Does Devin Nunes’ Unmasking Pseudo-Scandal Betray Knowledge of the “Collusion” with the Saudis and Emirates?

When Mike Flynn’s plea deal revealed that he lied about efforts to stave off criticism of Israel’s illegal settlements, I noted that that (and the efforts to cozy up to Saudi Arabia and UAE) was what the unmasking panic was probably about.

The most public confirmed unmasking involved Susan Rice discovering that Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan had a secret meeting with Flynn, Kushner, and Bannon in NY.

Former national security adviser Susan Rice privately told House investigators that she unmasked the identities of senior Trump officials to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late last year, multiple sources told CNN.

The New York meeting preceded a separate effort by the UAE to facilitate a back-channel communication between Russia and the incoming Trump White House.
The crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, arrived in New York last December in the transition period before Trump was sworn into office for a meeting with several top Trump officials, including Michael Flynn, the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his top strategist Steve Bannon, sources said.

But we now know that there would be intercepts between Netanyahu and Kushner leading up to it.

I wouldn’t even be surprised if the Republicans are so certain they’ve been unmasked because Israel has their own way of discovering such things.

I’ve laid out how Jared Kushner’s “peace” “plan” really is just an attempt to remap the Middle East to the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia, interests which require significantly more belligerence against Iran than Obama showed. The unmasked discussions would include the ones that preceded Kushner’s order to Flynn to try to undercut the resolution, as well as whatever else Kushner discussed with Netanyahu at the time.

Today’s NYT scoop revealing that the Trump campaign colluded not just with Russians, but also Saudis, Emirates, and Israelis explain why the discovery of the later meetings was so dangerous: because it would reveal other efforts Trump made to sell out American foreign policy.

Three months before the 2016 election, a small group gathered at Trump Tower to meet with Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son. One was an Israeli specialist in social media manipulation. Another was an emissary for two wealthy Arab princes. The third was a Republican donor with a controversial past in the Middle East as a private security contractor.

The meeting was convened primarily to offer help to the Trump team, and it forged relationships between the men and Trump insiders that would develop over the coming months — past the election and well into President Trump’s first year in office, according to several people with knowledge of their encounters.

Erik Prince, the private security contractor and the former head of Blackwater, arranged the meeting, which took place on Aug. 3, 2016. The emissary, George Nader, told Donald Trump Jr. that the crown princes who led Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were eager to help his father win election as president. The social media specialist, Joel Zamel, extolled his company’s ability to give an edge to a political campaign; by that time, the firm had already drawn up a multimillion-dollar proposal for a social media manipulation effort to help elect Mr. Trump.


It is unclear whether such a proposal was executed, and the details of who commissioned it remain in dispute. But Donald Trump Jr. responded approvingly, according to a person with knowledge of the meeting, and after those initial offers of help, Mr. Nader was quickly embraced as a close ally by Trump campaign advisers — meeting frequently with Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, and Michael T. Flynn, who became the president’s first national security adviser.

This puts the unmasking panic — and Devin Nunes’ role in it — in entirely new light. It’s not just that Seychelles meeting in the transition period — it’s this earlier meeting, where a bunch of autocrats got the candidate’s son to agree to collude on the election.

Which makes me wonder, how would Trump Transition Official Devin Nunes know that? When Nunes manufactured a totally bogus unmasking scandal, did he know of these earlier meetings showing illegal collusion?

Update: I realize, now, that Nunes’ unmasking panic may actually have served as a giant red flag for Mueller that there were aspects of the Trump team’s dealings with UAE and Israel that were of acute concern to the team. Well done Devin!

68 replies
  1. pseudonymous in nc says:

    That winds the clock back a lot earlier than the transition, obviously. And probably means looking at what Jefferson Beauregard III was doing between August and November.

    • Bob Conyers says:

      The true reason for the Sessions recusal is something I’m still fuzzy on. Maybe this will bring it into focus.

      One issue that’s looming for me is whether someone was bankrolling campaigns comparable to the Russian trolling, but with a different set of content generators and networkers. It’s pure speculation, but I could easily see someone like Bannon being a point person to funnel overseas money into the alt right machine. That could, possibly, be a much bigger deal than Russian collusion, although to be realistic there was a lot of money flowing already from sources like the Mercers and it may well not work as an explanation.

      • bmaz says:

        The true reason is that it was absolutely required by crystal clear DOJ regulations on conflicts.

