Are There Other Emails about the June 9 Meeting?

Something has been bugging me about this NYT story from last week reporting that, in a conference call with Mark Corallo on July 9, 2017 (see the timeline of events below), Hope Hicks told him emails on the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner and Natalia Veselnitskaya, Rinat Akhmetshin, Ike Kaveladze, and Rob Goldstone would never come out.

Corallo is planning to tell Mr. Mueller about a previously undisclosed conference call with Mr. Trump and Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, according to the three people. Mr. Corallo planned to tell investigators that Ms. Hicks said during the call that emails written by Donald Trump Jr. before the Trump Tower meeting — in which the younger Mr. Trump said he was eager to receive political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians — “will never get out.” That left Mr. Corallo with concerns that Ms. Hicks could be contemplating obstructing justice, the people said.

[snip]

In Mr. Corallo’s account — which he provided contemporaneously to three colleagues who later gave it to The Times — he told both Mr. Trump and Ms. Hicks that the statement drafted aboard Air Force One would backfire because documents would eventually surface showing that the meeting had been set up for the Trump campaign to get political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians.

According to his account, Ms. Hicks responded that the emails “will never get out” because only a few people had access to them.

As the story describes, the emails in question were already prepped (by the lawyers with whom Corallo worked on a day to day basis) to send to Congress, which would have made it really hard for anyone to withhold the emails.

Congress had requested records from Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman; Mr. Kushner; and other Trump campaign officials about meetings with Russians. And lawyers had already copied and stamped the emails for delivery to Capitol Hill.

But elsewhere in the story, the NYT admits that even as (or shortly after) that meeting transpired it already had the emails Don Jr released that day and was going to publish them itself.

The younger Mr. Trump ultimately released the emails after being told The Times was about to publish them.

The original story (as well as the second one) described that the meeting was discovered when Kushner disclosed it on one of his many revisions to his security clearance application and in a response from Paul Manafort to congressional inquiries.

The Trump Tower meeting was not disclosed to government officials until recently, when Mr. Kushner, who is also a senior White House aide, filed a revised version of a form required to obtain a security clearance.

[snip]

Manafort, the former campaign chairman, also recently disclosed the meeting, and Donald Trump Jr.’s role in organizing it, to congressional investigators who had questions about his foreign contacts, according to people familiar with the events.

But nothing in that description would mean Congress would have gotten the emails yet, which is where investigative materials normally get leaked to the press (though it’s possible Manafort had already turned them over).

Michael Wolff’s book reports the Bannon suspicion that a Jared aide (presumably Josh Raffel), who was in the initial meeting where Trump forced everyone else to say the June 9 meeting dealt primarily with adoptions, leaked the emails to the NYT.

Indeed, the best guess by many in the West Wing was that the details of the meeting had been leaked by the Kushner side, thus sacrificing Don Jr. in an attempt to deflect responsibility away from themselves.

[snip]

The lawyers, and spokesperson Mark Corallo, had been working to manage this news. But while in Hamburg, the president’s staff learned that the Times was developing a story that had far more details about the meeting—quite possibly supplied by the Kushner side—which it would publish on Saturday, July 8.

But it describes the Jared team as leaking details, not the emails themselves. Plus, it’s hard to see how the emails don’t also implicate Jared, unless he’s going to bank on having left the meeting as his means to defend himself even in light of all the other damning evidence he was willing to chat up Russians later in the year.

Furthermore, given that Jared was an active player in that first meeting, it’s hard to understand how Hicks wouldn’t have known that Jared would have to disclose any emails that involved him personally.

There’s one other detail of note. The NYT makes it clear that the lawyers (and Corallo) in DC were kept out of the loop on the panic on Air Force One and that they didn’t know the NYT was working on a story. Though it’s unclear where the Circa story that those lawyers (and Corallo) did contribute to came from, then, as it feels like an effort to pre-empt the NYT with a friendly outlet.

Significantly, the Circa story is the source of the claim that Trump didn’t know about the meeting that I noted here (which the lawyers are said to have believed, which is why the Trump and his family weren’t consulting with the lawyers).

President Trump was not aware of the meeting and did not attend it, according to the lawyers.

It’s also significant, though, because it adopts the line Paul Manafort seems to have convinced Reince Priebus to adopt, pointing to problems with the dossier and Fusion GPS as a way to discredit the entire investigation.

