April 30, 2020

Question about instances where someone accuses a high-profile person of a long ago sexual assault:

On the surface, Tara Reade, Juanita Broaddrick and Christine Blasey-Ford appear to be all similarly situated. All three have alleged that decades ago, they were sexually assaulted by a high-profile political figure. None of them reported these alleged assaults when they claim them to have occurred. None of them have any physical evidence to prove that the attacks occurred. None of them have any witnesses who can contemporaneously verify the alleged attacks as it happened, although all three of them claim to have told people about their alleged attacks at some point after they claimed them to have occurred.

I'll cut right to the chase: I find Blasey-Ford's allegations far more credible than I do either Reade's or Broaddrick's.

And I know the instant response a skeptic might give me: Oh course you do. It's all about politics, right? You're a Democrat, Reade and Broaddrick accused high profile Democratic politicians, whereas Blasey-Ford accused a Republican-nominated conservative Supreme Court justice.

And yes, that's not an irrational response at all. Cognitive dissonance due to one's own biases and ideologies is a very real thing. And certain times you are faced with a reckoning where you are forced to put all your personal beliefs aside and weigh matters on the objective, cold hard facts. I remember when the story of John Edwards fathering a child out of wedlock first broke. I didn't want to believe it at first, but the facts fell where they did and I was forced to admit them as true.

But even still, political bias aside, I find Blasey-Ford's allegations far more credible than I do either Reade's or Broaddrick's.

So why? The answer's simple.

Sworn testimony.

Christine Blasey-Ford was willing to go to Capitol Hill, raise her hand, take an oath under penalty of perjury and give her account where she alleged that when she was a teenager, a person she believes was Brett Kavanaugh attempted to have sex with her against her will. On live television, we were able to judge her testimony, her body language, her recollection, her response to skeptical questioning, everything. And in the end, I found she made a convincing witness that suggested sincerity and credibility.

Now, would her sworn testimony alone be enough to convict Kavanaugh beyond a reasonable doubt if it were a criminal trial? I can't honestly say. But I can honestly tell you it was credible enough to raise enough questions about Kavanaugh's personal fitness for the Supreme Court to the point where he shouldn't have been confirmed. And you don't need a criminal standard of burden of proof for that.

So Christine Blasey-Ford testified to her attack under oath; Tara Reade and Juanita Broaddrick to date have not. The chances seem increasingly unlikely that Reade ever will; when she recently filed a police report as to her alleged attack, she did not even identify her supposed assailant, which made the chances of her filing a false report far less likely.

Broaddrick's situation is even worse. She actually has offered sworn testimony about the allegations that Bill Clinton raped her; unfortunately though for those wanting to believe her as credible, it was an affidavit denying any such attack on her by Clinton. Now, she since has claimed she was merely pressured into filing that affidavit and that her unsworn claims are in fact the true story. However, at no point in the 20 plus years that she has publicly lodged these allegations has she ever recanted under oath her sworn testimony or offered new sworn testimony that she was, in fact, sexually assaulted by Clinton.

(And I will add that matters of credibility aside, Broaddick's public persona is just rather vile. A quick review of her activity on Twitter reveals her to be highly partisan when it comes to matters of accusations of sexual misconduct against political figures. Not only has she doubted people like Blasey-Ford--which is well within her right to do so--but she has cruelly and childishly mocked their physical appearances, called them terrible names, etc., apparently because they have accused a figure on the political right. Meanwhile, she freely boasts of her love, undying loyalty and personal connections to Donald Trump, a man who on videotape once bragged about kissing women against their will and desiring to "grab them by the pussy," and a man she was happy to sit next to at a political stunt right after those comments came to light.)

Now, am I saying anyone who makes an allegation under oath is automatically telling the truth? Certainly not. Many people have perjured themselves over the years.

Am I saying that anyone who does not swear to their sexual assault under oath is automatically fabricating their claim? Again, absolutely not.

But I do think in situations where it may be the only evidence there is, where there is no physical or eyewitness testimony to the alleged attack, sworn testimony over unsworn allegations goes a long way in considering credibility. It's not the end-all, be-all, but at least it gives us something to consider, something to put our minds around.