        • Bob Conyers says:

          I’m sure the regs are clear, but what happens if Sessions still came up with a half-baked reason not to comply and appointed a stooge instead of Mueller, with himself overseeing the investigation?

          Who would have the authority to challenge him? How long does it take to clear up in the courts? Also, what is the likely fallout at DOJ — does a significant number of career people or even political appointees resign or take other action?

        • bmaz says:

          The fallout would be huge. The career ethics people would insure that and the IG looks in the background. Sessions did not really have a choice.

        • Bob Conyers says:

          Thanks, that gives some hints as to the costs that helped persuade Trump to back down from firing Mueller.

          I’d hate to see what things would be like if they get that bad.

  2. Rugger9 says:

    As I have noted before, one of the principal motivations for the GOP’s attempts to stop Mueller is that they are in it for their own self preservation. Pitchforks and torches are in their future when (if…) flyover country fully grasps what was done here and what it means. Faux and their allies will push that day back as far as possible, but eventually the truth comes out. We already see it with soybeans and day labor.

    Not just Nunes, remember Pence was “in charge” of the transition, and McTurtle single-handedly blocked press notification of the Trump campaign collusion by the Obama administration.

    • Kevin Finnerty says:

      Flyover country won’t care. Trump has given them license to be bigoted without consequence. They will let Trump have his grift.

  3. Rusharuse says:

    Geez, sounds like Mueller is a clear and present danger to the Republican party in Toto. What happens when this government is deemed illegitimate?

    . . and I thought the Yellowstone caldera was the only thing capable of blowing this country to bits.

  4. Charles says:

    The Muellerian endgame has got to be tortuously complex.

    * He can’t indict the president except under extreme conditions.
    * If he doesn’t politically incapacitate the president, the president will sabotage the probe.
    * It’s extremely difficult to indict members of Congress.
    * It’s politically problematic to issue indictments of politicians after August
    * The Congress isn’t going to impeach Trump unless he discovers the proverbial live boy/dead girl.
    * Even in the Democrats run the table, the Senate will not have 34 votes for conviction after December except under extreme conditions.

    So somehow Mueller has to run his table: create sufficient indictments of sufficient gravity that the public is willing to go into the streets to enforce the departure of Trump. And even then, Pence will doubtless fight a rearguard action to protect people like Devin Nunes and Erik Prince who could spill even more secrets.

    I vote that Devin Nunes is most likely to have multiple exposures resulting in pwnership by Trump and probably other parties.

    • J R in WV says:

      It isn’t “extremely difficult” to indict congressmen of any flavor. It happens all the time. It’s more often common graft, like bribery, than it is treason or conspiracy against the government.

      If the evidence is there, the Grand Jury can hand up indictments, sealed or not, any time the prosecutor presents evidence showing there ought to be a trial.

      ETA, spelling

  5. Rapier says:

    There is no trouble to be had from lying in congressional hearings. Lying to congress has become a proud tradition of spooks and self styled spooks, not to mention anyone testifying about anything by anyone who is ‘conservative’, since the days of IranContra. Lying in congressional testimony by then had essentially served as a sort of right of passage into the Deep State that dares not speak its name.
    As long as Prince didn’t have a grand jury appearance, and I don’t think he did, I can’t imagine he is in any legal jeopardy. And again as i said lying in congressional testimony carries no penalty and is more likely worn as a badge of honor as we were just reminded with Ollie North being made President of the NRA.

        • bmaz says:

          Sure. But the lies were Russia related within Mueller’s scope. He could charge perjury, false statements and/or conspiracy.

        • SteveB says:

          Could Mueller charge perjury for false testimony to congress? Or have I mistaken your meaning?

          As to Russia collusion: given that Flynn and Nader have been cooperators for some time isn’t there now a distinct possibility that other collusive arrangements are part of an expanded mandate from Rosenstein?


          And while such arrangements may merit their own sets of charges specific to them, is it possible to frame an overarching conspiracy count given the way these other conspiracies intersect with the Russian one?

        • emptywheel says:

          It may matter how careful committees have been about warning witnesses of 1001 risk. I need to review this, but I think SJC has been more careful than HPSCI.

  6. Bob Conyers says:

    During the confirmation hearing did anyone ask Haspel what she thought about Nunes? What she might do if (when) he further undermines a serious counter-intelligence operation while she’s on the job?

  7. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Nice framing and context. Still boggles the mind that Nunes did not have to recuse himself.

    As with everything else Mueller, this boils down to how hard is his evidence, what can he produce in court that will survive challenge. That he also needs to tell a compelling story, to justify in the public’s mind any prosecutions, is probably the least of his problems.

