Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[Dennis Berube]

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/trumps-russia-cover-up-by-the-numbers-70-contacts-with-russia-linked-operatives/

It makes sense you read and apparently believe the website that is paid for by a non-profit organization whose first president was John Podesta and counts George Soros, CitiBank, Wells Fargo, Northrup Grumman, and many other friends among its donors. I'd call that a slight conflict of interest in terms of independent analysis.

[Cliff Varnell]

20 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

So please Doug, please do not make me put you in the ignore club with CV. 

Doug, this is a good option, believe me.

In my case I get to destroy DiEugenio's arguments without putting up with his insufferable ad hominem.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 minute ago, Dennis Berube said:

It makes sense you read and apparently believe the website that is paid for by a non-profit organization whose first president was John Podesta and counts George Soros, CitiBank, Wells Fargo, Northrup Grumman, and many other friends among its donors. I'd call that a slight conflict of interest in terms of independent analysis.

 

Which of the 272 instances of contact between the Trump campaign and Russians is inaccurate?

 

[James DiEugenio]

Dennis:

Nice observation by  you.

On two points.

First, the only guy i trusted on RG from the start was Bob Parry. And the reason I trusted him is what he did on Ukraine.  He was really one of the few honest journalists who saw through that whole EU, USA, NGO attempt to bring Western interests to the doorstep of Russia. And then what the MSM did with Crimea and you compare that with what Parry wrote, I mean what a voice in the wilderness.

See, the Dems are as bad as the GOP on the subject of Ukraine.  Obama made Biden his point man, and Victoria Nuland was the actual person on the ground actually running the overthrow.  Take a look at who her spouse is.  The idea that somehow one party is pure simply because they are Dems is a fairy tale. And the idea that somehow Putin is a great Satan who is destabilizing the West, that is just silly.  Thanks to that drunken fool Yeltsin,  Putin has a hard time defending his own borders from NATO.

Edited October 16, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

The idea that somehow one party is pure simply because they are Dems is a fairy tale.

No one is saying that the corporate wing of the Democratic Party is pure.  Strawman.

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

And the idea that somehow Putin is a great Satan who is destabilizing the West, that is just silly.  Thanks to that drunken fool Yeltsin,  Putin has a hard time defending his own borders from NATO.

Putin is having a hard time resisting the offensive maneuvers of NATO countries on Russia's border?

Talk about a fairy tale!

 

[Pat Speer]

It's so rare I get to agree with Cliff. See you on the barricades, brother!

[James DiEugenio]

In addition to the tax cut and Pentagon boost, this is another  thing the Dems should have used against Trump.  But to my knowledge they did not.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/read-full-appeals-court-agrees-to-rehear-emoluments-decision-that-favored-trump

Why? 

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

Not trying to hijack this thread about Zaid and the Ukraine-gate whistleblowers, but I'm posting two references about Putin's geopolitical modus operandi, for anyone interested in the subject.  They were both real eye openers for me.

IMO, it's impossible to understand Russia's recent meddling in U.S. politics and foreign affairs without understanding what makes Putin tick..

I.  The Gerasimov Doctrine
It’s Russia’s new chaos theory of political warfare. And it’s probably being used on you

www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/gerasimov-doctrine-russia-foreign-policy-215538

September/October 2017

Lately, Russia appears to be coming at the United States from all kinds of contradictory angles. Russian bots amplified Donald Trump during the campaign, but in office, Kremlin-backed media portray him as weak. Vladimir Putin is expelling U.S. diplomats from Russia, limiting options for warmer relations with the administration he wanted in place. As Congress pushes a harder line against Russia, plenty of headlines declare that Putin’s gamble on Trump has failed.

Confused? Only if you don’t understand the Gerasimov Doctrine.

