Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

amandstu

Maybe DJT didn't have any specific dealings with his campaign team?

He thought there were actually working for Hillary?

Or he thought they were Putin's reelection team and tried to tell the FBI but they wouldn't listen to him.

He was actually campaigning not to get elected anyway . It was only them who wanted him to be elected.

Leroy42

But the bit that gets me, the bit that really annoys me about the whole Trump 'thing' and how is supporters behave is encapsulated in the attitude to Russia.

For most voters, rightly or wrongly, Russia was always seen as the enemy. The No1 enemy that the US had to stand up to save the world. Nearly all their wars after WWII, Vietnam, Korea etc and prior to Iraq but still playing out in Afghanistan, was in major part indirect wars against Russia.

Even HC was blasted for her supposed ties to Russia business, seen as a betrayal of being American. Yet these very same supporters, those that jump up and down shouting America First, MAGA, close the borders, kick out Muslims, American Steel, American Jobs, these very same people have suddenly decided that actually Russia isn't that bad after all.

And why? Have they dug behind the biased media coverage of the last 70 years? Have they undertaken extensive reviews of the reality of Russia to get a clearer picture? No, they have changed their stance purely because Trump said so. No evidence, no information. Just because Trump told them Russia wasn't so bad.

To the point that supporters will be happy to tell us that so what if Russia influenced the election, wasn't it worth it. So what if their POTUS is now dependent on Russia for any chance of re-election. Their are happy to have a person leading them, and support that person, who quite literally sold out the US for their own personal gain. The very definition of treason.

Yet to them Trump is like a religion. The answer must be "Trump is right", and they will shift whatever position they hold in order to land at that position again. Look at the recent postings from Manic. A poster that normally has very good points to make and I have very much enjoyed their insight into gun control as they provide a good perspective. But in terms of the wall, in order not to blame Trump for the shambles they have had to call for more efficient corruption, arguing against standards aimed at protecting both people and the environment, bemoaning the existence of laws that leads to people having a right to fight back. They would much rather Trump simply rode roughshod over any and all issues for the sake of getting what they want. His supporters are happy to stand aside while he continues to attack the 1st amendment, while he lies his way through everything.

The man literally invited the Russian delegation into the whitehouse and barred the US press from covering it whilst giving access to Russia state media. He has held private and secret meetings with Putin after which he has said that he not longer has any faith in the secret service of the country.

He has now, through his lawyer, admitted that he accepts that his campaign used Russian collusion to help get him elected. Of course any person with any semblance of critical thinking would have known this already, but still nearly 40% of "Amercians" (for they are far from what Americans used to be) continue to support him.

spacecoyote

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the bit that gets me, the bit that really annoys me about the whole Trump 'thing' and how is supporters behave is encapsulated in the attitude to Russia.

For most voters, rightly or wrongly, Russia was always seen as the enemy. The No1 enemy that the US had to stand up to save the world. Nearly all their wars after WWII, Vietnam, Korea etc and prior to Iraq but still playing out in Afghanistan, was in major part indirect wars against Russia.

Even HC was blasted for her supposed ties to Russia business, seen as a betrayal of being American. Yet these very same supporters, those that jump up and down shouting America First, MAGA, close the borders, kick out Muslims, American Steel, American Jobs, these very same people have suddenly decided that actually Russia isn't that bad after all.

And why? Have they dug behind the biased media coverage of the last 70 years? Have they undertaken extensive reviews of the reality of Russia to get a clearer picture? No, they have changed their stance purely because Trump said so. No evidence, no information. Just because Trump told them Russia wasn't so bad.

To the point that supporters will be happy to tell us that so what if Russia influenced the election, wasn't it worth it. So what if their POTUS is now dependent on Russia for any chance of re-election. Their are happy to have a person leading them, and support that person, who quite literally sold out the US for their own personal gain. The very definition of treason.

Yet to them Trump is like a religion. The answer must be "Trump is right", and they will shift whatever position they hold in order to land at that position again. Look at the recent postings from Manic. A poster that normally has very good points to make and I have very much enjoyed their insight into gun control as they provide a good perspective. But in terms of the wall, in order not to blame Trump for the shambles they have had to call for more efficient corruption, arguing against standards aimed at protecting both people and the environment, bemoaning the existence of laws that leads to people having a right to fight back. They would much rather Trump simply rode roughshod over any and all issues for the sake of getting what they want. His supporters are happy to stand aside while he continues to attack the 1st amendment, while he lies his way through everything.

