Was Trump’s Birthday Present a Painting? Or Stolen Emails?

Donald Trump was born on June 14, 1946.

According to the Minority HPSCI Russian Report, the day after Trump’s spawn, spawn’s husband, and campaign manager met with a bunch of Russian envoys (including Aras Agalarov’s representative Ike Kaveladze), Agalarov sent the presidential candidate an expensive painting.

[O]n June 10, 2016, Aras Agalarov delivered to candidate Trump an expensive painting for the candidate’s birthday.

An email from Rob Goldstone identified it as a birthday gift.

Email from Rob Goldstone to Rhona Graff, Subject: Birthday gift for Mr. Trump, June 10, 2016

On June 14, 2016 — Donald Trump’s birthday — the Washington Post revealed that Hillary had been hacked by Russia.

According to Nakashima, she was first contacted about this story, “About a week before the story published online.”

On June 15, in what has always been presumed to be a rushed response to the WaPo story, Russian cut-out Guccifer 2.0 published a bunch of stolen documents, including Hillary’s (dated) oppo research on Trump.

On June 17, a Trump staffer sent an Agalarov staffer a Trump thank you note, one that did not (at least in the bit quoted in the Minority HPSCI report) describe what the gift in question was.

“There are few things better than receiving a sensational gift from someone you admire – and that’s what I’ve received from you. You made my birthday a truly special event by your thoughtfulness – not to mention your remarkable talent. I’m rarely at a loss for words, but right now I can only say how much I appreciate your friendship and to thank you for this fantastic gift. This is one birthday that I will always remember.”

Was the gift a painting? Or stolen emails?

73 replies
  1. Trip says:

    Hmm. I’m actually impressed that the note doesn’t ramble off into broken thoughts and sentences.

  2. Peterr says:

    Don’t you have an image of the painting? Maybe Agalarov is a remarkably talented painter, heretofore unknown outside Mother Russia.

      • Peterr says:

        This is hilarious. The right epaulets seem to be sitting quite a distance from his right shoulder, and the military badges seem a bit . . . odd.

        Perhaps Painter Agalarov is slipping a little snark into his work.

        • SteveB says:

          The painting is clearly based on the portrait of Nokolai Vasilevich Vasilchikov by de George Brawe and on display at the Hermitage St. Petersberg.

          It is also the portrait for that general’s russian entry in Wiki.

        • Peterr says:


          And Steve B nailed it with identifying the source image.

          If Donald objected — “Hey, this looks like you photoshopped me” — then Putin would simply tell him “Imagine if you could put T R U M P running down all four sides of that big white obelisk outside your south window. That’s the parallel to what we’ve done here for you.”

          Also, this: “Anyone can photoshop. What we’ve done is an oil painting homage. And everyone knows that if it’s an oil painting, it is by definition expensive and valuable.”


        • earlofhuntingfdon says:

          Paint-by-numbers oil on black velvet.  Always cool.  The guys outside Graceland won’t like the competition though.

          I guess that lettering on the Monument would replace, “Welcome to Jamaica.  Have a nice day, mon,” in Trump’s fantasies.

  3. juliyya says:

    IMO, the painting is the gift. It’s pretty, complimentary, feeds Trump’s ego, perhaps causing him to think his military academy background could have led to him being the greatest general ever, a genius of a general, the greatest commander-in-chief ever.

    • Avattoir says:

      It’s carny midway, art mart city sidewalk vanity trash. I’ve seen lots of this sort of thing, not really all that different from tourists having their pictures taken with their heads inserted in head-holes of soul-less reproductions of cartoon characters or iconic, famous &/or notorious portrait or scenic art.

      Not all that “expensive” either, really. An efficient carny or street hack working a trap off Soho, or a bridge in London or Paris, or a parking lot in Santa Fe, can crank one of these suckers out in an hour. A family of six can have one for each of the four kids done for under $500 or equivalent.

      After the amusement runs down, they can usually be found in a box stored in the attic or garage.

      • bmaz says:

        Your second paragraph has the makings of a Warren Zevon song.

