,
33 tweets,
11 min read
Read on Twitter
(BRIEF THREAD) Many are asking for an update on the story MSNBC reported last night, that—per a source—Trump's Deutsche Bank-held tax returns show that "Russian oligarchs" co-signed some of Trump's loans. I have a few thoughts on where this story will go, for those interested.
1/ First, I don't think it's surprising the story hasn't appeared elsewhere yet—and caution that it could be a little while, even weeks, before it does. This is possibly the story of the century, and *no one* is going to simply re-report another outlet's single-sourced report.
2/ The NYT and Washington Post will report on this—even if it's only to knock it down or delimit it—when they have (a) their own sources and (b) more than one source. As they have no way of knowing MSNBC's source, they will want not only their own but more sources than MSNBC had.
3/ The NYT and Washington Post wouldn't want just one source, as they could end up with the same one as MSNBC without realizing it—thus leading to multiple outlets reporting the same story, all with the same single source. So post-MSNBC, other outlets will want multiple sources.
4/ But the NYT and Washington Post will also want multiple sources because what was heard on MSNBC last night indicates a major national security issue—a president financially beholden to a hostile foreign power. It'd be sufficient grounds for a "national security" impeachment.
5/ A president compromised by a foreign power by a preponderance of the evidence can be impeached as unable to fulfill his Oath of Office or his duties under the Constitution. And remember: the news here isn't just the co-signers, but that Trump hid his co-signers from America.
6/ A president who has explicitly said he has no loans connected to Russia, who in fact has Russian-oligarch cosigners on his loans, is a prima facie case of a compromised person—both due to the loans and the blackmail the Kremlin could bring to bear over Trump's lies to America.
7/ It is not at all surprising that this news would come now. Deutsche Bank has Trump's tax returns. They believe—many believe—Trump will lose in court and the bank will have to turn them over to Congress. The moment that happens, everyone expects leaks and public disclosures.
8/ So this is precisely the moment you would expect a leak, at a time when those individuals who had access to this knowledge believe it is bound to shortly become public anyway, and they want to finally "do the right thing" or even help ensure the returns do end up going public.
9/ To those who haven't followed the Trump-Russia story closely, this breaking news from MSNBC may seem too wild to be true. But what I and everyone else who's followed Trump a long time—e.g. @DavidCayJ, who's followed him far longer—are saying is that this fits with all we know.
@DavidCayJ 10/ That's one reason, in fact, that *everyone* who's been on the Trump-Russia beat is sharing this single-sourced MSNBC story: because it fits all the evidence, including a too-little-seen Zembla [Dutch] documentary from 2017 and a 2019 Deutsche Bank whistleblower many missed.
@DavidCayJ 11/ That whistleblower said she had personally seen, and reported to her superiors, secret Kushner-Russia transactions that occurred during the general election in 2016 and she believed might be evidence of a crime. And she reported Trump transactions—from during the same period.
@DavidCayJ 12/ Would Deutsche Bank cover this up? You bet they would. In fact, this whistleblower was fired, and anyone who's followed Trump's dealings with Deutsche Bank knows they not only have given Trump bizarre special treatment as a customer but been especially secretive re: his file.
@DavidCayJ 13/ Deutsche Bank has also been under investigation for Russian money laundering—so when news comes out that the customer they're most secretive about and who a whistleblower reported on might have money-laundering-indicative loans involving Russians... it's not exactly a shock.
@DavidCayJ 14/ I understand some have become cynical, and believe Republicans would not take action against a president *currently financially indebted to the Kremlin* who *lied about that to get elected* and *has secretly been susceptible to blackmail for years*.
Read that several times.
Read that several times.
@DavidCayJ 15/ There are certain things which—*if* fully documented with *material evidence* of *unimpeachable authenticity*—simply can't be ignored by a member of Congress. This is one of them. And that's why this story will develop far more *slowly* than many of us would like to see. /end
@DavidCayJ PS/ To be clear, the loan documents and the tax returns are connected inasmuch as (a) both are tranches of documents Deutsche Bank may be forced to turn over via federal subpoena, and (b) the tax returns may well have been supplied to Deutsche Bank as part of a loan application.