And sworn testimony also is a way I use to supersede personal biases. I mean, I loved Bill Cosby. I hated the idea that he might have actually been a sexual predator when all we knew him as was a funny comedian and actor and lovable, avuncular celebrity. But after reading the sworn testimony of his accusers, and his own sworn testimony, I was forced to come to the sobering conclusion that the allegations against him were most likely true.

On the other hand, I have given pause whether or not to believe accusers of Donald Trump who have not put their allegations under oath. Even though I certainly think--given his own comments and behavior--that he might be capable of such things, and my own personal animus against him for all that he has done, on a case-by-case basis I'm not ready to make a judgment without something more concrete than just unsworn claims.

So I guess my question for everyone to comment on is this:

When it comes to allegations of sexual assault (especially against high profile individuals), allegations that are years ago in the past and have no physical evidence or eyewitness testimony to back them up, should someone who is willing to go under oath as to these claims be given more credibility than those who refuse to do so?

I'll leave it up for you to debate and consider.

April 21, 2020

Popular right-wing social media figure drops all pretenses, goes full Neo-Nazi.

Note: Normally, I would not want to give these cretins any attention. But given that this guy has over 80,000 followers on Twitter, 128,000 followers on Youtube, and nearly 800,000 followers on Facebook, and given that he's made the primetime Fox News circuit on shows like Laura Ingraham, I think it's worth showing this guy for who he is.

Albert "AJ" Faleski, who goes by the name "An0maly" on social media, was a little known struggling wannabe rap artist before 2016. However, he quickly skyrocketed to internet notoriety after first using his "talents" to court disgruntled Bernie Sanders primary voters before then shifting his full attention and admiration towards Donald Trump after his election. And if you don't have a right wing "friend" on Facebook whose cited to one of his video posts since the 2016 election, you've probably at least had a friend of a friend whose done so.

I actually wrote about Faleski/An0maly here at DU a little over two years ago:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210325606

Anyways, Faleski/An0maly--as well as anyone who might be behind his efforts--seem to target a definite sort of demographic. He trades heavily in wide ranging conspiracy theories, from the argument there is a "Deep State" attack on Donald Trump, to a claim that the moon landing was a hoax (yes, it's true!), and now, naturally, has focused much of his work on perpetrating claims that the coronavirus is either a man-made biological weapon, or alternately, that the numbers from the virus have been fabricated.

But this morning on his Twitter account, it seems our friend has taken a much more overt term to out-and-out antisemitism.

This isn't vague positions that might be interpreted as being antisemitic, mind you; this is "Jews control the media" balls to the wall antisemitism.

As of this morning, his postings on Twitter are still up (I've screen capped in case he attempts to coward out).

Anyways, here are some of the things he wrote:

https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1252555149119193088



https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1252535980743110664




And then there was this attack of his on the HBO miniseries The Plot Against America, which is based on a Phillip Roth alternative history novel about a Jewish family living during World War II where a fascist, antisemitic administration lead by Charles Lindbergh has come to power. The series' creator, David Simon (who most famously created The Wire), is Jewish.

https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1252526549284392962




It's easy to dismiss An0maly/Faleski for what he is, a social media jackass. But when that social media jackass has hundreds of thousands of followers and gets interviewed on Fox News as some sort of authority, and you see his posts coming up time and time again on you own social media feeds, I think it bears importantance for showing the world exactly who this scum is.

March 24, 2020

BREAKING NEWS: Trump Administration to exhume the body of John Trump.

Senior officials in the Trump Administration revealed plans today to exhume the body of John George Trump, the late uncle of President Donald Trump.

Officials stated the purpose for the exhumation of John Trump--who passed away in 1985--was so that he could appear alongside the President during his daily press briefings relating to the administration's response to the global COVID-19 epidemic.

"Our best hope is that we will be able to successfully re-animate the corpse," one senior official stated. "Ideally to the point where he would actually be able to walk and talk, and preferably in complete sentences as opposed to one-word grunts if at all possible. But in the event we are not able to re-animate the corpse, we would still like to wheel out his body during the briefings in order to re-assure the world that the administration is surrounding itself with the most capable minds science has to offer today."

"Or, if not that, at least the most capable minds that existed before February 1985," the official added.

It is not quite clear how exactly a re-animated John Trump would have any sort of input into the current crisis. John Trump earned a PhD in Electrical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and then subsequently served on the MIT faculty for nearly three decades. However, he had no education whatsoever in the area of epidemiology or any field of medicine, leading some to question how much of an impact his presence might actually serve.

