• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Trump Presidency

The Kid

TRIBE Member
poppinKREAM (Reddit)

A reminder that Paul Manafort sent an email to Jared Kushner in November 2016 with 3 appointee suggestions including bank CEO Stephen Calk who has been charged by the Department of Justice for soliciting a Presidential position in exchange for $16 million. Jared Kushner immediately responded to the email with "on it!"[1]

"The 3 indivituals (sic) are people who I believe advance DT agenda. They will be totally reliable and responsive to the Trump White House," Manafort wrote to Kushner.

Kushner responded that same day, "On it!"

Though there is no indication that Kushner was aware of Manafort and Calk's financial relationship, it does show that Manafort was still within Trump's circle post-election.

Furthermore, this is not the only instance of the former Trump Campaign Chairman pursuing his own interests by leveraging his relationship with Trump. The Mueller report found that Paul Manafort was pursuing his personal interests by attempting to use his position in the campaign to settle previous debts he had incurred with Russian Oligarch Oleg Deripaska. The Mueller report confirmed that Trump campaign chairman and deputy chairman Manafort and Gates were sharing sensitive, internal polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik. The report went on to mention that Deputy Campaign Chairman Rick Gates thought Kilimnik was a Russian spy.

Per Pages 130 - 137 of the report;[2]

The Office could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing internal polling data with Kilimnik during the campaign period. Manafort [redacted] did not see a downside to haring campaign information, and told Gates that his role in the Campaign would be "good for bussiness" and potentially a way to be made whole for work he previously completed in Ukraine. As to Deripaska, Manafort claimed that by sharing campaign information with him, Deripaska might see value in their relationship and resolve a "disagreement" - a reference to one or more outstanding lawsuits. Because of questions about Manafort's credibility and our limited ability to gather evidence on what happened to the polling data after it was sent to Kilimnik, the Office could not assess what Kilimnik (or others he may have given it to) did with it. The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's intereference in the election, which had already been reported by U.S. media outlets at the time of the August 2 meeting. The investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts.

...Gates also reported that Manafort instructed him in April 2016 or early May 2016 to send Kilimnik Campaign internal polling and other updates so that Kilimnik, in turn, could share it with Ukrainian oligarchs. Gates understood that the information would also be shared with Deripaska, [redacted]. Gates reported to the Office that he did not know why Manafort wanted him to send polling information, but Gates thought it was a way to showcase Manafort's work, and Manafort wanted to open doors to jobs after the Trump Campaign ended. Gates said that Manafort's intruction included sending internal polling data prepared for the Trump Campaign by pollster Tony Fabrizio. Fabrizio had worked with Manafort for years and was brought into the Campaign by Manafort. Gates states that, in accordance with Manafort's instruction, he periodically sent Kilimnik polling data via WhatsApp; Gates then deleted the communications on a daily basis. Gates further told the Office that, after Manafort left the Campaign in mid-August, Gates sent Kilimnik polling data less frequently and that the data he sent was more publicly available information and less internal data.

Gate's account about polling data is consistent [redacted] with multiple emails that Kilimnik sent to U.S. associates and press contacts between late July and mid-August of 2016. Those emails reference "internal polling," described the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's role in it, and assess Trump's prospects for victory. Manafort did not acknowledge instructing Gates to send Kilimnik internal data, [redacted].

The Office also obstained contemporaneous emails that shed light on the purpose of the communications with Deripaska and that are consistent with Gates's account. For example in response to a July 7, 2016 email from a Ukrainian reporter about Manafort's failed Deripaska-backed investment, Manafort asked Kilimnik whether there had been any movement on "this issue with our friend." Gates states that "our friend" likely referred to Deripaska, and Manafort told the Office that the "issue" (and "our biggest interest," as stated below) was a solution to the Deripaska-Pericles issue. Kilimnik replied:

I am carefully optimistic on the question of our biggest interesting.

Our friend [Boyarkin] said there is lately significantly more attention to the campaign in his boss' [Deripaska's] mind, and he will be most likely looking for ways to reach out to you pretty soon, understanding all the time sensitivity. I am more than sure that it will be resolved and we will get back to the original relationship with V.'s boss [Deripaska]

Eight minutes later, Manafort replied that Kilimnik should tell Boyarkin's "boss," a reference to Deripaska, "that if he needs private briefings we can accommodate." Manafort has alleged to the Office that he was willing to brief Deripaska only on public campaign matters and gave an example: Why Trump selected Mike Pence a the Vice-Presidential running mate. Manafort said he never gave Deripaska a briefing. Manafort noted that if Trump won, Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance whatever interests Deripaska had in the United States and elsewhere.