The man literally invited the Russian delegation into the whitehouse and barred the US press from covering it whilst giving access to Russia state media. He has held private and secret meetings with Putin after which he has said that he not longer has any faith in the secret service of the country.

He has now, through his lawyer, admitted that he accepts that his campaign used Russian collusion to help get him elected. Of course any person with any semblance of critical thinking would have known this already, but still nearly 40% of "Amercians" (for they are far from what Americans used to be) continue to support him.

Well you had the likes of these guys at his rallies:



Could you imagine something like this at a Republican rally in the 80s or 90s?

jooksavage

spacecoyote wrote: »

Could you imagine something like this at a Republican rally in the 80s or 90s?

If they wore that clobber to a Reagan rally they'd be in actual physical danger.

Funny how things get turned on their head and makes me wonder what kind of weird realignments we'll see in the next 20-30 years.

aloyisious

spacecoyote wrote: »

Well you had the likes of these guys at his rallies:



Could you imagine something like this at a Republican rally in the 80s or 90s?

One might ask if the fact that Putin keeps getting re-elected in Russia, a now very-Christian country [heavily involved for several decades now in fighting against the Muslim terrorists] has some bearing on the matter when it comes to the religious and right-wing US believers in a "look at this guy, he's doing what we should be doing, he ain't too bad after all" way.

everlast75

aloyisious wrote: »

One might ask if the fact that Putin keeps getting "re-elected" in Russia, a now very-Christian country [heavily involved for several decades now in fighting against the Muslim terrorists] has some bearing on the matter when it comes to the religious and right-wing US believers in a "look at this guy, he's doing what we should be doing, he ain't too bad after all" way.

fixed your post...

Leroy42

aloyisious wrote: »

One might ask if the fact that Putin keeps getting re-elected in Russia, a now very-Christian country [heavily involved for several decades now in fighting against the Muslim terrorists] has some bearing on the matter when it comes to the religious and right-wing US believers in a "look at this guy, he's doing what we should be doing, he ain't too bad after all" way.

Wouldn't think so. Russia is not too bad simply because that is what Trump said, and they have to believe everything he says.

amandstu

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wouldn't think so. Russia is not too bad simply because that is what Trump said, and they have to believe everything he says.

Obama also tried to reset relationships with Russia.This needs to be done as often as possible (with all nation states and peoples -without, sadly letting down one's guard or taking leave of one's senses)

But colluding with a foreign power in a bid to get elected is no part of that (and by Giuliani's admission Trump was at the very least turning a blind or deniable eye to these activities)

Leroy42

Totally agree that defrosting relations in the way to go.

The problem I have is that Trump supporters have no basis for their sudden new belief that Russia is not the enemy, apart from Trump telling them that it isn't.

So they have changed a lifetime of belief, and it is very open whether that belief is correct or not but that is a different argument, simply to align with Trump with no other basis for that change. That means they will pretty much accept anything to maintain their belief that Trump is the one. We have already seen it by the way he has attacked the NFL players, the way he has attacked the CIA and FBI, the way he has attacked the press. All these his supporters are happy to cast aside on the altar of their belief in Trump.

Yet had you asked them 10 years ago they would have claimed all these were the reason was great. So what changed? Nothing except the man telling them.

Itssoeasy

So Rudy Gulianni is now saying he never said there wasn't collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia ? I mean that's a lie as he said that collusion wasn't a crime, which it isn't. Conspiracy to collude is a crime in the US which has been shown In my opinion with the manafort redaction mess up. The biggest question is how much did Trump know and when did he know. Those phone calls between Donald Trump jr and that blocked number are a crucial part imo. My recollection is ther were two calls to that blocked number, one before the meeting in Trump tower and after the emails and one after the meeting took place.

Leroy42

The question of whether Trump knew or not may have been relevant at some point but it isn't really now.

Fist off, Trump has been given ample evidence by the FBI etc on possible Russian interference and has steadfastly refused to believe it or act on it. Not only that but he has gone out of his way to try to discredit any form of investigation into Russian interference for fear it might impact him.