"Our hope is that by virtue of being dead for 35 years, John Trump will have learned considerable amounts about biology due to witnessing his own body decompose before his very eyes," the official said. "Consider it a learning by osmosis type of situation, if you will."

The President himself displayed considerable enthusiasm for the plan when pressed for comment.

"My uncle was considered a super-genius by many, many people," Donald Trump said at his most recent briefing session. "In fact, many people tell me I inherited all his smarts. I may in fact be even more of a genius than he was, if you could believe that."

However, privately, some within the administration have displayed skepticism that even if the administration is able to successfully re-animate John Trump that he would actually endorse any of the proposals being offered by his nephew.

"I would say that the chances of an undead John Trump agreeing with the President that the virus will completely disappear within a matter of a couple of weeks is less than 50-50," one White House official stated on the condition of anonymity. "And when I say 'less than 50-50,' I actually mean '0.00001 percent,' if that."

With that in mind, some have mulled measures to ensure that Zombie John Trump will toe the administration line; ideas discussed have included that John Trump only be afforded protection against angry, torch-wielding villagers if he is sufficiently supportive of the President.

"He may be the President's uncle," one administration member said. "And he may also be a rotting corpse whose revivification would truly be a miracle of modern science. But we cannot afford a situation where he does not express the highest degree of confidence in the President's policies."

DETAILS AT ELEVEN.

January 16, 2020

Big news just now: Ukraine announces criminal investigation!!!

Unfortunately for Trump, however, it’s not the investigation he wanted to be announced...

https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1217783392378544129

December 5, 2019

"Flopping"--A last ditch strategy both in basketball and amongst Trumpists

In basketball, "flopping" is a diversionary tactic when a player is either barely touched by an opponent, or not touched at all, but then throws him or herself down to the ground in the hopes of fooling the referees into calling a personal foul and setting up a free throw.

It's a desperation move, usually made when one's team is losing, which relies little on athletic ability and far more on acting skills.

But basketball players are not the only ones to "flop."

Professor Karlan makes a harmless pun that merely mentions the name of Trump's son--Boom! She was "mocking" Barron Trump!

Representative Schiff paraphrases the readout of phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky--Boom! He was "falsifying the record" and ought to be "impeached" for "treason"!

Lieutenant Colonel Vindman raises concern about the substance of the Trump-Zelensky call--he's a "foreign agent"!

A whistleblower--still not yet identified--reports via proper channels his concerns about the call--He/she is supporting a "coup" against Trump and must be publically identified, mocked, and humiliated!

The reason why Trumpists do all of this is quite simple and transparent--the evidence against Trump is so completely damning that they're desperate to create any sort of counternarrative that will distract the public away from the facts. It's what they've tried to do with the whole IG report and ridiculous claims that the 2016 Trump campaign was "illegally spied upon;" thankfully, it appears from initial reports the IG did not take the bait.

It's why they want to make this most recent episode all about Joe and Hunter Biden and Crowdstrike and the DNC and poor Alexandra Chalupa whose name gets dropped by Republicans left and right even though she did little more than help bring out some facts that showed Paul Manafort's criminal behavior.

They're "flopping."

We, the People, are the refs.

Don't buy it.

November 18, 2019

BREAKING NEWS: Trump makes surprise visit to Walter Reed to honor injured serviceman.

White House officials stated that the primary focus of President Trump's visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center Saturday was to visit a service member recently injured in the line of duty.

Officials did admit that a portion of the nearly four hour visit was dedicated to Trump undergoing what they described as "a routine portion of the President's annual physical"--namely a measurement of his height. They stated doctors remain to recall the President to their hospital at own discretion on an ongoing basis to obtain other vital signs, such as temperature, blood type, nasal and ear canal cleanliness, intestinal appendix functioning levels and other measurements intended to get a fuller picture of his overall health for his yearly physical report.

However, officials insist that the majority of the time Trump spent at Walter Reed was to visit an injured serviceman, Staff Sergeant George George Glass.

"Sergeant Glass was wounded by sniper fire in Kandahar Province," the spokesperson said. "Normally, we don't release details of these highly classified missions, but President Trump insisted Sergeant Glass's bravery not be hidden from public view."

The spokesperson then stated the purpose of the mission was to investigate a potential link between Hunter Biden and Al Qaeda operatives. The link became known after former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, husband-and-wife attorneys Joseph DiGenova and Victoria Toesing, and former columnist for The Hill John Solomon spent the past several weeks in the Kybher Pass region meeting with former Taliban leadership.

Trump told White House insiders his nearly three hour, forty-five minute meeting with Sergeant Glass went very well.

"Upon entering the room, President Trump found Sergeant Glass smiling and wearing a red 'Make America Great Again' baseball cap," the spokesperson said. "Sergeant Glass then repeatedly thanked President Trump for many, many things, such as securing the southern border, taking a hard line on Chinese trade, reducing African-American unemployment to a historic low, exiting the onerous Paris Climate Treaty agreement, tackling new infrastructure projects on a near-weekly basis and draining the swamp."

The spokesperson added, "At one point, a tearful Sergeant Glass looked President Trump straight in the eye and told him, 'Sir, whatever you do, don't let the Deep State destroy you, sir. Sir, you do whatever it takes to bring those bastards to justice for this coup of an impeachment sham that Shifty Shiff and Nasty Nancy have going on in the House, sir.'"

At that point according to White House officials, President Trump pulled out the Presidential Medal for Honoring Bravery in Service Animals that he had originally intended to present to Conan, the service dog assigned to the Delta Force squadron responsible for killing former ISIS leader Abu Bahk al-Baghdadi and instead placed it around Sergeant Glass' neck, noting, "It looks very good on you. It would look good on me, too. You know, I always wanted one of these myself, you know? Maybe I should do that. Maybe I should give myself a medal and wear it around wherever I go. Boy, I bet that would drive the people in the fake news crazy. Fake News!"

When pressed by the media for any proof that this meeting actually took place at Walter Reed and for proof that a Staff Sergeant George George Glass actually exists--noting that such a name mirrored the exact plotline of the Season Two, Episode Nine of The Brady Bunch titled "The Not So Ugly Duckling"-- the White House Spokesperson responded, "You know, that's a very good question. We're going to look into that, and we should have a response for you as soon as we want to give you one."

DETAILS AT ELEVEN

November 15, 2019

The most memorable quote of the hearings so far:

Bravo, Madame Ambassador.

And thank you.

November 14, 2019

"Why Giuliani?": The question that ought to end all debate on Trump's malfeasance

"Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I would ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great."

Memorandum of Telephone Conversation, July 25, 2019 between Donald Trump and Volodmyr Zelensky

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/trump-ukraine-phone-call-transcript-text-pdf-1510770

In a rush to defend Donald Trump against allegations of quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, abuse of powers, and everything else under the sun as it pertains to the impeachment saga now brewing in the House, Republicans and supporters of Trump have tried to throw just about all arguments against the wall to see what sticks.

Whether it be making arguments of "double/triple hearsay" or questioning when the Ukrainians knew their military aid was being delayed or claiming that Zelensky wasn't pressured by Trump or attacking and unmasking potential whistleblowers or even attacking the patriotism of some of the witnesses such as Lieutenant Colonel Vindman (yes, really!) they are doing all they can to muddy the waters as much as possible.

But if we want to get down to brass tacks on the matter, it's really quite simple.

This is really just a matter of one thing: Abuse of power.

Namely, that a President should not be able to use the powers of his public office for personal or political gain. That's a principle as old as this country, to try to fend against autocracy.

Trump's rather ridiculous defense to his actions is that in raising issues to President Zelensky, he was merely acting in the interest of the US Government in the hopes of rooting out corruption in Ukraine.

And corruption in Ukraine is indeed an actual problem, as it is all the post-Soviet states. Even as someone who has roots in Ukraine and family living there, I'm not blind to admit that fact.

The problem is, Trump identified only two acts of supposed "corruption." The first was some absurd conspiracy theory about Crowdstrike and the DNC and the 2016 elections that--once you read into it--makes no sense whatsoever. And the second is attacks against Hunter Biden, Vice President Biden's son who had served on the board of a Ukrainian company Burisma that at one point had been investigated by the Ukrainians for corrupt practices. The problem there is no one--and I mean no one--has ever actually alleged that Hunter Biden specifically did anything wrong. And when it comes to Vice President Biden, Trump and others willingly misstate the facts and distort a timeline to claim that Biden himself pressured the Ukrainian government to remove a prosecutor general who had investigated Burisma (he hadn't--Biden's statements were part of US policy as well as that of the EU and IMF, and the prosecutor general who was removed actually had let the Burisma investigation drop, so.....)

The fact of the matter is that Trump doesn't care about Ukraine. He views them with a suspicious eye because he blames them for the conviction of his campaign manager Paul Manafort, who had been paid millions under the table out of money raided from the treasury by the corrupt ex-President Yanukovych. He's more than happy to repeat Putin's talking point that Ukraine supposedly isn't even a real country. Bottom line is that the only way he would ever care about Ukraine is if they did him a personal favor.

So he doesn't care about actual corruption in Ukraine. He's not worried about what company got the paving contract for the highway between Lviv and Ivano Frankivsk, or why.

He only cares about dirt on Biden and the DNC. He's a simple man like that.

But how can we prove abuse of power?

Well, it's easy. Incredibly easy. Ridiculously easy, even.

Trump says "Read the Transcript"? Well, to the extent the memorandum released could constitute a "transcript", then fine. We can do just that.

And the one thing that definitely proves that Trump was acting in his own personal interest in making demands on Zelensky, as opposed to the interests of the government? One guy.

Rudy Giuliani.

Trump's personal attorney. And the person he directed Zelensky--the Ukrainian President--to speak to as it pertains to these matters.

That ends all debate right there. Because there is no excuse for a President to be using his personal attorney to conduct foreign policy with foreign leaders.

None whatsoever. Abuse of Power. Case closed.

Rudy Giuliani has no foreign policy experience. He has no diplomatic experience. He has no expertise on Ukrainian or Eastern European affairs. He doesn't speak Ukrainian or Russian. He's not from the region. His only two contacts to the region are two personal friends who have recently been indicted for fraudulent business practices. He doesn't have the proper security clearances and has never been appointed to any official position.

He's the President's personal attorney.

That is an absolutely ridiculously huge conflict of interest.

Someone like Rudy Giuliani should never in a million years be placed in the position of handling US foreign policy.

It's laughably absurd.

So why then did Trump do just that, if not to abuse his position as President to try and gain a personal political advantage?

Ask any Trump supporter to give you a straight answer. And they won't be able to. (Believe me, I've already tried.)

"Why Giuliani?"--Abuse of Power.

Case closed.

October 24, 2019

Third Party Candidates and Tim Canova

(I realize this is borderline GD: DP, but I think there are issues that go beyond the primary itself in here. If mods find it necessary to repost, I will.)

Hillary Clinton's charge against Tulsi Gabbard--implied, since she did not bother to use her name, and yet Tulsi immediately confirmed it was all about her--that Gabbard was being used as a propaganda tool for the Russians and could even be groomed as a potential third party disruptor candidate, was received by some as a wild conspiracy theory.

However, to say the notion of a candidate of Gabbard's ideology might "go rogue" is some ridiculous, far-fetched notion is actually a shaky premise. There has already been an example of one such candidate.

In 2016, a professor named Tim Canova decided to challenge then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her Florida Congressional Seat.

Many Democrats--including here at DU--who had some gripe or grievance as to Wasserman-Schultz's handling of the DNC were quick to jump aboard the Canova bandwagon, offering their vocal--and sometimes even monetary--support. Canova fashioned himself a "good liberal" and an alternative to what he claimed was the epitome of the party establishment. And he took prominent stances on environmental issues and civil rights, issues we seemingly could all agree with.

But at the very same time, he was doing some very questionable things. Such as appearing on the radio show of Joyce Kaufman, an extreme far-right local talk show host who was once tapped to be one-term Republican Allen West's chief of staff and once proclaimed at a tea-party rally, "If ballots don't work, bullets will!" Kaufman offered Canova her support in his campaign against DWS, and Canova gladly took it. I remember raising the alarm about this at DU when it happened, but it mostly went unnoticed.

Canova continued to receive positive word-of-mouth support from many Democrats as his candidacy continued, perhaps less as an endorsement of Canova as instead a way to complain about whatever irked them about DWS's leadership.

Then in the summer of 2016, the DNC famously got hacked and emails of party officials--including DWS--popped up on Wikileaks. Canova decided the best reaction to this criminal activity (which intelligence has since confirmed was the act of the Russian government) was to file an FEC complaint against DWS, citing to these emails as evidence of some sort of plot by her against him.