    As we’ve been saying for a long time here, Mueller is wrestling with possible crimes that make the issues involved in Watergate pale in comparison. And he’s proceeding at break-neck speed.

    What I still find startling is the congressional involvement in these possible crimes, Nunes, for example, and the GOP’s willingness, from top to bottom, to protect the president without restraint. Trump, however, is not Nixon. He will burn the house down rather than accept responsibility for any misdeeds, particularly as they also seem likely to bring down the House of Trump.

    • orionATL says:

      nunes would recuse himself any day that paul ryan put his foot on nunes’ neck and threatened to investigate nunes’ likely earlier cavalier treatment of classified information. that has never happened to this day.

  8. orionATL says:

    would you like to know who gave really good coin, or in-kind, to trump&co either in the inauguration/transition phase or after the swearing  in.

    here’s the test:

    look carefully at who trump has done legislative, regulatory, foreign affairs, or support/denunciation  favors for.

    just start with the day after the election and look for money, verbal support, electioneering strategy, in-kind actions (social engineering on facebook) that were given, particularly if they look out of sync with the actions other presidents collectively have taken. make yourself a chart of eccentric or suspicious  trump presidential actions  then look backwards in time for the payoff to the trump campaign or the president’s companies.

    some of this is normal political activity in all administrations, but with the trump boys it was overt, obvious pay offs that included some peculiar characters, like russians or israelis or arab oil barons, and some presidential actions very harmful to some citizens or the nation as a whole.

    the first clue to how this naked payoff  game was to be played was the payoff to the coal barons in early 2018 involving changes in the clean air act. the payoff was camaflouged by public rhetoric about coal jobs. the coal boys donated $300k  to the inauguration, a cheap price to pay for future decades of lung and heart disease.

    the appointment of ajit pai to be chair of the fcc was another, with rulings favorable to industry giants soon following. i suspect the fcc agreement to let sinclair media gobble up a huge number of teevee stations nationwide, resulting in multi-station ownership in some markets, was one such payback.

    the movement of the u.s. embassy to jeruseleum may have been another, as may have been the verbal attack on qatar foolowed by a disruptive internecine quarrel.

    just look down thru any list of trump presidential actions, then look for a possible beneficiary, then go back in time and look for the initial payment that benefiary may have made.

    for example look backwards at trumps recent actions on drug prices, or his support of the nra, or his insistence on the tax bill, a non-negotiable demand of republican moneybags who said privately, “no tax ‘reform’, no money for the 2018 election contests”.

    as i said, this is the general format of american politics, nothing surprising about general nature of the payback activity.

    but with trump&co. the pay-to-play often results in presidential actions that are not only peculiar, blatant, and possibly illegal, but also as harmful and reckless to american health, present and future economic health, or standing in the world as any president has ever taken.

    just chart deviant presidential actions (like support for white supremacy) and  then look backwards for the payment; it’s there.

    • John Davidson says:

      The embassy part is pretty clear. Sheldon Adelson donated $5m to the inaugural fund and was reported to be the biggest single donor in the 2016 election.

    • pseudonymous in nc says:

      That feels slightly overdetermined. As Matt Yglesias said today, democratic states and publicly-accountable non-state actors have a hard time bribing or buttering up King Idiot. That’s why the Family Business has been palling around with authoritarian kleptocracies and regional oligarchs in dodgy corners of the world ever since it pissed off the banks and the mob in the mid-00s.

      tl;dr: you don’t need a list. It’s all crooked. It’s all about running the US like an emirate because that’s what they know.

      • orionATL says:

        psuedonymous in n.c. –

        you may be right. i like “overdetermined”, it’s a useful word (but not applied to my damned hypotheses :) )

        mostly, i think my idea is a sound one but clumsily written, with the time sequence of actions/gifts wobbling back and forth in my writing. i need to straighten that out and then it can be tested by trying to match trump’s presidential actions with the constant stream of information about whom he or his campaign/inaugural staffs interacted with and received money or in-kind help from.

        the idea is that, whatever the political p.r. from presidential spokesmen or supporters, many of president trump’s actions on regulation or legislation or foreign policy can be considered payoffs for support he received in his election campaign or inauguration. all politicians do this, but not all politicians give eccentric or damaging payoffs to their supporters e.g., the presidential attack on qatar, or the january, 2017 rescinding of critical parts of the clean air act. it’s the eccentric and damaging quality of this trump politician’s actions that make who supported him important to know.

        but first, it’s sunday morning, 10:30, and time for grits and eggs and thick bacon with rind for chewing :).

  9. orionATL says:

    eric prince, trump sec of education betsy devos’ brother and favorite bush admin private security honcho in iraq (remember them days?), sure shows up as intermediary in meetings involving trump&co.  what was going on?

    these multiple meetings cause me to wonder if trump was the patsy, the complete political novice, that some saavy group of power mongers honed in on.

    or was it that trump the deal maker, always willing to deal anything to anyone for any private personal or political gain regardless of consequences to the nation, made clear that he was open for political business ?

    • John Davidson says:

      Probably the latter. That’s pretty much how he thinks the world works anyway, everything is a transaction. Some places it does, just not here.

      I swear if Iran ever offered to buy the most arms and sell the cheapest oil then would start threatening Saudi Arabia with sanctions.

    • Sabrina says:

      Valid point and something I’ve often thought about myself. As this narrative began, the viewpoint seemed to have Trump as the nexus of it all. As time has gone on, it is becoming increasingly all-encompassing, involving many different countries and still counting. Though his abilities as a deal-maker *may* have worked with private companies (mostly because absolute confidence and bluster will cause almost anyone to back down- the innate desire to please others by acquiescing has served Trump well over the years), he has moved to a bigger playground. He initially appeared manipulated by Russia, and as pointed out here, increasingly by the UAE, Israel, SA, and goodness knows who else.

      I can’t seem to decide whether he has engineered any of this, though, or whether he was the complete patsy of almost every government who dangled money and possible Trump-branded real estate in front of him. The ramifications of these meetings are startlingly immense to think about; what he must have actually done once it all comes out is mind-boggling. The US will take decades to recover, though hopefully sooner rather than later. It would be nice to have our neighbor to the south be a bit more predictable and less inclined to taking a scorched-earth approach on diplomacy (plus not holding NAFTA hostage for bargaining leverage would be nice).

      Fantastic article, as is per usual on here. Thanks!

  10. Pete says:

    This may be a bit off topic here, but I hope bmaz will grant me some leeway – though I think it generally has relevance.

    It’s been said here and elsewhere that one could predict Tump’s behavior (temperment) based on his past – or words to that effect.

    What helps explain Mueller’s “temperment”?

    I did not know any of this, but if you want a peek into the mettle that is Robert Swan Mueller III, I think this is worth the time to read:

    My money is on the Swan.

  11. SteveB says:

    @bmaz 9:35pm
    @EW 3:51am

    Thanks for replies.
    While I appreciated that any publicly uttered falsehood could be used as evidence of acts or statements in furtherance of conspiracy to defraud, It occurred to me that there may be institutional and procedural hurdles for Mueller before he could charge perjury re lies to Congress: e.g. are there any referral requirements?

    • bmaz says:

      I have seen others refer to referral being necessary, but I find no basis for that being legally necessary under either statute of DOJ regulation. If such is there, I cannot find it.

      • Bob Conyers says:

        My recollection of past cases, which is fuzzy I will admit, is that the courts look for an affirmation from Congress that they feel any untruths were substantial enough to warrant charges being brought.

        Meaning that if Erik Prince flat out said to the House Intelligence Committee he’d never been to the Seychelles and had no idea what the UAE was – if Nunes and Ryan and company argue they don’t see a problem, courts tend to defer, even if the minority screams foul.

        I don’t think that is absolute, but it does raise the bar quite a bit.

        • bmaz says:

          It is not up to “courts”. At best, there is an informal comity given by DOJ not to pursue matters that Congress doesn’t request. There simply is NO statute, DOJ regulation or fixed protocol requiring this. None. And I have checked with others on this as well.

          Prosecutors decide who to charge and why, not courts. There is no reason in the world that Mueller/DOJ could not pursue Prince if they are so inclined. And there is NO reason one iota of comity ought be afforded the currently malignant and obstructionistic HPSCI. Don’t bite off on the need for a “referral”. It could be charged if they want to charge it.

        • bmaz says:

          Oh no, not at all. I had already had a reporter from the Washington Post tell me a referral was necessary on twitter (which then Maggie Haberman picked up on and bought). So I was already well into this. I had already been looking at the statutes and US Attys Manual, which was why I was pretty sure when I first responded here. I have now followed up even more, and there is just nothing there.

  12. Bay State Librul says:

    What happens if we learn that the entire RNC is in cahoots. Fucking Ryan is suspect.
    I suggest we hire Michael Avenatti in a class action suit (American Citizens vs Con Man) to reverse the election. We can negate the Supreme Court appointment.

    • orionATL says:

      i don’t know about the rnc “in cahoots”, though that’s not inconceivable. nor would it not surprise me to learn that some republican reps were helped by the russians.

      i am certain though that both speaker of the house ryan and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell understand that a clear verdict of guilty from mueller on some aspect(s) of the russian collusion question would cause long-lasting damage to the republican party. hence they have no intention of supporting mueller’s investigation (ryan) or protecting the office of special counsel from trump’s depredation (mcconell).

  13. SteveB says:

    @ bmaz 7:57

    Thanks again. With the Mueller investigation etc there are lots of discussions about the intersection of various institutional powers and perogatives, and lots of (sometimes nutty) assertions about what Mueller can or cannot do. The answer you have given comforts me that I haven’t missed some obvious point.

    I have no doubt that should Mueller charge eg Prince with perjury for his Congressional testimony there would be a GOP chorus complaining about an invasion of Congressional rights and perogatives in an effort to protect a fellow Trumpian. And there is little doubt that a similar hullaballoo would be raised regarding other use of such testimony to support other charges. It is handy to get a clear sense of what substance there might be beneath such noise.

    As ever thanks for all your efforts

    • SteveB says:

      For those at all interested in the arcana of referrals from Congress to initiate investigations prosecution of crimes against Congress there was a short but interesting analysis published by Congressional Research Service 26 July 2016, shortly after Comey’s testimoney to the House Oversight Committee.

      The answer appears to be (citing inter alia Comey’s testimony):


      “In practice and consistent with Dir. Comey statement at the hearing, the DOJ generally awaits a referral from the congressional committee before investigating an alleged violation or initiating a prosecution.


      While historical practice and comity dictate the desirability of such a referral the law does not appear to require it.”

      The pdf of the article https//

  14. M says:

    Here’s a question: Was the Trump campaign colluding or simply using the campaign and its attendant enhancement of the Trump brand as leverage to make deals? Donald (for what it’s worth) apparently claimed that he ran not to win but simply to enhance his brand. As in: He was in it only for the money. I will concede that being the great manager he isn’t, the message not to campaign to win, just come close, didn’t get adequately delivered downstream.

    Too, for all the reasons Hillary lost, the one primary fact is that she outpolled Donald and would have won in a democratic election.

  15. Willis Warren says:

    This makes a lot of sense.  It also explains why Nunes won’t look at the Russia intel.  He doesn’t want to know how guilty tRUmp is with Russia, he’s only being a lapdog to cover his ass on this.

    This explains a lot of Nunes’ behavior, actually.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Nunes may also want to create plausible deniability for claiming not to have knowledge of what’s in those materials.  He may have direct knowledge of what they report and might want to pretend carefully that he does not.

  16. SteveB says:

    @bmaz 11:54

    FWIW re referrals

    The CRS article I referred to earlier makes the specific point that despite 2 USC 192, 194 (compliance with congressional subpoenas) enacting referral procedures which purport to mandate that DOJ to bring a matter before a grand jury , the DOJ insists that prosecutorial discretion is theirs on separation of powers grounds.

    Consequently the point you made earlier about comity not applying when shameless collusive connivers abuse congressional hearings to promote a false narrative is a good one.

    In the ordinary case of congressional testimony, DOJ will defer to Congress, because what is at stake is Congress protecting the integrity of its own proceedings. However where the issue is one having a bearing upon an active counterintelligence and criminal investigation being conducted by SC and FBi under supervision of (acting)AG, then the integrity of congressional proceedings is but one aspect of the matter, and they are in a better position than Congress to assess the merits of prosecuting false statements whereever they have arisen.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      In the olden days, Congress used to do their job, and referrals would be logical.

      These days, with legislative capture, nolo comprendre.

  17. Soldalinsky says:

    I’m consistently amazed at the creative deviations taken here when formulating solutions to political issues. Even more amazing is the consistent inversion of cause and effect relationships. Everyone knows that there is a positive feedback loop between special interests and politicians, but I never see any bona fide attempts made to break the loop. We got here because Clinton was such a detested and corrupt candidate that a large number of Americans decided to vote for, arguably, the lesser of two evils. Pretty much everything Trump does is deplorable and critical mass could easily be reached by focusing on organizing and constructive opposition to issues that gravely affect ordinary Americans. Instead we have this NYT garbage plastered all over the television accomplishing nothing but division and distraction.