In February 2013, General Valery Gerasimov—Russia’s chief of the General Staff, comparable to the U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—published a 2,000-word article, “The Value of Science Is in the Foresight,” in the weekly Russian trade paper Military-Industrial Kurier. Gerasimov took tactics developed by the Soviets, blended them with strategic military thinking about total war, and laid out a new theory of modern warfare—one that looks more like hacking an enemy’s society than attacking it head-on. He wrote: “The very ‘rules of war’ have changed. The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown, and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness. … All this is supplemented by military means of a concealed character.”

The article is considered by many to be the most useful articulation of Russia’s modern strategy, a vision of total warfare that places politics and war within the same spectrum of activities—philosophically, but also logistically. The approach is guerrilla, and waged on all fronts with a range of actors and tools—for example, hackers, media, businessmen, leaks and, yes, fake news, as well as conventional and asymmetric military means. Thanks to the internet and social media, the kinds of operations Soviet psy-ops teams once could only fantasize about—upending the domestic affairs of nations with information alone—are now plausible. The Gerasimov Doctrine builds a framework for these new tools, and declares that non-military tactics are not auxiliary to the use of force but the preferred way to win. That they are, in fact, the actual war. Chaos is the strategy the Kremlin pursues: Gerasimov specifies that the objective is to achieve an environment of permanent unrest and conflict within an enemy state.


Does it work? Former captive nations Georgia, Estonia and Lithuania all sounded the alarm in recent years about Russian attempts to influence their domestic politics and security, as the Obama administration downplayed concerns over a new Cold War. But all three countries now have parties with Russian financial connections leading their governments, which softly advocate for a more open approach to Moscow.

In Ukraine, Russia has been deploying the Gerasimov Doctrine for the past several years. During the 2014 protests there, the Kremlin supported extremists on both sides of the fight—pro-Russian forces and Ukrainian ultra-nationalists—fueling conflict that the Kremlin used as a pretext to seize Crimea and launch the war in eastern Ukraine. Add a heavy dose of information warfare, and this confusing environment—in which no one is sure of anybody’s motives, and pretty much no one is a hero—is one in which the Kremlin can readily exert control. This is the Gerasimov Doctrine in the field.

The United States is the latest target. The Russian security state defines America as the primary adversary. The Russians know they can’t compete head-to-head with us—economically, militarily, technologically—so they create new battlefields. They are not aiming to become stronger than us, but to weaken us until we are equivalent.

 

II.  The Current Political Chaos was planned more than 20 years ago

www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/8/25/1881360/-The-Current-Political-Chaos-was-planned-more-than-20-years-ago?utm_campaign=trending

 

 

 

August 25, 2019

I recently had an in-car conversation with my nephew about WW II. He wanted to know what possessed Hitler to attack the Soviet Union. We ended up talking a little bit about geopolitics, and the role that oil & gas reserves played in Germany’s decision to turn against its ally. The conversation was very general, because I had few concrete facts or sources to give him. I promised that I would do some research and send him some links.

Upon my return home, I fired up google and started browsing around about geopolitics. I happened upon a Wikipedia article that discussed a book written by Aleksandr Dugin called “The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia”. What I discovered was both amazing and frightening. I strongly urge you to go and read the (relatively short) article in full.

“The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia” was written in 1997. Since then, it has risen to the rank of textbook for the Russian military’s “Academy of the General Staff”. It lays out a Nationalist, Eurasianist political ideology and strategy for Russia to rebuild its influence and rise to world dominance. The strategic objectives laid out in the book are clear and systematic. The main tactics to accomplish them are not military; rather,

The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.

First off, the textbook says that the United States need to be weakened internally.

Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics".[9]

The book also recommends:

• Isolating the United Kingdom from the rest of Europe

• Annexing Ukraine

• Dismembering Georgia

• Creating a vital alliance with Iran

• Destabilizing Turkey

• Minimizing the influence of China

At the end of the article is a 2017 quote from news.com.au which says the book

Reads like a to-do list for Putin’s behaviour on the world stage.

