@SethAbramson's Threads
719 subscribers
(THREAD) BREAKING: Singer Emin Agalarov, son of Putin property developer—and Trump ex-business partner—Aras Agalarov, has cancelled a US tour to avoid questions from Congress/Mueller. Here are ten questions he's avoiding. I hope you'll read on and retweet. cnn.com/2019/01/21/pol…
QUESTION 1: When you came to America in mid-2013 to woo Trump and the Miss Universe pageant to Moscow, you were accompanied by persons connected to the Kremlin. What conversations did you (or anyone on the trip, to your knowledge) have with Kremlin agents about Trump pre-trip?
QUESTION 2: You are now suspected of being—or of being an associate of—the person who offered, in 2013, to have prostitutes go up to Trump's room at the Ritz Moscow with the intention of having whatever they did in his room be taped. Was it you? If not, what do you know about it?
18 months ago I established conclusively, by reviewing Russian media, that Trump's Letter of Intent with the Agalarovs extended into February '17. Now people are publicly wondering if the Trump-Rozov talks extended past November '16, as though these prior analyses never happened.
2/ And we already know from my research of a *year* ago that the Trump-Agalarov deal *didn't* end in February '17, but was handed off by Trump to his sons and extended through at least July '17. Why would the Trump-Rozov deal be *any* different? Can anyone in media tell me that?
3/ Too often, questions are being asked in media for which valuable research has already been done--we just don't like that the research wasn't done by major media. But is that dilettantish approach to information any way to act/think about info, in the face of a national crisis?
One clarification I'd make here is that Giuliani can't waive privilege without Trump's consent. So either Trump waived privilege here, and that's why Rudy said what he did, or Trump did not waive privilege as to that conversation and Rudy is immediately subject to bar discipline.
2/ I think Renato is assuming, not unreasonably, that Rudy was speaking with his client's consent, i.e. Trump had previously, in speaking with Rudy, waived privilege as to that particular attorney-client communication. But my assumption is the *opposite*: I think Rudy went rogue.
3/ Here's why that matters: I think it's possible that a time is coming when Trump *fires* Giuliani so that he can save himself by claiming that much of what Rudy said to the media was said without Trump's consent (i.e., was an improper breach of attorney-client confidentiality).
Chris, you know I love your shows. But your focus on deceit over illegality, while well-intended, doesn't track with the facts we have. We have evidence of illegality—whether Conspiracy, Aiding and Abetting, Fraud, Bribery, Perjury, Obstruction, Witness Tampering—not just deceit.
2/ Conspiracy includes Conspiracy to Defraud the US and Conspiracy to Commit Computer Crimes/Identity Theft; perjury—broadly writ—includes Perjury, Making False Statements, and FARA/SF-86 crimes; and Illegal Solicitation of Foreign Campaign Donations is its own relevant category.
3/ I think discussing the systemic deceit of Trump and his aides, allies, associates and entire campaign is a great *gateway* conversation to discussing the very serious issues of criminal law in play here—but it can't be permitted to occlude the latter conversation, @ChrisCuomo.
When I started reading this and saw that two Jews were behind this, based on my research for PROOF OF CONSPIRACY I immediately thought to myself, "It'll be Birnbaum and Finkelstein."
And it was.
I'll tell you now that these two guys were part of pre-election collusion. Bigtime.
And it was.
I'll tell you now that these two guys were part of pre-election collusion. Bigtime.
2/ I know I don't have to tell 99% of you this, but for the other 1% I'll tell you, as a Jew, that not only is the word "Jew" not offensive, but it's a relevant noun here because there are very few Jews who'd make it their life's work to destroy the life of a Holocaust survivor.
3/ Anyone doing a deep dive on the Trump-Israeli connection will shortly come across a small cadre of Jews so committed to Trump being president that they were willing to create a danger of assassination for a Holocaust survivor. Birnbaum/Finkelstein are in that very small group.
THIS.
THIS is a key point not enough people have been making.
