Trump and the Unspeakable?

[Robert Harper]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

No one can hijack a thread like this guy can.

Well, there are highjacks and there are diversions.This post is meant to further contextualize the relationship between Congressional Investigations of 40 years ago and the present investigation of possible improprieties of the Presidential election of 2016.

Unfortunately, the "historian" of the Senate uses the term "Watergate babies" a half dozen times (referring to US Senators elected post Nixon resignation), but otherwise, this link provides  a decent wrap-up and context of  the creation of the CHURCH Committee in Jan 75, in response to a series of disclosures about domestic abuse by the intelligence agencies. She talks for 15 minutes or so, an anchor gets some info in, and there is a 40 minute clip of Colby.

Some context: in 1970, there was an article in the Washington Monthly, by "a whistle-blower" about a secret nationwide domestic security program that had been going on "for about a decade"; In 1971 Sam Ervin formed a Committee to look into these allegations; two years later, in 1973, he chaired another Committee, to investigate  "improprieties" in the 1972 Presidential campaign. In the course of that investigation, there were new allegations of the political uses of the FBI and CIA in that campaign. In Dec, 1974, Seymour Hersh's article was published about the CIA's development of a domestic security program. And in  Jan 1975, the Church Committee is formed.

 

 This is Colby in September 1975.  Senators on the Committee refer to the CIA as a "rogue elephant out of control" and in January 1976, Warren Commission member, and unelected President Gerald Ford, fires Colby and replaces him with George H W Bush.

 

 f

William Colby Testimony before the Church Committee

 

William Colby Testimony before the Church Committee On September 16, 1975, CIA Director William Colby appeared before the Church Committee to testify about illegall...

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

CV: Robert Lovett and Joe Kennedy wanted the operation to fail using Rusk and Bundy as their tools -- or so I speculate.

As Dwight McDonald once wrote about the auteur theory of cinema, no one can each more inane conclusions that a dyed in the wool theorist.  Varnell is so dedicated to theory that he only ignores the fact that of all the people who have written at length about Zapata, both inside and outside the research community, no one and I mean NO ONE agrees with him.

That's because middle-class middle-age academics lack street smarts.

I labeled it as speculation given the historical facts you cannot refute.

Robert Lovett and Joe Kennedy tried for years to get Allen Dulles fired.

Are you denying this?

Robert Lovett and Joe Kennedy got Dean Rusk and McGeorge Bundy their jobs.

Are you denying it?

After the CIA submitted it's Escambray proposal on March 11, 1961 JFK rejected it.

Are you denying it?

Dean Rusk complained about the scope of the operation constantly until the very end when he didn't object to the operation going forward.

Are you denying it?

It was McGeorge Bundy's proposal to stage a false flag attack to take out Castro's air force with some time in-between the false flag sorties and the land invasion.

Are you denying it?

I'm not saying it happened that way  -- Lovett and Old Joe screwing over Allen Dulles the hard way -- there is a good argument for it.

 

Quote

But that is fine.  Let him continue. Pretty soon he will be posting segments of The Matrix. And the ice bullet and flechette.

The night of the autopsy the 3 prosectors speculated that JFK was hit with a high tech weapon which wouldn't show up on x-ray.

FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab, and was blown off.

The fact is that such weaponry existed, and the FBI had been briefed on seeing that kind of wound pattern -- a wound of exit in the back, no exit, no bullet found during autopsy.

The people who developed this weaponry at the US Army Special Operation Division told the FBI such an attack would come from outside the country.

It's all there in the historical record, Clarice, Persons of Interest to investigate.

Quote

No one can hijack a thread like this guy can.

The gentleman to who started this thread, Robert Harper, brought up the subject of the Bay of Pigs.

No one can run a drive-by sneering like Jim D.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

49 minutes ago, Robert Harper said:

Well, there are highjacks and there are diversions.This post is meant to further contextualize the relationship between Congressional Investigations of 40 years ago and the present investigation of possible improprieties of the Presidential election of 2016.

Isn't it better to wait and see what the current investigation yields before we offer it historical comparison?

Just say'n...