        I saw a werewolf with a Chinese menu in his hand
        Walking through the streets of Soho in the rain…

        • Avattoir says:

          Awww OOOO

          [except] His hair was … ridiculous

          One of my all-time favorite Do. Not. Miss. tear-jerker TV watch experiences: Zevon’s final appearance on Letterman, “best friend my music ever had”. A YouTube classic that’s actually life-enhancing.

          FWIW that 2nd ‘graph more or less captures an actual experience.

  4. Rapier says:

    The “expensive painting” thing should probably be chalked up a dig by the Democrats. I mean did it come with a note; ‘here is an expensive painting as a gift’ or did they leave the price tag on the thing? Valuing paintings is an art in itself. Is expensive in this case $200 or $20,000. The latter only possible by someone that has a name. God knows Trump would expect and honor only something that was expensive. It would be nice to know who the artist is and what the market value is. It would be fun to see it too. Maybe it’s hung in his ultra glitz Tower penthouse. He’s such a shmuck.

    The staffer’s thank you note laid it on pretty thick but whose to doubt the boss ordered that?

    • Avattoir says:

      ‘Send ’em a nice note. You know, now that I think about it, make it a really nice one. Gotta seem like it’s from me – but classy, you know?’

    • Peterr says:

      You launder money with artwork by purchasing items with ill-gotten funds, then reselling them for clean money, not by creating artwork and giving it away.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      If Putin’s objectives are to sow chaos and increase dysfunction in America, and also thereby decrease the effectiveness of our alliances – all aimed against him – the “admission” serves his purposes admirably.

        • orionATL says:

          destroying our collective confidence in our euro/american rules and habits for democratic elections, and thereby successfully undermining our expanding economic and military alliances in europe is a militarily enfeebled russia’s response to being encircled on its western borders.

          in the key european nation, u.k., as well as in alliance keystone u.s.a., rupert murdoch and his media empire have been a central russian ally.

    • emptywheel says:

      I thought the CNN commentary was dumb. The Russians have been undermining Trump in their own way since during the election. And I’ve yet to be convinced the Veselnitskaya interview admits to any actions that a similarly situated lawyer here in the US wouldn’t have done, even with a DOJ that purports to try all people fairly.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Trump responds predictably when Putin disses him.  He apologizes and asks what more he can do for Vlad.  Trump’s feeble attempts to create accountability for Putin are telegraphed in advance, allowing all but the least attentive to escape consequences.

        Putin undermining Trump seems like a creditor reminding a debtor that the vig is due and that the debt itself is unlikely ever to be repaid.

      • orionATL says:

        ew writes:

        “…I’ve yet to be convinced the Veselnitskaya interview admits to any actions that a similarly situated lawyer here in the US wouldn’t have done, even with a DOJ that purports to try all people fairly…”

        sure, for an american lawyer. but for a russian lawyer tied directly to the senior agaralov who is tied directly to chaika who is tied to putin? that seems a daunting, or foolhardy, thing to do unless you are authorized to do it.

        personally, i’ve come to have a lot of admiration for veselnitskya. she is one tough, unflappable lawyer who seems to have successfully undertaken some serious legal tasks for the kremlin.

        i do wonder, though, if this public confession could get her into trouble with the doj over the now-settled prevezon suit. then there is her comment about working with chaika since 2013, a (to me) curiously specific time frame.


  5. Andy says:

    Question from the Minority report regarding the IC’s views on the Steele dossier.
    The report cite’s Clapper’s testimony to claim the dossier “..did not inform the Intelligence Community’s assessment of Russia’s activities”. Yet, we know the dossier was included in the FISA application.

    Is there a contradiction here? Is there a different standard at work between the two? Perhaps the dossier informed their assessment of Page’s activities, but not “Russia’s activities”?

    • Avattoir says:

      Awwww GEEEZ, the more this goes on the more it proves Marcy so right, that this stupid thing is such a zombie.


      To explain: there’s something of an art to assembling the support materials for a search warrant, where you and everyone else involved in that process realizes, as they all must do, that there’s always at least some non-trivial risk that the thing will rise up again in some future context to slap you, all involved, your career and all of theirs to the curb.

      I’ve actually seen such horrors happen, and not just once: at least 6 times in cases in which I was actually involved in some capacity (tho, thankfully, never once as member of the applicant team). Every. single. instance. resulted in permanent damage to careers, some of that damage to former colleagues I’d worked with and got close to, some to investigators with whom I had some sort of relationships lasting decades. I’ve seen it kill civil service and judicial ambitions and even play a part in breaking up families.