Under questioning Trump *actively hid from U.S. intelligence what he'd been doing*. And if Flynn knew any of what Trump was doing, so did he, as he was in the classified briefing with Trump on August 17, 2016.
👇
THIS is a key point not enough people have been making.
Under questioning Trump *actively hid from U.S. intelligence what he'd been doing*. And if Flynn knew any of what Trump was doing, so did he, as he was in the classified briefing with Trump on August 17, 2016.
👇
2/ In that briefing, U.S. intel was *also* informing Trump that the Russians were going to try to infiltrate his campaign to influence him. It's evident that those statements (plus questions) were intended to provoke disclosures from Trump about whether any such effort had begun.
3/ Beyond having spoken to the briefers, Mueller would know from Flynn exactly what Trump said during that meeting, in other words how many lies he told to law enforcement bout his contacts with the Kremlin. And those lies, told during a criminal investigation, would be *crimes*.
One of the central theses of this feed has been that Trump had a legal obligation to do nothing to aid/abet Russian cybercrimes after August 17, 2016, when he received his first classified briefing as a candidate and learned of Putin's cyberwar. Today we learned he did just that.
2/ Today we learned that Trump was discussing unilateral sanctions relief with the Kremlin (via Sessions) *and* floating the idea of a gifted $50 million penthouse in Moscow for Putin (via Cohen and Sater) *and* negotiating a massive Trump Tower Moscow deal post-August 17, 2016.
3/ The focus of the collusion conversation has always been exclusively conspiracy. In Proof of Collusion I argued that two dozen crimes could be collusive; then, once Ben Wittes said obstruction could be collusion, everyone took note. Well aiding and abetting is *also* collusion.
I don't offer this as news, but a hopefully valuable rumination: I hear many saying, including some with access to smart people, that Mueller's objection to the Buzzfeed News story may've been based in part on Trump issuing a directive to Cohen *via intermediary*.
Still a crime.
Still a crime.
2/ What this possibility does, at a minimum, is remind us that it's possible for the Buzzfeed News story to have inaccuracies within it yet still rightly report that Trump was part of a conspiracy to suborn perjury. It could simply be that the means used were not those described.
3/ Under *this* reading, Mueller had to limit damage to his witness (Cohen); to his agents (who Buzzfeed News implied were leaking, and if the story is inaccurate, it'd wrongly suggest they were leaking inaccurate news); and to Congress, which might initiate a probe on bad facts.
In case you're wondering what Criminal Harassment looks and sounds like
2/ Lest you doubt:
3/ Imagine if, tomorrow, you get into a dispute with your neighbor over the boundary-line between your properties, and then, tomorrow night, you decide to mail 100,000 BRICKS to your neighbor (*100,000*).
How *quickly* do you think you'll experience contact with local police?
How *quickly* do you think you'll experience contact with local police?
Not a denial, actually, from the standpoint of a defense lawyer. If Ken's quote is accurate this is *not* the same as saying "we categorically deny" or "Mr. Trump categorically denies," this is Rudy speaking for Rudy and Trump later can say he had nothing to do with Rudy's words.
2/ People forget, probably because Rudy is himself famous, that Rudy literally matters not at all in this equation and is supposed to be merely a mouthpiece for representations his client wishes to make to the public if any. And what Rudy said was NOT a representation from Trump.
3/ When journalists give the impression they're counting the minutes until Rudy denies a piece of breaking news is accurate, it gives readers the false impression that a denial from Rudy has any news value whatsoever. It does not. Only a denial from Trump would matter or be news.
Everyone realizes Trump *also* told his *son* to lie to Congress, right? I mean, nobody is doubting that, based on the evidence we have, right?
2/ Trump Jr.'s lies to Congress were... *extraordinary*... in their depth and scope. The idea he'd walk into Congressional testimony planning to lie to Congress (a federal crime) and never run it past his father first to make sure that's what Trump wanted him to do... no—he did.
3/ And note that Trump *also* issued orders to both Steve Bannon and Corey Lewandowski about how they should avoid Congressional questioning that in *each* case required the man to make false claims of "privilege" that would have led to Contempt findings with a Democratic House.
