Here's a Q: If @maggieNYT, @jonathanvswan, @jdawsey1 don't even MENTION that Paul Manafort is a confessed money launderer, if @kaitlancollins suggests we don't have to start hyperventilating over his hire yet, how do they think voters would find out if Manafort did it again?
That is, if journos are provably incompetent in describing how Manafort engaged in money laundering in the past to hide that his influence operations were really paid for by RU-backed oligarchs, who would tell us if he did it this go-around?
The risk to Manafort joining the Trump campaign, in ANY capacity, is that he has proven adept in the past at hiding Russian & Ukrainian oligarchs bankrolling his political work, & he did so PRECISELY to pretend it was real democratic persuasion. He confessed to this!
And both Manafort and Trump walk into this relationship believing if they can pull off victory again, they'll have impunity for any crimes they commit--including accepting foreign donations--to win. Hell, FEC has NEVER held Trump accountable for campaign finance crimes.
I get that some of you have relied on Manafort as a source before and that impairs your judgment abt what he actually confessed to, abt who he is. I get that at least one of you has downplayed his past crimes.
But show the least little concern about Russia running this election?
And y'all saying, "Well, if he only works the Convention, that's not a big deal" are naive as fuck. For two reasons.
First, Trump doesn't need help at the Convention this time. Never-Trumpers are worried abt assassination threats, not winning delegates.
Second the same journos who didn't mention he's a confessed money launderer ALSO falsely believe Manafort only came in, at first, 8 years ago, to run Convention.
That's not what Ukrainian Oligarchs understood. They knew IN DECEMBER 2015 (per Sam Patten) he'd run the campaign.
Yesterday was a test of whether journalists would respond, appropriately, with flashing sirens 🚨🚨🚨 if Trump did something to show he might let Russia run his campaign. And NYT and WaPo failed that test, miserably. They're not up to the job of defending democracy.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For those asking why those involved in this Parnas op were not indicted.
1) Barr did WILDLY corrupt things to shield Rudy, and it's SUPER HARD to indict the AG acting as AG. It's probably the reason he wrote his book, to create a cover story.
2) After SDNY seized Rudy's phones on Lisa Monaco's first day on the job, they discovered the Ukraine-related phones were corrupted (they ended up getting good Jan6 evidence, though!). 3) GOING FORWARD, Weiss needs to be taken off this case. Weiss is a direct witness.
Aileen Cannon ordered both sides in Trump's stolen docs trial to write jury instructions AS IF Presdential Records Act says something other than it does.
The 11th Circuit already spanked Cannon on this issue. Classified records are not and cannot be personal.
The more I think about this the more I think Cannon may have finally Checkmated Jack Smith, Via Calvinball. Can a lawyer EVEN WRITE jury instructions as if the law says something wildly different than it does?
Sort of a contest to see how many ways journos can avoid saying, "Trump plans to rehire confessed money launderer who conspired with his business partner, an alleged Russian spy," or at least burying that behind 5 ¶¶ making it look like a sound hire.
Imagine if the NYT had twin side-by-side pictures, one titled, "Trump can't get a $$ to save Trump Tower" and the other saying, "Trump will rehire confessed money launderer Paul Manafort, who conspired with alleged Russian spy"?
Now ask why NYT is NOT reporting it that way?
Reupping: How Josh Dawsey Downplays Paul Manafort's Ties to Alleged Russian Spies
Here's how Josh Dawsey, in a report that Trump will hire Paul Manafort again, describes a meeting at which Manafort talked about how to get paid millions, how to carve up Ukraine, and how he planned to win PA, MI, WI, and MN. washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/…
Let's correct Dawsey's errors, shall we?
1) There's no dispute Manafort shared polling data. There's more uncertainty abt what happened at August 2 meeting, which is different. 2) Mueller didn't just ACCUSE Manafort of lying; the judge ruled he had
3) It's not just that Kilimnik has TIES to Russian intelligence. In 2021, Treasury stated as fact that Kilimnik WAS RU intelligence.
Here's a lesson about Rob Hur, which as I've shown over and over, wrote a shitty report not backed by the evidence.
First, the REASON everyone (ex Andy McCabe) didn't realize he's a partisan Trumpist is bc there hasn't been enough accountability for partisan Trumpists.
Rob Hur orchestrated Andy McCabe's firing to deprive him of his pension based off an IG Report that didn't even rely on the most key witness. DOJ subsequently decided they had to settle McCabe's lawsuit bc he hadn't gotten due process.
But the other reason people didn't realize that Rob Hur was a partisan hack is bc people still ignore how MUCH Rod Rosenstein did at Trump's bidding. Importantly, that includes issuing a declination for Trump that TOTALLY IGNORED Trump's pardon abuse.