      Among the many, many dynamics involved in the search warrant application process is to ensure that the court – the judges you and your colleagues, not just those now but into the future – do not have any reason at all to lose trust in those putting the product in front of them. Including even merely a reference to such a document as the Steele dossier, with a clear, accurate & truthful statement as to what if any reliance the applicant places on it, is basic stuff.

      IOW, including reference to it does NOT equate to telling the court that the applicant places any great, any critical, or any particular value, or indeed any value at all, in it or its contents. But All Things Considered, in this instance the government team that applied to the FISC for the warrant, would have been acting at least unprofessionally in not including a reference to its existence and how it was handled.

      • Soldalinsky says:

        Whut?  This is the wackiest post I’ve ever read on here!  There are grave issues with the FISA application and that’s why nobody has leaked it yet.  To sum it up, Trump doesn’t want it out because he’s not interested in scrutiny of his awesome spying privileges, and the Democrats haven’t leaked it because they fabricated the most important parts of the application to get it approved.  Also, the wacky Democrats are confident their coup will be successful and spying privileges will be restored in the near future, so they don’t want to jinx themselves with unnecessary attention to the process.

        To explain: there’s something of an art to assembling the support materials for a search warrant, where you and everyone else involved in that process realizes, as they all must do, that there’s always at least some non-trivial risk that the thing will rise up again in some future context to slap you, all involved, your career and all of theirs to the curb.

        An art?  There’s four elements to a search warrant: time, place, persons or places to be searched, and items to be seized.  Before a warrant can be issued, a judge must conclude that there is probable cause a crime has been or is being committed.  Probable cause is a very low evidentiary threshold. Affiants must swear that the facts presented are truthful, but this doesn’t really mean much anymore because nobody is ever punished for lying and the system actually encourages bad behavior.  Every attorney that practices criminal law knows that police perjury is commonplace and Brady materials are often held back!

        I could go on and on about how cops and prosecutors break the law.  What matters is that cops are very rarely convicted for perjury and are often given time off with pay for committing crimes.  Conviction of prosecutors is an even rarer occurrence.  A cursory search reveals ONLY ONE SUCCESSFUL CONVICTION EVER of a prosecutor that knowingly and willingly sent an innocent man to prison.  I can’t find a SINGLE instance of a Federal prosecutor convicted for deliberately fabricating evidence in a criminal case.  NOT ONE!


        And here’s a link so bmaz doesn’t feel left out:


        What’s significant about the FISA application is that bad practices have finally hit the main stream and are no longer attacking the poor and disadvantaged.   The breakdown of the rule of law is profound and will have grave social consequences in the near future.

        I’ve actually seen such horrors happen, and not just once: at least 6 times in cases in which I was actually involved in some capacity (tho, thankfully, never once as member of the applicant team). Every. single. instance. resulted in permanent damage to careers, some of that damage to former colleagues I’d worked with and got close to, some to investigators with whom I had some sort of relationships lasting decades. I’ve seen it kill civil service and judicial ambitions and even play a part in breaking up families.

        I’d love to hear at least one story.  Please be specific about how fabricating a search warrant affidavit has ruined a colleague’s career or resulted in social damage to a prosecutor or policeman.  Surely there is a news link somewhere..




        • bmaz says:

          Listen jackass, you are so full of shit your eyes are gleaming brown.

          First off, you do not know squat about the FISC warrant app because you have never seen it.

          Secondly you do not know squat about warrant apps on the federal level because you have clearly never participated in obtaining the same, nor deconstructing the same from the other side. In short you don’t know squat for such a squawker. Yes, you “could go on”, but it would only prove yourself an idiot when a few people may still be wondering.

          Please, tell me about the elements of a search warrant. Bring some more. And, by the way, trying to use Mike Kiefer, talking about state level cases, many of which I know well, to support your duplicitous bullshit, is beyond the pale.

          That is proof positive you are a trollish and bad faith asshole. Do better if you want to fuck with us here. It was a sweet feature that you tried to use cases that I know intimately, here in AZ though. Also, a mark of total ignorance.

