@SethAbramson's Threads
1304 added
In this CNN piece, Alexandra Chalupa confirms that events are just as I described them in my pinned thread. Anyone confused about what I did/didn't say in that thread should read the thread—my curatorial journalism is consistent with all public US reports. cnn.com/2017/07/14/pol…
1/ In my thread I underscored that Chalupa wasn't asked by the DNC to contact Ukraine's embassy; that much if not all the info she got at the Ukrainian embassy was *public* info; and that it was focused on Manafort—not Trump. I *agree* that the GOP has *lied* about these events.
2/ I also *itemized* the ways Trump's defense will *lie* or *mislead* about Chalupa's *self-admitted* activities—i.e. the ones that really happened. I *also* said that Trump will try to use *any* evidence of a Ukraine-Chalupa-DNC communication channel in his defense. And he will.
Andrea, if Alexandra is withdrawing her extensive 2017 comments to Politico, I didn't know that. I get precisely *zero* of my information from that disloyal non-journalist fraud John Solomon, who as far as I'm concerned should be *indicted*. (And *no one* should target *anyone*.)
From POLITICO's interview with Alexandra: "Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and [DC], including...government officials...She occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton’s campaign, Chalupa said."
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
From POLITICO's interview with Alexandra on her activities as a paid DNC consultant: "She said she shared her concern [on Manafort] with Ukraine’s ambassador to the US, Valeriy Chaly, and one of his top aides, Oksana Shulyar, during a March 2016 meeting at the Ukrainian Embassy."
I took my info from Alexandra's interviews. Please let me know if her story has changed. I hope too that you and she understand that if hubris—the unwillingness by well-intentioned Democrats to admit *any* error—gets Trump off, Democrats' righteous indignation may be *ferocious*.
1/ I can't conceive of a situation in which I'd run *any* info from a foreign embassy to the DNC during a national election while I was a paid DNC consultant, rather than going *only* to the FBI or media. *But* I understand Alexandra is rightly influenced by Ukraine being at war.
2/ My point is that in a national emergency, a circling of the wagons or echo chamber is *very* dangerous. Alexandra and her defenders *must* hear from Democrats who are concerned that what she/the DNC did in 2016 was *unwise* but *not* illegal. If they won't, disaster may ensue.
(THREAD) BREAKING: A top Trump ally revealed Trump's impeachment defense today—and it's not what many expected. I break it down here using Ukraine-scandal reporting and my experience as a defense lawyer. I hope you'll read this and RETWEET—as America needs to know what's coming. 
1/ First, a note about how to conceptualize crafting a defense in an unwinnable criminal investigation—as media tends to only value the analysis of former prosecutors and longtime prosecutors who have become the sort of high-priced defense attorneys who can choose their clients.
2/ I was a public defender for years—which means I didn't choose my cases. As every "high-volume criminal defense attorney" knows, the difference between our ability to spot a defense and the ability of former prosecutors or case-selective defense attorneys to do so is—well—vast.
No, @RudyGiuliani, you were ordered by the president to walk back your public statements indicating you had incriminating information on him that you would release if he threw you under the bus, and you chose to do so in a way you hoped would hurt Biden but—alas—no one believes
@RudyGiuliani 1/ What's really *stunning* about this bald-faced lie is that @RudyGiuliani has said *repeatedly* that "if the president throws me under the bus I have an insurance policy," words that would make *no sense whatsoever* if his insurance policy were something *that would help Trump*
@RudyGiuliani 2/ The contempt exhibited for America by @RudyGiuliani in telling this lie is truly spectacular, as if you thought Americans were this stupid why would you ever want to run for President of the United States as Rudy did or work as a fixer for a criminal president like he does now
This is correct on the law, but incorrect as a matter of trial strategy, and the Senate trial is still a trial. You do *not* want to call a witness at trial whose testimony you can in no way predict in advance. Bolton or Mulvaney could blow up the Democrats—they wouldn't risk it.
1/ While common sense tells us that Bolton and Mulvaney would have rushed to testify if they had any information beneficial to Trump, the fact remains that they could say whatever they wanted at an impeachment trial because there is no prior testimony with which to confront them.
2/ Rather, it's the *defense* team that has nothing to lose by throwing as much irrelevant spaghetti against the wall of public opinion as possible, *particularly* by calling Alexandra Chalupa to testify about acting as a conduit between the Ukrainian embassy and the DNC in 2016.
