Slack Chat: Considering the Source

T: Ok, John, who’s the source?

Source who is being examined by special counsel: “It’s every man for himself!”

J: From the article, my guess would be Flynn… it could be Sessions but I doubt he’s a target of the investigation. In order of likelihood, I’d say Flynn, then Junior, then Kushner, then Sessions.

T: The tone feels like Flynn, but you might be right about the kid. I really don’t know anything about him.

J: I don’t know that much about him either, but I get the sense that he wants to tell his story from other things that he has said. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think it might be Kushner rather than Junior. But Flynn is probably the number one suspect.

T: I don’t really know how Kushner talks, but I assume he’s one of those collegiate guys who never gets to the point.

J: That’s actually a pretty good assessment

T: Just doing a cheap forensics analysis on the syntax, the source seems to be more of a to-the-point type … I got the Flynn sense from that, but it didn’t sound like a mature guy, either. The Flynn kid might be the perfect in-between, but I also sense it’s someone who is more central to the mess

J: It’s someone who’s made public statements about the case, so it has to be a name player, but maybe not someone who is at the very heart of it, not Manafort or Gates.

T: Yeah … do you think it could be the kid?

J: Oh, it definitely could be – either the kid or the kid-in-law, so to speak.

T: What about Carter Page?

J: I don’t think it was Page; it seems like it has to be someone who was more involved with the campaign than Page was.

T: Or less involved with Russia … you ruling Sessions out?

J: I wouldn’t absolutely rule him out; he was involved with the campaign, but I think it’s unlikely that Trump would have nominated him for Attorney General if he was dirty. Trump had to know this stuff would come out eventually.

T: In some ways, Sessions might be the best candidate; he’s already surprised Trump with his actions. Trump wanted to fire him when he recused himself from the Russia investigation, and it could be that Trump didn’t know he had dirty connections. Trump isn’t exactly the most meticulous vetter around.

J: True …looking at it that way, he might be likelier than I thought. I doubt he thought of his connection as part of a collusion plot, but as a veteran politician he would have worried about appearances and recused, even if he thought it was innocent. Especially as AG, he knew the importance of appearances.

T: It sounds like a campaign insider, but a Russia outsider.

J: Kushner?

T: Wasn’t Kushner in the middle of the Russia stuff? He was in the meeting with Manafort and Jr.

J: Yeah, Kushner was involved; a lot of them were involved, though.

T: Sessions doesn’t feel right, but who would? I feel like it has to be somebody from that part of the circle – close to the campaign, not so close to the Russian connections.

J: Priebus?

T: Ding, ding, ding! Well, not quite, but Priebus is a good dammed guess.

J: If it’s a big name, Priebus might be the best one to bet on.

T:He was close enough to the campaign to be a target, but not close enough to be knee-deep in the collusion

J: He wouldn’t have been involved with the Stone/Page/Manafort connections.

T: Maybe that what the source meant when he (or she?) said, “those guys over there.” Kushner was involved, but he was part of the Trump camp from the start; I doubt he would have phrased it that way.

J: Priebus was an RNC guy, and Kushner was in that meeting, he’s deeper in the Russia swamp.

T: My guess about Priebus was that he jumped on the Trump Train to be the GOP’s connection to the Hillbillies.

J: Priebus was RNC chair… he’s probably concerned about guilt by association, as chair he’d kinda be expected to know what the campaign was doing.

T: And as it turned out there really wasn’t a GOP connection. Trump doesn’t make connections; he just stomps down whatever road spreads out in front of him, oblivious to the builders. Was Priebus cleared?

J: No, but then I don’t think anyone has been cleared yet.

Mueller might be asking, “what did Reince know, and when did he know it?” – and there’s really no good answer. Either he was colluding, or he was oblivious. Neither is a good look.

T: How about Giuliani? Or Christie?

Wait – forget Christie; that blowhard would just come out with it, I think, and be proud of himself. What about Guliani, though? He’s dumb enough to have been oblivious, in a Mr. Magoo sort of way.

J: I don’t think either Christie or Giuliani are close enough to the Russia thing to really be on Mueller’s radar.

T: Giuliani … he was part of the campaign, but like you say he’s not really involved in the investigation. I haven’t heard his name come up at all.

J: It all fits for Priebus.

T: Does it fit too well, though? It can’t just be Jagger, making clouds in our coffee, can it? But that’s where the smart money should go.

J: It could still be Flynn, but I’d give good odds that it’s Priebus.

T: Nunes?

J: Nah, he wasn’t really involved with the campaign… probably isn’t Bannon, maybe Stone?

T: Bannon’s like Christie, he wouldn’t hide.

Nunes can’t just be tossed, can he, after that stupid move he made? Taking the evidence to the White House was such a cliché move, like one of those movie Western bad guy henchmen, leading John Wayne right to their hideout. “Hey boss, we got trouble! I think they’re on to us!”

“Then what the hell are you doing coming HERE???!?!?!??? Were you followed?”

Can Nunez’ story fit the narrative? That “those guys over there” remark might fit.

J: Maybe, but less likely. What about Stone?

T: Nunes is less likely, for sure, but what a narrative, huh?

I don’t think Stone fits the profile. He’s in Russia up to his eyeballs ain’t he?

J: I don’t think it’s Stone; he’s probably got a lawyer’s hand so far up his ass that he could do ventriloquism.

T: That’s the problem with Flynn Sr., too. He wouldn’t be saying “well, maybe, but those guys over there …” because he was “over there …” himself.

J: Yeah, Flynn WAS one of the “guys over there”.

T: What about other Junior, Carbon Paper Donny? Or Eric?

J: Eric maybe; Junior was in the meeting. Ivanka? How much does she really know? How close was she to the Russians?

T: Ivanka could be the source – she can’t just be ruled out –but she’s a longshot. I don’t think she’s trying to clear her name. My low “turning” odds reflect the chance that she’ll turn on her father for past sins.

J: She’s got young kids; she’d probably flip if they went hard after her, but I doubt she has much to offer.

T: She could end this entire charade with three words; “Daddy raped me”.

J: Yeah, but I doubt she would. She likes being first daughter.

T: He’d be on the bus in an hour, on his way to go meet his new wife, Jethro.

J: They’d perp-walk him right off Air Force One.

T: I’m not sure anyone else has that power right now, but Ivanka does, because most of the country already believes it happened. Confirmation bias and shock are a powerful combination.

J: Tiffany?

T: Tiffany could take him down with an accusation, but it wouldn’t be an hour. It would be a week.

J: Yeah, she doesn’t have the backstory.

T: And there would be a huge, massive deflection to the Clintons in the meantime, possibly causing a civil war.

J: Or some other kind of war; Trump could go all “Wag the Dog”.

T: Ivanka is the only one who can do it. Hell, her mother – Ivana, remember her? – accused him years ago, and it fell on deaf ears. Melania? They’d laugh at her, call her a Latvian whore.

J: And she’d say, “I am most definitely NOT Latvian!”

3 thoughts on “Slack Chat: Considering the Source”

  1. I changed the wording to make it more obvious … I need to find out if I can change that color – red would be easier to spot, just about any color but brown.

    Like

Comments are closed.