        • SteveB says:

          I stopped reading after “the Democrats…..fabricated the most important parts of the application”

          Cleary you are not interested in helping folks here gain a nuanced and critical understanding of the processes.

        • Soldalinsky says:

          Ok. I’m very confident Democrats fabricated the most important parts of the application.  Here’s a few smoking gun issues I can’t work out:

          Why do things in the wrong order?  Shouldn’t the dossier have been verified first before publishing? Was the dossier verified before it was tendered to the FISA judge?  Why is a former FBI official having so much trouble reconstructing the evidence?  The DNC still hasn’t given up that darned server because it might subject them to more attacks! ha



        • bmaz says:

          Oh, you are “confident Democrats fabricated the most important parts of the application”?? Really? That is one of the dumbest and most insane things I have ever heard.

          And I have decades in challenging warrant applications. Too many decades. When you say it is “the Democrats”, you give yourself aways as a troll tool. And you can get out of here.

          Again, you do NOT know dick about the application in this FISA case, because YOU have never seen it (and quite clearly understand none whatsoever as to federal warrant apps, of any type, generally).

          You are, clearly, at this point, a complete troll. And, no, I do not have any further patience whatsoever for your trollish antics. Your shit is done.

        • Peterr says:

          There are grave issues with the FISA application and that’s why nobody has leaked it yet.  To sum it up, Trump doesn’t want it out because he’s not interested in scrutiny of his awesome spying privileges, and the Democrats haven’t leaked it because they fabricated the most important parts of the application to get it approved.

          If (as you posit) there are “grave issues with the FISA application,” then Trump would be the FIRST person to want it leaked, in order to attack the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, the FBI, James Comey, the media, and everyone whom he feels has unjustly attacked him. “See! Here’s the proof! Here’s the evidence that the conspiracy has been against me!!!”

          When your second sentence contradicts your first sentence, your readers are not likely to accept anything you say in your subsequent sentences — assuming they decide to keep reading.


          But thanks for playing.

    • emptywheel says:

      Adding to what Avattoir says…

      The Majority Report makes a very big deal out of the CIA task force, in particular the way it 1) allegedly leaked 2) provided all the intel behind the ICA report, including the conclusion that Putin preferred Trump.

      The Majority Report treats it, as all credible descriptions have, as a compartmented group run by the CIA, one that included FBI analysts, but was not tied to the FBI CI investigation.

      Sticking something that was reviewed by the FBI CI investigation in as an appendix to the work of the CIA task force does not then make that part of the analysis of the task force. On the contrary, it demonstrates that it is not part of the analysis.

      • SpaceLifeForm says:

        But is an attempt (albeit lame) to throw some mud on FBI/DOJ. But most people don’t read footnotes. Also an attempt to make it appear that FBI was really agreeing with ICA.

        • Peterr says:

          Most people don’t realize that the footnotes are often the best parts, especially in legal opinions where the author saves the best snark for the small text at the bottom of the page.

  6. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Michelle Wolf howls at the WHCD.  Ivanka, as helpful to women as an empty box of tampons.  The Don, the one pussy in America you’re not allowed to grab.

    If a tree falls in the forest, how do you know Kellyanne is underneath it?  Sarah Sanders burns facts and then she uses that ash to create a perfect smokey eye.

    That’s why they call it a roast.  Outstanding.

    • Trip says:

      I saw headlines of a kerfuffle about the entire affair: I didn’t bother to read any of them and didn’t watch. If people are offended by this stuff, how do they reconcile what Trump says about (groups of) people in general or people specifically, on the daily, as the president, and not a comedian?

  7. earlofhuntingdon says:

    One reason Wolf was as funny as Colbert is that she looked the press corps’ hypocrisy in the eye and didn’t blink.  That scares the shit out of an industry that manufactures consent and normalizes the atrocious.

    The vulgarity is the president’s and his entourage’s.  Wolf reported the facts.  If you want vulgarity and to join the evangelicals’ in praise of the Don’s family values, consider how he acquired his fortune.

    Younger brother Donald allegedly persuaded his demented ailing father to change his will in favor of the Don by disinheriting his smarter, better looking older brother.  That would be the brother who earned his place at Penn, and then persuaded its admissions office to let in his not so bright brother as a legacy.