I wrote two books, PROOF OF COLLUSION and PROOF OF CONSPIRACY, that establish diGenova, Toensing and Harvey as dirty crooks, and thank god because that's exactly what they are, and the first two are Trump legal advisers who we just learned tonight plotted with Parnas and Giuliani
1/ The chance is zero, repeat zero, that diGenova and Toensing, who are ride-or-die crooks, weren't keeping Trump informed about their meetings with Parnas, Giuliani, and Nunes's rep Harvey at Trump International. Trump has been part of this plot to shake down Ukraine since 2017.
2/ And given all these secret meetings at the Trump International Hotel in 2018 and 2019, this is *really* starting to look like a conspiracy to commit bribery with the following federal co-defendants on offer:
Trump
Giuliani
diGenova
Toensing
Fruman
Parnas
Firtash
Harvey
Nunes
Trump
Giuliani
diGenova
Toensing
Fruman
Parnas
Firtash
Harvey
Nunes
Hi Asha: I've done much research on these topics. The complicated truth: certain individuals on the Democratic and Poroshenko sides *did* act stupidly/improperly (if not illegally) in 2016, but none of it involves Crowdstrike or Burisma or Trump's pretexts for soliciting a bribe.
1/ I know it'd be easy for us to conflate the Chalupa-Chaly-Shulyar-Telizhenko story with the Crowdstrike insanity—then we could say both are deza—but it'd backfire. Better for Democrats to admit there was some 2016 stupidity on the left that has *nothing* to do with impeachment.
2/ Fiona Hill and Devin Nunes were talking past each other—and it was instructive. Hill was saying "Don't pretend Ukraine hacked Clinton when it was Russia" (Crowdstrike); Nunes was saying "Chalupa was secretly passing info from the Ukrainian embassy to the DNC"—a separate item.
(1 of 2) I worry that Democrats are preparing for the wrong sort of Senate trial. Trump's defense will be a parade of witnesses alleging (or confessing to) contact with Ukrainians during the 2016 election, as well as accusations of misconduct by the Poroshenko administration.
(2 of 2) Democrats must counter this evidence by emphasizing that the *relevant* Trumpist conspiracy theories are only the Crowdstrike and Burisma ones—as these were the only ones Trump ever raised with Ukraine in 2019. All the rest of it is just noise, and Democrats must say so.
(PS) Democrats can also recite (a) the litany of contacts with Russia Trump insisted were fine but were in fact far deeper in content and larger in number than any DNC-connected Ukraine contacts, and also (b) the litany of world leaders who *openly* supported Trump, to his glee.
You heard harrowing intel and came out the other side with GOP talking points: 1) pretending Trump *has* a Ukraine foreign policy; 2) demanding to question Hunter Biden and the whistleblower; 3) buying Trump's 13,500th lie: that investigating *one company* is fighting corruption.
1/ This "Trump armed Ukraine" canard is not only contradicted *by his own words and actions*, which have *degraded Ukraine economically and militarily*, but by the fact that a) he changed the GOP platform in 2016 to block lethal aid, b) blocked lethal aid when Congress passed it.
2/ Any Republican who votes in favor of letting presidents secure illegal foreign election assistance by withholding official acts as long as {*checks notes*} "we weren't allowed to see if one of the witnesses spoke to Schiff's body man two days early" will be *shamed* in history
NOTE: The fact that Team Trump *wants* America focused on Joe Biden should be one of *many* indications that Joe Biden is *not*—in fact—at the *heart* of the Ukraine scandal.
Naftogaz, Turboatom, Parnas, Fruman, Firtash, Manafort, Putin, and the Russian war against Ukraine *is*.
Naftogaz, Turboatom, Parnas, Fruman, Firtash, Manafort, Putin, and the Russian war against Ukraine *is*.
1/ The Ukraine scandal begins with a Kremlin-sponsored conspiracy theory intended to cover up Russian cyber-aggression in 2016 and legitimize Trump as president—doing so, ironically, via a plan that would see him carrying water for the *Russian narrative* about its enemy Ukraine.
2/ There's a reason that *Rick Perry* was sent to Zelensky's inauguration. There's a *reason* his only significant act there was to hand Zelensky a list of new advisory board members for Naftogaz—a list aimed at replacing the *anti-corruption* CEO of the Ukraine-owned gas giant.
I want to honor @simplybayliving for catching many of the fantastic threads and news articles that have ended up on this feed over the last few months. I owe a *great* debt to @simplybayliving and other readers who catch the things I've missed. This feed is indeed a team effort.
@simplybayliving PS/ Hey, folks, there was *no error* in this tweet. Every day, dozens of people send me major-media news stories to consider. Some who do so have big accounts, some small. Some are good at finding key major-media news, some aren't. @simplybayliving—a small account—is. That's all.
