Do You Mean THIS Paul Manafort?

“Paul Manafort worked for me for a very short period of time,” Trump told reporters at the White House today in an attempt to downplay Manafort’s time and influence on his presidential campaign.

Okay, got it. The Paul Manafort Trump is talking about must not have had much of an impact on the campaign, then, right? I mean, it was a very short period of time.

Or, wait. Perhaps Trump was also talking about...
  • The Paul Manafort who spent 2006-2016 working as a political and image consultant for Ukranian Victor Yanukovych, the leader of the Russia-friendly Party of Regions. (Manafort was paid $12.7 million from 2007 to 2012 by Yanukovych’s party)
  • The Paul Manafort whose 2006 purchase of a Trump Tower apartment, for all cash, by the way, coincided with Manafort’s firm signing a $10 million contract with a pro-Putin Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

  • The Paul Manafort who was Trump’s campaign manager from March of 2016 to August of 2016, or 144 days. (Trump has claimed Manafort was only employed for 49 days) 

  • The Paul Manafort who was at the infamous meeting in July 2016 between Don Jr. , Jared Kushner, and a host of Russians in order to get gossip on Hillary Clinton during an American presidential campaign. 

  • The Paul Manafort who, while still Trump’s campaign manager, oversaw a revision to the Republican Party’s platform at the RNC convention in July 2016 that scaled back the party's position on pro-Western elements in Ukraine — from supporting supplying weapons for fighters there to a more general assistance. (Russia wanted this, too, of course)

Sure, Trump must have been talking about THAT Paul Manafort, too. Right Trump?

Well, if not, let’s see if some time sitting in a prison cell motivates Paul Manafort to remind his good buddy Trump of exactly who he is.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Jesus Loves The Little Children (wait, not you)

Image
Jesus loves the little children All the children of the world Red and Yellow, Black and White They are precious in his sight Jesus loves the little children of the world Singing this song is one of my earliest memories from growing up going to Sunday school. It taught me that all of us, no matter what we look like or where we come from, are loved by the God we were gathering to worship twice on Sundays and Wednesday nights.  This song taught me that I should accept those who might look differently than me (which, growing up in a small, whites only town in Indiana, was a rare occurrence, to be sure), because GOD loved them.  That was the point, wasn't it? That if God loved these people, then we should, too? This week we saw a story about the popular, and notoriously anti-LGBTQ, food chain Chick-fil-A and the reaction some on the right had when discovering Chick-fil-A's website included a section on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and that they had "just hired" a...
Read more

Impeach Trump: Now

Image
The Democrats should be moving full speed ahead on impeaching the president. This is the moment where, historically, Democrats have chosen to take the sensible, well-thought out, reactionary way forward, when what was needed was for them to grab ahold of the narrative and shape it to THEIR will. We don’t need to wait and contemplate while hoping the unredacted version of the Mueller Report gets released soon (we’ve seen enough already). What Trump does so well is to set the framing of the narrative. For instance, when he repeatedly made his racist birther claims about President Obama, Trump introduced a frame, a worldview, that included the possibility of Obama not being an American citizen. The narrative within that frame, whether for or against, necessarily included discussion of Obama’s citizenship, a topic we’d never addressed before in reference to a sitting president. It didn’t matter that his birtherism claims weren’t true, they became a part of the narrative, the disc...
Read more

McConnell's Misplaced Historical Precedent

“You have to go back to 1880 to find last time a Senate controlled by a different party from the president confirmed a Supreme Court justice to a vacancy created in the middle of a presidential election,” McConnell said on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday morning, turning to historical precedent. This isn’t even an honest point (shocking!). It’s a complete Red Herring. A misdirection. The point isn’t that this particular situation hasn’t happened since 1880, the argument McConnell should be making is to point out ALL the times since 1880 where this exact situation actually presented itself , and then a nomination wasn’t even considered. Just like Merrick Garland wasn't even considered. That would be historical precedent.
Read more