Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tommy Carcetti

Tommy Carcetti's Journal
Tommy Carcetti's Journal
November 27, 2017

So it looks like the Konstantin Rykov story has finally begun to get some major traction.

Preface: The purpose of this post is not to toot my own horn....all of this information is public knowledge and the people reporting on it now could have gathered it from any number of sources. However, I will say it does feel damn good to see this story beginning to see the light of day for everyone to see, and we can only hope more sources look into it and pick it up if it seems to be bonafide.

Back in July, I stumbled across the Facebook page of Konstantin Rykov, a former member of the Russian Duma for Putin's United Russia party and an individual who has been nicknamed "Putin's Trollmaster" for his online activity to the benefit of the Russian government. Rykov had received some press for throwing celebratory parties for Russian Trump supporters on both Election Day and Inauguration Day. Curious, I looked into his postings around the time of Trump's election.

What I found absolutely floored me. I had to do a double take.

On November 12, 2016, just days after the election, Rykov posted what could only be described as a boastful confession, where he claimed he had been working to get Trump elected as President since 2012 (after he claims Trump supposedly sent him a picture on Election Day 2012, a picture that he did manage to post to his Instagram feed). Rykov claims he started a campaign where he used Cambridge Analytica and Wikileaks to target potential voters in the US and bombard them with pro-Trump information. And in fact, he did launch a Russian pro-Trump website in the summer of 2015 just weeks after Trump officially announced his candidacy.

Here's what I posted to DU right after I found Rykov's posts:


Curious, I continued to look into some of Rykov's associates, and found some interesting material on a Russian oligarch named Artem Klyushin, who had partied with Trump during the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. Here are my posts on those:



My postings received some attention internally at DU, but not a whole lot further seemed to come about it beyond here. I did manage to briefly communicate with a very reputable and knowledgeable individual on the matter, but the story was pretty much dormant for the next four months.

However, over the past week, Rykov's story has seemingly exploded.

Seth Abramson--who has been posting some great work about Trump's Russian connections on Twitter (albeit not the best format for long postings, but I'll give him a pass)--has been on the Trump-Rykov-Klyushin story like white on rice lately. He even gives DU a shout out here:


In turn, the Rykov story has been reported on by several online publications:



Several other Twitter accounts have also reported on the story and tweets featuring both Rykov and Trump's names have skyrocketed over the holiday weekend.

And while Rykov's alleged confession isn't explicitly mentioned, Rykov's name is discussed in a recent story from The Atlantic regarding Russian money in internet technology.

It may only be a matter of time before some of the major networks and newspapers start taking a deeper look into Konstantin Rykov and associates.

November 21, 2017

Juanita Broaddrick is a hypocrite, shameful opportunist and nothing but a shady partisan hack.


You are under no obligation to believe her claims against Bill Clinton simply because of the news other more current allegations of sexual harassment and assault against notable figures. There's nothing that requires you to believe her, and certainly not some misguided sense of guilt that you think now you should have taken her seriously.

Nothing about her seems to cry like someone who should be taken seriously.

Feel free to check out her Twitter page and tell me whether she comes off as someone who is a credible yet silenced victim of abuse, or alternately, someone with a blatant and unabashed political agenda.


First, her profile picture is her with Sean Hannity. So there's that.

But much, much worse is her cover photo. It shows her--along with three other women--sitting right next to Donald Trump. The picture was taken at a press conference right before the second debate and right after the Access Hollywood tape had come out. You know, the tape where Donald Trump bragged about kissing women against their consent and wanting to "grab them by the pussy"?

Seriously......if you are the legitimate victim of sexual assault by a high profile individual, a blatantly transparent photo op next to Donald Trump right after the Access Hollywood tapes became public would be the very last thing you would want to do.

If you continue to read her Twitter feed, you'll see her go off on what could best be described as generic right wing rants that have nothing to do with the Clintons or allegations of sexual assault. She attacks Jim Comey, Congresswoman Fredericka Wilson, Joe Biden, Michelle Obama's fashion, goes on rants about immigration, posts Ben Garrison cartoons, communicates with "Doctor" Sebastian Gorka, and posts lots and lots and lots of heaping praise on Donald "Grab them by the pussy" Trump.

Also interesting is her especially pointed attacks against Megyn Kelly, even after Kelly had come out and alleged she was the victim of sexual harassment at Fox News. For example:


Now, say whatever you will about Megyn Kelly, positive, negative or (in my case) completely neutral. But again, why would someone who claims to be the victim of sexual assault go off so heavily on someone else who claimed to be the victim of unwanted sexual advances apparently because she didn't jibe with your political candidate of choice?

Perhaps all of this could better be excused as bitter vigilantism by a silenced abuse victim, but only if Broadrrick's story was more substantiated and believable from the get-go. The fact that two of the people Broaddrick claims supported her story happened to be friends of hers with a long standing decades long beef against Bill Clinton for commuting a death sentence against their father's killer is notable. The fact that Broadderick denied being assaulted under oath is even more notable.

But that Ken Starr--who would have given his left nut to destroy Bill Clinton if he could--couldn't find Broaddrick credible enough to use during his unbridled special counsel investigation, speaks vast volumes as to why I should be hesitant to believe Juannita Broaddrick.

Listen, even though I'll honestly admit that yes, I am a fan of Bill Clinton, the guy is far from perfect, both politically and personally. We all know through the Monica story (and before that, Gennifer Flowers) he seemed to have a weakness when it came to women, although those stories represented completely 100% consensual relationships with adults. That all said, given the headlines today, is it absolutely out of the realm of possibility that he had acted inappropriately at some point in the past? Certainly not. And that's not just directed towards Bill Clinton, but to literally everyone and anyone. Tom Hanks. Barack Obama. The Dalai Freaking Lama. There are no sacred cows out there. Just ask Bill Cosby, who most of us loved and adored until about a few years ago.

But no, I have a hard time specifically believing Juanita Broaddrick, and you shouldn't fall victim into the trap that we now have to believe her because the times somehow require that we do.

Nor should anyone feel guilty or embarrassed or ashamed if they say they don't believe Juanita Broaddrick.

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Jul 10, 2007, 03:49 PM
Number of posts: 43,358
Latest Discussions»Tommy Carcetti's Journal