Max, I agree it's poorly worded.
I referred to: "Navalny shows footage of Deripaska with Russian deputy prime minister Prikhodko on his yacht in Norway in August 2016. Based on that footage, he alleges that information about the Trump campaign must have passed between the two."
I referred to: "Navalny shows footage of Deripaska with Russian deputy prime minister Prikhodko on his yacht in Norway in August 2016. Based on that footage, he alleges that information about the Trump campaign must have passed between the two."
2/ Also: "Nastya Rybka says that fishing is a cover, in fact there were some important informal discussions." She adds that they were discussing "secretive business questions." She notes that they were discussing U.S.-Russia relations.
It remains *possible* Trump never came up.
It remains *possible* Trump never came up.
3/ So "proof" is the wrong word—used by me because it's pretty tiring when you're at Tweet #98 in a thread. But I'll say this: Navalny makes the allegation Trump was discussed, and that that explains the need for absolute secrecy in a simple conversation on U.S.-Russia relations.
4/ I think you'd agree, @MddeH, Quartz published the piece not because Navalny has video of Deripaska and a Kremlin agent chatting about nothing in particular but because Manafort's prior offer/contacts to Deripaska and the secrecy of the chat here lend weight to Navalny's claim.
5/ I retract "proof" and replace it with "strong circumstantial evidence"—strong enough that I'd say about 95 of every 100 criminal investigators would say, if they had a gun to their head, that Deripaska and Prikhodko, discussing US-Russia relations on 8/9/16, brought up Trump.
6/ Given Deripaska's ties to Trump's then-Campaign Manager, and his byzantine secrecy in speaking to a Kremlin agent on US-Russia relations, I can't imagine that *anyone* believes for even an instant Deripaska wasn't discussing Trump with Prikhodko. What Navalny says makes sense.
7/ The last thing I'd say—100% respectfully—is you're misusing the phrase "pure speculation." In criminal investigation there's no way the conclusion I've drawn would be called pure speculation, but "informed speculation, consistent with all known facts and the persons involved."