I couldn’t agree more. And now, with both the U.S. fracturing internally and the U.K. About to cut ITSELF off from the rest of Europe, I can’t help but wonder: are most of today’s major political current events simply part of a plan laid out more than 20 years ago?
 

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

WN, 

I don't know if you will understand this, but this kind of stuff sounds a lot like a guy named Tommy Graves and his so called "active measures".

I am not a closed minded person.  But the problem with what you just wrote is simple: everything Mueller tried to dig up about the Russians and the 2016 election turned to mush.  The guy spent two years and came up pretty much empty handed.  The stuff he did come up with was  shown to be chimerical by authors like Ray McGovern and Gareth Porter.

And the people he manhandled, like George Papadopoulos,, in my view--one you look at the circumstances-- did not at all deserve their fates. 

Here is another example:  https://consortiumnews.com/2018/10/10/the-shaky-case-that-russia-manipulated-social-media-to-tip-the-2016-election/

Here is another, on the so called server hack: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/03/13/vips-muellers-forensics-free-findings/

(Please read these, they are some of the best things ever written on this subject.  Not colored by MSM nuttiness.)

I could go on and on with the paucity of evidence that Mueller produced in two years.  But let me point to the one I think was the most telling: Carter Page. If there was one guy who you would have thought could have been easy prey, Page would be it. It never happened.  I think it never happened because then the whole charade of that smelly Steele Dossier would have been exposed in court.  Along with the FBI's reliance on it for their FISA case against him.  Adam Schiff tried to hide that part of the case for a long, long time. Now we know why.

Ukraine, for the reasons I outlined above, is a different kettle of fish.  We shall see.

 

PS When did Russia move to annex Ukraine?  Putin had a great opportunity, but he did not.

 

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:

So what if Mark Zaid is representing the whistleblowers, one of whom may  be John Bolton who foresaw that Giuliani,Trump's attorney and shadow Secretary of State, was a walking grenade who would blow up everyone, maybe including Trump himself. The chances increase every day that a growing number of Republican Senators will join the Democrats in more than a two-thirds vote to impeach Trump.

Trump's disastrous decision on Turkey, Syria/Kurds has scared the hell out of everyone. What will Trump do next when he makes a snap decision on the spur of the moment late at night that would have even graver consequences?

When that happens, stop the world I want to get off. Chances are I would be joined by most persons on the planet... but not by  Jim DiEugenio who will be a Trump supporter to the bitter end.

 

 

 

The problem with this theory is N. Korea, Iran and Cuba along with several other incidents.  In each, President Trump defied heavy pressure from Pentagon advice and did not initiate an engagement response that would have started world war 3.  So, while there are plenty of networks trying to scare people to think POTUS will lead the USA into war with a bad decision-its ok this tactic was applied to Clinton early on in his campaign and presidency- the reality is President Trump has a track record of choosing the least warlike attitude.  We can all sleep safe at night.  Now that I think about it this fear propaganda was used on the guy we are all here talking about, JFK.  Hmm... times don't change much.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

The problem with this theory is N. Korea, Iran and Cuba along with several other incidents.  In each, President Trump defied heavy pressure from Pentagon advice and did not initiate an engagement response that would have started world war 3.  So, while there are plenty of networks trying to scare people to think POTUS will lead the USA into war with a bad decision-its ok this tactic was applied to Clinton early on in his campaign and presidency- the reality is President Trump has a track record of choosing the least warlike attitude.  We can all sleep safe at night.  Now that I think about it this fear propaganda was used on the guy we are all here talking about, JFK.  Hmm... times don't change much.

Cory, dropping out of the Iran nuke deal wasn't "least war-like." 

Neither was moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem and cutting off aid to the Palestinians.

Pulling out of northern Syria has sparked war. 

Trump supplies the Saudis in their destruction of Yemen.

If Trump thought going to war would help get him re-elected he'd do it in a heart beat.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Dennis Berube]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Which of the 272 instances of contact between the Trump campaign and Russians is inaccurate?