    As a consolation, the Don offered to pay the medical bills for his brother’s chronically sick child.  But he cut him off without a dime when he challenged the will.  With the Don, it’s never business, it’s always personal.  With that as prologue, who wonders why it’s taking Bob Mueller so long to sort through the evidence of possible crimes committed by this president.

    • Trip says:

      I’d say it’s all business, never the personal, because Trump doesn’t give a F_k about persons, except for himself, personally. It’s all about Trump; he is devoid of empathy, and worse yet, he has no compassion. Even if that includes his own flesh and blood in a situation of vulnerability. That’s how he can be up close with devastated Puerto Ricans and toss paper towels like it’s the hunger games competition, and think it’s all ‘good fun’. After, he thinks he has done more than his share by gracing them with his idiocy.

      • greengiant says:

        Urgent need to refilm hunger games to include paper towel throwing stunt.

        On a serious note the brightside is the increase in troll noise level whenever fruits of investigations of Trump, Putin, or the oligarchs are revealed.

        Since there is not an iota of moral difference in election roll cleansing/crosscheck and changing election results then cognitive dissonance is the only thing enabling the recognition of only the former.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        That’s why it’s personal.  A rational bidnessman would choose money over vanity and ego.  He would delegate to competence, not family or familiarity.  When was the last time the Don did that?  Given his six bankruptcies and his appalling political staffing choices, when was the first?

        • Trip says:

          Trump’s vanity and entire sense of self is wrapped up in the money. That’s why he pretended to be rich.

          No one, including women, would have paid attention to such a jackass, without money. His personality is nil, his looks were never extraordinary, and now bordering on ridiculous. He’d be just another bloviating idiot, (shouting over others at a dive bar), from the outer boroughs, without the money man image.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Indeed.  He would be a routine “retread”.  Yacht and country clubs are full of them, divorced men with lots of money and unattractive personalities, barring the salesman’s handshake and false camaraderie.

          His social and sex life would depend solely on his bank account and his willingness to spend it.  Given how many of his partners remember being offered money for having sex with him, part of him might even know it.

      • posaune says:

        In raising a developmentally disabled child, I’m convinced that Trump is developmentally disabled — most likely from emotional abuse, i.e. developmental trauma — where he really didn’t progress past age 4 or so.    See “theory of mind.”  His recent comment about the para-olympics as “too painful to watch,” is telling.   Trump is so regressed, he can’t even fake it.

    • orionATL says:

      wolfe actually said, quite truthfully, that sarsh huckabee sanders is a liar.

      only comedians can speak the truth these days about public lying for the benefit of a president? reminds me of those times centuries ago when only the jester could truthfully criticize the king without fear of being beheaded.

      the nytimes’ whitehouse corrrespondent praised the press sec sander’s stalwart tolerance:

      “…Maggie Haberman, White House correspondent of the New York Times, tweeted: “That @PressSec sat and absorbed intense criticism of her physical appearance, her job performance, and so forth, instead of walking out, on national television, was impressive.”…”


      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Praised her tolerance?  What was the alternative, off with her head, Versailles for real?

        Sanders volunteered to be there, or at least obeyed the Don’s order, since he would never submit to a comedic grilling but would be happy to send an aide to endure it.  He is devoted to humiliation, as long as it’s someone else’s.

        At least since Colbert, the anointed comedy artist roasts those in attendance and those they principally cover.  Anyone not willing to grin and “bare” it ought not to attend.  It’s the one night all year that the truth comes out of a White House presser.

      • Trip says:

        Sarah (HUCKSTER-b) Sanders deserves all the wrath and scorn that can be tossed at her and then some. What’s with all of the pearl clutching suddenly? I thought everyone hated PC?

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Pearl clutching is what Beltway journalists are paid to do, especially if someone let’s truth sneak in where it can’t immediately be paired with, “on the other hand”.

          If journalists want to see vulgarity, they should view any speech by this president.  Take his most recent promise at a rally in Michigan.  He will “shut down the government,” if he has to, to force Congress to give him what it refuses to give him: a hundred billion dollar boondoggle of a border wall.

