(THREAD) The RNC just released its most important talking points memo of the last 25 years. Every word is false. These 100 tweets prove it.
Seth Abramson?Verified account @SethAbramson 12h12 hours ago
(DOCUMENT): Here you will find tonight's RNC talking points, which address POTUS being under criminal investigation.Seth Abramson added,
(GOAL): I'll refute every sentence in these talking points in 100 tweets. Why? Because we're at a historic crossroads and the truth matters.
(1) There is a prima facie case for Obstruction of Justice against Trump. This is the *majority* opinion of on- and off-air trial attorneys.
(2) “Legal scholars” aren't the type of attorney you ask if you want to know if a prima facie case can be made out based on a fact pattern.
(3) “Legal scholars” *only* come into play when you *admit* Trump committed a crime and want to know if POTUS can be criminally prosecuted.
(4) The argument there's “no case” whatsoever for Obstruction is made by only two well-known attorneys: 1 civil libertarian, 1 conservative.
(5) A civil libertarian—Dershowitz—says POTUS can obstruct at will as when he does it it’s not obstruction. He didn't say Trump did nothing.
(6) A conservative—Turley—says POTUS can’t be charged with Obstruction because there isn’t a pending criminal case (except there is, in VA).
(7) By no means could one say “the point has been made by legal scholars from both sides of the aisle over and over”—*both* parts are false.
(8) The Washington Post story *doesn't* say it got its information from the FBI, so attacking the FBI—law enforcement—is scurrilous here.
(9) The most influential FBI leaks of the last year were the FBI leaks about the Clinton case in October of 2016—all of them *helped* Trump.
(10) The "leaks" decried by the RNC may well not be illegal, as witnesses are allowed to tell the press—or others—they've been interviewed.
(11) To say the leaks are the "only crime here" is outrageous. Prima facie cases of criminal behavior touch upon *multiple* Trump staffers.
(12) Trump's former NSA, Michael Flynn, could be prosecuted for Obstruction of Justice, Making False Statements and lying on his FARA forms.
(13) Trump's AG committed Perjury in two Congressional testimonies *and* Obstruction if Trump told him he planned to fire Comey over Russia.
(14) Trump's top adviser and son-in-law apparently Made False Statements (and/or committed Perjury) on his SF-86 security clearance forms.
(15) There is substantial evidence suggesting that the FBI is investigating former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort on financial crimes.
(16) There is evidence to suggest that the FBI may investigate former Trump Foreign Policy Adviser Carter Page on multiple criminal grounds.
(17) Any senior staff who aided Trump in trying to Obstruct Justice in the Flynn case could be charged with Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice.
(18) The Steele Dossier has been partly—if not yet fully—confirmed, and it alleges Trump, Page and others committed Treason against America.
(19) Statements made by Trump's attorney this week establish Trump fired Preet Bharara to Obstruct Justice in a criminal case against *him*.
(20) Trump is being criminally investigated by the New York Attorney General over possible financial crimes in that jurisdiction
(21) James Comey raising the term "patronage" under oath before Congress means Mueller is investigating President Trump on Bribery charges.
(22) This is just a brief sampling of the prima facie crimes that already exist—or the crimes under ongoing investigation—surrounding Trump.
(23) Ironically, the *strongest* leak case from the last year—a criminal case—involves FBI agents leaking to Rudy Giuliani in October 2016.
(24) In fact, those leaks—a potential criminal case involving FBI leaks that implicates *Trump's campaign*—are now under FBI investigation.
(25) So if criminal leaks at the FBI are investigated, it will only *add* to the criminal investigations surrounding Trump and close allies.
(26) If Mueller expands the scope of his probe, he'll soon find prima facie evidence Trump committed Perjury in a deposition on Felix Sater.
(27) So for the RNC to say a WaPo story telling America that its president is under FBI investigation is the "only crime here" is *obscene*.
(28) The RNC actually has no idea one way or the other whether Loretta Lynch's actions in the Clinton case were the subject of an FBI probe.
(29) Comey has never, in any forum, alleged that President Obama tried to illegally influence the Clinton email investigation. That's a lie.
(30) And Jim Comey was actually *explicit* in saying AG Lynch did *not* influence him during the course of the Clinton email investigation.
(31) Comey says he was OK with saying "matter" once—not "investigation"—as it didn't *matter*. Why—because his statement said it *13 times*.
(32) No prima face Obstruction of Justice case could *ever* be made against AG Lynch. Why—because *she recused herself from Clinton's case*.
