The Still Unidentified “Big Guy[s]” in the Alexander Smirnov Saga

With a few weeks to work with, several outlets have done profiles of the shady financial life of Alexander Smirnov, the former FBI informant accused of framing Joe and Hunter Biden.

The AP examines a series of what it calls “duplicitous business schemes,” including a pump and dump scheme.

Even as Smirnov was being paid as a government informant, he participated in duplicitous business schemes, according to court records and interviews.

One example is his investment in an obscure penny-stock company called Eco-Trade Corp.

Such companies can yield a handsome return on a minimal investment. They are lightly regulated and often subject to financial scams and market manipulation.

In 2010, Smirnov purchased a stake in Eco-Trade valued at roughly $3 million as the company was on the verge of launching an advertising blitz that dramatically inflated its value. A crash three years later saddled investors with losses.

WSJ focuses on schemes with closer proximity to Donald Trump — or more importantly, Rudy Giuliani. Of note, WSJ describes several occasions that Smirnov pitched Sam Kislin, a fellow Ukrainian, who has long-standing ties to Rudy and Trump.

Around 2021, on the beach at a private club in Boca Raton, Smirnov pitched Kislin on founding a company together that would market electric-car batteries and capture federal subsidies, Kislin said.

Smirnov told him he also could use his FBI ties to help him unfreeze more than $21 million in infrastructure bonds that belonged to Kislin but which Ukrainian authorities deemed had been issued illegally, embroiling Kislin in a corruption probe, Kislin said.

Kislin had for years been seeking to unfreeze the funds, traveling to Ukraine and meeting with officials there. His travel there coincided with efforts by Giuliani and his associates to push the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden, and in 2019, Kislin was subpoenaed by House impeachment investigators who were looking into those efforts. Kislin’s lawyer said he didn’t have relevant information, and he didn’t ultimately testify.

Smirnov set his fee for recovering Kislin’s $21 million at $1 million, according to Kislin, who said he paid Smirnov $224,000—partially as an advance and partially as an investment in the car-battery company, incorporated in Nevada in May 2021 as Quantum Force.

After a little over a year, Quantum Force dissolved and registered by the same name in a different state—this time without Smirnov listed in the corporate records.

When a solution to Kislin’s problem in Ukraine failed to materialize, Kislin said he deduced that Smirnov had taken him for a ride.

And while WSJ notes that Smirnov was repeatedly admonished that he might have to testify at trial, neither story notes he was admonished at least five times that the “Otherwise Illegal Activity” that he engaged in to stay close to subjects of interest to the FBI could not include obstruction.

In addition, when the Defendant was authorized to engage in illegal activity for investigative purposes, he was further admonished that: “Under no circumstances may the CHS … Participate in an act that constitutes obstruction of justice (e.g., perjury, witness tampering, witness intimidation, entrapment, or fabrication, alteration, or destruction of evidence, unless such illegal activity has been authorized).” When the Defendant was given this admonishment, he signed an FBI form that contained this statement, including on 10/8/2014, 1/18/2017, 10/8/2018, 1/10/2019, and 8/7/2020.

These sketchy business schemes were presumably the point — they were the reason Smirnov was useful to the FBI, because they provided the FBI access to learn about suspected crooks of more interest.

But his larger network is of interest for two other reasons.

First, because Scott Brady’s explanation for how he came upon Smirnov’s 2017 FD-1023 mentioning Hunter Biden — first telling Republicans he simply searched on Hunter Biden and Burisma, then telling Democrats something much more squishy — is garbage. There is nothing about the mention of Hunter in a 2017 FD-1023 claimed as that link that should have led Brady to look further.

During this call, there was a brief, non-relevant discussion about [Public Official 1]’s son, [Businessperson 1], who is currently on the Board of Directors for Burisma Holdings [No Further Information].

One possible link is that the process of (per Chuck Grassley) shutting down an investigation into Mykola Zlochevsky created the possibility of a derogatory conversation in 2019, which Smirnov claimed in 2020 but disclaimed in an FBI interview last September.

But another is that someone knew that, if asked, Smirnov would be willing to fabricate bribery allegations on demand. That someone would presumably need to know both that Smirnov was an FBI informant and that he had met with Zlochevsky in the past, even if not in a period that was convenient for a story about Joe Biden’s imagined corruption.

In Jerry Nadler’s referral of Scott Brady to DOJ Inspector General for misleading the Committee, he included an email from someone — he describes it as one of the investigators — telling the lead AUSA on the project that, two days after his interview with Brady, Rudy was in Florida, speaking “to the original source [redacted].”