So whilst one may take the position that he was blissfully unaware of the deeds being undertaken on his behalf by those working for him, there is simply no excuse for the total lack of action on his part since being informed that this might be the case. In fact not just inaction, he has aggressively and purposefully tried to undermine anyone involved in trying to get to the bottom of what happened and taken the side of Putin over his own country.

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

The question of whether Trump knew or not may have been relevant at some point but it isn't really now.

Fist off, Trump has been given ample evidence by the FBI etc on possible Russian interference and has steadfastly refused to believe it or act on it. Not only that but he has gone out of his way to try to discredit any form of investigation into Russian interference for fear it might impact him.

So whilst one may take the position that he was blissfully unaware of the deeds being undertaken on his behalf by those working for him, there is simply no excuse for the total lack of action on his part since being informed that this might be the case. In fact not just inaction, he has aggressively and purposefully tried to undermine anyone involved in trying to get to the bottom of what happened and taken the side of Putin over his own country.

Am I correct in thinking that furthermore, he has not voiced any disapproval of Manafort's collusion with the Russians?

Quin_Dub

circadian wrote: »

That didn’t happen.

And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.

And if it was, that’s not a big deal.

And if it is, that’s not my fault.

And if it was, I didn’t mean it.

And if I did…

You deserved it.



So this is how far along we are then.

I'd say we're a bit further along in the process

Somewhere between And if it is, that’s not my fault. and And if it was, I didn’t mean it..

You've got to wonder if the "error" by Manaforts legal team was a calculated ploy to throw Trump under the bus but with plausible deniability around whether it was "deliberate".

Christy42

Indeed. You would think Trump would be shocked at the betrayal from his campaign team. I mean they colluded with a foreign power and have led to his name being dragged through the mud. Very strange altogether. You have to assume he is frothing on the inside with how his staff behaved but has been restrained so far.


This is all of course assuming that they acted behind his back and he knew nothing about it.

amandstu

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'd say we're a bit further along in the process

Somewhere between And if it is, that’s not my fault. and And if it was, I didn’t mean it..

You've got to wonder if the "error" by Manaforts legal team was a calculated ploy to throw Trump under the bus but with plausible deniability around whether it was "deliberate".

It might make more sense.Has that kind of deliberate mistake been done before I wonder?

mcmoustache

Itssoeasy wrote: »

My recollection is ther were two calls to that blocked number, one before the meeting in Trump tower and after the emails and one after the meeting took place.

I'd like to get some clarity on this. It was reported at the time as you describe it but I don't understand how you call a blocked number. It's making me feel like I've missed out on some feature of mobile phones that the whole world already knows about and is keeping from me.

Would it not make more sense that he received a call from a blocked number? Or does "blocked number" mean something else?

Penn

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'd like to get some clarity on this. It was reported at the time as you describe it but I don't understand how you call a blocked number. It's making me feel like I've missed out on some feature of mobile phones that the whole world already knows about and is keeping from me.

Would it not make more sense that he received a call from a blocked number? Or does "blocked number" mean something else?

I would have thought that Don Jr obviously knew the number to ring, but that as a "blocked number" it doesn't show up in call logs and there's no record of what number he actually called. But that number should be available in the phone records from the phone company.

FreudianSlippers

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'd like to get some clarity on this. It was reported at the time as you describe it but I don't understand how you call a blocked number. It's making me feel like I've missed out on some feature of mobile phones that the whole world already knows about and is keeping from me.

Would it not make more sense that he received a call from a blocked number? Or does "blocked number" mean something else?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/18/did-trump-jr-call-the-blocked-number-or-vice-versa/?utm_term=.af992afe182d

But there’s another question that remains unanswered and is potentially important: Did Trump Jr. call the blocked number, or did the blocked number call him?

On CNN Thursday night, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) described the call as outgoing. The implication from an outgoing call, of course, is that Trump Jr. was seeking advice before he called Agalarov back. (His first call to Agalarov came immediately after that blocked-number call.) If Trump Jr. received the call, the timing is still suspicious, but it’s possible that the call is not related to the investigation.