          “I’ll shut you down if you don’t give me another bowl of candy.  I already ate the first two.”  That’s vulgarity – political, social, economical.  Trump must have once seen a postcard of the Great Wall or Hadrian’s Wall and mistakenly thinks either was effective in keeping out the barbarian horde.  (Or he imagines making millions selling high-priced labor, stone and food to its builders.)

          Trump is a carnival conman.  That’s vulgarity.  The press would be more helpful if it apologized for having helped him into office.

        • Trip says:

          Trump has mocked the disabled, has collectively called people south of the border, killers, rapists, etc. He has equated Nazi-white supremacists as on equal grounds to those protesting injustice. He has made fun of women’s looks, including Republicans, on Fiorina: “Look at that face!” he cries. “Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!” The laughter grows halting and faint behind him. “I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not s’posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?” And on Meghan Kelly (not a fan, but): Kelly “bombed” and was “unprofessional.” He even said in an interview on CNN: “She had blood coming out of her eyes, she had blood coming out of her wherever.” 

          I could go on and on, but you already know it. And Huckster-b stands before the public, and LIES AND LIES to promote this, while Trump burns the country down (aside from the things he says). Fuck her and the horse she rode in on. And fuck anyone in the press for not taking offense at that, but for the feelings of the female Goebbels, instead.

        • bmaz says:

          Trip, I purloined this comment into a tweet. Want to be honest about when I use comments from here.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          If you want vulgarity, watch the President describe how hard it is for him to watch Paralympic champions compete.

          That Donald Trump is so disgusted – read, afraid – at their lack of symmetry and superficial perfection reveals more about his demons than it does about the will, grit and athleticism of paralympic athletes.  Any pearl clutching there, no?

      • Rugger9 says:

        The closest thing to an insult about looks (and note she said perfect smokey eye look) would be the eye comment by Wolf.  The rest was about what SHS and the palace had been doing and saying. Plus, everyone else got ripped as well. However, compare Wolf’s comedic routine to what Caesar Disgustus was saying over in Washington Township which was meant in bitter earnest as a threat to his enemies including the press, Jon Tester and HRC. Heck, he insulted the Paralympic athletes just this week.

        One note I did see which makes a lot of sense is that the courtier press had to harrumph about this because they knew the palace would be keeping track of who was insufficiently outraged by Wolf’s performance and cut off access.

        • bmaz says:

          Yes, everything about your last paragraph. Also, younger girls seem to say that “smokey eye” is actually a look and not an insult. Frankly, I would have thought was an insult, but have no real clue.

        • Peterr says:

          Next year, Oliver Knox (the president-elect of the WHCA) could decide to not invite a comic, and simply read actual quotes of Trump, the press secretary (whoever that may be by then), and members of the cabinet.

          But that might be too offensive.


        • Peterr says:

          Apologies for the spelling.

          But a friend of the blog? Perhaps he could invite Marcy, then. I mean, after the f-bombs dropped last night on C-SPAN, what’s a little reference to a blowjob?


          *heading to the corner*

      • thomasa says:

        I am reminded of a quote from Gore Vidal, “…………… and the role of the politicians is to not give away the game.”

        Clearly, trump and crew are giving away the nature of the game for all to see.

        Is someone familiar with that quote who can help fill in the rest of it? It may have been from The Atlantic.

  8. Frank Probst says:

    I’m not sure that I would read too much into this. Trump obviously didn’t write it, as you clearly note. The fact that the gift itself is not identified leads me to believe that the Trump staffer who wrote it was told to send thank you notes to several different people, and the staffer simply drafted a note that was vague enough that they could send the exact same note to a bunch of different people who had all given Trump different gifts.

  9. orionATL says:

    the story of june 9 story is all about good citizen aras agarlov agreeing to act as a private soldier for the kremlin in its strategy of interferring in the u.s. election to help trump get elected, if that were possible, or, at a minimum, to help sow as much discord as possible among disparate american votering groups, and do major damage to american public confidence in its electoral system.

    many newspapers have written the aras agarlov part of this story up. here is a telling of the common version:


    “…The publicist, Rob Goldstone, wrote that Aras Agalarov had met that day with Russia’s top law enforcement official, who “offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.”

