They didn't have the Clinton Foundation to make it easy to pay for play, hence all the pathetic bumbling
-
-
Replying to @trentengland
Have you read
@emptywheel's series on the questions? This post--on Mueller's theory of conspiracy to defraud the US--is also really helpful: https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/03/28/mueller-prepares-to-reveal-the-first-cards-in-the-hack-and-leak-conspiracy/ …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briantedjones @emptywheel
The writer there assumes throughout a certain story, then points out where a few facts could align with that story. It's the story you guys want to be true, I get that. But it's also preposterous for several reasons. First...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Everyone knew Manafort had Russian connections. That's why hiring him was stupid. It was especially stupid if it was part of a super-secret plot. Then he was fired. Again, chaos, not conspiracy. But...
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
From a conspiracy theory perspective, I know that the more absurd it is, the more one can paint it as an even more startling conspiracy. Second,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The Papadopolous stuff makes no sense if there was a high-level conspiracy ongoing or in the offing. Neither does the meeting with the Russian attorney. She had to lie to get the meeting. It smacks of exactly what you find when you read the history of this sort of thing.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @emptywheel @briantedjones
I've got all kinds of reading that could be helpful, actually!pic.twitter.com/gDvUx9Omvr
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @trentengland @briantedjones
I asked you for a specific cite to the public record that you claim supports your contention. You CAN surely find a cite, since you're accusing me of making things up?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @briantedjones
I told you, I'm not accusing you of making things up. Just of being human. Even the NYT said her "info" had already been shared and that lobbying about the Magnitsky Act was the actual reason for the meeting (but not what she said to get the meeting).https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-tower-veselnitskaya-russia.html …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Perhaps you should stick with the primary documents rather than a heavily narrativized NYT piece. Particularly bc that piece obscures precisely how a meeting was gotten. Or perhaps take a step back, to your first error. How was the meeting gotten? Who did what?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.