He's a criminal
He was a criminal the first and hundredth and thousandth time I said it, and he is now
I worked for years in the justice system, and anyone who couldn't see we were always heading toward tonight's Buzzfeed article has never been an attorney or in law enforcement
He was a criminal the first and hundredth and thousandth time I said it, and he is now
I worked for years in the justice system, and anyone who couldn't see we were always heading toward tonight's Buzzfeed article has never been an attorney or in law enforcement
2/ And anyone who slow-walked the obvious when they had the training and knowledge and experience to know better should be remembered for it
(And yes, of course I know it was *also* obvious to those who haven't prosecuted or defended hundreds or thousands of criminal defendants)
(And yes, of course I know it was *also* obvious to those who haven't prosecuted or defended hundreds or thousands of criminal defendants)
3/ But tonight's revelations are still just the tip of the iceberg
Folks this is so bad and so dark the full story is going to break your heart
/end
Folks this is so bad and so dark the full story is going to break your heart
/end
Oh, phew! I thought it was going to be some *hideously suspicious news*
2/ She faces 6 years in prison. Russian officials assured her she could fly to Belarus. The report notes "her arrest in Moscow was unexpected and blocked her from talking to dozens of journalists waiting for her in the arrivals zone."
This might as well be a Kremlin confession.
This might as well be a Kremlin confession.
3/ I don't think it's alarmist to wonder if we'll ever hear from this woman again. I can't imagine—if she lives—she'll ever be allowed to speak to anyone.
Deripaska, who almost certainly orchestrated this bogus arrest, is the man Trump is trying desperately to lift sanctions on.
Deripaska, who almost certainly orchestrated this bogus arrest, is the man Trump is trying desperately to lift sanctions on.
BREAKING: Papadopoulos says his congressional testimony has leaked, which means whether or not the recent Epoch Times story is true—it quotes Papadopoulos as saying he was asked to wear a wire—at a minimum The Epoch Times is correct in claiming Papadopoulos' testimony has leaked.
2/ I've not yet linked to the Epoch Times story, not because the outlet fails bias/accuracy checks from watchdogs (it doesn't) but because it's odd they'd be the only outlet with Papadopoulos' Congressional testimony.
But now Papadopoulos himself admits his testimony has leaked.
But now Papadopoulos himself admits his testimony has leaked.
3/ The other concern with the Epoch Times story—and the outlet is, to be clear, rated as a "center-right" media outlet, not a progressive news outlet—is that it is entirely based on Papadopoulos' in-some-cases-wild claims, though we should note that Papadopoulos *was* under oath.
For the THOUSANDTH time:
IN JANUARY 2018, NBC REPORTED that Trump was privately telling friends the Mueller report wouldn't hurt him because Manafort wasn't going to "flip" on him. This report should be cited *every time* Trump's team says he had no idea what Manafort was up to.
IN JANUARY 2018, NBC REPORTED that Trump was privately telling friends the Mueller report wouldn't hurt him because Manafort wasn't going to "flip" on him. This report should be cited *every time* Trump's team says he had no idea what Manafort was up to.
SOURCE/ *Every day* White House reporters for every major media outlet should be asking Trump and his team precisely *what* Manafort could *possibly* have *flipped* on him over, if Trump had *no* knowledge of what Manafort was doing during the campaign.
THIS IS JOURNALISM 101.
THIS IS JOURNALISM 101.
PS/ What makes the NBC report, which has *never been refuted*, more stunning is Trump doesn't *just* say "flip"—which in theory he could play off as a fear Manafort would lie about him—he also says "sell him out," which *acknowledges* that Manafort has incriminating info to sell.
