@SethAbramson's Threads
1201 added
Did Canada have a Beatles? No! But they had the Collectors.
Goodnight, all.
Goodnight, all.
PS/ I'm vetoing all references to the Guess Who. *But* I will admit (keeping in mind that I was only thinking of sixties bands here) that I'd forgotten The Band. Were Robbie Robertson and the boys a "Canadian Beatles"? ... no. And I think they'd agree. But they were pretty great!
PS2/ I also beg the forgiveness of the *Buffalo Springfield*. They were by no means trying to be Beatlesesque, but if there's one sixties singer I could morph into for a day I'd probably choose Stills at the moment he performed "For What It's Worth" on TV:
CONFIRMED: Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) Has Been Secretly Following This Twitter Feed 
1/ I'm now thinking of the many... *many* times my Twitter threads must have basically taken over Mitt Romney's secret Twitter feed
2/ I just want to underscore that no criticism of Romney is intended. I'm excited because it means Romney is better informed than I thought, and may well have read—or had others summarize for him, to the extent that's possible—my recent book PROOF OF CONSPIRACY (Macmillan, 2019).
Just got back on Twitter after a few hours off to find that everyone is saying Mitt Romney follows me through a secret account... what?
Apparently it's connected to this SLATE article: slate.com/news-and-polit…
So according to Twitter user @MapsMetta, "Here are 696 accounts that the alleged Romney burner [@qaws9876] follows" (captured, the poster claims, before the locking of the account). I can't vouch for this list but it's the only one available and was posted in the right timeframe:
If Trump thinks there's no profit to him in holding the G7 at Doral, he'll be willing to sign a CONTRACT saying that he'll NEVER use the fact the G7 was at Doral in any MARKETING MATERIALS for Doral EVER, right? Right?
Right? He'd sign that CONTRACT, right?
Right? He'd sign that CONTRACT, right?
(Would've been nice if Mulvaney had been asked about this—future marketing materials—today. Maybe he was and I missed it, but I don't think so.)
(Folks, you can put *damages clauses* in contracts that state what the penalty will be for any violation of the contract. Set the damages at $10 million PER OFFENSE, and *then* see if he violates it.)
QUESTION: How do we know that when top Trump campaign NatSec adviser Michael Flynn was working on behalf of Turkey to plot (to please Erdogan) the kidnapping of a Turkish cleric living in Pennsylvania, he wasn't doing so with Trump's knowledge? Flynn didn't do so much to hide it.
1/ Flynn was working on other secret projects to benefit foreign nations that folks on the campaign knew about, and as to Turkey attended poorly hidden meetings to plot the kidnapping. Trump seemed concerned about Flynn flipping and post-election did work to extradite the cleric.
2/ So now he writes Erdogan and says he worked hard to deliver on what Erdogan wanted, and one of the main things he wanted was the extradition of a cleric we know Trump worked to extradite post-election.
So how do we know Trump wasn't aware of *pre-election* efforts to do this?
So how do we know Trump wasn't aware of *pre-election* efforts to do this?
How early in the Trump-Ukraine scandal is it? The "grand bargain" just came up for the first time—and no one's noting Trump likely sent Perry to Zelensky's inauguration to discuss Ukraine's role: accepting an end to Russian sanctions in exchange for a turbine deal for Turboatom.
1/ The scope of the Trump-Ukraine scandal will come to astonish America. It is going to dovetail with the entirety of the Mueller Report, the entirety of the FBI counterintelligence investigation, and the entirety of the investigation into the Trump transition and inaugural fund.
2/ I've no idea whether this scope will be appreciated by America by Christmas, as Congress is rushing toward impeachment and a Senate trial largely to avoid any overlap with 2020 voting, but at the latest within a few years America will understand how these scandals were linked.
Moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats are weighing in on tonight's debate, and I have to say I'm completely shocked that they and their media outlets are concluding that the two most moderate candidates on stage tonight not named Biden had great nights
It's *very* credible
It's *very* credible
1/ Amy and Pete both did well enough tonight, but the "break-out debate" narrative we're hearing now seems to be a really underdeveloped attempt to craft a simple narrative out of what was an incredibly complex series of interactions in U.S. history's largest ever primary debate
2/ You won't find many progressives who agree with Pete that America can (and knows how to) ban anything it wants *except* AR-15s; you won't find many progressives who agree with Pete that Medicare For All is a violent assault on high-quality healthcare or a tax-raising scheme...
