The enablers of popular vote loser Donald Trump that currently make up most of the Republican House and Senate have been claiming for some time now that Trump’s finances are off the table in the ongoing investigations into his role in Russian interference and possible (even likely) obstruction of justice that may eventually be brought against him.
So why are they protecting him? It seems increasingly likely that Trump’s finances are where the proof of his “alleged” crimes lie. Maybe they’re afraid of what we’ll find in those records that might also implicate themselves? Who knows at this point.
Seth Abramson explains via Twitter how important Trump’s money trails are for the investigations:
2/ D.C. Republicans see—better than any of us—that Trump will be caught as soon as his finances are pored over and Russian money laundering detected. So—for no valid investigative reason whatsoever—they foreclose that theory of the case, and every lead they get, to protect Trump.
3/ To say Republicans in Congress are “drawing the line at Trump’s finances” in a case that is, finally, *all about Trump’s finances* is simply to say that there *is* no Congressional Trump-Russia investigation. And that’s what we should be saying: this is a sham investigation.
4/ This is what the GOP is saying, by way of analogy: “The allegation here is homicide—but we’re not interested in any evidence the defendant killed anybody.”
*All* extant Trump-Russia evidence points to illicit payments—thus, money laundering—in exchange for sanctions relief.
5/ Here’s the insidious part: illicit business deals and money laundering in exchange for sanctions relief, as presumptively discoverable in Trump’s finances, *is* the “theory of the case” —and it has been from Day 1.
There is no *other* theory. So what’s the GOP investigating?
6/ Kudos to Trey Gowdy for *nakedly* acknowledging there’s no Congressional probe: (a) he told reporters *Mueller* was investigating the money laundering angle, thereby acknowledging it *is* critical to the theory of the case, and said (b) Congress thus didn’t need to look at it.
7/ And with all respect to Adam Schiff, it can by no means be claimed that Congress is looking at the “salacious” claims in the Steele Dossier (the “kompromat” angle) instead.
I know that because *I’ve* done a better probe of that issue—right here on the feed—than Congress has.
8/ There’s no evidence Congress talked to Kata Sarka, or Paul Wood (BBC)—or the CIA contacts Wood spoke to who confirmed kompromat exists—or the allied intel agencies who say so, or the Trump Org employee who spoke to Mueller about the Ritz Moscow, or the Ritz Moscow witnesses…
9/ …referenced by the BBC, or Chris Steele (who had his own sources on the Ritz Moscow)—indeed, Congress threatened to *prosecute* Steele instead. Nor was any real pressure put on Keith Schiller’s fantastical account of his actions in November 2013. Nor did they ask to speak…
10/ …to Artem Klyushin, who’s believed to have offered the prostitutes, or Konstantin Rykov, who’s credibly alleged to have provided them, or Yulya Alferova, who was present when the prostitutes were offered, or Trump’s Moscow entourage of Americans (Ruffin, LaBella, others)…
11/ …indeed I would go further and say that Congress has not taken a *single step* an investigator would take to determine whether there’s blackmail on Donald Trump—which would include consideration of other blackmails, thus interviews with Cohen, Daniels, MacDougal, others—…
12/ …and so the claim by Rep. Schiff—perhaps made merely in the interests of optimism—that there’s *anything* being investigated by Congress about Trump-Russia ties besides the Trump-Russia investigation’s exceedingly narrow “Clinton dirt” angle, is really bunk from the get-go.
PS/ And the Clinton-dirt angle is incoherent unless you know the Agalarovs’ history with Trump—and Ike Kaveladze’s—which returns you to the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, a defining moment in the investigation into whether Putin is blackmailing Trump. You can’t bifurcate the issues.