SethAbramson reminds us of the Zembla (Dutch) documentary about a Deutsche Bank whistleblower...

[triron]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[H2O Man]

1. Recommended.

[tblue37]

2. K&R for visibility. nt

[Hoyt]

3. Abramson trying hard to break big story, but covering his ass with "may seem too wild to be true."

Would love for this to be true, but when Abramson gets involved, I start doubting accuracy.

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. Why?

I admit I've read much of his stuff, but not everything. What I have seen seems to pan out over time. What has he gotten wrong?

I'm not being snarky, I'm seriously interested in separating wheat from chaff on all information and anyone reporting on it. What is it about Abramson that makes you skeptical? (Saying this has a huge fan of skepticism!)

[triron]

6. Yes I know what you mean. It's curious.

[Hoyt]

16. See response below # 15. Maybe you can come up with some proven evidence Abramson broke.

Need more, just saw this on another thread:

Link to tweet

[Maggiemayhem]

14. Can you give me an example of his inaccuracies?

[Hoyt]

15. Well he said Epstein didn't commit suicide. He said Epstein tried to commit suicide

when he was first incarcerated, but turns out he was likely assaulted or gave himself a minor scratch in an attempt to get bond.

He was a big supporter of Mueller, claiming Mueller was as going to find evidence of collusion, conspiracy, cooperation, whatever you want to call it. But Mueller let everyone off the hook for that.

He was still trying to push the idea that trump Junior called daddy after the trump tower meeting, long after that was debunked.

I’d love for trump to go down, but Abramson won’t get us there. He’s making his living blogging conspiracy junk, from “people close to source” that doesn’t pan out. Sorry, I don’t trust folks who blog stuff we want to believe that is little more than speculation.

Maybe you can come up with some proven evidence Abramson broke.

[dawg day]

17. I don't think he's inaccurate, rather that Trump gets away with this stuff

Always. We KNOW that Jared got his 666 building bailed out by Qatar and this was probably an attempt to get Trump and Jared to prevail upon the Saudis to lift a blockade.
But nothing ever happened. Jared got away with what is probably extremely well-paying bribery/extortion.

My point is just that Trump et al have done so many criminal things and gotten away with it-- that we KNOW-- that we can't say, "Well, nothing came of that, so it was probably just a conspiracy theory."

This actually isn't "too wild to be true" in my view. It would explain a few important puzzles-- why Deutsche Bank continued to lend Trump money, why Eric and Donnie Jr said their money comes from Russia, and why Trump refuses to part with almost any financial information.

That doesn't mean it's true-- there could be other explanations than oligarchs guaranteeing his loans. But this isn't a "wild" theory. It's plausible. Trump has sold real estate to oligarchs repeatedly, sometimes at vastly inflated prices. Deutsche Bank has long been known to be laundering money for Russian oligarchs. The Trump loan was signed off by DB division chief Justin Kennedy, aka son of Justice Kennedy, who retired just in time to get Brett Kavanaugh nominated by Trump.

And while Trump wouldn't cavil at lying anyway, this would have allowed him to say he had no loans "with Russia" (as he said), because while the oligarchs are minions of Putin, they aren't necessarily part of the Russian government.

[Hoyt]

18. Well, apparently O'Donnel is going to apologize for stuff Abramson ran with today.

Link to tweet

I agree, much of what Abramson says is plausible. But plausible, especially when the best one can do is cite undisclosed sources close to the matter as evidence, is all but worthless, unless one wants to help trump with his "witch hunt" bull.

[leftieNanner]

4. I read the whole thread

But the last one, #11, is stunning to me. Kushner is in very deep shit. Between the Russians and the Saudis, he is seriously compromised. What was that bit about his security clearance?

Man, but we are in trouble!

[triron]

7. Why do you say 'we are in trouble'?

[leftieNanner]

9. Because Jared has had access to some hairy stuff

Deeply secret stuff. And he has been "sharing" with his buddy MBS, and probably others.

Oh, Jared is probably in trouble too.

[B Stieg]

8. And The Deripaska Follies Continue...nt

[volstork]

10. Here's what I fear:

14/ I understand some have become cynical, and believe Republicans would not take action against a president *currently financially indebted to the Kremlin* who *lied about that to get elected* and *has secretly been susceptible to blackmail for years*.

Read that several times.
36 replies 434 retweets 1,583 likes
Reply 36 Retweet 434 Like 1.6K

Seth Abramson
‏
Verified account

@SethAbramson
3h3 hours ago
More
15/ There are certain things which—*if* fully documented with *material evidence* of *unimpeachable authenticity*—simply can't be ignored by a member of Congress. This is one of them. And that's why this story will develop far more *slowly* than many of us would like to see. /end
43 replies 289 retweets 1,429 likes



I'm afraid there are too many republicans in Congress who are ALSO currently financially indebted to the Kremlin, and it is in their best interests to sweep this all under the rug.


PS-- sorry for inability to copy Twitter thread.

[uponit7771]

13. +1

[hurple]

11. Is there a threadroll?

Link?

[gordianot]

12. Two questions?

1. How long has this decades old revelation been suspected or generally known?

2. What other Russian horrors are out there waiting not disclosed?

[triron]

19. knr

[smirkymonkey]

20. K&R