There are plenty of Ukrainians in Florida from whom Rudy might have been digging dirt (Smirnov’s cousin, for example, lives there and has ties to Trump world). If such sources also had reason to know about Smirnov’s work with the FBI, they might provide guidance to look for the innocuous 2017 informant report as a pretext to set up an interview with Smirnov.

But by description, Smirnov was trading on his ties to the FBI, so plenty of people might have been able to offer his name as a worthwhile source.

There’s one other reason Smirnov’s network is of some interest.

In the allegedly fraudulent FD-1023, Smirnov used a line that would become famous months later when Tony Bobulinski would pitch it: Big Guy.

CHS mentioned Zlochevsky might have difficulty explaining suspicious wire transfers that may evidence any (Illicit) payments to the Bidens. Zlochevsky responded he did not send any funds directly to the “Big Guy” (which CHS understood was a reference to Joe Biden). CHS asked Zloehevsky how many companies/bank accounts Zlochevsky controls; Zlochevsky responded it would take them (Investigators) 10 years to find the records (i.e. illicit payments to Joe Biden). CHS told Zlochevsky if he ever needed help in the future and wanted to speak to somebody in the US government about that matter, that CHS could Introduce him to someone. [my emphasis]

While it’s true that some of Hunter Biden’s associates would recognize (and dispute) the use of the term by others, Hunter told Congress he doesn’t use the term.

Q One final question, because our round is up, I know everyone’s disappointed by that.

But the reference to the big guy, you would agree, is a reference to your father?

A I truly don’t know what the hell that James was talking about. All I know is that what actually happened.

[snip]

Mr. Raskin. Just, on the question of nicknames, I have not seen your father referred to as the big guy anywhere else in this record. Was that his nickname in your family, the big guy?

The Witness. No.

Mr. Raskin. Did you ever call him the big guy?

The Witness. No, I never called him that.

Hunter occasionally used “my guy” to refer to his father. Not The Big Guy.

When Smirnov’s FD-1023 was released last summer, the frothy right took this reference to the “Big Guy” not just that this allegation of corruption was true, but that Tony Bobulinski’s was too.

So it remains a fairly important question why — months before Tony Bobulinski went public with the “Big Guy” email, but months after he (described that he) started considering doing so, at a time Bobulinski was trying to navigate how to come forward, as he was being referred to a former Trump lawyer by someone whose identity he has protected jealously — why Smirnov would use the line that would become famous after Bobulinski made it public.

Smirnov’s shady financial ties are to be expected: that’s why he was useful to the FBI and some of those shady deals likely were negotiated with the FBI’s permission. What’s more interesting is whether any of those shady financial ties would explain why Smirnov told the specific story he did.

Update: I forgot, when I did this post, that I had already put the dates of Smirnov’s admonishments into a table.

image_print
84 replies
  1. EW Moderation Team says:

    A reminder to all new and existing community members participating in comments:

    — We have been moving to a new minimum standard to support community security over the last year. Usernames should be unique and a minimum of 8 letters.

    — We do not require a valid, working email, but you must use the same email address each time you publish a comment here. **Single use disposable email addresses do not meet this standard.**

    — If you have been commenting here but have less than 1000 comments published and been participating less than 10 years as of October 2022, you must update your username to match the new standard.

    Thank you.

  2. Discontinued Barbie says:

    Quick note: I think the word “difficulty” above has an extra OJ in it. “diffiOJlty”

    Thank for this reporting. So if I read correctly. It is very possible that he was led by Rudy et al. to say this specific lie. Do you think it would be a situation like, “Say these things…” or more like, “We’re really interested in hearing about these things, if you come across these topics *wink, wink* then we want to know about them.”

    • emptywheel says:

      TY.

      It’s still unclear what it is. In the NV detention hearing, Leo Wise mentioned Rudy (who is not mentioned in the indictment). The indictment implies that Smirnov was part of Andrii Derkach’s information operation. And that may be who scripted this story.

      But the question remains: How did Brady come to look into Smirnov. That question is as important as who scripted the story.

      • Fancy Chicken says:

        Yes!

        That is the question. And I have no doubt you will know the answer before any other journalist.

        My second question though, in which you corrected the wonky timeline that WAPO published, is who, if anyone, warned off Lesley Wolff from following up on Smirnov’s account.

        I think when those two questions are answered that we’ll begin to have the broad contours of the anti democracy faction within the Justice Department and the law & order faction. And hopefully house cleaning will commence.