[Robert Harper]

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/19/fbi-doj-and-hillary-clinton-weiner-problem/

 

This linked article by Sidney Powell, is a continuation of this thread's original concern alluded to in Mr DeGenova's video voicing an opinion that a diversion was created, within the government, to hide another action, detrimental to a political figure.

The recent report by the FBI IG certainly supports this perspective and Ms. Powell - in this referenced article - makes it clearer, to me anyway, what was going on. Maybe this will lead nowhere or somewhere, but I still find it distasteful that one Branch of Government in 1978,  created a "right" to hire someone to investigate another Branch at the drop of a hat; 20 years later the Supreme Court upheld that "right" with only Justice Scalia warning us of its danger. in Part II I posted his dissent--certainly pertinent 40 years later.

Ms Powell(with my bold):

On October 30, 2016, The Daily Caller reported that the Department of Justice had not even sought a warrant for review of the 350,000 Clinton emails.

Breitbart reported on November 4, 2016 that the New York Police Department officers who had seen the evidence on Weiner’s laptop had threatened to blow the whistle. Remarkably, the “Justice Department” shut them down by allegedly threatening to indict NYPD officers on the two-year old death of Eric Gardner if the NYPD disclosed it.

In a stunning assertion, Director Comey told the Inspector General he did not know Anthony Weiner was married to Huma Abedin. Perhaps they should have told him it was “Carlos Danger?”

Either Comey was bald-faced lying, which is punishable under 18 U.S.C. §1001, or the level of ignorance and incompetence inherent in that representation alone warranted his termination.

Moreover, if Comey’s claim were true, then Comey, McCabe and Strzok should have flown into action at the mere thought of a perverted stranger in a sexual offense investigation having 350,000 emails of the secretary of state including highly classified information — covering her entire tenure there.

One (FBI) agent said the announcement of finding hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop was “like dropping a bomb in the middle of the meeting.”

The New York agent Sweeney followed up with two calls to McCabe later that evening — after McCabe did not call him as promised.

So . . . what did McCabe, Comey and Strzok do? They sat on it until police officers in New York and FBI agents in New York threatened to expose them.

By October 28, it was only 11 days before the election. Comey panicked. The jig was up. They had been hiding it for three weeks. Comey’s guilt and concern for his own career caused him to realize he could not keep it quiet any longer.

Everything exploded when Comey wrote a letter to Congress vaguely reporting the discovery of “additional emails that appear to be related to the investigation.” He wrote further, “the FBI cannot assess at this time whether or not the material may be significant.”

Comey’s words to Congress are belied by the inspector general’s report who bought none of their excuses for the multi-week delay in addressing the emails..............

 

Here are just 10 such questions:

1. What are the names of all the people the FBI has identified as having emailed Hillary Clinton on her obvious unsecured server at Clintonemail.com? (We already know Obama emailed her on it under an alias. Which other high-ranking officials also emailed Clinton at her unsecured server? What about Robert Mueller? What about Eric Holder?

2. Did the inspector general ask Lynch about threats to NYPD to prosecute officers if they didn’t back down on exposing the email cover-up? Why not?

3. Did the FBI show Hillary the email by Cheryl Mills stating it was “obvious” Clintonemail.com was not secure?

4. Who are the three — just three — FBI agents who reviewed the Weiner laptop and conducted the miraculous de-duping and review in only a few days of 350,000 emails that covered her entire tenure as Secretary of State?

5. Who in the Department of Justice reviewed the 350,000 Clinton emails on Weiner laptop?

6. Who in Department of Justice talked to the New York office about the Weiner laptop?

7. How many classified, top-secret and even more secret chains were found from Clinton’s own production on Weiner’s laptop?

8. Who stripped the classified and confidential markings from the documents Mrs. Clinton received before sending them to her?

9. Where is Weiner’s laptop right now?

10. Who made that phone call from the Department of Justice to the New York Police Department? Exactly what was said?

 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

26 minutes ago, Robert Harper said:

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/19/fbi-doj-and-hillary-clinton-weiner-problem/

 

This linked article by Sidney Powell, is a continuation of this thread's original concern alluded to in Mr DeGenova's video voicing an opinion that a diversion was created, within the government, to hide another action, detrimental to a political figure.