(33) Trump told two Russians in the Oval Office that he very MUCH wanted to "interfere" with the Russia probe to "ease pressure" on himself.
(34) Trump fired Comey the very moment he learned the Russia probe was going to be an *elongated* affair—so we know he wanted to shorten it.
(35) Huckabee Sanders and Spicer made clear from the WH Briefing Room that Trump thought new FBI leadership would *hasten* the Russia probe.
(36) So the RNC citing Trump's interview with Lester Holt (NBC) is only underscoring that Trump *lied to America on national TV* that night.
(37) There's no way the RNC could call this a "fishing expedition" because they literally have no idea what the scope of Mueller's probe is.
(38) A "fishing expedition" looks into matters 100% unrelated to the course of events at hand—not (to our current knowledge) the case here.
(39) The RNC says there's *no* evidence of collusion. But they don't know what evidence the FBI has because Congress hasn't seen all of it.
(40) In the law there's a difference between "evidence" and "evidence sufficient for conviction." We *know* there's the former on collusion.
(41) Trump asked Putin to hack; Putin asked Trump to drop sanctions; Trump agreed; Putin hacked. That's "evidence of collusion" right there.
(42) But we *also* know a Florida associate of Roger Stone has *admitted* asking for—and getting—hacked Russian data to use against Dems.
(43) We *also* have evidence Kushner committed what many in the IC call *espionage*: asking to use a Russian SCIF to communicate with Putin.
(44) We *also* have evidence Trump leaked classified Israeli intelligence to a Russian spy while standing in the middle of the Oval Office.
(45) We *also* have evidence Trump lied about "kompromat"—as the BBC has said that the CIA told it Russia has "multiple" Trump sex tapes.
(46) We *also* have evidence Carter Page took a Trump campaign-sanctioned trip to Moscow in which he met with Igor Sechin and lied about it.
(47) We *also* have evidence the White House *knows* Russia is ignoring North Korean sanctions and won't say so—a possible pay-off to Putin.
(48) We *also* have evidence Kushner talked with a sanctioned Russian banker—Putin's banker—about business deals that were then illegal.
(49) We *also* know the top national security official in the nation—Trump's right-hand man—lied about receiving huge payments from Russia.
(50) This is just *some* of the "evidence of collusion" we have. For the RNC to say there is no such evidence is—at this stage—an obscenity.
(51) Quoting Sen. Risch—who's conducting a non-criminal oversight inquiry—on the evidence compiled for a criminal investigation is nonsense.
(52) More importantly, Risch—and the RNC—conveniently mis-define collusion as requiring aiding and abetting Russian hacking. But it doesn't.
(53) Collusion occurred if—knowing Russia was cyber-attacking the United States—the Trump campaign offered to drop all sanctions on Russia.
(54) Even Trump is smart enough to get this—it's why he had to insist (and continue insisting) he wasn't CERTAIN it was Russia attacking us.
(55) Fortunately, we do have evidence Trump and Sessions knew Russia was hacking in July—weeks before Sessions and Kislyak talked sanctions.
(56) So when Senator Risch says there's no evidence of collusion, either I have no idea what the hell he's talking about or neither does he.
(57) The RNC wants us to think Senators have said, "there's no evidence of collusion and *never will be*..." But *no* Senator has said that.
(58) In fact, all law enforcement officials asked have said this investigation is in its EARLY stages. We don't yet KNOW what will be found.
(59) Nothing in the WaPo report—nothing at all—indicates the FBI has "pivoted away" from its collusion investigation. That's 100% #fakenews.
(60) The RNC has no standing to decry "appalling" Congressional leaks. It *applauded* when Jason Chaffetz leaked the Comey Letter last year.
(61) If Mr. Trump committed *crimes*—and we have prima facie evidence he *did*—exposing them is *justice*, not "undermining the President."
(62) We know that the RNC does *not* believe leaking indicates a *lack* of inculpatory evidence—as they supported *every* anti-Clinton leak.
(63) Obama was *right* to decry investigative "innuendo" in late 2016—fortunately *none* of the leaks the RNC decries qualify as "innuendo."
(64) In fact, the very *reason* the RNC is so upset about these leaks is that they are *not* innuendo—they're straight-up INCULPATORY FACTS.
(65) "Innuendo" is an "allusive or oblique remark or hint." Not *one* of these leaks is obliquely remarking or hinting—they're *reporting*.
(66) The RNC should stop using the word "innuendo" in official press releases—ever—if neither they nor their surrogates know what it means.
(67) By volume, the *greatest* number of leaks—by FAR—is coming from the White House itself. None of these are "illegal," as the RNC claims.
(68) Moreover, the RNC implies here, and elsewhere, that *reporting* leaked information is illegal. But under the First Amendment it is not.
(69) And it goes without saying the RNC has a RICH history of exploiting leakers and leaked information whenever it involves the Democrats.
(70) Comey did NOT testify that Trump "never asked him" to drop the Flynn case. He *explicitly* said he took Trump's words as a "directive."
(71) But the RNC is also using a bait-and-switch here: NO part of Comey's hearing was about Trump asking to "stop the Russia investigation."
(72) So the RNC is literally refuting an allegation no one has ever made—something you only do when you can't refute the *real* allegations.
(73) The RNC-cited scholars aren't from "across the spectrum"—and aid Trump via what law-and-order Republicans would call a "technicality."
(74) Whether or not the RNC REALLY thinks the FBI having a Trump-chosen Director will have "no effect" on its probe, TRUMP doesn't think so.
(75) And we KNOW Trump thinks a new Director will "ease pressure on him" because he SAID SO to 2 Russians when he thought no one would hear.
(76) America's unlikely to trust anything Sessions says about the Russia probe after he perjured himself on that very topic in two hearings.
(77) And why the hell is the RNC citing SESSIONS as to a probe he says he's recused from, has never been briefed on, has never asked about?
(78) James Comey NEVER testified that the "Obama Administration" as an entity interfered with the 2016 Clinton probe. That's 100% #fakenews.
(79) Obama's statements on the Clinton probe were NOT Obstruction. You couldn't find an attorney in good standing with his bar who'd say so.
(80) There's NO evidence Obama's statements affected the famously independent and lifelong Republican-affiliated Comey on the Clinton probe.
(81) Comey didn't "begin doing" Lynch's bidding on the "matter" terminology—he actually put out a statement saying "investigation" 13 times.
(82) It's also absolutely HILARIOUS that the RNC treats Lynch's request as a "directive" and *Trump's* request as—well—absolutely *nothing*.
(83) Per the RNC "none of Trump's words constituted Obstruction *alone*..."—which is great because that's TOTALLY not how Obstruction works.
(84) Per the RNC the *volume* of language said on a topic can establish Obstruction—which no lawyer in America has ever told them, I'm sure.
(85) The RNC *falsely claims* that the FBI turned a "blind eye" to facts in the Clinton case. Nope—they looked at *everything* for a *year*.
(86) That the RNC urges its surrogates to discuss "conclusions" is *itself* a lie—it's mid-investigation and FAR too early for conclusions.
(87) For the RNC to say "the investigative committees have clearly struck out" is not just appalling and hypocritical but a *vicious* lie.
(88) It's a lie FIRST because the committees just started their work—they've held only a handful of hearings and done no witness interviews.
(89) It's a lie SECOND because the GOP has *deliberately starved the committees of resources* so they *can't* do their research effectively.
(90) It's a lie THIRD because the RNC well knows these committees *all* rely on *ongoing*—*long way to go*—criminal investigations for help.
(91) It's a lie FOURTH because the RNC doesn't just *allow* but actually *supports* Congressional inquiries—like Benghazi—going on forever.
(92) It's a lie FIFTH because you can't call "baseless" ongoing federal criminal investigation of events that occurred just four weeks ago.
(93) Most complex federal criminal investigations take *years*—as the RNC *well knows*—so attacking the FBI four weeks in is an *obscenity*.
(94) Finally, the RNC is lying—and so *cynically*—when it says that it just wants to get back to the "real issues that matter to Americans."
(95) Americans say it MATTERS TO THEM to see their President's tax returns and possible foreign entanglements. Does the RNC care—at all? No.
(96) Americans say it MATTERS TO THEM that their President won't divest himself from his businesses as he promised to. The RNC doesn't care.
(97) Americans say it MATTERS TO THEM that their President tweets like a lunatic. Polls say they want him to *stop*. Does the RNC care—nope.
(98) Americans say that getting to the bottom of Russian hacking MATTERS TO THEM. But has their Attorney General been briefed on it once—no.
(99) I want to end this thread—is it the longest ever?—by saying the very fact the RNC has talking points on these issues is a kind of lie.
(100) ALL Americans should demand a FULL, FAIR INVESTIGATION of the degree to which their leader is (as @NRO just called him) a CROOK. {end}
= new reply since forum marked as read
