Now that we know that Bob Mueller has been questioning Thomas Barrack, I have to ask: did you see this when I published it?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
I’ll be the first to admit it: i didn’t read that story, and can’t remember ever hearing of Thomas Barrack before.
Trump has a whole fucking army of co-conspirators, I’m glad you can remember all of them. I’m even more glad that Mueller can remember all of them.
It was the first article I thought of and even more intriguing points today.
No, but I just read it now and I have to say that’s its shelf-life has been impressive. Do you think Barrack might be flippable?
I remember. Appears Mueller knows a lot. Kinda feels like all he is missing is intent which will come from an interview with the donald. But, for me the intent is clear. The lying lies are to cover up collusion with Russia.
No, I did not. Sometimes you are really titanic.
Hopefully I float better.
I came late to this blog, so I had not seen this.
I was aware of Barrack and some of his possible connections by following Seth Abramson on twitter.
Rachel Maddow had also done some stories on Barrack.
What a cast of characters – almost a Greek tragedy!
It was interesting that a Russian oligarch, who contributed heavily to the inaugeration fund, was met at the airport when his private plane arrived by investigators from Mueller’s team the same month that they interviewed Barrack.
Trump Traji-Comic Universe has more characters than Marvel. And less plausible story lines – even though they are true.
I imagine Michael Cohen is calling Putin on his satellite burner phone just as he is about to disappear.
We’re in the end game now.
I might have read it, I try to read everything you write, but the Byzantine convolutions of this story are too much for my 64kb memory. I’m glad you (and Mueller) can keep all these players straight.
I’m hoping David Farenthold’s breaking story on dump’s money history will develop = financial fraud.
I did read it but I think I did not fully understand it. Any clue on how recent events in the House of Saud might affect matters?
No I don’t. I just think that paper work showing financial fraud is hard evidence that can’t be explained away as easily as adversarial testimony might be in a conspiracy case. I’m thinking conspiracy is much more difficult to prove.