The recent report by the FBI IG certainly supports this perspective and Ms. Powell - in this referenced article - makes it clearer, to me anyway, what was going on. Maybe this will lead nowhere or somewhere, but I still find it distasteful that one Branch of Government in 1978,  created a "right" to hire someone to investigate another Branch at the drop of a hat; 20 years later the Supreme Court upheld that "right" with only Justice Scalia warning us of its danger. in Part II I posted his dissent--certainly pertinent 40 years later.

Ms Powell(with my bold):

On October 30, 2016, The Daily Caller reported that the Department of Justice had not even sought a warrant for review of the 350,000 Clinton emails.

Breitbart reported on November 4, 2016 that the New York Police Department officers who had seen the evidence on Weiner’s laptop had threatened to blow the whistle. Remarkably, the “Justice Department” shut them down by allegedly threatening to indict NYPD officers on the two-year old death of Eric Gardner if the NYPD disclosed it.

In a stunning assertion, Director Comey told the Inspector General he did not know Anthony Weiner was married to Huma Abedin. Perhaps they should have told him it was “Carlos Danger?”

Either Comey was bald-faced lying, which is punishable under 18 U.S.C. §1001, or the level of ignorance and incompetence inherent in that representation alone warranted his termination.

Moreover, if Comey’s claim were true, then Comey, McCabe and Strzok should have flown into action at the mere thought of a perverted stranger in a sexual offense investigation having 350,000 emails of the secretary of state including highly classified information — covering her entire tenure there.

One (FBI) agent said the announcement of finding hundreds of thousands of Clinton emails on Weiner’s laptop was “like dropping a bomb in the middle of the meeting.”

The New York agent Sweeney followed up with two calls to McCabe later that evening — after McCabe did not call him as promised.

So . . . what did McCabe, Comey and Strzok do? They sat on it until police officers in New York and FBI agents in New York threatened to expose them.

By October 28, it was only 11 days before the election. Comey panicked. The jig was up. They had been hiding it for three weeks. Comey’s guilt and concern for his own career caused him to realize he could not keep it quiet any longer.

Everything exploded when Comey wrote a letter to Congress vaguely reporting the discovery of “additional emails that appear to be related to the investigation.” He wrote further, “the FBI cannot assess at this time whether or not the material may be significant.”

Comey’s words to Congress are belied by the inspector general’s report who bought none of their excuses for the multi-week delay in addressing the emails..............

 

Here are just 10 such questions:

1. What are the names of all the people the FBI has identified as having emailed Hillary Clinton on her obvious unsecured server at Clintonemail.com? (We already know Obama emailed her on it under an alias. Which other high-ranking officials also emailed Clinton at her unsecured server? What about Robert Mueller? What about Eric Holder?

2. Did the inspector general ask Lynch about threats to NYPD to prosecute officers if they didn’t back down on exposing the email cover-up? Why not?

3. Did the FBI show Hillary the email by Cheryl Mills stating it was “obvious” Clintonemail.com was not secure?

4. Who are the three — just three — FBI agents who reviewed the Weiner laptop and conducted the miraculous de-duping and review in only a few days of 350,000 emails that covered her entire tenure as Secretary of State?

5. Who in the Department of Justice reviewed the 350,000 Clinton emails on Weiner laptop?

6. Who in Department of Justice talked to the New York office about the Weiner laptop?

7. How many classified, top-secret and even more secret chains were found from Clinton’s own production on Weiner’s laptop?

8. Who stripped the classified and confidential markings from the documents Mrs. Clinton received before sending them to her?

9. Where is Weiner’s laptop right now?

10. Who made that phone call from the Department of Justice to the New York Police Department? Exactly what was said?

 

 

 

Maybe I’m confused. Are you citing the Daily Caller as a reputable news source?

[Robert Harper]

Yes. Isn't this an accurate account of the IG report?

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Robert Harper said:

Yes. Isn't this an accurate account of the IG report?

I didn’t read it. Did you? Anyone here?  I’m not saying it’s inaccurate. But I sure wouldn’t trust the source without reading the report itself. 

[James DiEugenio]

The IG report pulled its punches on this issue.

The key point should have been: Why did Comey not start examining the new emails immediately on his own with some trusted tekkies.  It appears that he decided to publicly expose the new emails only when he was under pressure that the information would leak out due to FBI and NYPD right-wingers who hated HC.  In reality, this could have been done before the election without the letter to congress.  

The IG report spends more time on the Russia Gate episode and does not pull its punches as badly as on this issue. 

BTW, I also have a hard time buying that the Director did not know who Abedin's husband was.

[Robert Harper]

12 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I didn’t read it. Did you?

I tried to; it is a form of torture to read. It is 500 pages of government talk. Early on you read about the "million" pages they reviewed and the hundred people they spoke to, and they try to overwhelm you with information collected. I thought the essay I copied captured facts that were pertinent and gave them a perspective. I still can't imagine how Hillary was able to set up her own communication system as if she was an independent consultant instead of a Government official. Russia may or may not be all that involved, but the FBI interfered with the American election in ways they had no right to.

[Robert Harper]

In the first post of this 2 part thread, I presented for discussion, the idea that departments within the Executive Branch itself could undermine a presidency.(The FBI, the CIA, IRS or the DOJ for eg).

 The second part offered the potential for harm from other branches of the government, as well as other governments. The common thread was "the unspeakable" - that which refers to a thing which is not mentioned.

 

When Trump was in Russia and was critical of the FBI, it was unprecedented. Eisenhower didn't blame the CIA when the U-2 flight was shot down for instance. On the other hand, the testimony of these FBI agents - Comey, McHale,  and Strozk - was quite frankly, embarrassing. The days of the autocrat J. Edgar at the "seat of government" may be over, but all three of these guys acted like they really wanted to be on Oprah or have a show like Oprah's.

The occasion produces two formerly "unspeakable" topics: criticism of the intelligence service by a president while in another country; and the behavior of intelligence agents in the country, that display  bias and unprofessional behavior. These issues are just within the Executive Branch; other Branches of government and other governments might chime in. Stay tuned America.

 

The topics and the description of topics which are spoken about, varies. The founder of PaPa Joe's Pizza, apparently used a "bad word" and all hell broke loose. Stockholders revoled, resignations, stories in the WSJ. You can upset a whole world economic system and push literally millions of people out of their homes and you won't lose your job or your freedom and no one will pursue you; matter of fact they will insure you. But. Say a word that you "shouldn't say" and what happens? As if words were "things"  rather than "signs" of things.

 

The lawyer for misbehaving politicos is now representing President Trump's one-time lawyer,Michael Cohen:

 

 "Lanny Davis said that the tape's release sends the message: I am no longer the previous Michael Cohen that you knew — taking a bullet for Donald Trump, saying anything to defend him, being a good soldier. ..." 

 

 The metaphor Mr Davis  chose to create is a bad one because it posits a disproportionate relationship, in addition to minimizing  the "real"  blood and the "real" loss of husbands and fathers and followers in his analogy.

 

Robert and John and Martin took a bullet.  Michael Cohen wasn't even near one.

 

 Davis sounds like that other protector of power, Jack Valenti, who after listening for 10 minutes during the 1964 tape recently posted, created metaphorical flourishes of blood and guts and animals and scavenging to the discussion.

 

The media will pick up the cliche and ignore the underlying "unspeakable" - the failure to address the truth  of uncomfortable or hidden issues.

 

I don't like that on a hunch, one branch of government can pursue crimes against members of another branch of government. Each branch patrols itself and the people can impeach any of them. I'm with Scalia's 1987 dissent on this one -- the Dept of Justice is the department to investigate crime. One branch hiring a whole team of lawyers and accountants and paralegals and office space and printing facilities and getting another branch to justify it and going into the office of the lawyer of the sitting Executive of yet another branch, strikes me as harmful to the concept of the lawyer/client privilege, to say nothing of the Constitutional rights to due process and against self incrimination and the larger issue of separation of powers.

 

I suspect encountering the unspeakable is going to happen more and more in the coming months, but paying off a floozy - wherever it came from and however it was given - shouldn't be the cause of constitutional ruptures.

 

 I can't imagine any scenario where the USA could defend itself against using propaganda with the Russian people. I posted awhile back about the Frances Saunders book and the CIA paying for publications and for promoting issues and authors. If anyone - kid in a garage or the KGB - violated the voting process in the USA then the USA defense system that allowed - allegedly - some Saudi students the ability to pierce a 500 billion dollar defense system, has displayed the same incompetence with its technical capability and perhaps the people aren't getting their money's worth with the defense  that can't defend and takes away liberties as it does so.

 

 I bet more people know who "Stormy Danial" is than who know who Jack Ruby was. 

[Robert Harper]

On 7/26/2018 at 5:29 PM, Robert Harper said:

The media will pick up the cliche and ignore the underlying "unspeakable" - the failure to address the truth  of uncomfortable or hidden issues.

The umbrella under which certain topics are “unspeakable” has been getting wider. Some topics like AIPAC remain red hot to the touch; others like regime change and incursions into countries which haven’t attacked America, remain behind a cloud – or fog – of disinformation, hidden agendas and geopolitical strategies.

JFK’s encounter with the Israeli interest in securing nuclear power capability was not discussed until after his death. Who should acquire – and who need not obtain such material – has never had an encompassing guideline understood and accepted by all Americans. The same holds true of the substance of the “rendition” allowed during the Bush and Obama administrations, as well as the response to the legitimate yearnings of the Palestinians under Trump. The USA’s refusal to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (it’s okay for countries other than the USA and Israel) allows both countries to ignore International Law which makes the cries about what “other countries” do, hypocritical to say the least.

Among the most visible personalities on main stream media, is the ubiquitous Alan Dershowitz who seems to be the only lawyer - among the country’s 800,000 lawyers - who can be consulted by the MSM over the Middle East, the College admission scandal, the Mueller Report, or the status of Jerusalem. When he is introduced, it’s his “concern for civil rights” and his status as a “Emeritus Professor at Harvard” that are emphasized. What remains unspoken is Dershowitz’s vile attacks on those who question his “authority” or his integrity” as well as his racist undertones in proclaiming his association with Zionist principles.

Fortunately, the country has scholars like Noam Chomsky, Norman Finklestein and Francis Boyle who can offer alternatives to the gasbag Dershowitz. Unfortunately, they are rarely consulted by the CNN, FOX, CBS, and MSNBCs of the world.

Unfortunately, in April of last year, The College of Law at the University of Illinois invited the ever-talkative Dershowitz to speak on campus. Fortunately, Francis Boyle decided to also show up and speak.

Mr. Boyle has given me permission to post the statement he made at that event:

 

Denouncing Dershowitz at the University of Illinois*

            My name is Francis Boyle. I am the Senior Professor of Law here at the University of Illinois College of Law. That means that I have taught here longer than anyone else. I am now in my Fortieth Year of teaching law here.

I am here to condemn not only Dershowitz but the entire College of Law for inviting him in here and sponsoring him. They know full well Dershowitz is a war criminal and they could not care less. They could not care less! They invited him in here, this war criminal, knowing full well that Dershowitz is a member of a Mossad Committee that approves the murder and assassination of Palestinians, which is a war crime.

Indeed the Consort of our former Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd, Mikey Moore admitted that he works for the Mossad and the C.I.A. I kid you not! Dershowitz believes he’s part of the übermensch and the same is true for Hurricane Heidi Hurd and her Consort Mikey Moore. They have been stinking up this Campus and the Law School and this Community and the Legal Profession by advocating torture in and out and all the time just like Dershowitz who is speaking in there tonight. Torture in war time is also a war crime!

We have a war criminal in there under the sponsorship of the Nazi College of Law. Carl Schmitt would be proud of them all – the foremost Nazi “jurist” of his time who justified every hideous atrocity Hitler and the Nazis inflicted on everyone including the Jews. That is exactly what Dershowitz has done to People of Color all over the world and especially Muslims of Color.

            Now in addition, Dershowitz has also advocated the serial destruction of Palestinian villages. Repeatedly he has done that, including in an editorial he wrote for the Jerusalem Post on March 11, 2002. This is a war crime in violation of the Nuremberg Charter and Judgment that convicted and condemned to death Nazi war criminals. Here let me quote from the relevant section of Article 6 of the 1945 Nuremberg Charter that the United States drafted and signed:

            Article 6

   The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to…wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;…

       That is exactly what Dershowitz has advocated to be done to the Palestinians. A Nuremberg War Crime right there in the Nuremberg Charter just like the Nazis did throughout Europe during World War II. In addition, Dershowitz published it on purpose over in Israel in order to incite the Israeli government to destroy Palestinian villages. The direct incitement of Nuremberg Crimes is a war crime in its own right. And the College of Law knowing this full well nevertheless brings Dershowitz in here to advocate torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity against Palestinians and Muslims of Color in this country and all over the world.

Also, Dershowitz deliberately went onto Fox News to encourage Trump, their biggest fan, to bomb Syria. He incited Trump to bomb Syria and that is a Nuremberg Crime Against Peace, an act of aggression, a war crime as defined by international law. It also violated the United Nations Charter, the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Congress’s own War Powers Resolution of 1973.

            Dershowitz also attacked Professor Israel Shahak, one of the leaders of the Peace Movement in Israel, and a Holocaust Survivor himself – unfortunately, no longer with us, but a great man. I have dealt with Shahak and have great respect for him. Indeed, he was going to have a lecture tour here in the United States in the Fall of 1990 and was coming to speak in Champaign. The organizers of his lecture tour asked me if I would put him up in my home as my guest in order to conserve on expenses, and I agreed. I was greatly looking forward again to meeting Professor Shahak. But with the Gulf crisis, Professor Shahak decided to cancel his lecture tour and stay at home with his own people, which was certainly understandable. Dershowitz couldn’t care less! Whatever kind of outright character assassination he has to apply to anyone, even a Holocaust Survivor like Professor Shahak, it doesn’t bother Dershowitz. That’s how shameless Dershowitz is, publicly attacking a Holocaust Survivor!

He attacked and inflicted character assassination on Norman Finkelstein’s Mother, another Holocaust Survivor. Finally, he destroyed Norman Finkelstein’s academic career because Norman exposed him as a great and gross plagiarist in his book Beyond Chutzpah. Norman Finkelstein published a book with the University of California Press, a most distinguished press, criticizing Dershowitz and definitively proving that Dershowitz is a plagiarist. What did Dershowitz do? He set out to persecute Norman Finkelstein, a Fellow Jew, and then he got Finkelstein denied tenure at DePaul University – that says it’s “Catholic” – and destroyed Norman’s entire academic career. Norman can no longer get into a tenure track slot anywhere in this country or even abroad.

Now that’s free speech for Alan Dershowitz! If you criticize him, he will destroy you as he did Norman Finkelstein. Don’t ever forget it! So this guy even does dirty work against Fellow Jews. I know that our Friends from Jewish Voices for Peace are here today as a matter of principle in opposing Dershowitz’s presence.

            Finally, for the last year now Dershowitz has been running all over the country defending Trump. Think about that! Defending Trump all up and down in any way and in any capacity he can, defending Trump.  Indeed, just read the Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette yesterday. Dershowitz had dinner with Trump, giving legal advice to Trump. This is now the second Trump Legal Henchman that the College of Law has brought onto this campus. The last one was a high-level Trump legal apparatchik in the Trump/Sessions Department of Injustice that is arguing all of Trump’s cases for him in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The entire College of Law Faculty know exactly where I stand on these issues. Indeed they hired me to teach criminal law, international law, and international human rights law. I know a war criminal when I see him and it’s Dershowitz! Please join me:

Hey! Hey!

Dershowitz say!

How many kids!

Did you kill today!

 

Thank you.

 

Francis A. Boyle

 

[Paul Brancato]

Thanks Robert - I was in Champaign-Urbana last week. Wish I had known about Professor Boyle. I’d love to ask him what he thinks about the revelations in the late 1990’s concerning Nazi post war inclusion into our national security state. For all who haven’t looked at the material, it puts the resurgence of overt anti-Semitism in context.

dershowitz is such a slime ball