  • Earlier this year the Trump administration removed sanctions from Oleg Deripaska's companies including Rusal.[3]

  • Despite an overwhelming majority of Congressional members voting in favour of keeping the sanctions on Deripaska's companies, the Senate fell three votes short of the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster. Kentucky Senators McConnell and Rand Paul voted against the resolution, thus ending the sanctions on the Russian companies.[4]

  • Following the removal of sanctions from Deripaska's companies Rusal is investing $200 million in Kentucky.[5]
1) CNN - Manafort emailed Kushner with recommendations for senior administration posts

2) Department of Justice - Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In the 2016 Presidential Election

3) New York Times - Deripaska and Allies Could Benefit From Sanctions Deal, Document Shows

4) Kentucky Courier Journal - Is Braidy Industries of Kentucky getting in bed with Russian mobsters?

5) Associated Press - Russian company to invest in Kentucky aluminum mill

Bernnie Federko

TRIBE Member
Trump's tweets lose potency

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

President Trump's tweets don't pack the same online punch they did in his first year, Axios' Neal Rothschild reports based on exclusive CrowdTangledata.

  • Trump's Twitter interaction rate — a measure of impact, given how much he tweets and how many people follow him — has tumbled precipitously.
  • Trump's interaction rate fell from 0.55% in the month he was elected to 0.32% in June 2017 — then down to 0.16% this month, through Saturday. (The metric measures retweets and likes per tweet, divided by the size of his following.)
Why it matters: It's a sign that some of the novelty may have worn off his constant tweet storms.

  • Advisers maintain it's just a lull before the 2020 storm.
Trump's lines of attack have been repeated so much that they don't shock anymore, says Toronto Star Washington bureau chief Daniel Dale, who has built a database of false claims by Trump.

  • Because norm-breaking tweetshave become the new norm, Dale says, he doesn't cover them as often — and therefore, casual readers hear about them less.
Attacking the Mueller investigation went from scandalous to routine for Trump, and accusing government officials of treason went from groundbreaking to commonplace. Since April 1, Trump has tweeted about:

  • "No Collusion" 54 times.
  • "No Obstruction" 30 times.
  • "Witch Hunt" 20 times.
  • "Hoax" 19 times.
  • "Radical"left/Democrats 17 times.
  • "Angry Democrats"12 times.
  • "Presidential Harassment" 10 times.
  • "Treason" 7 times.
Trump is tweeting more, which could make individual tweets stand out less:

  • The pace of Trump's tweetinghas picked up from 157 times per month during his first six months to 284 times per month over the last six months.
  • Not counting posts he retweets, he is at 343 tweets through May 25 — closing in on his one-month record of 348 in August.
By the numbers:


Bernnie Federko

TRIBE Member
Wow, Mueller resigning after reiterating "if we had confidence the POTUS did not commit a crime, we would have said so" (which is in the report, and which is why he should testify)


TRIBE Member
So how come no one knew about this DOJ policy before?
You’re taking the piss here, right?

EVERYONE with a glimmer of knowledge on precedent knows that the DOJ has a long-standing policy that prevents their department from prosecuting a sitting president. Accountability for illegal activities are left to Congress for a decision. ...and THAT’s where “impeachment” becomes a thing.

The DOJ are not an elected arm of government and are not tasked with the interruption of terms for elected officials. This roll falls to other, elected branches of government - namely, CONGRESS - while POTUS is in the Whitehouse.

If you’re old enough to remember Clinton - and invested in commenting on political affairs - brush up on your history.

Mueller was clear about this position. There’s no mystery or conspiracy behind it. It’s policy. Has been since before your dad could bust a nut. They won’t touch Trump until he’s out of office. When he is though? ...oh dear.

There are some fantastic articles addressing this very topic online. You can find them through the same method you used to post this daft question. Fingers to the keyboard. Type your query into a search engine called “Google”. Read a few of the results. Be sure that they’re reliable sources, which can also be ascertained in the same fashion.

Amazing what we can do these days, now that we have the internet on computers. ;)
Last edited: