Tuesday, June 20, 2017


Journalist Seth Abramson used his Twitter account to unleash an epic Tweet storm laying out his argument that Trump is already circling the drain, and that Mueller and Co are basically just tying up the loose ends, dotting the i's and crossing the t's. I've collected that information here, for ease of use and reference. Enjoy! - JERKY

(THREAD) We DO have PROOF Trump and Russia colluded. This thread PROVIDES it. Please read and RETWEET so we can end the no-collusion canard.

(1) In counter-intelligence, the term "coordination" is used to describe what laypeople now discuss as "collusion," so I use that term here.

(2) The Washington Post reports the FBI is investigating whether "coordination" was achieved between Trump and Russia via financial crimes.

(3) The assumption of this Washington Post report is that if Trump received Russian money during the campaign, he "coordinated" with Russia.

(4) This link to the WP confirms financial coordination would be "collusion." That is NOT what this thread is about.

(5) I link to the WP to *establish* that transfers of money between Trump and Russia during the campaign would be considered "coordination."

(6) The reason Trump-Russia money transfers in the campaign constitute "coordination" ("collusion") is because *Russia was at war with us*.

(7) Homeland Security experts agree that cyberwar is a modern form of war, and in 2016 Russia *unilaterally waged war* on the United States.

(8) The case for Trump-Russia coordination is *very easy* to make—it begins with *when* Trump learned Russia was waging cyberwar on America.

(9) We know that, at the *latest*, Trump himself learned that Russia was *at war* with the United States during the last week of July 2016.

(10) On July 26, 2016, in a major national news story, NBC reported "Experts Are Sure Russia Hacked" U.S. systems.

(11) (You'll note the difference between the Twitter headline and the *actual* headline; click on the link to see, "Experts Are *Sure*...")

(12) We know Trump read NBC's report because the *very next day* he gave a *nationally televised press conference* on the very same subject.

(13) In his big press conference, Trump said Russia "probably" had engaged in cyber-war against the United States.

(14) (As you see from the Twitter headline, Trump went *further* and said he also *hoped* it was true Russia was cyber-attacking America.)

(15) Trump's admission (a) he believed Russia was at cyberwar with America, and (b) *hoped* it was, *shocked* the American political system.

(16) It's easy—in hindsight—to forget Trump's July 27, 2016 pronouncement was *not* just national news but considered *infamously historic*.

(17) But *equally* important was that the *Trump campaign* was *well aware* how big a problem Trump's statement was—which know in two ways.

(18) First, and most importantly, that was the *last major press conference Trump gave during the course of the 2016 presidential election*.

(19) Consider that: a man whose attorneys, friends, family and staff can't get him to shut up on Twitter *stopped giving press conferences*.

(20) And he *stopped giving press conferences* at a time he needed to give them to get attention *and* media *wanted* to give him attention.

(21) The second remarkable thing Trump did was that he publicly *reversed course* shortly thereafter. As we know, Trump *hates* to do this.

(22) Trump saying Russia "probably" was hacking U.S. systems meant (legally and otherwise) that he believed it to be "more likely than not."

(23) After Trump and/or his aides pulled him from *all future press conferences*, he suddenly began to express doubt about Russian hacking.

(24) Suddenly Trump's position—even as the IC became *more and more certain* in its assessment—was that *anyone* could've done the hacking.

(25) But America never forgot his "probably" or "I hope" and *disbelieved* that Trump would then become *less* sure as the IC became *more*.

(26) If you're reading this, I hope you will agree that all I've done here so far is relate American history as it happened. No conjectures.

(27) Another mere fact is this one: AG Jeff Sessions testified under oath that he discussed sanctions with Sergey Kislyak in September 2016.

(28) Sessions also made clear—under oath—that he didn't discuss hacking with Kislyak at that meeting. He only discussed sanctions with him.

(29) So for instance, we could *not* say that Sessions was negotiating with Kislyak to drop sanctions *if Russia stopped hacking America*.

(30) No—what we know, from Sessions, is he engaged in negotiations over the dropping of sanctions against Russia with no such preconditions.

(31) To review: July 27, Trump accepts Russia is likely at war with America; weeks later he lets Sessions talk sanctions (no preconditions).

(32) Note that Sessions, in hours of testimony, couldn't remember a *single* key detail about his *three meetings* with Kislyak. Except one.

(33) The *one* detail Sessions *chose* to recall on Kislyak—and *repeated* in *both testimonies*—is the September meeting was "contentious."

(34) Why did Sessions go to such *extraordinary* lengths—even contradicting his own "meeting amnesia"—to establish the tone of one meeting?

(35) Here—for the first time in the thread—I move from *fact* to the sort of *circumstantial evidence* the FBI uses in criminal cases daily.

(36) The reflexivity shown by Trump and Sessions on *two issues*—Russian hacking and the September meeting—suggest a consciousness of guilt.

(37) It's *shocking* that *weeks* after Trump admitted Russia was *at war with us* he let his *top foreign policy aide* negotiate sanctions.

(38) So: a) Trump would *want* us to think he doubted Russian hacking, b) Sessions would *want* his September meeting to seem *contentious*.

(39) Fortunately for Trump, he kept repeating *so often* that he doubted the IC analysis on hacking that we *forgot* he first *accepted* it.

(40) Fortunately for Sessions, he broke protocol by taking no notes, then *not reporting* his meeting, then committing *multiple* perjuries.

(41) So investigators must determine what Trump and Russia negotiated with respect to sanctions by some other means. And—good news—they can.

(42) FBI investigators now know Trump's transition was engaged in ongoing sanctions negotiation w/ Russia and committed felonies to hide it.

(43) Mike Flynn risked *more than a decade in prison* to try to hide from the federal government that Team Trump was negotiating sanctions.

(44) And Trump risked *aiding and abetting Flynn* by *not* firing him for weeks. Why? To keep Flynn on his side—to keep him from squawking.

(45) Even in (finally) firing him, Trump a) underscored that Flynn was a "good man" and b) wouldn't say he fired him over lies *to the FBI*.

(46) FBI investigators also know Trump planned to—*as one of his first acts in office*—drop all sanctions on Russia.

(47) Trump's plan to drop sanctions was—*yet again*—*without preconditions* and at a time our IC *confirmed* unilateral Russian aggression.

(48) Indeed, Trump's plan to drop sanctions *without preconditions* was at a time Russia's behavior toward the United States had *worsened*.

(49) Trump's plan to drop sanctions on Russia *without preconditions* constitutes a transfer of *hundreds of billions of dollars* to Russia.

(50) To transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to an enemy currently waging war upon you—*without preconditions*—constitutes coordination.

(51) And *all* the evidence we have right now underscores Trump was negotiating dropping sanctions during the campaign *and* the transition.

(52) And Trump's *own televised statements*—-plus his later attempts to cover them up—confirm he *knew* Russia was waging war upon America.

(53) The media may assume that collusion *only* occurs when money flows from Russia to Trump—the FBI makes *no such mistake*, be sure of it.

(54) Trump used his top NatSec/FP aides—Sessions and Flynn—to negotiate dropping sanctions on Russia without preconditions in a time of war.

(55) The FBI does not *need* proof that the Russians paid Trump, because it already *has* proof Trump made long-term plans to *pay Russia*.

(56) The FBI doesn't *need* proof Team Trump gave intel to the Russians, as Trump merely needed to *know* what Russia was doing. And he did.

(57) During the campaign and transition Trump plotted with Sessions and Flynn to provide material aid and comfort to an active US adversary.

(58) That that illegal aid and comfort was contingent upon Trump being president didn't even need to be said, because it was *self-evident*.

(59) The moment Sessions and Flynn confirmed they negotiated dropping sanctions in a "hot" cyberwar—without preconditions—we had collusion.

(60) There's no doubt whatsoever that Trump, Sessions, and Flynn thereby offered inducements to Russian hacking *as it was happening to us*.

(61) Note—the evidence I've presented thus far is only a *fraction* of the evidence the FBI has on this issue. I'll let you in on some more.

(62) *Public reports* from late July 2016—when Trump was learning about Russian cyberwar on America—confirm *many* steps taken on sanctions.

(63) The next tweets in this thread are *all* based on widespread—even ubiquitous—national news reports from July 2016. Feel free to Google.

(64) At the RNC, Trump's #2 foreign policy aide—J.D. Gordon—negotiated sanctions with the Russians then lied to the national press about it.

(65) Prior to Gordon's lie, Trump's Campaign Manager—Paul Manafort—lied to the national press about whether Trump was negotiating sanctions.

(66) In his first Congressional testimony, Trump's top foreign policy aide—Sessions—perjured to hide that he too met with Russia at the RNC.

(67) The fact Sessions had *already* discussed sanctions with Kislyak in late July belies his claim their September meeting was contentious.

(68) The FBI couldn't fail to miss this M.O.—Trump's top NatSec/foreign policy aides lie to Americans, Congress, and the FBI *on sanctions*.

(69) Moreover the FBI knows a) all negotiations lacked preconditions, and b) all negotiations occurred when Trump knew about Russia hacking.

(70) Republicans have used *disinformation* to convince the media and its viewers that coordination/collusion requires "hacking assistance."

(71) Republicans also use *disinformation* to convince the media and its viewers that coordination/collusion requires Russia *paying Trump*.

(72) The FBI is *investigating* hacking assistance—how did Russian bots micro-target competitive U.S. districts?—but they *needn't* find it.

(73) The FBI is investigating Russian payments to Trump associates via money laundering—per The Washington Post—but they *needn't* find it.

(74) And what the FBI *certainly* doesn't *need* to find is the Dick Tracy-like "smoking gun" the GOP is, like mob-movie fanboys, demanding.

(75) Criminal investigators—and I was one—know the coordination *most* likely to work, and stay hidden, is the *simplest* sort of collusion.

(76) If media wants to keep saying "no evidence of collusion yet!" it needs to educate itself on what international collusion can look like.

(77) Instead they rely on quotes from pols—but of *course* pols will wait for a smoking gun that'll convince *everyone*. Why shouldn't they?

(78) As long as the possibility of a Dick Tracy-like "smoking gun" remains out there—and it very much does—pols can stay "mum" on collusion.

(79) But journos and social media users should say clearly and unambiguously that we *have* evidence of collusion and now seek *even more*.

(80) And if the *media* would start researching *coordination via sanctions* we might get lots of *new* information we don't *already* have.

(81) So the next time someone says to you, "There's been a year of investigation and no proof of any collusion!" you should simply say this:

(82) "We have REAMS of evidence Trump's team committed MULTIPLE CRIMES to give Russia sanctions relief in exchange for continued cyber-war."

(83) Then go further: "EVERY REVELATION in the Russia probe—on Sessions, Flynn, Manafort and Trump—CONFIRMS collusion via sanctions relief."

(84) When those of us who don't want to see America run by an autocrat concede the collusion question to friends and family, America loses.

(85) So *fight for your country* by telling anyone who'll listen that we *know* Trump colluded with Russia. And show them this thread. {end}

(PS) This thread uses "war" to mean "cyberwarfare." The analyses here presume *only* a known hostile actor—not a formal declaration of war.

(PS2) A US person/entity materially aiding/abetting a hostile foreign actor engaged in cyberwarfare against America is coordinating by law.

(PS3) Pre-election assurances the US would drop sanctions on Russia—without conditions—at a time America was under cyber-attack are illegal.

(PS4) All that's needed is for a person to know the future transfer of billions they're promising is to a foreign power engaged in cyberwar.

(PS5) The evidence we have *now*—from public reports, Congressional testimony and Trump's own statements—confirms all elements of collusion.

(VIDEO) Many videos—like this BBC one—cut off Trump's next eight words: "Let's see if that happens—that'll be next."

No comments:

Post a Comment