In the end, Canova's 2016 primary challenge fell short. DWS beat him by about 14%, which was narrower than some of her previous challenges but still a comfortable win on her part representing thousands of votes in her favor.

Following his defeat, Canova did not go graciously, however, alleging that thousands of votes in his favor were destroyed. His gripes against the DNC only got worse, and by early 2017 he was going on record supporting wild conspiracy theories about the DNC supposedly murdering its staffer Seth Rich.

His vocal pronouncements--including over his Twitter account--seemed to support an odd policy, decrying any sort of engagement against the Syrian Assad government and also insisting that the allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 in support of Donald Trump was a "hoax" and the investigation by Robert Mueller into such interference was a "witch hunt." He is a vocal supporter of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and frequently retweets pieces by quasi-left media figures Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, Michael Tracey, and others. He recently posted pictures "in solidarity" with the Paris "Yellow Vest" movement, a movement many believe has benefited from covert Russian support in an effort to destabilize the center-left French Macron government.

And by 2018, Canova decided he was going to quit the Democratic Party for good. He would still challenge Debbie Wasserman Schultz as an independent though. This time, DWS won in a rout--Canova received only about 5% of the vote, but Canova again astonishingly claimed he was the victim of voter fraud. He then attached himself onto Republican efforts to stop a recount of votes in Broward County that actually dealt with the razor-thin results in the Governor and US Senate Races.

By all appearances, Canova seems to have resigned himself to being nothing more than an agent of chaos. And if you go to his Twitter feed (but be careful not to levy any sort of criticism his way, or he will block you--I know this personally), you will find a most bizarre amalgamation of feeds. You'll see occasional left leaning pronouncements on environmental issues, a lot of support for Julian Assange, a lot of re-tweeting of quasi-left pundits, and increasingly more and more a lot of retweeting of Republicans and conservative figures without criticism, including many tweets by Donald Trump himself. Most of these deal with attacks on the Democratic Party or the investigation into Russian interference with our elections.

Tim Canova and Tulsi Gabbard share many of the same beliefs and ideologies, and if you want to get a sense how Gabbard might end up, the road paved by Tim Canova since 2016 seems to be a good guess.

October 10, 2019

Trump campaign manager admits he's getting help from man working for Russian media and hackers

This was posted on Brad Parscale's (Trump's campaign manager) Twitter feed recently:

https://twitter.com/parscale/status/1181210619468484610

The man he mentions, Lee Stranahan, is an employee of Sputnik News, which is owned/controlled by the Russian government. He is also the man who has openly admitted to helping to get Roger Stone in contact with Guccifer 2.0 during the 2016 election. Guccifer 2.0 is who US intelligence has said is the outfit run by Russian intelligence agencies and who is responsible for hacking the DNC.

And if you visit his Twitter feed, it's full of demands to repeal the Magnitsky Act sanctions against Russia (you know, the ones the Russians lobbied about during their 2016 Trump Tower meeting.)

(According to his Wikipedia page, he also is a part time erotic photographer, but that's neither here nor there.)

More on Stranahan here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Stranahan

Anyways, Stranahan's most recent work seems to be pushing the theory that it was the DNC who was the real miscreant in the 2016 elections, not Trump or the Russians. He's been focusing--almost obsessively--on a woman named Alexandra Chalupa, who is the daughter of Ukrainian immigrants and who did some contract work with the DNC. Their theory is that the DNC sent Chalupa to Ukraine, where she was able to get proof of illicit payments Paul Manafort was getting from deposed autocrat and Putin ally Viktor Yanukovych. These items then helped with Manafort's ultimate conviction for tax fraud.

Now, it is true that Chalupa was able to get a hold of the Manafort payment records, which were actually proven to be genuine by Manafort's own accounting; however, there's no evidence whatsoever that the DNC sent Chalupa to get those records, or even if it did, whether that would actually constitute a crime.

But that truth's all secondary to these guys---they just desperately want any shiny non-story to distract from the actual story of Russian interference and hacking in the 2016 campaign on behalf of Donald Trump.

And the fact that the Trump campaign is still--still!--in 2019 reaching out to persons known to be agents of Russian media and Russian hackers is absolutely astounding IMHO.

But we're seeing these guys at their last resort. They're desperate at this point, and will do anything. Anything.