Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bob Ness

Members
  • Content Count

    137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bob Ness

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Interests
    I research historical political and espionage related subjects

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Jawarki's opinion is irrelevant except in the case where he makes the determination of whether to indict or not. He has no standing in this case and his decision in WG holds no value as precedent other to be used as an excuse by a Trump friendly AG . Under that understanding, as I said before, he could have the FBI jail the Supremes and eliminate a branch of government. Ridiculous. What if he shot someone? Where's the line? Answer me that.
  2. Trump does not one thing from virtue. Agreed. His entire view of the world starts with "how does it effect me?" How anyone can miss the clinical narcissism is beyond me.
  3. Trying to say there is no political cost to his attitudes and actions? How about at the voting booth? I guess we've wandered of topic now. Sorry mods....
  4. Watergate had some things in common Jim but really do you see an equivalence between the two? It's not even close.Nixon did not obstruct the Congressional investigation to the extent that Trump is and has done with Mueller. This clown is far more corrupt than Nixon, for all to see!! His supporters and enablers see their own skins at risk and it's that simple. This garbage about how lilly-white Don-Don is getting picked on is so ridiculous because there's enough to convict him on his and his minion's PUBLIC statements. Nobody is yet addressing this and you have skirted it also: To repeat for comment: Why should a person who can not be indicted or prosecuted, has the power of offering any bribe, advancement, pardon or anything in the world, be allowed the same considerations as a normal person under investigation? Because of the MDA they can negotiate any agreement they want with co-defendents (subjects) to falsify testimony and not have to pay any consequences due to the DOJ memo and pardon powers. FWIW A President being unindictable is not a part of the Constitution as far as I'm aware. What line can he cross where he would be indictable? Can he kidnap and detain the Supreme Court and declare martial law? Is that how we roll now? Can't touch him cuz he's The Monarch? And when/if he refused to recognize the Constitutional duty of HOR to vote to impeach him can he just ignore them and refuse to answer to subpoenas? I'm just curious to see how far this goes.
  5. How would anybody know? He refused to be interviewed and entered into a mutual defense agreement with 36 other subjects and witnesses in the investigation. Many of these were felons, essentially in partnership with the POTUS!! He is supposedly unindictable but is the only person in the US who can offer pardons to anyone he chooses. Because of the idiotic "memo" from DOJ he is able to offer, through proxies, get out of jail cards using attorney-client privalege without any consequences due to a cuckold Senate. This is a huge problem. So far nobody on this forum, that I remember, has commented on the MDA, which no doubt is why several Mueller witnesses wilted. Trump is so corrupt he essentially dares anyone to do anything about it. Several times on live TV he encourages foreign interference and yet his defenders act like battered spouses. Some day maybe they'll resume behaving with principle. Who knows? To repeat for comment: Why should a person who can not be indicted or prosecuted, has the power of offering any bribe, advancement, pardon or anything in the world, be allowed the same considerations as a normal person under investigation? Because of the MDA they can negotiate any agreement they want with co-defendents (subjects) to falsify testimony and not have to pay any consequences due to the DOJ memo and pardon powers.
  6. Kudos Jim! Better get to writing the 2020 Christmas update of Destiny Betrayed hahaha! Congratulations!!
  7. Direct to consumer advertising for lawyers and pharma is relatively new. For years pharma only advertised to doctors and pharmacists. That explains the lack of drug advertising up until the 90's or so. Their influence over programming decisions is limited but meaningful because of their financial clout, but probably doesn't get by the firewall in the news rooms of most networks. You can simply look at the network takedowns of several drug companies to see that's true. Negative reporting on big pharma is probably at an all time high. I do remember a hysterical tv spot produced by one of the online brokerage companies around the dot com boom that spoofed drug commercials. An investor was shown buying a drug company stock on his lap top while watching a commercial about it's new wonder drug. When the lady dancing in the field of lillies came to rest in the sunlight the warnings about the side effects came on - "Your children may be born with the head of a cocker spaniel etc etc etc" - the guy watching hit sell immediately. One of the funniest ads I've ever seen! And I only saw it once. I have no doubt the ad got killed by the drug companies. In short all these financial players have massive influence but by and large stay in their own lanes IMO. Unless there is direct short term financial benefit to the shareholders they could care less about everything else.
  8. I believe McAdams or someone found a picture of the same man at another location and it pretty clearly wasn't HW Bush.
  9. Re the Bushes, no doubt they stink to high heaven. But institutions have their own traits similar to a living organism which has it's own life cycles, defense mechanisms, survival skills and appetites. The CIA for example isn't going to do anything that could threaten it's existence. Even if the FBI knew the culprit of the JFKA cover-up was Hoover they're not likely to do anything with that information except burn it as fast as possible. FOX News (or other news orgs) isn't going to hire somebody who is philosophically at odds with their audience's views. The point is nobody has to give orders for this sort of thing. Doing anything different is counter the individual's and therefore the institution's survival. The MSM continued cover-up or, more like it, support of the WC, seems fairly conventional and predictable to me. Look how hard it is for researchers then and today to come up with reliable and relevant information. The information that does come out doesn't fit between commercial breaks! The MSM produces content for advertisers not informed people. The information people get is graded on a price per eyeball and a value for demographic profile. Nothing more. That's not to say there aren't great efforts going on in journalism because there are. It just needs to dovetail within the survival mechanisms of the institution. Most of the MSM have been totally scared away from anything that can be described as a "conspiracy theory" as we know. That's why serious efforts at research shouldn't come to premature conclusions. Interesting speculation should remain so stated until facts can be added as a catalyst to firm them up.
  10. I believe Bush called the FBI as a confidential informant and claimed he overheard someone planning an attempt or some such thing. Not exactly a smoking gun but the name he dropped and the way he did it could be made to sound like an alibi. Interesting but not conclusive. Re the family writ large me thinks they stinketh the barn up pretty bad.
  11. I just don't think the family tree bit you keep chasing is conclusive of anything other than it's a small world. When you state something as false that I know is true it calls everything else into question. My last name is Ness. My grandfather was the CO at Nebraska Street in DC with the AFSA. He was in the ONI and served several years with Lou Tordella the longest active DD in NSA history who is in the Cryptology Hall of Fame. I grew up with Rockefellers and others who you would instantly know by name. None of this infers anything other than if you're around long enough you meet people. Hell I've met 12 Oscar winners. It seems your a man who has concluded something and are searching for the pieces to justify the conclusion. I appreciate the research but it doesn't convince me of anything.
  12. Uh, yeah it went something like that. I know some of his early investors personally. It's a very small world in the tech community. I can't comment on the rest of what you say but this statement calls it into question for me.
  13. FWIW I remember a friend of mine somehow got ahold of a Pacific NW Bell code that you could dial in prior to dialing the usual number and make free calls from a pay phone and I think free long distance calls with another prefix code. This was many years ago but I believe there were other codes for different functions also. Linemen used them for repairs and other company employees had them too. I think they randomly changed them after everyone passed them around.
  14. Because of the nature of the underlying issue, these kind of claims require substantiation in some form. Even diary entries or contemporaneous notes or some such thing is better than nothing. Remember there have been inumerable frauds, charlatans and misinformed people on this forum and in the JFKA area for decades. Posting here and making claims that can't be substantiated over and over again will raise red flags. On the other hand providing proof for a previously unknown piece of information that passes muster will be appreciated by everyone and you'd probably see less offensive responses.
×
×
  • Create New...