One way I know no one on TV knows anything about the "grand bargain" is that no one's noting—as to the extension of Gates' case—that Gates met with Saudi/Emirati emissary Nader *before* Nader was invited to Trump Tower with Zamel and Prince to offer illegal preelection assistance
2/ This despite Mueller now focusing on lines of inquiry involving Nader, Prince, Hannah, MBS, MBZ, Bannon, Dahlan, and so on, i.e., that should be telling any analyst on TV that Gates is still needed at least in *part* because of Trump-Saudi/Trump-Emirati/Trump-Israeli collusion
3/ Listen, only 20% of the story of what Trump did during the election is on TV thus far; in working on Proof of Conspiracy and relying *only* on major news sources around the world, I'm finding dozens of narratives that are harrowing and criminal and not on any TV channel at all
**SOME FACTS**
Nations involved in the Red Sea Conspiracy to help elect Trump (2015):
🇸🇦
🇦🇪
🇧🇭
🇪🇬
Nations involved in a pretextual blockade of Qatar Kushner used to force Qatar to loan him money (2017):
🇸🇦
🇦🇪
🇧🇭
🇪🇬
Nations Trump sent Mike Pompeo to visit (2019):
🇸🇦
🇦🇪
🇧🇭
🇪🇬
Nations involved in the Red Sea Conspiracy to help elect Trump (2015):
🇸🇦
🇦🇪
🇧🇭
🇪🇬
Nations involved in a pretextual blockade of Qatar Kushner used to force Qatar to loan him money (2017):
🇸🇦
🇦🇪
🇧🇭
🇪🇬
Nations Trump sent Mike Pompeo to visit (2019):
🇸🇦
🇦🇪
🇧🇭
🇪🇬
2/
KEY:
🇸🇦 = Saudi Arabia
🇦🇪 = The United Arab Emirates
🇧🇭 = Bahrain
🇪🇬 = Egypt
KEY:
🇸🇦 = Saudi Arabia
🇦🇪 = The United Arab Emirates
🇧🇭 = Bahrain
🇪🇬 = Egypt
**SOME FACTS**
Nation the Red Sea Conspiracy needed to counter Iran (2015):
🇷🇺
Nation that hacked Qatari news, provoking a blockade of Qatar Kushner profited from (2017):
🇷🇺
Nation Trump wants to end sanctions on, hoping to trigger a curtailing of its aid to Iran (2019):
🇷🇺
Nation the Red Sea Conspiracy needed to counter Iran (2015):
🇷🇺
Nation that hacked Qatari news, provoking a blockade of Qatar Kushner profited from (2017):
🇷🇺
Nation Trump wants to end sanctions on, hoping to trigger a curtailing of its aid to Iran (2019):
🇷🇺
Significant, yes, but if Rosenstein didn't have to recuse... as a *witness in the case he's overseeing*... should we expect Barr would've been told to recuse, or that we should've had a reasonable expectation he would? The recusal case for Sessions and Rosenstein was/is stronger.
2/ (Mind you, I have *always* favored an aggressive recusal policy, so to me, all things being equal, Sessions, Rosenstein, and Barr should *all* have recused. And I expect that Brand resigned her #3 spot at DOJ because *she* thought Rosenstein would have to recuse himself, too.)
3/ BTW, when I state a fact about recusal ethics that contradicts the outcome non-lawyers would like to see, I expect to be disagreed with and that's OK. But as a lawyer I'm obligated, as are all lawyers, to note that in any normal situation Rosenstein would have recused himself.
Barr just confirmed that the presidential pardon power is not absolute, and that it is possible for a pardon to be a criminal act (e.g. obstruction) and that (if so) that pardon cannot legally be issued. That was my understanding of his answer, at least, and it seemed a good one.
2/ I'll say—perhaps contrary to expectation—that I think media hyped this hearing overmuch. CNN suggested pre-hearing that Barr could be a major threat to Mueller's probe, and I'm not sure we had any evidence of that. By and large his answers have been... in the acceptable range.
3/ I'm not saying Barr is who I would've picked. I'm not saying I *don't* think he should recuse himself. But the case for his recusal is weaker than it was for Sessions—and by far—and we have to acknowledge that. Barr acknowledging his memo was rank speculation helps him a lot.
Step 1 (3/31/16): Kremlin agent Papadopoulos tells Trump he's a Kremlin agent.