“We have learned from both our own investigation and public reports that the participants in the meeting misrepresented who they were and who they worked for,” said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for President Trump’s legal team. “Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier. ”

“These developments raise serious issues as to exactly who authorized and participated in any effort by Russian nationals to influence our election in any manner,” Corallo said.

I raise all this to highlight two possibilities: that the emails are all that exist, but that they were leaked by someone — Manafort? Bannon? Corallo? — to punish the White House for its first misleading lies about the meeting. Perhaps Gorelick leaked them, which might explain why she stopped representing Jared days later?

But there’s another possibility: that more emails exist, between Don Jr and Rob Goldstone (indeed, we know Goldstone sent follow-up emails involving Vkontakte). Or that there are communications between other players. In which case the release of the current emails might serve to distract from a fuller set that Hicks did succeed in burying.

In any case, not only is Corallo prepping his meeting with Mueller’s team, but Steve Bannon seems intent on meeting with Mueller before HPSCI has an opportunity to run interference with him.

A source familiar with the matter added that Bannon would instead answer all of special counsel Robert Mueller’s questions as part of his investigation.

So whatever particular complaints the Corallo/Kasowitz/Bannon/Priebus crowd has about the way things went down may soon be shared with Mueller.


Early July 7: NYT approaches WH officials and lawyers; WH schedules a conference call w/NYT for next morning.

July 7: Trump chats up Putin at dinner. (Note, whenever Melania decides it’s time to get revenge on Trump for treating her like shit, she can go tell Mueller what she overheard of this conversation.)

July 8, morning: Conference call doesn’t happen. NYT submits 14 questions about the meeting to the WH and lawyers of Trump campaign aides who attended the meeting (do these aides include all of Don Jr, Kushner, and Manafort?); Trump and his aides develop a response on Air Force One, with Hicks coordinating with Don Jr and his lawyer Alan Garten, who were both in NY, via text message.

July 8, afternoon: Jamie Gorelick provides a statement describing his revisions to his security clearance forms.

He has since submitted this information, including that during the campaign and transition, he had over 100 calls or meetings with representatives of more than 20 countries, most of which were during transition. Mr. Kushner has submitted additional updates and included, out of an abundance of caution, this meeting with a Russian person, which he briefly attended at the request of his brother-in-law Donald Trump Jr. As Mr. Kushner has consistently stated, he is eager to cooperate and share what he knows.

July 8, evening: Garten issues a statement in Don Jr’s name stating,

It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. 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. I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.

July 8, 5PM: NYT publishes story.

July 8, slightly later: Circa publishes different story based on Mark Corallo’s statement, admitting Magnitsky Act discussion.

July 9, morning: Hope Hicks calls Corallo, with Trump in the room, accusing him of trafficking in conspiracy theories. It is this call, according to the NYT, where Hicks said the emails would never come out.

July 9: Don Jr issues a new statement.

After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Mrs. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information.

July 14: Jamie Gorelick quits representing Kushner on Russian issues.

July 20: Mark Corallo quits.

July 21: Marc Kasowitz quits.

 

Some lawyers and witnesses who have sat in or been briefed on the interviews have puzzled over Mr. Mueller’s interest in the episode. Lying to federal investigators is a crime; lying to the news media is not. For that reason, some of Mr. Trump’s advisers argue that Mr. Mueller has no grounds to ask the president about the statement and say he should refuse to discuss it.

Marcy Wheeler is an independent journalist writing about national security and civil liberties. She writes as emptywheel at her eponymous blog, publishes at outlets including Vice, Motherboard, the Nation, the Atlantic, Al Jazeera, and appears frequently on television and radio. She is the author of Anatomy of Deceit, a primer on the CIA leak investigation, and liveblogged the Scooter Libby trial.

Marcy has a PhD from the University of Michigan, where she researched the “feuilleton,” a short conversational newspaper form that has proven important in times of heightened censorship. Before and after her time in academics, Marcy provided documentation consulting for corporations in the auto, tech, and energy industries. She lives with her spouse in Grand Rapids, MI.

49 replies
  1. Trip says:

    As an aside, isn’t it funny how those who crowed the loudest about emails being hacked and released, then go on to communicate via emails themselves?