        Thank you for your work, and your corrections, as always.

  3. freebird says:

    Since I worked in finance and corporate lending I find the Smirnov saga befuddling. After the financial crash of 2008 and the Dodd-Frank law, special emphasis was given to “know your customer” and credit analysis. A personal financial statement would have required the provenance and confirmation of every line on the statement. Tax returns, credit bureaus, brokerage statements and real estate records would have been searched for omissions and discrepancies.

    This episode is especially bewildering because I know FBI agents and AUSA who worked on financial frauds and Smirnov would have been on their radar. The most junior officer could have told you where Smirnov’s money came from, so, frankly this was willful ignorance or extreme incompetence. This is like when that agent in Boston passed on FBI informant and mobster Whitey Bulger’s crimes because they were childhood friends. Bulger continually gave them useless information and he still got paid.

    • emptywheel says:

      That’s my point about the OIA — the otherwise illegal activities. FBI told him, on at least 5 occasions, “sure, you can carry out a fraud with XX, bc we’re pretty interested in the people you’re meeting as a result. But you have to promise never to lie to us about that fraud.”

      • harpie says:

        I wonder if the dates on which Smirnov was reminded of this have any significance that we can determine.

        When the Defendant was given this admonishment, he signed an FBI form that contained this statement, including on 10/8/2014, 1/18/2017, 10/8/2018, 1/10/2019, and 8/7/2020.

        • Shadowalker says:

          Without knowing more, I would surmise those are the dates they have evidence that he was less than truthful.

          Or those could be dates of his past interviews.

        • emptywheel says:

          Nonono.

          Those are the dates in advance of Smirnov doing something illegal when the FBI says, okay, you can do that illegal thing but you have to report back honestly.

          There are also dates for the admonitions tied to telling the truth and possibility of testifying.

        • Shadowalker says:

          I would think that’s standard for any interviews (especially lying to them) which precludes any defensive argument that defendant wasn’t aware. We also don’t know what parts of the criminal code he was given the green light to break. It could be as simple as conspiracy, perhaps even fraud. The latter may cause problems for any cases he was used on.

        • emptywheel says:

          There are three admonishments described in the indictment. Don’t lie (the most general), don’t obstruct justice (tied to OIA), and be prepared to testify (presumbly re criminal matters?).

          So the lie admonishment comes every time. The OIA one is more specific.

        • Shadowalker says:

          It may be nothing, but he wasn’t admonished/reminded of the OIA on the last interview, September 27, 2023. Only “don’t lie to us”.

        • Error Prone says:

          Who besides Smirnov and the handler know for a fact what admonishments were given when?

        • Molly Pitcher says:

          I find the span of time between the first and second dates interesting. 10/8/2014 and 1/18.2017. What was he doing in the in-between years ?

      • freebird says:

        My neighbor was an agent who told me that certain FBI agents had a strong conservative ideological bent coupled with ambition. He thought that they were cowboys trying to make a name for themselves and they gave the agency a bad name.

        In one case, which I won’t mention, the AUSA, skirted FBI agents and used local law enforcement because of the leaks that were tipping off the targets.

        • Sussex Trafalgar says:

          You are correct and that has been a problem since Hoover and the FBI were first created.

          In January 1964, my father was in Dallas, TX to meet with Captain Will Fritz of the Dallas Police Department. During one of their meetings, Fritz told him that every time his police officers were interrogating Oswald about the JFK assassination, the FBI agents present during the interrogations were instructed by Hoover to terminate the interrogation just as Oswald was starting to open up and describe in detail his actions and the actions of others.

          By November 1963, it was well known in law enforcement circles that Meyer Lansky was blackmailing Hoover himself, hence the reason Hoover always stated publicly there was no Mafia.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Hoover himself was an infamous blackmailer, so that would be ironic. Among the small number of people with the power to do it, though, it was probably not hard to find evidence with which to blackmail Hoover, or to keep him open to persuasion with advance comforts.

          He and Clyde Tolson used to spend summers in La Jolla, where he frequented the Del Mar racetrack. It may be redundant to say it, but at the time, it was a heavily mobbed up track. He rarely lost, and never paid a bill at his hotel in La Jolla.

        • OneFineMonster says:

          There is a thick and steady continuum between the events that Marcy has so carefully laid out and the activities of the FBI against the civil rights movement.

          It’s painful for me to write this, but there’s a certain poetic disillusionment that I find a lot of white Americans experiencing now. Sort of “What!? The institution is almost wholly toxic and compromised and extrajudicial and undemocratic!?”

