-Nassar Note] was sent from the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City [where Epstein was being held] to Nassar"—*and* got vetted by federal officials.
Which explains the Virginia postmark (where the FBI is).
So (1) Why won’t the FBI release the 2020 handwriting analysis it did, if that analysis concluded the note was a forgery? (2) How did the FBI preclude the possibility—even *likelihood*—of dictation in 120 minutes? (3) Where’s the *real* Epstein-Nassar note we *know* Epstein sent?
On a separate but related note, I'm astonished at how many folks I thought smart bought the Trump FBI/DOJ explanation instantly—despite none of it making sense.
You realize these are just Trump personal lawyers with no ethics or fear of repercussions, right?
Trump posted this without knowing Nick Reiner was under arrest. He posted it assuming one of his fans murdered Rob Reiner. So if you want to know how Trump will react if fans start murdering his enemies, now you know. He'll celebrate and blame the victims.
Those claiming Trump knew he was commenting on a family dispute are not reading the confirmed, universally reported on post above. Trump makes very clear *his* understanding at the time he composed his post—which may have been last night—was that Rob was killed over his politics.
The post above is far more dangerous, disgusting, and diabolical than anyone is yet realizing. This isn't just Donald Trump pissing on the grave of a critic, it's him signaling that those who do violence in his name are justified because they were—definitionally—provoked into it.