My take (on tonight's debate only):
1️⃣ Warren
2️⃣ Sanders
3️⃣ Harris
4️⃣ O'Rourke
5️⃣ Booker
6️⃣ Castro
7️⃣ Klobuchar
8️⃣ Buttigieg
9️⃣ Steyer
🔟 Biden
1️⃣1️⃣ Yang
1️⃣2️⃣ Gabbard
1️⃣ Warren
2️⃣ Sanders
3️⃣ Harris
4️⃣ O'Rourke
5️⃣ Booker
6️⃣ Castro
7️⃣ Klobuchar
8️⃣ Buttigieg
9️⃣ Steyer
🔟 Biden
1️⃣1️⃣ Yang
1️⃣2️⃣ Gabbard
PS/ Pete came off worse than he has in other debates (and I'm a Mayor Pete fan), and looking at the track record of the analysts who think he did well tonight {*ahem*} convinces me that I'm right. Pete just doesn't do well when he slips into artifice, smugness, and condescension.
PS2/ Some folks will like the new "Feisty Pete." I don't think it's a sustainable look for him. Warren didn't have her best debate *overall*, but showed she can stand on a stage where 11 people are attacking her and *that* is the biggest win anyone had tonight, in longterm terms.
God, these attacks on Beto over a prospective AR-15 ban (from Anderson and Pete) are *super* disingenuous, as America declares certain goods contraband *all the time*
These claims of "how would this work" are truly silly and embarrassing
These claims of "how would this work" are truly silly and embarrassing
Those who support an AR-15 ban are saying they get declared contraband and there are (after a generously long grace period during which a generously remunerative buyback occurs) penalties for those found in possession of that contraband
U.S. law has long prohibited *many* items
U.S. law has long prohibited *many* items
And by the way, I say this without having taken *any* position on a mandatory buyback
I'm saying the *rhetoric* against it is flatly disingenuous
I'm saying the *rhetoric* against it is flatly disingenuous
*Purely* as a matter of communications, the seven candidates on this stage who *consistently* present themselves well (in terms of elocution, rhythm, tone, tenor, body language, and clarity) are, in alphabetical order:
Booker
Buttigieg
Castro
Harris
O'Rourke
Sanders
Warren
Booker
Buttigieg
Castro
Harris
O'Rourke
Sanders
Warren
PS/ Steyer generally speaks quite well, but this is his first debate, so there isn't enough information to work from yet.
PS2/ I don't want to dig on Klobuchar but I didn't put her on the list because there are elements of her presentation any comms person would call problematic; Sanders (as a *comms* issue) is on the list because he has developed a brand people understand and can predict and follow
Take any art, gather 100 "experts," ask them to name the best 200 works of the last 500 years. Imagine the eclecticism of the list! Music alone—imagine how many genres, aesthetics, and experiments you'd find! Harold Bloom wanted ONE NARROW CANON for poetry. That about sums it up.
1/ What killed poetry in America is that even those who thought to oppose Bloom's provincialism in fact merely cannibalized it. U.S. poetry has never in its history been permitted to blossom into the range of celebrated and enjoyed works that music or any other art has. Even now.
2/ In music we *accept*—even if we do not like, say, jazz—that there are *hundreds* of albums that jazz aficionados consider great that surely *are* undergirded by a strong argument for that designation. But every poet creates their own arrogant canon that sniffs at all the rest.
The Essex Green is amazing. First heard them 20 years ago. Listening to this LP on vinyl, with sunlight filtering through trees outside is.... well, I'm going to post a few songs in this thread, so @theessexgreen gets the love it deserves.
Goodnight, all.
Goodnight, all.
@theessexgreen 1/ There was this brief period in the late 1990s when a big sixties revival (advanced by some really great indie-pop artists, many from the Elephant 6 Collective) gleefully dug its teeth into indie music culture. Nostalgic for those beautiful days, now....
@theessexgreen 2/ This ranks among the Top 10 Corny Songs I Am 100% Here For Each Time Every Time. I know I'm not alone in feeling like I was born late.
(1 of 2) Two points I want to make, in response to Trump allies saying he's being treated worse than a serial killer: I represented 2,000+ criminal defendants across 7 years, and Trump has received *more favorable treatment* under the law and in politics than *every one of them*.
(2 of 2) In my whole legal career I never saw a single criminal defendant—in any case—commit even 10% of the number of acts of Obstruction of Justice committed by this president. He knows a criminal case is ongoing and he's *on TV* falsifying evidence related to the crime—really.
(PS) When Trump say he doesn't know who recalled Yovanovitch—it was him—he's lying, and creating a situation in which he/others must lie to investigators to maintain that lie. When he calls Sondland's "no quid pro quo" just a "text I saw"—he dictated it!—he's misleading the feds.