@simplybayliving PS2/ Anyone who follows this feed knows I post almost exclusively major-media investigative reports. So no, I don't care whether it's a large or small account recommending a given major-media report, as I'm going to *decide for myself* whether that report is valuable news or not.
1) If the allegation's true, the perp must be punished.
2) There's no reason to think any alteration affected the probative qualities of any FISA app—given Page's contact with Russian spies and lies on same.
3) There's no evidence Horowitz thinks this undermines the Russia probe.
2) There's no reason to think any alteration affected the probative qualities of any FISA app—given Page's contact with Russian spies and lies on same.
3) There's no evidence Horowitz thinks this undermines the Russia probe.
4) What Trump and his minions will now do is what defense attorneys are on rare occasion called upon (out of desperation) to do: take 500 inculpatory facts and focus on the 10% chance that 1 of those 500 inculpatory facts is not as strong as it first appeared. That's all this is.
5) But my message here is to media: we know from *your reports* that the Russia probe started when *seven allied nations* reported to our intel community Trump-Russia meetings that would provoke (under law) reasonable suspicion in any law enforcement officer. Those are the facts.
Now that we know for certain the baseless Biden and Clinton conspiracy theories beloved by Trump are part of a Kremlin disinformation package pushed by Paul Manafort, Kremlin agent Konstantin Kilimnik, and Putin himself, I struggle to see how Graham isn't doing Kremlin work here
1/ I'm normally deeply supportive of Congressional oversight of the executive branch—but as this is neither oversight of the executive branch nor an effort originating organically in this Congress as opposed to within the Kremlin superstructure, I feel free to call it un-American
2/ Any investigation of the Kremlin's Biden and Clinton conspiracy theories must be received by media and US citizens as a Russian disinformation campaign in which certain Americans—indeed, Congressmen—are knowingly complicit, the latter free from penalty only due to their status
A staggeringly inappropriate time for this private lunch to occur
(There's a difference between two Senate jurors engaging POTUS publicly, or even privately as part of their Congressional policymaking duties, but a private lunch with no specified topic—away from the prying eyes of the press—gives the appearance of a corrupt play to sway jurors)
(Media reports this was an "unspecified discussion," meaning there'll be no readout, all topics are on the table, and the meeting will produce no documents that can later be subpoenaed; Trump has a long history of witness tampering and inappropriately raising his legal situation)
Democrats have been so unnecessarily on defense at various points in the impeachment proceeding that they've failed to note that what the parade of witnesses over the last 10 days has established is that Trump sought to *collude with Ukraine* to rig the 2020 presidential election
1/ Indeed, one way of looking at all this is that the Mueller Report established that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in 2016, but also made it *impossible* for Trump to go to that well again, forcing him and his agents to seek out corrupt Ukrainians for the same purpose
2/ In this view, one reason the GOP keeps hyping the baseless conspiracy theory that Democrats colluded with Ukraine is to ensure no one notices that we now have a huge stock of sworn evidence confirming GOP officials and agents of these persons colluded with Ukrainian officials
🤦♂️ Joe mispronounced "Uyghurs" and now it's a meme
(WEE-guhrs, if I understand correctly. Someone can tell me if I'm wrong.)
PS/ I *agree* Joe should get major credit for mentioning the Uyghurs' plight.
Trump is confused.
You don't, in our criminal justice system, get to pick *a few sentences* from hours of testimony and say, "See! He told the truth. He's a truth-teller."
No.
If Trump is saying Sondland testified honestly, he must accept *all* of Sondland's damning testimony.
You don't, in our criminal justice system, get to pick *a few sentences* from hours of testimony and say, "See! He told the truth. He's a truth-teller."
No.
If Trump is saying Sondland testified honestly, he must accept *all* of Sondland's damning testimony.
PS/ Moreover, you can't quote things you *yourself* allegedly said... *after you were caught*... as exculpatory, and that's exactly what Trump was doing in his comments today on Sondland's testimony.
It's a non-starter, and media really needs to make that clear to all Americans.
It's a non-starter, and media really needs to make that clear to all Americans.
PS2/ By mid-August—let's be clear—most of the key collaborators in this bribery scheme knew they'd been caught due to the whistleblower's complaint coming quickly (and improperly) to the White House. So *any statement* by Trump from *August 15 on* is self-serving and unreliable.
I'm confused. Did Zelensky go to the White House already? Was the money released before the White House learned of the whistleblower? Did Ukraine's new government get all the Trump and Pence meetings it was first promised? Did it get a call with unconditional White House support?
PS/ I *think* what he means is:
1) Ukraine got *a* call soliciting a bribe;
2) Ukraine got mandated money *after* it was illegally blocked and *after* the WH was caught doing so and within hours of it disappearing;
3) Ukraine got *a* meeting, but not the one it wanted or needed.
