The Trump-Russia scandals: a quick visual guide


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/03/02/the-trump-russia-scandals-a-q.html


#2

I clicked on the Amazon page for Turmp’s bottled stench, assuming the reviews would be amusing, but it’s just a handful of banal comments like you’d see on any other Chinese-made generic perfume.

But perhaps, in a way, that is the sickest burn of all.


#3


#4

The graphic should probably specify that Yanukovych is the “pro-Russian” former President of Ukraine.

I’m pretty sure it was unremarkable and nothing to do with any kind of conspiracy, but the recent death of the Russian ambassador is sure starting to look weird.


#5


#6

This doesn’t even begin to show all the ties the Trump gang has to Russia and Russian money. One example, that new commerce secretary Wilbur Ross is neck deep in dirty Russian money from his Bank of Cyprus money laundering machine, is given in the accompanying article, but lots more definitely needs to be on the chart.


#7

This is a piss-poor excuse for an infographic. At best it’s a bullet-point list decorated with a bunch of obfuscating arrows and clip art.


#8

Aren’t we all just trying to keep up? Mark’s synopsis does seem more synthesized than Maddow’s piece or the info graphic.


#9

Didn’t Assange say that the leaks didn’t come from Russia?


#10

Yeah, what we “know” is just a hunch of the 17 “intelligence” agencies (including the Coast Guard and a couple of other unlikelies). They don’t even claim to have any real evidence. But, believe what you want. Assange’s insider leak theory seems more plausible to me.

(Not that I’m partisan - they are both scumbags.)


#11

…Okay, is there anyone in the Trumposphere who wasn’t talking to the Russians? Melania?


#12

Boingboing[quote=“Keith_McClary, post:10, topic:96241”]
Yeah, what we “know” is just a hunch of the 17 “intelligence” agencies (including the Coast Guard and a couple of other unlikelies).
[/quote]

You really, honestly believe that Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear aren’t that interested in penetrating the computer networks that run US seaports?

Moreover, the smaller agencies do have sources and methods that are only disclosed in the black budget. Occasionally useful for activities outside their ostensible bailiwicks.

Of course, the Director of National Intelligence does have the authority to speak for its sixteen “constituent agencies”. Add in the DNI itself and you get seventeen.


#13

I thought this was funny:

Mr Pence’s contacts were sent an email falsely claiming that the governor and his wife were stranded in the Philippines and needed money.


#14

Baron wasn’t… probably.


#15

Betsy DeVos, because she couldn’t figure out how to use the phone.


#17

Only because after the fact they’ll claim IMs aren’t talking.


#18

AOL?!?!?! How lame!


#19

He probably still uses it.

“You’ve got Hiel”


#20

Of course many countries do this sort of thing.

This is about claims (they call it “assessment”) about the plans and intentions of Putin. This would require hacking, tapping or having spies at the highest levels. If they had this capability, would they be sharing it among 16 agencies?


#21

He’s probably still paying for dial-up.