          Well… yeah. Welcome to institutional injustice. Sucks, doesn’t it?

          The chickens have come home to roost. Indeed.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      Probably a naive question, freebird, but wouldn’t the analogous FBI agents and AUSAs in Smirnov’s case have been read in on as his CHS status? Especially as it seems he was blabbing it to everyone he saw the potential to grift, as EW’s post suggests. Could this be the case where all the feds knew that the game was to green light the financial shenanigans on account of Smirnov’s insidery identity?

      Did you ever encounter a situation like this one, where you flagged such misbehavior but were told to stand down because it was part of a counter-intelligence op?

      • freebird says:

        I was told to stand down four times. The first time I got burned badly and I absorbed all the blame. The next three times I threatened to quit so the deals weren’t made. Some other entity did one of deals, which collapsed, and I got called as a witness.

        Your question is not naïve. Brady definitely knew and those agents gossip.

        • Error Prone says:

          Smirnov did not write the 1023s. The handler did. So far nothing is public about the handler being asked about, what about this, what about that, in the thing you wrote, what did you two discuss in regular conversations?

          In particular Brady must have not cared. Like, “Big Guy, wtf does that mean,” seems a question.

          Strange. Freebird – Does your experience suggest anything about that – insulation so far of the handler? So far, up to the public step of filing an indictment. Behind closed doors?

        • Error Prone says:

          I noticed in Marcy’s quote the paranthetical. There is a lot unsaid there. It is a wonder how Brady in good faith would not have fleshed things out with the handler in detail before throwing it over Weiss’s transom.

        • freebird says:

          From my observations, depending on the importance of the source, the handler knows where the source is at all times which is why I am still gagging about Brady. The sources get code names, so when the call is made on the 1st tee the other players not in the bureau do not know who is being discussed. When the cases got serious we did not see the guys for weeks. Frankly, this why the arrest complaint said that Smirnov was still working with the Russians to influence the 2024 election. It is because they heard him or saw his texts. Plus, the handler got really close to Smirnov according to the complaint and the article in the LA Times.

          One smart-ass agent told the AUSA what a source had for dinner at a restaurant.

        • Shadowalker says:

          “ Smirnov did not write the 1023s. The handler did. So far nothing is public about the handler being asked about, what about this, what about that, in the thing you wrote, what did you two discuss in regular conversations? ”

          The handler was interviewed on August 29, 2023. He and Smirnov reviewed the 2020 1023 after Congress made it public, Smirnov indicated no errors and that it was accurate.

  4. BobBobCon says:

    One thing I’m struggling to follow is whether the made up narrative of a Joe Biden bribe was developed first and then there was an effort to manufacture a “source” who could be airdropped into the story?

    Or was it more likely they collected some good sounding fake sources first and then manufactured a fake scandal to fit a story one could tell?

    I assume in either case there would be some retrofitting of
    alleged crime and source story to get everything to match . But I’m not sure which came first – fake story or fake source?

    • emptywheel says:

      Good question. One post I have on my Ball of Thread series is to talk about how well RU IDed FBI informants and used their access or their obscurity to advance their operations. So this may be an example.

    • freebird says:

      When I took Russian history way back when, I learned about a “Potemkin Village” where a seemingly true but false story is believed by the gullible. The media and the Republicans were ready to accept the story of the bribes without direct proof.

      • FL Resister says:

        In the Trump era, corruption is often out in the open. The Republican jackals in the House who demanded Smirnov’s 1023 be released were told at the time that the document contained unverified allegations.

  5. DinnerAtAntoine’s says:

    Right wing bloggers noticed it a long time ago & regularly harped on it, which was the point. I guess the implication is whoever was aware of HB’s data & the messaging behind its dissemination was also having input into Smirnov’s tale.

  6. DinnerAtAntoine’s says:

    Also fyi & I’m sure you noticed this but the drumbeat on the 1023 began with Grassley in roughly September 2022. I think it’s clear someone on his staff drives his little gambits. I just think the whole ruse whereby the Go Fish game of ‘give me all your 1023’s’ or ‘I have a picture of a 1023 forming in my head’ as played on the Senate floor ties in with whoever planted the lie in the first place.

  7. Bay State Librul says:

    When is Smirnof’s trial scheduled to begin?
    I read somewhere that it will be within the next month or two.
    If so, why is it so speedy, speedy.

    • emptywheel says:

      It is currently set for April 23, but Weiss just filed a CIPA notice that will undoubtedly hold that up.

      • Sussex Trafalgar says:

        I’m eager to see how the CIPA arguments between Weiss and Judge Wright play out.

        I predict Weiss will delay this prosecution as long as he can so that Trump can terminate the case if he is elected.

        The CIPA part likely involves a couple of Putin’s oligarchs and Israel’s Intelligence Services and their relationships, notably Roman Abramovich.

        • Shadowalker says:

          It’s hard to say why SC “mr sawdust” Weiss is filing CIPA, it could be a number of reasons. It could be because he expects to use evidence requiring CIPA, or the defense may be given such evidence in discovery, or someone higher up the chain with a vested interest reminded him to.

      • ERROR PRONE says:

        Is it possible there might be further classified 1023 forms at issue, between Smirnov and the handler? Is that possible within what we know of FBI procedure? Might CIPA facts exist to influence Judge Wright’s willingness to bless a terse plea deal? Is it simply not worth guessing?

        [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You’ve published 145 comments to date as “Error Prone”; letter case and spacing matter. Please clear your browser cache and autofill, revert to your previous username as “ERROR PRONE” is a second username. /~Rayne]

  8. Savage Librarian says:

    Although I can’t remember where I saw this yesterday, I have the impression that Smirnov’s cousin, Linor Shefer, didn’t start working for the Dezers until 2022. And now I’m wondering if it was a kind of quid pro quo.

    It’s not earth shaking, but it is interesting that Neomi Dezertzov (aka Dezer), the wife of Michael Dezer, contributed to Rudy’s 2008 Presidential Campaign. So, Rudy may have ties to the Dezers independent of Trump’s ties to them.

    The “Big Guy” reference was made about Trump during the 1st impeachment. Sondland mentioned it during his testimony. But others used it as well. So, maybe it’s a common expression in certain social circles. Or, it could be one of Trump’s “back atcha” maneuvers that he habitually enacts. Could be he spurred someone to incorporate this terminology into an attack on Biden.

    • Shadowalker says:

      It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Trump himself was referred to as “the chairman”. That confused me when they were claiming at one point Biden was the “big guy” then in another instance “the chairman”. Then again, consistency doesn’t seem to be a dominant trait with them.

      • earlofhuntingdon says:

        Trump as the “chairman” is a laugh. It’s most likely a reference to a nickname for Frank Sinatra, and has undertones of his mob connections.

        • Shadowalker says:

          Well he did spend many years on a reality tv show playing that part. He also seems to enjoy stroking his ego when someone refers to him with such honorifics. Just this past weekend he mentioned how much he liked the Taliban leader because he once addressed him as “Your Majesty”.

    • harpie says:

      I didn’t remember that about Sondland’s testimony!

      A friend of Cassidy Hutchinson’s is quoted using the phrase in this NYT article:

      Cassidy Hutchinson: Why the Jan. 6 Committee Rushed Her Testimony Sequestered with family and security, Ms. Hutchinson, 26, has in the process developed an unlikely bond with Representative Liz Cheney, the panel’s vice chairwoman.

      [snip]
      Over the next months, Ms. Hutchinson warmed to the idea of helping the committee’s investigation, according to a friend, but she did not detect the same willingness in Mr. Passantino.

      “She realized she couldn’t call her attorney to say, ‘Hey, I’ve got more information,’” said the friend, who requested anonymity. “He was there to insulate the big guy.”

      Mr. Passantino declined to comment. […]

      Marcy quoted that bit here:

      Cassidy Hutchinson is a Superb Witness – – To Get Other Witnesses Against Trump https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/07/12/cassidy-hutchinson-is-a-superb-witness-to-get-other-witnesses-against-trump/ 7/12/22

    • zscoreUSA says:

      Here is a timeline of the phrase “the Big Guy” in Biden-Ukraine politics, up until the public learned of the Bobulinski/Gilliar email:

      5/13/17: Gilliar emails Vekselberg associate Bobulinski, Rob Walker, and Hunter iCloud structure of joint venture with CEFC, “10 held by H for the big guy?”