Was going to say I got to the third entry in this timeline before I found the first missing "key event" but in fact any Trump-Ukraine timeline that doesn't begin with Parnas selling Trump Org condos for Fred/Donald Trump at the same time Trump makes his first Moscow trip is wrong
PS/ The obvious missing event early on in the @washingtonpost timeline is the April 2, 2014 posting by Janosavich of a photo of Trump/Parnas at an outdoor event which—given what Trump said about his dress habits in HOW TO GET RICH—almost certainly was at a Trump golf course event
@washingtonpost PS2/ Upshot: curatorialism journalism isn't easy, and event timelines are where you turn to curatorial journalists. A curatorial journalist will scour U.S. and international news, social media and various other public records going back decades to create a *comprehensive* record.
NOTE: The Soviet-born Lev Parnas, who says (WP) he met Trump "several" times before the 2016 election and came to "admire" him, began working with the Trump Org around 1987—the year Trump first went to the Soviet Union in a trip reports say the KGB set up. politico.com/magazine/story…
1/ Lev Parnas was born in 1965/1966, and says he returned to the Soviet Union after selling Trump Organization condos while Fred Trump was running the Trump Organization. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991; that places Parnas's work for the Trumps somewhere between 1987 and 1990.
2/ So the KGB develops an interest in Trump right as a Soviet-born man who brags about his connections to "Russian money" begins working with the Trump Organization selling condos... despite no apparent interest in real estate? And Parnas meets Trump "several times" pre-election?
*SEQUENCE, PART I*
1. Barr goes to SDNY to see SDNY chief/Trump transition official Berman. SDNY/FBI are working on Parnas/Fruman case. NYC FBI previously leaked to Rudy (2016).
2. Within hours, Rudy calls Parnas/Fruman to lunch. All three plan to go to Vienna—where Firtash is.
1. Barr goes to SDNY to see SDNY chief/Trump transition official Berman. SDNY/FBI are working on Parnas/Fruman case. NYC FBI previously leaked to Rudy (2016).
2. Within hours, Rudy calls Parnas/Fruman to lunch. All three plan to go to Vienna—where Firtash is.
*SEQUENCE, PART II*
3. Firtash is a Manafort associate/Putin agent who finances Parnas/Fruman. Giuliani has worked for and employed Parnas/Fruman.
4. Giuliani lies to press about plans for Vienna and Parnas/Fruman travel plans in the hours before he knows they've been arrested.
3. Firtash is a Manafort associate/Putin agent who finances Parnas/Fruman. Giuliani has worked for and employed Parnas/Fruman.
4. Giuliani lies to press about plans for Vienna and Parnas/Fruman travel plans in the hours before he knows they've been arrested.
*SEQUENCE, PART III*
5. Trump lies about his ties to Parnas/Fruman and says he doesn't know if Giuliani is his attorney—a lie.
6. The Trump-Parnas evidence includes a bizarre tidbit of information: Felix Sater—Trump's ex-con Russia fixer—also knows Parnas, and has for a while.
5. Trump lies about his ties to Parnas/Fruman and says he doesn't know if Giuliani is his attorney—a lie.
6. The Trump-Parnas evidence includes a bizarre tidbit of information: Felix Sater—Trump's ex-con Russia fixer—also knows Parnas, and has for a while.
BREAKING NEWS: Dmitry Firtash—Repped By Trump Legal Advisors, Getting Hundreds of Millions From Putin for No Clear Reason—Was Financing the Work of the Two Defendants Who Were (Per Trump Lawyer John Dowd) Aiding Trump's Legal Team, Suggesting Putin Funded Trump's Ukraine Lobbying
1/ *Insane*.
TRUMP AGENTS: Giuliani, diGenova, Toensing, Parnas, Fruman
GIULIANI AGENTS: Parnas, Fruman
DIGENOVA/TOENSING AGENTS: Parnas, Fruman
FIRTASH AGENTS: Parnas, Fruman
PARNAS/FRUMAN AGENTS: Giuliani, Downing, Zehlne
MANAFORT AGENTS: Downing, Zehle
PUTIN AGENTS: Firtash
TRUMP AGENTS: Giuliani, diGenova, Toensing, Parnas, Fruman
GIULIANI AGENTS: Parnas, Fruman
DIGENOVA/TOENSING AGENTS: Parnas, Fruman
FIRTASH AGENTS: Parnas, Fruman
PARNAS/FRUMAN AGENTS: Giuliani, Downing, Zehlne
MANAFORT AGENTS: Downing, Zehle
PUTIN AGENTS: Firtash
2/ That's only a *partial* map of it all, though. Because also:
TRUMP AGENTS: +Manafort, +Dowd
PARNAS/FRUMAN AGENTS: +Dowd
PUTIN AGENTS: +Manafort
GIULIANI AGENTS: +diGenova, +Toensing
FIRTASH AGENTS: +diGenova, +Toensing
Starting to see how this all shapes up as a conspiracy?
