This is what I've believed too for a while. It's clear that there were efforts prior to this to promote Trump, with Rykov and Project Lakhta both active throughout 2015.
It's hard to know if Rykov and the people bankrolling him and Project Lakhta were true believers, or if they just thought they were creating general disruption, but I still tend to agree that there wasn't a general consensus of viability until early 2016.
Note also that Maria Butina made statements about Trump in 2015. Again, we don't know if it was primarily disruptive. I always believed Butina's operation had everything to do with NRA and Congress, and little to do with Trump, except when convenient because of her placement.
We also have the Agalarovs working Trump since early 2013 (well before Miss Universe). We have Alferova saying in early 2014 that he'd make a great President.
The point of all of this is that it's important to differentiate between significant Russian interest in Trump and serious interest in him as a viable candidate.
All the hacking efforts occurred after late winter, early spring 2016.
I'd actually divide Russian interest into three distinct periods:
1980s through 2012 - casual interest in random loudmouth rich American
2013-2015 - accelerated interest in manipulating his presidential run for general chaos
2016 onward - realization that they could install him.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
OK I'm all for going in to a brawl with McConnell over the filibuster, but if we don't have even 50 votes for it (Dems Sinema, Manchin oppose removing it), there's no reason to fight this battle at all correct?
Although I have to say, if Schumer was gonna agree to keep filibuster in place in any case, in exchange for some other concession from McConnell, didn't Manchin and Sinema just ruin Schumer's negotiating leverage?
Who remembers "Stand back and stand by" back in September? Probably most of us, and it has come up a few times in recent discussions.
But I'm curious if there's not a deeper more literal connection: is there a time where he told his supporters to no longer stand by?
So I note that in his January 6th speech there were several uses of the world "stand" that could be construed as signals, directly updating his previous "stand by" order.
This implied threat has gotten a lot of attention for the treat: " And Mike Pence, I hope you're going to STAND UP for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country."
Correct me if I'm wrong. If Congress tries it's one 25th amendment maneuver separate from the executive branch, as the amendment allows, they'd have to pass a law, which would have to go before the President, be vetoed, then pass both houses again by 2/3rd majority.
Yes?
And then, having changed the law, would need to follow the process they just legislated.
That all seems more implausible than impeachment.
Also it'd be nice if they wrote a law that wasn't full of holes for exploitation and abuse by future corrupt members of Congress.
Imagine if this was a Muslim protest that turned into a riot, which masked a highly organized and well-prepared group of terrorists who successfully infiltrated the Capital building with intent to take hostages, while insiders hindered police and national guard deployment.
All you have to do in the previous tweet is change "Muslim" to "Trumpist" and this is exactly what actually happened.
Where is the outrage?
This is in many ways worse than 9/11. Far less dead people and in some ways less dramatic. But 9/11 never put our actual functioning government in danger.
And this being done by domestic terrorists ought to be more scary, not less, than