    I sometimes ponder if in that meeting someone not only carried the carrot (dirt on Clinton), but also the stick: Manafort’s telephone notes in re RNC, donations, illici (divulging already illicit funding, you owe us, we can spill, maybe a reference to the Russian mob in Spain), or was that another carrot as a promise for cash? Manafort’s notes tend to make it seem the conversation extended to the GOP and that it was not just limited to Clinton dirt. Would he have noted something so obvious, though, rather than using code (like black caviar)?

  2. Trip says:

    And now, when we consider that Fox News often presents ‘theater of the opposite world of truth’, we have a new conspiracy theory swirling about how Mueller (as head of FBI) was after Trump since the time he was simply a reality star. But might that be a way of diffusing possible coming information that details potential FBI interest in Trump’s finances going back to/before 2012-13? Trump was previously considered a ‘joke candidate’, as you may recall. I can’t imagine Mueller, or anyone for that matter, being so pissed off about golf fees that they would set upon a multi-administration course of “Vengeance will be mine, Bwahahaha!”. (He doesn’t even have a handlebar moustache, which I believe is mandatory in that sort of thing)

    Levin claimed special counsel Robert Mueller set the conspiracy in motion when he served as FBI director under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, before stepping down in 2013 — when Trump was host of NBC’s “The Apprentice” and not a presidential candidate.

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/broadcaster-sparked-trumps-wiretap-tweet-claims-clinton-mueller-fbi-colluded-russia/

    • Trip says:

      (apologies for talking to myself) This comes on the heels of the latest focus on Carter Page, and how his connections in Russia (and related court case) extend back to at least 2013.

  3. NorskieFlamethrower says:

    Once again Typhoon Wheeler makes landfall off the ocean of truth to blast the confusion, obfuscation,  misdirection and lying sown in this ongoing Trump-Russia nightmare. I must confess that my remaining 3 brain cells are sorely tested in trying to absorb all the nuggets of truth as I try and remain upright in my walk through the wreckage. Thank you again Marcy, may I have another?

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    As you’ve said, it’s not about lying to the press.  That’s a narrow defense framing that obscures the landscape. Mueller is investigating much more than the behavior of Donald Trump.

    Politically, it is a problem for a president persistently to lie to the press.  Legally, it is also relevant.  It’s a prior statement by the president about facts that might be important to Mr. Mueller.  It is relevant to who, when, what, why.  It could be used in connection with the facts themselves, to show someone’s state of mind or to show a pattern of behavior by the president or others.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I think your quip misreads Alterman.  The short-term cost of lying is often small; the long-term cost is often high.  The issue of the lie lingers, complicating all future statements, compounding the potential liability of the lie.

      Bush/Cheney attempted to avoid liability for lying altogether by adopting a Kissingerian view that lies matter no more than do deficits.  Their disdain for those bound to facts was legion: they famously claimed to make their own facts and truth.

      Then along came Libby, and David Addington.  EW repeatedly points out that Addington’s testimony alone was sufficient to sink Libby, and the two of them were as close as brothers in support of their patron, Cheney.

      Trump, on the other hand, has no Straussian philosophy.  He couldn’t read a paragraph of Kissinger’s prose.  He’s a street liar.  He lies because he doesn’t know how to tell the truth.  He lies because it keeps him whole. He lies because it’s convenient, and because he’s never paid a price for a lie that cost him more than the lie.  (That’s now a standard American business model.)

      That may soon change.  The political cost of Trump’s lies may increase if the Dems win a majority in the House or Senate.  The legal costs may skyrocket.  Lying in the course of a federal investigation can create more consequences than having Addington testify on your behalf.  Mueller’s investigation may finally confront Donald with a cost he’s never had to pay before – either for himself or the members of his immediate circle.  The Wicked With of the West, too, seemed invincible.  All it took to change that was a little water.