The subject has been raised in several reports from Congress. The report from House Republicans on the Intelligence Committee released earlier this year doesn’t include analysis of the calls back and forth as it exonerated Trump of any collusion questions. A response from House Democrats under Schiff’s leadership, did:

There's a bunch of interesting stuff there for a few paragraphs, but concludes:

In short, the evidence suggests that the call was indeed made to Trump Jr. from the blocked number. The vagueness about the subject — an important one when considering the critical question of whether Donald Trump knew about the meeting — is likely a function both of the lack of curiosity among House Republicans and an eagerness by some Democrats to present the call as outgoing. It still seems likely that the call involved Trump, given the context, but it’s still a mystery.

It’s also a mystery that’s probably already been solved. At least two people probably know who that call involved. One is Trump Jr., despite the denials in his testimony.

The other is special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

So it seems, confusing or loose language (neither of which was picked-up upon and/or followed-up) is the source of the confusion. Either (a) the call(s) were incoming from a blocked number or (b) there was an incoming from a blocked number and an outgoing (which Mueller will know/have the number).

Zubeneschamali

Penn wrote: »

But that number should be available in the phone records from the phone company.

Or the NSA's database of everything that ever happened anywhere.

mcmoustache

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/18/did-trump-jr-call-the-blocked-number-or-vice-versa/?utm_term=.af992afe182d


There's a bunch of interesting stuff there for a few paragraphs, but concludes:


So it seems, confusing or loose language (neither of which was picked-up upon and/or followed-up) is the source of the confusion. Either (a) the call(s) were incoming from a blocked number or (b) there was an incoming from a blocked number and an outgoing (which Mueller will know/have the number).

Thanks for that. It's been bothering me for a while.

jooksavage

I think the blocked number thing will the big one for two reasons. It means that all the improbable denials from Trump about knowledge of the meeting will be blown to smithereens. That will hurt him but on it's own probably won't be fatal. However, it also means Don Jr. is is completely ****ed. He most likely lied under oath and Mueller knows it. You can almost hear that indictment rolling down the corridor. No one knows what Trumps reactio will be but if one of the choices is "impulsively and stupidly", he'll probably go with that.

everlast75

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2019/01/17/rudy-giuliani-just-contradicted-nearly-all-trump-teams-past-collusion-denials/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR2FxLZ23eK-q3iF4i1BFvbopZfXIndAguiA16FDqtFp6FfEEOG6yaS61zA&noredirect=onhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2019/01/17/rudy-giuliani-just-contradicted-nearly-all-trump-teams-past-collusion-denials/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR2FxLZ23eK-q3iF4i1BFvbopZfXIndAguiA16FDqtFp6FfEEOG6yaS61zA&noredirect=on

Interesting roll backs on the collusion stance taken by DJT's administration/public representation.


1. November 2016: No communications, period

Hope Hicks: “It never happened. There was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.”

2. February 2017: There were no communications, “to the best of our knowledge”

Sarah Sanders: “This is a non-story because, to the best of our knowledge, no contacts took place.”

3. March 2017: There were communications, but no planned meetings with Russians

Donald Trump Jr.: “Did I meet with people that were Russian? I’m sure, I’m sure I did. . . . But none that were set up. None that I can think of at the moment. And certainly none that I was representing the campaign in any way, shape or form.”


4. July 8, 2017: There was a planned meeting at Trump Tower, but it was “primarily” about adoption and not the campaign

Trump Jr.: “We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at that time and there was no follow-up.”

5. July 9, 2017: The meeting was planned to discuss the campaign, but the information exchanged wasn't “meaningful”

Trump Jr.: “No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.”

6. December 2017: Collusion isn't even a crime

President Trump: “There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime.”

Jay Sekulow: “For something to be a crime, there has to be a statute that you claim is being violated. There is not a statute that refers to criminal collusion. There is no crime of collusion.”

(Technically speaking, the criminal code doesn't use the word “collusion,” but it's generally understood as a broad term that could encompass more specific, codified crimes. And even special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's team has used it in court filings.)

7. May 16, 2018: Even if meaningful information were obtained, it wasn't used

Giuliani: “And even if it comes from a Russian, or a German, or an American, it doesn’t matter. And they never used it, is the main thing. They never used it. They rejected it. If there was collusion with the Russians, they would have used it.”