Step 2 (3/31/16 - 4/2/16): Trump encourages/promotes Papadopoulos.
That's *one incident* of 50+ in PROOF OF COLLUSION that would've caused *any* FBI agent to worry Trump was acting as a Kremlin agent.
Step 2 (3/31/16 - 4/2/16): Trump encourages/promotes Papadopoulos.
That's *one incident* of 50+ in PROOF OF COLLUSION that would've caused *any* FBI agent to worry Trump was acting as a Kremlin agent.
2/ So when you say "record," @GeraldoRivera, I don't know what "record" you're speaking of, because I wrote a 450-page "record" of the "record" and had *not a doubt in my mind*—as a lawyer and former criminal investigator—the FBI had *ample* articulate facts to proceed as it did.
3/ If people wonder why I care what @GeraldoRivera thinks it's because (I'm embarrassed to say) I watched his show nightly 20 years ago when it was on MSNBC and have been horrified watching him descend into being an FNC/Trump flack for no reason at all. He *is* smarter than this.
Amazing that he couldn't even use proper grammar in answering the most important question of his life.
❎ "I never worked for Russia."
🆗️ "I've never worked for Russia."
❎ "I never worked for Russia."
🆗️ "I've never worked for Russia."
2/ And his big denial doesn't even cover what he's *really* accused of—as what's at issue here is whether he's worked "with" Russia rather than "for" Russia. Not that anyone should believe him anyway, but this is what he should've said:
🆗️ "I've never coordinated with Russia."
🆗️ "I've never coordinated with Russia."
3/ And of course the use of the word "Russia" here is inaccurate, as what we're speaking of is Putin's Kremlin, and more specifically than even that, *agents* of Putin's Kremlin. So what he *really* should've said is:
🆗️ "I've never coordinated with agents of Putin's Kremlin."
🆗️ "I've never coordinated with agents of Putin's Kremlin."
Trump fired Comey. Trump's campaign NatSec chief, Sessions, fired McCabe. Baker and Page *chose* to leave the FBI. Strzok was fired *despite* recommendations he get a small suspension. *Any* media reference to how these folks left the FBI without these facts is pro-Trump disinfo.
2/ I've said before and will say again that FBI employees whose errors at the FBI were a) minor, and b) not malicious got fired by Trump or his people *precisely* so that Trump could use this information down the line to smear lifelong public servants. Media is letting him do it.
3/ Donald Trump *orchestrated* the firing and libel of lifelong public servants as part of a campaign of criminal obstruction of justice, and now he is *crowing* about what he did on Twitter daily with media simply putting his tweets up on the screen without comment. It's insane.
2/ Not even spies do this—this is dumb, evil collusion.
"Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Putin, including taking his interpreter's notes and instructing a linguist not to discuss what transpired with administration officials."
"Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Putin, including taking his interpreter's notes and instructing a linguist not to discuss what transpired with administration officials."
3/ Trump met privately with Putin and Tillerson in Hamburg in July '17. Then the press started prying into what was said. Then Trump's Middle Eastern allies began using proxies—e.g. Broidy—to get Trump to fire Tillerson. Did they decide Tillerson wasn't loyal enough post-Hamburg?
KEY CLARIFICATION #1: Based on how Trump (via his lawyer Rudy Giuliani) has defined "collusion"—that is, to mean *only* "conspiring directly with the Kremlin to hack the DNC"—when Trump says "no collusion," he's *literally* only denying 5% of what would be considered "collusion."
KEY CLARIFICATION #2: When media says we don't know if Trump was a "witting" colluder, they *mean* we don't know if he was "wittingly" a Kremlin *agent*. We *know* he "wittingly" *coordinated* with the Kremlin—see e.g. promoting Papadopoulos after learning he was a Kremlin agent.
KEY CLARIFICATION #3: The FBI having concluded—based on "specific and articulable facts"—that there was a reasonable suspicion in May 2017 to believe Trump was a witting or unwitting Russian asset means *everyone* who said that at the time was exhibiting FBI-level case awareness.