  5. orionATL says:

    “…  Ms. Hicks said during the call that emails written by Donald Trump Jr. before the Trump Tower meeting — in which the younger Mr. Trump said he was eager to receive political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians — “will never get out.”…”

    one explanation for hicks saying this is that she was naieve about just how treacherous (how much info is shared in metadata and how easily emails may be shared, e. g., forwarded) email is. but that seems unlikely. hicks is experienced and smart. further, she has worked for four or more years with a guy whose communications in any format demand care and discretion.

    another possibility, far more interesting in political mystery stories, is that there is a second, very tightly held email account which trump, his family, and maybe a few others share. that, too, could account for hope’s conviction that the emails would not become public. but, too, that would mean that those few persons would become “eligible” for obstruction charges if they witheld docs from this account.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I hope Hicks is more aware of the intricacies of digital communications than she appears to be.  I don’t think her prior experience working for a family company with a very small management team will be helpful to her in her current job, for the same reason that doing HR for the Trump Organization would not prepare you to do it for IBM.

      When working for bidnessman Trump, it would be much easier to maintain privacy, though it would still take expertise and work.  It’s still a hike up Mt. Tam.  Maintaining private and legally compliant digital privacy for a sitting president is more like attempting K2.

      If Hope hasn’t the expertise to give her such confidence, what consultants is she using that would?  Given that presidential records are public, not private documents, that’s a question the public has a right to know the answer to.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      My take: Hicks was told by Trump who was told by *others* that the emails would not come out *because ic committees would bury*.

      Her line was to appease Corallo. Did not work of course.

      Attempting to imply that they would not become public, not that ic does not have them.

      The lawyers printed out the emails, bates-stamped them, and made copies. As would be expected.

      Corallo has info of interest.

  6. Jim White says:

    Yeah, that Hope Hicks thing had me thinking we don’t have all the emails yet, either. Given all the other limited hangouts we’ve gotten, it seems logical that the emails are, too. And as you’ve pointed out previously, withholding vital evidence is a known MO from Trump’s business lawsuits.

    Any chance Mueller’s team has a larger collection of the emails about the meeting through 705(b) relating to the Russian players? That would make for easy criminal charges for several of the Trumpies several different ways, if so.

  7. TomA says:

    The NSA has all the emails, therefore it is likely that Mueller has the emails. It is mind-boggling that Hicks (or anyone else for that matter) actually harbors a belief that these communications can be reliably concealed. This is the unconscionable stupidity that Bannon, Corallo, Gorelick, and Kasowitz have fled from. Nothing in those emails can be as bad as the consequences of lying under oath to the Feds. In our species’ ancient evolutionary environment, the price of extreme stupidity was properly onerous. And it still is today.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Lots of things Trump might have done could be worse than the consequences of lying to a federal agent.  Paul Manafort is coming to grips with that idea right now.

      The idea that it’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up is wrong.  It’s a Nixonian myth.  In many ways, it was Gerald Ford’s pardon that covered up much of what Nixon did, not the attempted Watergate burglary and Nixon’s serial lying about it (and much else).

      The burglary of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office wasn’t any better than Watergate. But that class of crime pales when compared with Nixon’s fraught financial relationship with the quintessential dragon lady, Taiwan’s Mme Chiang Kai-Shek.  He twice interfered in the Vietnam war peace talks, once before he was president.  That was also the precedent for Reagan repeating the act in 1980, regarding the US embassy hostages held in Iran, in his bid to unseat Jimmy Carter.

      Nixon’s long war, including the illegal aspects of it, led to the deaths of tens of thousands more Americans and millions more Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians.  Those sorts of crimes weren’t even before Congress, which decided that it had more than enough to impeach Nixon and try him in the Senate.  Nixon resigned to hide his worst crimes – some of which might have come out, along with who helped commit them, in a competent trial in the Senate. He almost did so following a plea deal with Ford (officially denied).

      In short, it’s the crime and the cover-up.

  8. harpie says:

    “but Steve Bannon seems intent on meeting with Mueller before HPSCI has an opportunity to run interference with him.”

    Evidently the meeting is “likely” to take place next week, according to NBC.

     

  9. Dell Fillar says:

    A point of clarification — emails are only a subset of electronic communications. Notably you have phone-to-phone text messages (such as the Hicks and Don Jr. coordination) and secure messaging apps, such as the destructive one Kushner is known to have used.

    It’s not just nerdishness that causes me to bring this up. I think there’s a lot of sloppiness in the reporting around the Trump camp and email which neglects the fact that people like Kushner have been reported to do most of their business via text messaging, not email.