[One thing, Rudy Giuliani: The Trump campaign *did* use it.]

8. May 19, 2018: There was a *second* planned meeting about foreign help in the election, but nothing came of it either

The New York Times reported Sunday on yet another meeting about getting foreign help with the 2016 election. This one came three months before the election and featured Donald Trump Jr. and an emissary, George Nader, who said the princes who lead Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates wanted to assist Trump.

Alan Futerfas, Trump Jr.'s attorney: "They pitched Mr. Trump Jr. on a social media platform or marketing strategy. He was not interested, and that was the end of it.”

9. July 16, 2018: Trump couldn't collude, because Trump didn't even know Putin

Trump: "There was no collusion. I didn't know the president. There was nobody to collude with."

10. July 30, 2018: Collusion isn't a crime, and Trump wasn't physically at the Trump Tower meeting

With Michael Cohen alleging that Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting in real time — despite many previous denials — Giuliani told both CNN and Fox News that Trump wasn't physically at the meeting.

"I’m happy to tell Mueller that Trump wasn’t at the Trump Tower meeting,” Giuliani told CNN, adding that "Don Jr. says he wasn’t there.”

He added on Fox: “He did not participate in any meeting about the Russia transaction. . . . And the other people at the meeting that he claims he had without the president about it say he was never there.”

Giuliani also argued that collusion isn't even a crime.



“I don’t even know if that’s a crime — colluding with Russians,” Giuliani said on CNN. “Hacking is the crime. The president didn’t hack. He didn’t pay for the hacking.”

And on Fox: “I have been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime. Collusion is not a crime.”

11. January 16, 2019: Trump didn’t collude, but no guarantees on others in the campaign

The exchange with Cuomo:

GIULIANI: I never said there was no collusion between the campaign or between people in the campaign --

CUOMO: Yes, you have.

GIULIANI: I have no idea -- I have not. I said the president of the United States. There is not a single bit of evidence the president of the United States committed the only crime you could commit here -- conspired with the Russians to hack the DNC.

CUOMO: First of all, crime is not the bar of accountability for a president. It’s about what you knew --

GIULIANI: Well, he didn’t collude with Russia either!

CUOMO: -- what was right, and what was wrong, and what did you deceive about? Those are going to be major considerations.

GIULIANI: The president did not collude with the Russians.

(CROSSTALK)

CUOMO: He said nobody had any contact, tons of people had contact. Nobody colluded, the guy running his campaign --

GIULIANI: He didn’t say nobody --

CUOMO: -- was working on an issue at the same time as the convention.

GIULIANI: He said he didn’t. He didn’t say nobody. How would you know that nobody in your campaign --

CUOMO: He actually did say that, Rudy. He said, nobody, and then he said, as far as I know.

(CROSSTALK)

GIULIANI: Well, as far as he knows, it’s true.

Penn

Following on from a Wall Street Journal report on Cohen organising for a company to help fake/skew polls in Trump's favour

https://twitter.com/MichaelCohen212/status/1085900900835778560

I doubt Trump also directed him to set up the fake @WomenForCohen twitter account, but Trump and Cohen in many ways seem to have been cut from the same cloth.

During the presidential race, Mr. Cohen also asked Mr. Gauger to create a Twitter account called @WomenForCohen. The account, created in May 2016 and run by a female friend of Mr. Gauger, described Mr. Cohen as a “sex symbol,” praised his looks and character, and promoted his appearances and statements boosting Mr. Trump’s candidacy.

Itssoeasy

I've just watched the clip that's ten minutes long on CNN and any logical and rational lawyer wouldn't say the things that gulianni is saying on the record on TV. He seems to have this "gift"( for lack of a better word) of going away from the line on issues or revealing info not previously known about.

aloyisious

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'd say we're a bit further along in the process

Somewhere between And if it is, that’s not my fault. and And if it was, I didn’t mean it..

You've got to wonder if the "error" by Manaforts legal team was a calculated ploy to throw Trump under the bus but with plausible deniability around whether it was "deliberate".

