Tweet

Seth Abramson

23 Dec, 12 tweets, 3 min read

(THREAD) Putting the news below and the recent Dobbs-Flynn interview together, you get the following: at least one foreign intelligence service and at least one foreign cyberintelligence firm are trying to get manufactured election "evidence" to Trump. forbes.com/sites/jackbrew…

1/ Flynn is represented by Powell. Flynn just told Lou Dobbs that "we"—apparently, he and Powell—had just gotten "evidence" from "foreign nations and partners" who'd been "watching" our election for digital intereference. Such surveillance would require intelligence capabilities.

2/ Flynn indicated that his intention was to ensure that this "evidence" be given to Trump directly. Thereafter he went to the White House once and his lawyer Powell went three times. Once she was seen with an article about an alleged Iranian attack on the election under her arm.

3/ Flynn's closest intelligence ties are to the intelligence services of—and cyberintelligence firms connected to—the following five nations: Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. The last of these four countries all want Trump to go to war with Iran.

4/ We can't and shouldn't automatically tie actions by Trump beneficial to these countries to the possibility that they are feeding manufactured election "evidence" to Trump via Flynn and Powell, but we must note that Trump has benefited each of these nations in the last 2 weeks.

5/

🇷🇺: Trump denies the Russian cyberattack.
🇮🇱: Trump gave Morocco the Western Sahara to get it to make peace with Israel.
🇸🇦: Trump is seeking civil/criminal immunity for MBS.
🇪🇬: The new budget has $1.4B for el-Sisi's military.
🇦🇪: Trump overrode Congress to get the UAE arms.

6/ These nations have worked with Flynn before to try to cut a quid pro quo deal with Trump, in fact have done so multiple times. I discuss these events in my 2019 book Proof of Conspiracy. There is evidence to suggest Powell is being used as an intermediary for such a deal now.

7/ Trump often uses lawyers as intermediaries in illicit deals—with the lawyer acting as legal counsel for both sides of the transaction. Trump never actually distanced himself from Powell—she's clearly been his legal advisor for weeks. Now Flynn says they have intel from abroad.

8/ All 5 of the nations I've mentioned in this thread would like Trump to continue to be president. All 5 have tampered with our elections before. All 5 have worked with Flynn before. All 5 have sought to do illicit quid pro quos with Trump before. 4 of the 5 want war with Iran.

9/ Whatever Flynn and Powell are doing, its potential consequences are so globally dangerous that even a crackpot who has repeatedly risked American national security like Rudy Giuliani is trying to push Trump away from whatever action Flynn and Powell are pursuing. That's scary.

10/ In a certain view, the ongoing Trump coup plot may be a bribery scandal involving Flynn or other potential pardons, like Bannon, Giuliani, Powell, Prince or others. In another view, there should be a fear of foreign interference—with potentially disastrous consequences. /end

NOTE/ The Forbes article doesn't say Trump is no longer speaking to Powell or Flynn. At most—if we believe Powell—it says the White House Counsel's office and Trump's Chief of Staff are so scared about what Powell and Flynn are doing that they're trying to keep Powell from Trump.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @SethAbramson

Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson

24 Dec

@jlambpco

@jlambpco Respectfully—and I think you'll agree with me—you're wrong, as the purpose of the exception is to ensure Congress governs *all* impeachments, not just a POTUS's (so, cabinet members' and federal judges' impeachments also can't be impeded by the president). Here's why it matters:

@jlambpco

@jlambpco What it means is that the exception isn't about a *narrow* case—a president impeding his own impeachment (in which case it's just a prohibition against self-pardon)—but about balance of power and checks and balances, a much broader governmental interest. And that matters because:

@jlambpco

@jlambpco If what the Framers were *broadly* worried about was a POTUS using executive power to usurp Congress's exclusive role in the impeachment process, they *couldn't* have intended the Pardon Clause to permit tampering with witnesses in a pre-impeachment special counsel investigation.

Read 4 tweets

Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson

24 Dec

The Pardon Clause prohibits using the pardon power to obstruct impeachments. Trump repeatedly opined—rightly—that Mueller's probe could lead to a referral for possible impeachment (which it did). The pardons he just gave are the ones he dangled to obstruct Mueller. See the issue?

Those who say the pardon power is unreviewable aren't just wrong, they *know* they're wrong. The Pardon Clause makes explicit that Congress has standing and a cause of action if the power is used to obstruct an impeachment. So the power is definitionally reviewable by the courts.

Moreover, if the grant of a pardon is itself a high crime or misdemeanor, it creates an irresolvable conflict between the Impeachment Clause and the Pardon Clause that only a federal court can resolve—making a pardon reviewable in that scenario too. That's the situation we're in.

Read 23 tweets

Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson

24 Dec

Anyone telling you that we've seen pardons of this sort before—and therefore we can be sure of their legality under the Constitution—is blowing smoke. These pardons are a matter of first impression for our courts. My view and the view of many is that they should be ruled illegal.

A bad lawyer is one who tries to make precedent fit a novel situation to falsely portray the law as static. A good lawyer is one who distinguishes precedent from a novel situation when new facts present new dangers.

These pardons are a novel case, and good attorneys will say so.

I'd be telling folks what they want to hear if I were to write that these pardons will be vacated. I'm not saying that. I think the chances of that are very small. What I'm saying is strong arguments can and should be made to vacate these pardons—and that such arguments are just.

Read 8 tweets

Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson

21 Dec

(TRUE STORY) In the weeks before the 2020 election, ex-Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne was desperately trying to get to me through an intermediary to share info about the coming election he claimed was critical.

I ignored his overtures.

Donald Trump invited him to the Oval Office.

I had messages from Byrne's rep on every social media platform I'm reachable on. I decided that his public instability was such that I wanted nothing to do with him. Incredible to think that the President of the United States—the most powerful man alive—made a different decision.

MORE/ google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.…

Read 5 tweets

Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson

21 Dec

Anyone else here watch comedian Marc Maron's live Instagram recordings on a semi-daily basis? I have complicated feelings, maybe because I "know" him now—of course not, but you know what I mean—largely through these, as I've only listened to maybe two episodes of his WTF podcast.

I just think he's an interesting figure—funny and smart as hell—and I also feel like the way he is processing grief and meeting his audience in the midst of their own (largely pandemic-enabled) grief is really fascinating in a way I hope one day someone writes about meaningfully.

I happen to be grieving a death myself, so I've been thinking about how grief sends us into an exploration of all our own extremes and subtleties. Maron presents as earnest, angry, arrogant, knowing, funny, obsessive, smart, impulsive, guarded. So many lovely self-contradictions.

Read 5 tweets

Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson

20 Dec

I hope federal law enforcement was paying attention on Friday when Michael Flynn told Lou Dobbs that he and Sidney Powell are acting as intermediaries between at least one foreign intelligence service and Trump. Is it Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE? FBI CD better find out.

The idea that a hostile intelligence service—or elements of an allied intelligence service with interests hostile to the interests of the U.S.—would be working with a former U.S. soldier currently aiming to stage a coup, and that FBI CD might not be on top of this, is terrifying.

I should add that Flynn said he and Powell received this mysterious foreign intelligence Friday, and that it'd be getting to Trump immediately. This suggests Flynn was at the White House to transmit that foreign intelligence during the meeting the NYT/others have now reported on.

Read 13 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!