    I think that’s a big reason why Kushner was forthcoming about the formerly undisclosed email account he used — it’s because he was trying to spin the story away from the currently unknown contents of all of his text messages, and the possibility that he may have destroyed a ton of evidence by deleting texts he should have archived.

    This raises the possibility that parties in the Trump orbit been trying to be cute and steer reporters to issues involving email and disguise what was going on via text messaging. Knowing Kushner’s arrogance and terrible record in providing records, it’s even possible that he tried to carry out an end run around disclosure to investigators by hiding or destroying texts and other messages. Fortunately, I’ve seen a couple of Elijah Cummings’s letters specifically asking for all electronic communications, including texts along with emails, so I doubt that investigators in general would be fooled.

    At any rate, whenever I read an article referring to emails, my first instinct is to read it carefully for any signs that reporters are being sloppy or sources are trying to muddy the waters. In my experience lawyers and people well-versed in legal issues are even more nervous (for good reason) about text communications instead of email, so I think the tendency would be for communications involving someone like Corallo may well have been done by email. However, it’s also highly possible that there is a potential treasure trove of surrounding communications involving Hicks, Don Jr., Kushner and others which were done via text messaging or secure apps, and it’s unclear to me from the NY Times reporting what exactly is the case.

    At any rate, when all of this is done, I won’t be surprised if a lot of reporting from 2017 will need to be reevaluated in light of the possibility that reporters were far too narrowly focused on issues around email, when they should have been thinking in terms of electronic communications in general.

    • Rayne says:

      2016: “But her emails…”
      2017: “But their emails…”

      Excellent.

      I think reporting around the June 9 meeting has similarly been weak with regard to attendance — physical attendance. Reporting has been hung up on who physically walked into the meeting room and sat at the table with Donnie Jr. in Trump Tower. But we’ve known since June 30 that year that Trump had a habit of eavesdropping on calls made across his Mar-a-Lago resort’s PBX system. Why wouldn’t he do the same thing at Trump Tower? Why would he not have a PBX installed across Trump personal+organizational rooms, allowing him to eavesdrop on calls OR allowing him to participate from another room in the same building while not being physically present in the meeting itself?

      (Note Hope Hicks shows up in that linked report on eavesdropping. Nobody thinks to ask her if Trump has PBX systems in other Trump-owned/named facilities with similar “switchboard” capabilities from his bedside.)

      • harpie says:

        …do the same thing at Trump Tower?…like maybe Paul Manafort’s apartment on a high floor in that building?

        • Rayne says:

          Or Trump’s own apartment, I’m thinking, to follow the parallel of the bedside switchboard. But you have a good point; what if Trump had a building-wide PBX installed and his claims that Obama used “wiretapp” on him was a case of projection about his eavesdropping, which may have thrown attention elsewhere instead of on his building’s/apartment’s/business’ PBX? Yuck — I hate that I should go back and figure out what happened on/around March 4th last year compelling Trump to tweet about the “wiretapp.”

          EDIT — 340pm — Just occurred to me one of the other problems digging into this for journalists is the carpet bombing by NDA used religiously by Trump and Trump Org. Without subpoena power or a careful leak it’d be tough to get a vendor/contractor to say how widely a PBX was installed in a Trump facility. Unless local building codes required any wiring plans to be submitted for approval first before installation, and even then the final installation might not match the approved plans.

          • harpie says:

            It does seem that accusing others of what they themselves have done/are doing is a fairly frequent path they take.

          • Trip says:

            Ha! That’s IF Trump would have followed any codes. If you are bugging guests, etc. are you gonna get a permit for that? I suppose you could call it an ‘intercom system’ (one way).

          • harpie says:

            From Moyers and Co. interactive Timeline:
            FEB. 28, 2017-White House Belatedly Complies With Senate Intelligence Committee’s Request to Preserve Documents
            MARCH 2017-Don Jr. Denies Any Campaign Contacts With Russians
            AROUND MARCH 1, 2017-White House Lobbies Sessions Not To Recuse Himself
            MARCH 1, 2017-Sessions Denies Russia Connections
            -Comey Takes Supposedly Urgent Call From Trump; It’s Not
            MARCH 2, 2017-Russian Behind Ukraine Meeting Dies
            -Sessions Recuses Himself From Russia Investigation One Hour After Trump Says He Shouldn’t
            -Former Trump Campaign Advisers [Page and Gordon] Admit Meeting With Russians
            -New York Times Reports on Undisclosed Meeting Between Kushner, Flynn and Russian Ambassador
            MARCH 3, 2017-Trump Vents Anger About Sessions Recusal
            MARCH 4, 2017-Lewandowski: ‘I Never Met Carter Page’
            MARCH 4, 2017-Trump Claims President Obama Wiretapped His Phones
            -Stone Tweets That He Never Denied Communication With WikiLeaks
            MARCH 5, 2017-FBI Asks DOJ to Deny False Wiretapping Claims

          • Silence Hand says:

            Do prior NDAs regarding things like communication systems at a site remain in effect when the site in question becomes associated with an official US Gov’t operation (specifically, the transition)?  I suspect not.  Couldn’t contractors be compelled to discuss infrastructure like PBX present (if pre-existing) during that period?

            If so, couldn’t this be an avenue into subpoena of information relating to the system present during the June meeting?

            My impression is that the NDA-null-and-void aspect of transition to Government has bitten Trump et al in the ass multiple times, and this could be an important one.

            • Rayne says:

              NDAs are pretty worthless in the face of a subpoena IMO, but I caution here that I’m not the lawyer on the emptywheel team. My thoughts were for journalists who might investigate this line of inquiry; they could go to whatever agency enforces building inspections and codes, ask to see drawings on file, might get them since they are public records. But there are two big hurdles: 1) will wiring schematics include telecom/network and if so, will they include any changes made since the building was approved for occupancy by the building inspector? 2) If not, what vendors/contractors may have completed changes since first occupancy, would municipality have that info, and once properly ID’d, would vendor/contractor give up any info on telecom/network assuming an NDA was signed when the contract was awarded?

              And there’s the reverse problem: if a journalist shows up at building code enforcement or whatever appropriate office to see plans, does this municipal office record who was looking into records? Depends on the town/city/county/state; YMMV.

      • orionATL says:

        dell filler, rayne, et al.

        thanks for broadening the target.

        re attendance/intimate awareness of june 9 meeting content – like i said in an earlier post, think of the aspen grove :)

  10. pseudonymous in nc says:

    “Though it’s unclear where the Circa story that those lawyers (and Corallo) did contribute to came from, then, as it feels like an effort to pre-empt the NYT with a friendly outlet.”

    Wolff asserts that the staff expected Circa to break the story: “The lawyers, and spokesperson Mark Corallo, had been working to manage this news.” He leaves it ambiguous as to which side initiated that.

  11. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The Don sure loves him some Putin.  Now he wants to have Russian style, tank-led military parades.  Imagine how big the missiles on their mobile launchers will be, since they will naturally reflect the size of their patron.

    The Don will want them to parade down Penn. Avenue from the Capitol to the White House.  Imagine the other routes – Fifth Avenue, Rodeo Drive, Market Street, Michigan Avenue, Beacon Street – with the Trump Organization owning all the food stalls along the routes.  I hope Don remembers the Soviet trick of creating thinly asphalted-over pot holes for the trailers to ride over and crush, impressing viewers with their mass  and killing power.  My bet is that General Kelly will ride in the lead tank as master of ceremonies.

    • Silence Hand says:

      I’d suggest the Pentagon brass try the following:  Get a National Guard unit to drive some armor in a circular route past 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. a few hundred times.  The Don can wave and salute to his black, shriveled heart’s content, with TV cameras rolling.  The millions saved this way can be used for PTSD research.

      ALSO:  I’m assuming the parade will include big tank- and missile-shaped balloons, a-la the whole Macy’s thing in NYC.

  12. Desider says:

    Seems most important is whether committing illegal acts can be used as reason to void upper limit on a pre-nup.
    As spouse, Melania can’t be forced to testify against her hubby, but if all the financial incentives are there…

    • Trip says:

      After the Stormy Daniels story went public, I’m sure there was a renegotiation. Not that Melania didn’t know, or particularly cares, it’s just that the public humiliation had to sting. She never looked happy in her role as First Lady, that act alone, likely got her a few more dollars or baubles.

  13. Silence Hand says:

    Is there any evidence that anyone in the Trump circle set up and used VK accounts? I mean, other that Carter Page, obviously. Goldstone, Stone?

Comments are closed.