1) Ukraine got *a* call soliciting a bribe;
2) Ukraine got mandated money *after* it was illegally blocked and *after* the WH was caught doing so and within hours of it disappearing;
3) Ukraine got *a* meeting, but not the one it wanted or needed.
PS2/ And *also*, I'm *sure* Jim Jordan was hoping we'd also ask *this* question:
4) Was Zelensky within *hours* of announcing on CNN the investigations Trump demanded, and was he stopped only by the actions of the whistleblower, who revealed the Trump-Pompeo-Giuliani shakedown?
4) Was Zelensky within *hours* of announcing on CNN the investigations Trump demanded, and was he stopped only by the actions of the whistleblower, who revealed the Trump-Pompeo-Giuliani shakedown?
MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: Mike Pompeo Planning to Resign yahoo.com/news/mike-pomp…
PS/ Previously, the reason for a resignation (prospectively) was Pompeo running for office. Now, the news is Pompeo wants to resign... because of Trump. And here's Trump's henchmen, today, throwing Pompeo under the bus and pinning an international bribery conspiracy on him alone.
PS2/ He is bailing on this administration and this impeachment defense:
"Mike Pompeo had planned to stay at State until early spring 2020, but he is now concerned that his connection to Mr. Trump, particularly through the impeachment inquiry, is hurting his reputation."
"Mike Pompeo had planned to stay at State until early spring 2020, but he is now concerned that his connection to Mr. Trump, particularly through the impeachment inquiry, is hurting his reputation."
The only Republican defense remaining—and understand that by LAW it's NOT A DEFENSE—is that it was in fact legal for President Trump to knowingly condition official U.S. acts on acts by foreign actors that personally benefitted him and were not tied to the U.S. national interest.
1/ There'll NEVER be a valid claim that falsely exculpating Russia of 2016 election interference—by pursuing new conspiracy theories—was in the national interest. There'll NEVER be a valid claim that investigating one Ukrainian company equated to to Ukraine "fighting corruption."
2/ The GOP defense of Trump ended today. There's no longer even a conceivable coherent defense. All they can say now is the law doesn't apply to Trump. That's what they're left with. I honestly have no idea where they go from here except to openly promote administrative nihilism.
I cannot say how *excited* I am that @chrislhayes just referred to Trump's crime as the solicitation of a bribe, which is exactly right, exactly what happened, and covered by the very bribery statute the United States Constitution says is grounds for impeachment if it is violated
@chrislhayes PS/ And Duke law professor @walterdellinger then followed what Hayes said by *agreeing* it was solicitation of a bribe! I knew media would come around if I and other attorneys banged on about this enough: it's *solicitation* of a bribe, and that's covered by the bribery statute.
@chrislhayes @walterdellinger PS2/ I'm very honored to note that Professor Dellinger, a former Acting United States Solicitor General, is a follower of this feed. His comments on MSNBC were spot on, eloquent, and profoundly *useful* to MSNBC viewers. Great guest, @chrislhayes and @MSNBC!
ATTENTION: Many will miss this, but Volker just testified that one reason he was (in his view) Trump's *official* channel to Ukraine is that he was the Trump agent working on the Russian sanctions issue. The Ukrainians knew this, so they knew Trump's shakedown was about *Russia*.
1/ That is, Trump took the guy trying to bring "peace" and an end to sanctions in the Russia-Ukraine war (a Russian war crime) and sent him into negotiations with Ukraine with a series of demands. Trump in essence was inserting himself *on Russia's side* in the war negotiations.
2/ What Trump specifically withheld from Ukraine was *war materials*, using (in part) his *war negotiator*. So why the hell are we pretending this was primarily about Biden—when it was clearly in major part about aiding Putin in pressuring Ukraine for a resolution to *sanctions*?
I love Ryan; I hate the "Ukrainegate" framing. What's happening now is an extension of the Trump-Russia probe, even if, politically, some feel a new branding would be advisable. As to whether Volker and Morrison were forthcoming, admirable witnesses, I also take a different view.
1/ Democrats and some analysts have inadvertantly played into GOP talking points by making it look like Democrats have lit upon a "new" topic to impeach Trump over, when all of this (the Mueller Report and the present hearings) exist on a single, harrowing Trump-Russia continuum.
2/ Trump's motives as to Ukraine were informed by his own, aides', allies', associates', and agents' collusion with the Kremlin. To imply this was mainly "about" Biden is false; it was mainly "about" Putin, Clinton, Manafort, the 2016 election, Russian war crimes, and sanctions.