    Very few complained when Goldman Sachs financed Obama’s campaign or when he loaded up his cabinet with Goldman alumni, because the same interests that financed his campaign also control the media and painted him in a positive light. Now these same interests are attacking Trump and I’m supposed to believe that loose accusations in the NYT amount to collusion between Russia, SA, UAE, etc. ??? Collusion isn’t even a crime!! The whole article is a giant non sequitur. I’m sorry, I don’t necessarily like Trump, but it’s hard to swallow that he would risk everything for a few million laundered through a bunch of incompetent and disorganized subordinates. If Trump really wanted to to pedal influence, I’d like to assume that he would do it via some sort of construction quid pro quo outside of the country. Bags of cash or wire transfers to Cohen with sensational explicit agreements are absolutely comical. Take a look at how Biden pulled it for a good example:

    From the article below:

    The “vampire squid” raised more money for Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign than any other bank or Wall Street firm, over $1 million from Goldman employees, officers, etc. If the goal was to gain access to the White House, the plan seems to have been wildly successful. As McClatchy Newspapers noted in 2010:

    Several former Goldman executives hold senior positions in the Obama administration, including Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; Mark Patterson, a former Goldman lobbyist who is chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Robert Hormats, the undersecretary of state for economic, energy and agricultural affairs.

    • bmaz says:

      As Orion recently quoted me, Solalinsky, you are so full of shit your eyes are brown. You come in here and lay down a tired boatload of deranged, when not completely ignorant, screed. You have not served one legitimate purpose of this post, nor even a worthwhile “O/T”.

      Instead, you unloaded a pile of Clinton derangement crap disconnected from any current reality. Be gone.

    • Trip says:

      “I’m sorry, I don’t necessarily like Trump”

      But every time I’m here I kiss his ass and what-about everything. Funny, that.


    • J R in WV says:

      The only people using the word “collusion” are the Republicans, because they know that isn’t a crime. Everyone else, especially law enforcement, use the proper word, conspiracy to defraud the US.

      Also, raising funds for electoral campaigns, following the rules and law applicable, is not illegal. Taking funds or assistance from foreign interests is very illegal. I’ll stop now, as others inform us that you’re not an actual participant, but a Republican troll, which seems typical given your comment above.

  18. SpaceLifeForm says:

    What I believe is an important point that maybe some are overlooking with this news:

    It’s not just Russia as I have been saying for a long time.

    Russia is low on the totem pole money wise.

    Russia is not the main problem. Not even close.

  19. NorskieFlamethrower says:

    Just who is this “Soldalinsky” , he/she harshes my mello every time I am tryin’ to catch up with the truth here. His head is so far up his ass his breath must smell like a dirty diaper.

  20. TheraP says:

    The Metaphor for what Marcy is tracing as ConFraudUS looks to me like the “Sluice of Sleeze.” It’s as if the Trump (you can’t call it a campaign) Gold Diggers were utilizing every type of toxic chemical in an effort to find and refine “ore” – while calling it a “campaign.” (Or name your euphemism.)

    Marcy has a unique ability to spot and name all the toxic “chemicals” (used to manufacture the “gold”) being used upstream (past & present) because she can spot and separate them, one from another, downstream – where the sluice leads – toxifying, poisoning every aspect of our government, our land, our society, our future.

    The whole Fraud comes more and more into view. All the streams of excrement. All the devious “mining” that went into ‘manufacturing’ them – along with the toxicity used to spin fraudulent messages and voter behavior.

    It’s a disgusting and horrifying, malignant mixture running downstream. Its pollution cannot be reversed. The clean-up will take decades. If it’s at all possible.

    I can’t follow every nuance – as EW can. But using my metaphor I can “see” her – sorting through what’s coming down that sluice, identifying the toxic elements, tracing them back to the rivulets and streams they’ve been dumped in. And we’re all reaping the dreadful results. We. Our children. Our grandchildren. I pity them. I mourn all the young people and children who will inherit this.

    And I commend our INTREPID LEADER! And her loyal crew. Readers who post or just read and please, send donations.

    (And if you’re gonna Troll, at least contribute $$$ first! Trolling on a “free ride” is disgusting!)

  21. sonofnewo says:

    Meeting with foreign countries during a campaign or transition is not a crime.

    Unmasking american citizens for political purposes, however, is.

    • SpaceLifeForm says:

      Foreign money pouring into a US campaign is a crime too. Did you have a point to make?

Comments are closed.