      12/6/18: After attending White House Hanukkah party, Parnas tells associates “the big guy” tasked him on a “secret mission” to get Ukraine to investigate Biden & Hunter, referring to Trump

      2019 after “recent news reports about the investigations in to the Bidens and Bursima”: CHS meets with Ostapenko in London at Russian Coffee House, who calls Zlochevesky, discuses his bribe of the “Big Guy” referring to Biden

      11/15/19: Vicky Ward reports exclusive with CNN, after White House Hanukkah party Parnas using “the big guy” to refer to Trump
      https://web.archive.org/web/20191116030141/https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/parnas-trump-special-mission-ukraine/index.html

      2/4/20: Rudy interviewed (released 2/9/20) by associate Bo Dietl, mentions “big guy” referring to Zlochevsky, as in Joe had Petroshenko fire Shokin cuz “the big guy who owned the company bribed you back in 2014”.
      https://castbox.fm/episode/Episode-82–Rudy-Giuliani-id2747661-id249097295?country=us

      6/26/20: Smirnov claims to FBI that in a 2019 call with Zlochevsky, Zlochevsky used hid bribes to “Big Guy” referring to Biden
      https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fd_1023_obtained_by_senator_grassley_-_biden.pdf

      10/15/20: NY Post prints the Giliar email to Bobulinski
      https://web.archive.org/web/20201015101056/https://nypost.com/2020/10/15/emails-reveal-how-hunter-biden-tried-to-cash-in-big-with-chinese-firm/

      [Moderator’s note: I removed top sentence re 2nd try before freeing from mod bin. The multiple links may have tripped the algorithm. /~Rayne]

  9. RipNoLonger says:

    Just wanted to give the definition of ‘CHS’ – Confidential Human Source. I have a spreadsheet with around 500 acronyms and references. It keeps on growing…

    • pdaly says:

      Yes, but from my firedoglake days, seeing ‘CHS’ always makes me think of contributor “Christy Hardin Smith.”
      Hello, Christy!

  10. Tarrforme says:

    I don’t know who the Smirnov “Big Guy” is, but there is no doubt, that the “Big Guy” in Mr. Gilliar’s e-mail to Hunter et al, is Joe. I’m not saying it means anything either, just stating that writer of that e-mail was referring to H’s dad.

  11. OmegaMan says:

    So if there are other “big guys” that did illegal crap with Smirnov, what is the SOL on these crimes and will anyone ever be prosecuted for funneling Russian disinformation to the FBI and DOJ? Thank you all and Marcy

  12. bmaz says:

    There was a time when Caitlin Clark shattering all time basketball records, mens and womens, would have meant something on this blog. But not during the imperious reign of Rayne.

    • Rayne says:

      Focus on the topic of this thread which is “The Still Unidentified “Big Guy[s]L in the Alexander Smirnov Saga” or leave the thread.

      • bmaz says:

        Too much of a coward to let my last response though? At least people will know who and what you are.

        [Moderator’s note: you are spamming this thread with off-topic content. I am treating your off-topic comments attacking moderation just as I would other off-topic comments attacking moderation which also ignore moderator requests to stay on topic. That’s me, a moderator, doing moderation, and at least people see me doing moderation. /~R]

      • Norskieflamethrower says:

        Rayne, please tell me why bmaz is allowed to trash you in ways no other commenter is allowed to trash anyone here?

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          You do like to throw kerosene on the fire. If you want to put the fire out, let Rayne and bmaz deal with this.

        • Rayne says:

          Norskie, you’ve been here a long time. You know commenters who’ve earned some cred over the life of this blog have earned more leeway. In bmaz’s case he’s been here the longest next to the proprietor herself.

          But I do have my limits, and the site needs some boundaries or it won’t accomplish what Dr. Wheeler’s aims.

          Speaking of boundaries, I need you to focus on the topic of this thread. Thanks.

        • Norskieflamethrower says:

          Sorry Rayne but I asked the question only because waiting long enough for him to make a parody of himself before setting those boundaries will be too late.

          [Moderator’s note: I’m going to delete any further off-topic comments which appear in this thread. That goes for all other commenters like Bay State Librul. /~Rayne]

  13. zscoreUSA says:

    One more try, other comments I posted about “big guy” timeline likely went to spam. Just going to include this one from Rudy now.

    2/4/20: Rudy interviewed about Ukraine by associate Bo Dietl, mentions “big guy” referring to Zlochevsky, as in Joe had Petroshenko fire Shokin because “the big guy who owned the company bribed you back in 2014”
    (Source: One Tough Podcast with Bo Dietl, Episode 82- Rudy Giuliani)

  14. harpie says:

    o/t SCOTUS TODAY
    Heather Cox Richardson, today:
    https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/march-3-2024

    […] This evening the U.S. Supreme Court indicated it will issue an opinion tomorrow. Marc Elias of Democracy Docket commented that it is “[v]ery likely the case involving Donald Trump’s disqualification under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.” [link at bottom of the post]

Comments are closed.