    Goldstone, a former tabloid journalist from Britain, mistakenly called the official “the Crown prosecutor of Russia,” but he appears to have been referring to the prosecutor general of Russia, Yuri Chaika.

    As Julia Ioffe explains in The Atlantic, “Chaika is part of the bloc of siloviki — or people allied with security services, literally the people who settle disputes through force — inside the Kremlin,” and “Putin has willfully turned a blind eye as Chaika’s two adult sons have made a killing, accumulating hundreds of millions of dollars in business and choice government contracts.”…”

  10. Palli says:

    RE: SteveB says: April 29, 2018 at 10:15 am
    Spitting image There’s a “starving artists” factory of Russian General blanks somewhere in Russia waiting for orders to insert portrait heads, no doubt.
    Nikolay Vasilyevich Vasilchikov 3-d (1781 – 1849);
    Painter: George Dawe, English 1823-1825 (a prolific portraitist specializing Russian Generals after relocating to St. Peterburg in 1819 for the Winter Palace War Gallery)

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      The original reveals the loss of perspective for the right shoulder, owing to the drape of the cloak over the uniform.

      Depicting a US president as a Russian general, by definition, someone who owes allegiance to the Czar (Putin) is both a joke and not.  Either way, it is unflattering and displays mirthful derision by the giver.

      A gift of purloined data would have the same effect.  It would be a poisoned chalice.  Trump’s Russian admirers, having read him so well, would know he could never turn it down.

      • SteveB says:

        Further to mirth of giver

        Gen NVV  a member of a dynasty which produced a number of illustrious officers appears to be wearing the throat medal (red cross black border and center, dangling second down ) awarded to recipients of The Order of St Vladimir 2nd Class.
        And by fake-simile so is coronet Trump, bone spur 2nd class.
        However NVV is not listed as a recipient of the honour (though Sergei V, a cousin/nepew is)

        Perhaps AA nods to coronet Trumps taste for puffed and gaudy self promotion in more ways than one.

  11. Jill says:

    The FBI affidavit dated 10-30-2016 is for a search warrant of the contents of Anthony Weiner’s laptop.


    Yet the Washington Post reports on 10-28-2016:

    “Newly discovered emails found on a computer seized during an investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner thrust the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server back into the presidential campaign less than two weeks before the election.”


    Yet we learned that “hundreds of thousands of emails turned over by Weiner’s atty to sdny, includes a ton of material from spouse. Sending team up tomorrow to review … this will never end ….” ( sometime before September 28, 2016 )


    Why did the FBI need a warrant when they had all the emails and why is the Washington Post reporting the results of a search that had yet to take place?

    • greengiant says:

      At least two warrants,  one for the sexts,   second for the contents of the emails.  Some discussion whether even email subject lines could be viewed under the sext warrant.

    • bmaz says:

      Dear people of EW: do not pay a lick of attention to this disingenuous, at best, Trump troll. Frankly, if GreenGiant had not have already responded, I may well have bounced “Jill’s” latest bullshit. And, yes, it is relentless and complete trollish bullshit.

      When your old school blog is hitting home on the subjects being covered, “Jill” is the type of troll response that tries to enter despite relevant filters.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      Two computers. One a regular desktop PC, the other a laptop. Laptop not available on first search.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      As to FBI having all of the emails:

      The FBI did *not* know that they had *all* of the emails. He may have been using one email account on his desktop PC, and have been using a different email account on his laptop. He may have been forwarding emails between the two computers (and therefore email accounts).

      Why would one do that?

      Because of attachments.

      Jill, please try to clean URLs by removing the stuff at end from the question mark (?) To the end. In this specific case from the wapo link you would delete the ?utm_term=xxxxx stuff. That is tracking info.

  12. Rugger9 says:

    “Soldalinsky” was test-running a line repeated by Miller today on the TV: there’s no collusion because something would have leaked by now.

    However, as I’ve noted several times along with many others, Mueller’s shop is remarkably tight-lipped, and I would suspect that is due to the need to prevent appeal opportunities by his targets. If there weren’t a series of indictments and guilty pleas already, both Soldalinsky and daddy-boy Miller (who’s apparently being a cad to his erstwhile mistress) would have a more valid point. As it is now, though, better luck next time.

Comments are closed.