Russian “linked” is a vague term. They obviously weren’t significant if the mueller report was unable to find anything “there” as the fbi was heard saying. 

This type of “facts be damned” modern democratic ideology that pervades the msm and the big “leftist” sites like dailykos, huffpost, etc is exactly what the corporate democrats are all about. And exactly the opposite of the type of democrat JFK was.
 

Your Putin paranoia is undone by a view of a map of us military bases in europe bordering russia. Look at that and then tell us how Putin is destabilizing the entire world again. 

[Cliff Varnell]

42 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Here is another example:  https://consortiumnews.com/2018/10/10/the-shaky-case-that-russia-manipulated-social-media-to-tip-the-2016-election/

Both the Republicans and the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee say Gareth Porter is wrong on this issue.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf

Quote

PS When did Russia move to annex Ukraine?  Putin had a great opportunity, but he did not.

Putin annexed Crimea and fortified Russian forces in the Donbass region.

I would have thought DiEughenio would be up on this since it was in all the papers...

Edited October 16, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

25 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Russian “linked” is a vague term. They obviously weren’t significant if the mueller report was unable to find anything “there” as the fbi was heard saying.

Mueller bent over backwards not to go after Donald Trump, Jr. for trying to solicit dirt on Hillary from Russian operatives.

Mueller didn't go after Trump's finances.

Mueller didn't insist on a sit-down interview with Trump.

When William Barr lied to the nation about the findings of the Mueller report, the special prosecutor waited many weeks to set the record straight. 

His manner in the House hearings was cautious and low key.

Are you unaware that Trump's campaign manager met with a Russian operative to hand over internal polling data?

Are you unaware that Trump colluded with the Russians right out in the open when he asked them to hack Hillary's e-mails?

Quote

This type of “facts be damned” modern democratic ideology that pervades the msm and the big “leftist” sites like dailykos, huffpost, etc is exactly what the corporate democrats are all about. And exactly the opposite of the type of democrat JFK was.

Looks to me that the "facts be damned" ideology is coming from RussiaGate-deniers.

Quote

Your Putin paranoia is undone by a view of a map of us military bases in europe bordering russia. Look at that and then tell us how Putin is destabilizing the entire world again. 

What Putin paranoia?  I put Russian meddling in the 2016 election 6th on the list of reasons Clinton lost the election.

Number 1 reason -- GOP voter ID laws and voter purge programs spearheaded by Kris Kobach kicked 16 milli0n voters off the rolls between 2014 and 2016.

#2 -- James Comey re-opened the Hillary e-mail investigation 11 days before the election because he was afraid Hillary would fire him for the way he mis-handled the original e-mail investigation.

#3 -- Hillary was a terrible candidate and did an awful job rebutting the ridiculous Benghazi "no there there."

#4 -- Bill Clinton visited with Loretta Lynch, forcing her to recuse herself from the e-mail investigation and thus allowing Comey to attack Clinton, a violation of FBI protocol.

#5 -- MSNBC, CNN and Fox gave billions of dollars in free advertising to Trump, and their talking heads rarely fact-checked Trumps lies.

#6 -- The Vlad and Julian Show.  Trump couldn't have won without them, but by itself Russian meddling would have been no more serious than a prank.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

In addition to the tax cut and Pentagon boost, this is another  thing the Dems should have used against Trump.  But to my knowledge they did not.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/read-full-appeals-court-agrees-to-rehear-emoluments-decision-that-favored-trump

Why? 

 

DiEugenio never passes on an opportunity to bash Democrats....

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-emoluments/us-appeals-court-to-revisit-trump-win-in-hotel-emoluments-case-idUSKBN1WU2WI

U.S. appeals court to revisit Trump win in hotel 'emoluments' case

(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday said it would reconsider an earlier ruling that handed victory to U.S. President Donald Trump in a Democratic-backed lawsuit that accuses him of violating anti-corruption provisions of the U.S. Constitution with his Washington hotel.

<quote off, emphasis added>