TRUMP AGENTS: +Manafort, +Dowd
PARNAS/FRUMAN AGENTS: +Dowd
PUTIN AGENTS: +Manafort
GIULIANI AGENTS: +diGenova, +Toensing
FIRTASH AGENTS: +diGenova, +Toensing
Starting to see how this all shapes up as a conspiracy?
With so many qualified candidates, and with Bernie's voice being so essential in the Senate and America generally—a voice we *can't* afford to lose—I no longer think Bernie should be running. It's not about having an issue with him/his ideas—it's about wanting to *preserve* both.
PS/ I say this as someone who cares about Bernie, believes in his message, has supported him in the past, and truly—and I know Twitter's a very insincere place sometimes, but I say again *truly*—thinks his voice is one that America cannot see go silent because of needless stress.
PS2/ If there were no candidate in the race who could carry the banner of much of what Bernie believes in—e.g., if this were 2016—I'd understand the argument of DSA (and others) that Bernie's presence in the race is irreplaceable. That's just not an argument you can make in 2020.
SIRI HOW DO YOU CREATE A NICKELBACK "PHOTOGRAPH" MEME
PS/ Sorry—Twitter faux pas, I know—it's not right to mention a criminal on social media without tagging him also: @DonaldJTrumpJr
@DonaldJTrumpJr SIRI REALLY I'M GONNA NEED THAT NICKELBACK MEME STAT
Just a couple guys tryin' to bribe a president and flee overseas here
MORE1/
MORE2/
Mueller was investigating Cohen on the subject of Ukrainian money going to Trump coffers in early 2017, presumably with the aim of pushing Trump policy via impeachable bribery (with a middleman). Now Cohen is headed to NYC to talk to prosecutors. Want to bet it's Ukraine-related?
1/ We'll soon learn that *related* to the above is *deeply conflicted Trump lawyers* Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing suddenly picking up Manafort partner Dmitry Firtash as a client. And Michael/Mark Mukasey, heads up—you should've followed conflict-of-interest guidelines, too.
2/ The trajectory of the Trump-Ukraine scandal is like a heat-seeking missile that's travelled out many miles and is now slowly curving back—in a *gloriously* long arc—to move with supersonic speed toward the man behind this scandal, indeed all the scandals...
...Vladimir Putin.
...Vladimir Putin.
Interesting that the two men the feds just arrested were caught plying Trumpworld with money in May...
...2018. That'd be right after Ukraine froze its investigations of Paul Manafort.
I'll say it again: this is a saga that goes back to 2017 and before. thedailybeast.com/meet-the-easte…
...2018. That'd be right after Ukraine froze its investigations of Paul Manafort.
I'll say it again: this is a saga that goes back to 2017 and before. thedailybeast.com/meet-the-easte…
FOLLOWUP/ Fruman—just arrested trying to flee the country—met *personally* with Trump *twice* in the days before Ukraine froze all Manafort investigations in April 2018. Think there was a connection? thedailybeast.com/pro-trump-mega…
UPSHOT/ It's looking like these two men may have assisted Giuliani/Trump in shaking down Ukraine to end all investigation of Manafort—who Trump was telling friends months earlier, in January 2018, could bring him down—in exchange for business coming their way from Trump policies.
It took 21 days for the first arrests of individuals linked to the Trump-Ukraine scandal... where do you think we'll be by the time primary voting starts in 4 months, GOP? For God's sake, read the writing on the wall, and if you can't, talk to a criminal defense attorney who can.
1/ Literally the *first* conversation the feds will have with these two is, "Give us Rudy."
2/
I don't know what others mean when they say Trump's terrified. I know what *I* mean, and it's based on, as a PD, seeing some very hard people—some sociopaths—suddenly realize a situation isn't in hand. The resulting terror isn't a cartoonish shaking-in-boots, but a system freeze.
I've noticed that the same people who *hate* me mentioning my years of legal practice are the *first* to forget my background (available via a permanent link in my Twitter bio) and therefore not understand where I'm coming from, or why. And I think it's not a coincidence, either.
None of us "know" Trump, but when I see someone with no experience working *closely* with sociopaths, psychopaths, accused murderers, accused thieves and con men (&c) acting like someone who *does* have that experience is naive, it reminds me why the virtual world is so much ugh.