@DavidCayJ PS2/ I agree 100% with those all who say (a) the Democrats know they could impeach Trump right now on approximately 20 Articles of Impeachment (not an exaggeration) but (b) they don't want to move until they have a "Volume 1" offense—secret activity suggesting foreign compromise.
@DavidCayJ PS3/ I'd say further that—at a guess—90%+ of House Democrats believe, whether they'll say so publicly or not, that evidence of Trump being compromised exists and *can* eventually be found. Whether they think it *will* be found quickly enough is the important outstanding question.
@DavidCayJ PS4/ If evidence of compromise can't be found quickly enough—early enough it doesn't emerge in the middle of America voting in 2020 and seem like a campaign ploy rather than legitimate Congressional oversight—I still think Democrats will impeach Trump with what they already have.
@DavidCayJ PS5/ The reason Democrats would impeach Trump by the end of January—right before America starts voting—even if they've been stymied in accessing evidence of foreign compromise is (a) the evidence they have is robustly impeachable and (b) they're mindful of their place in history.
@DavidCayJ UPDATE1/
@DavidCayJ UPDATE2/ thehill.com/homenews/media…
@DavidCayJ UPDATE3/ A few thoughts: (1) we have no idea whether Trump would have shared with his lawyers information on past or current loans (and whether he lied to them); (2) it's unusual that Trump isn't commenting on this, only attorneys and Stephanie Grisham; and (3) Please remember...
@DavidCayJ UPDATE4/ ...that everyone agrees Trump has partnered with Soviet-born businessmen in the past, that Eric Trump told GOLF magazine that "all" the money for Trump golf courses comes from Russia; that Don told investors in the 2000s that a "disproportionate" number of Trump Org...
@DavidCayJ UPDATE5/ ...investments come from Russia, that a Deutsche Bank whistleblower says Kushner was secretly dealing with Russia and Trump had potentially criminal transactions during the same period—in other words, *any* claim that the MSNBC is totally from *left field* is 100% false.
@DavidCayJ NOTE/ At the same time I stand by my view from the moment MSNBC dropped the story: we must hear from other outlets; we must hear from additional sources; the story will take a long while to develop; it's critical breaking news for Americans to know MSNBC has a source saying this.
@DavidCayJ NOTE2/ As someone who teaches journalism at the college level I want to say something else, though: MSNBC can either fire O'Donnell, say his show is merely "entertainment," or say that they trust him and stand by him. Anything else is an administrative and ethical malfeasance.
@DavidCayJ NOTE3/ It's an imaginary dividing line news outlets have devised for their own purposes to distinguish news from primetime programs. Either MSNBC trusts that O'Donnell will *accurately report* what he knows—and should say so—or they should say he's entertainment you can't trust.
@DavidCayJ NOTE4/ So on Lawrence's behalf, and as one of the thousands of educators trying to teach journalism to aspiring journalists, I'm disappointed by MSNBC issuing a statement pretending it is somehow a separate and distinct entity from its primetime hosts. To be very clear: it isn't.
@DavidCayJ NOTE5/ And I don't mean to single MSNBC out; this is an issue plaguing contemporary cable news programming that somehow no one seems to be working on. Either a news division must disavow the accuracy of what's said in primetime *or* it must own that Lawrence is an agent of MSNBC.
@DavidCayJ CLARIFICATION/ Right now the status appears to be NBC isn't yet confirming, and MSNBC has no comment, so for the moment I should clarify that MSNBC is doing the right thing—though perhaps an even better thing would be to stand by the integrity of its employee and do so publicly.
@DavidCayJ MORE/ You now see (given the news below) why I got confused—because everyone is. No one can decide whether a statement by NBCUniversal counts as a statement by MSNBC or not, as that's as much a legal and corporate-bureaucratic matter as a journalistic one.