Part of a deal with Mueller's investigation on "a nod is as good as a wink" basis?

jobbridge4life

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I've just watched the clip that's ten minutes long on CNN and any logical and rational lawyer wouldn't say the things that gulianni is saying on the record on TV. He seems to have this "gift"( for lack of a better word) of going away from the line on issues or revealing info not previously known about.

Is he softening the blow of things to come?

demfad

demfad wrote: »

A couple of things:

Firstly:

Assuming that what the FBI states in ist indictments and memos as facts are in fact facts then Trump is provably guilty of conspiracy.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1072154873490137090.html


Secondly Maria Butina:

Alleged Russian agent Maria Butina and the GOP operative linked to the NRA, RNC, Robert Mercer and Cambridge Analytica

Yulya Alferova worked on Trump Miss Universe Moscow 2013, where Trump Tower Moscow was "launched". She tweeted afterwards that Trump would make a great president of the United States.

Alferova was married to Artem Klyushin at the time. He in turn is close friends with Konstantin Rykov. Rykov is a protegee of Vladislav Surkov. Rykov would be to Social media what Surkov was to TV and society. It is generally believed that Rykov would have had great input into the Information warfare in US, UK, France and elsewhere.

Alferova appeared with Butina at a "right to bear arms" gig in Russia.
Alferova also knew Alexandr Torshin freeman of the NRA, spymaster and Butin'as spy boss.


At The Freedom Fest in 2015 Trump randomly chose Butina out of the crowd. She asked a question on Sanctions, which he replied that he would drop.
On Stage with Trump was Phil Ruffin who also spoke at the Event.
Ruffin was with Trump and Alferova in 2013 Moscow.

At this time Butina's "partner" Erikson (about to be indicted for espionage, reached out to Sam Nurnberg on Trump's campaign team to arrange a meeting Butina-Trump.

Torshin and Butina did have lunch with Don Jr at the RNC.




Afte this meeting Butina sent the Russian Official a message “We should let them express their gratitude now, we will put pressure on them quietly later.”

I take this to mean they were offerred $13m and later the Russians blackmailed them over it. When you see all the GOP delegates and indeed some British politicians acting 'funny'. Remember that line.

If you look at the Russian operation to infiltrate the Conservative movement in the US over ten years, I guess Butina had some part in it and the Trump conspiracy itself.

Wonder what Junior said to Torshin and Butina? Was he 'quietly pressured' later assuming they recorded it?

More on this. One of the guys mentioned above: Klyushin has been making some very strange tweets which seem to be directing or advising Trump.

A few years ago the suggestion that a criminal syndicate existed controlling major countries (including US), INtelligence organisations, criminal empires, massive coorporations, Compromised politicians, attempting to take world institutions (world bank, Interpol)..the suggestion would be ludicrous.

THis is the President of the United States seemingly being instructed from the twitter account of a Russian Oligarch.

https://twitter.com/TheRynheart/status/1083939513565495296

Penn

In response to Pelosi pulling the SOTU from Trump, Trump has now cancelled aircraft for some international trips Pelosi was due to make (including revealing she was due to visit Afghanistan which hadn't been revealed for security reasons).

Regardless of the reason, Pelosi had a valid excuse for putting off the SOTU. Trump's response is just petty and it shows.

Itssoeasy

Penn wrote: »

In response to Pelosi pulling the SOTU from Trump, Trump has now cancelled aircraft for some international trips Pelosi was due to make (including revealing she was due to visit Afghanistan which hadn't been revealed for security reasons).

Regardless of the reason, Pelosi had a valid excuse for putting off the SOTU. Trump's response is just petty and it shows.

Really ? Ah he really is taking the piss.

mcmoustache

demfad wrote: »

More on this. One of the guys mentioned above: Klyushin has been making some very strange tweets which seem to be directing or advising Trump.

A few years ago the suggestion that a criminal syndicate existed controlling major countries (including US), INtelligence organisations, criminal empires, massive coorporations, Compromised politicians, attempting to take world institutions (world bank, Interpol)..the suggestion would be ludicrous.

THis is the President of the United States seemingly being instructed from the twitter account of a Russian Oligarch.

https://twitter.com/TheRynheart/status/1083939513565495296

I'd be more inclined to think that Klyushin is just trolling. There are far easier ways for the Russians to communicate with him if they wanted.