Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Putin annexed Crimea?   And he's helping those in Donbass.  OMG.  This is why I have CV on ignore.  He's like the NY Times on this.

James DiEugenio and Dennis Berube may be the only two people on the planet who deny that Putin annexed Crimea in 2014.

From the Aljazeera article linked in my previous post:

<quote on>

Transferred by the Soviet leadership from Russia to Ukraine in 1954, Crimea is a region populated by Russian-speakers who were genuinely frightened by the prospect of finding themselves living under the rule of extreme nationalists. They have been lukewarm about Ukraine's independence since the very beginning, and perhaps more importantly, had long been consuming the same Kremlin propaganda as Russians on their TV screens. Moreover, Ukraine's revolution may have been a genuine popular uprising against a corrupt government that rejected greater integration with the EU, but it also had an ultra-nationalist component which was displayed in full view for all Russians and Crimeans to see - Right Sector ultra-nationalists occupied a whole floor in the revolutionary HQ and flags and symbols associated with Ukrainian Nazi collaborators in the World War II were ubiquitous in Maidan square. This was naturally perceived as an existential threat by Crimeans and helped them turn their back to Ukraine and its revolution and embrace Putin as their saviour.

<quote off>

The reason DiEugenio has me on ignore is because I rhetorically kick his ass every time we tangle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

James DiEugenio and Dennis Berube may be the only two people on the planet who deny that Putin annexed Crimea in 2014.

From the Aljazeera article linked in my previous post:

Lol. I see the issue here, you and wn enjoy getting information from known propaganda outlets, whereas me and jim do not. Russia definitely annexed the Crimea, we disagree on how and why. 

 

13 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The reason DiEugenio has me on ignore is because I rhetorically kick his ass every time we tangle.

Lol again. Im beginning to understand why Jim blocked you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dennis Berube said:

Lol. I see the issue here, you and wn enjoy getting information from known propaganda outlets, whereas me and jim do not. Russia definitely annexed the Crimea, we disagree on how and why.

So now you admit that "Russia definitely annexed the Crimea."  That's a start!  Now will you admit to fighting in the Donbass region?  You claimed I was wrong about that, too.

I didn't condemn Russia for annexing Crimea -- I just stated it as a fact.  You make incredible assumptions, Dennis.

1 minute ago, Dennis Berube said:

 

Lol again. Im beginning to understand why Jim blocked you. 

Yup, I'm rhetorically kicking his ass on this thread, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours 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. 

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. 

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.

Edited by Bob Ness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob:

I hate to tell you but if you look at Watergate, it was the same thing.

How many people did Jaworski indict?  Over sixty.

Did he indict Nixon?

It is a constitutional problem. 

And according to Mr Wheeler, the Mueller Report was available for reading in full to select members of congress. If that was enough then I am sure they would have agreed to have an impeachment vote based on it.  They then would have gone to court during the proceedings to get it fully released.

To me, the evidence in RG simply was not there for impeachment.  The Steele Dossier ended up being  something of a joke.  What with it being financed by Singer and then the DNC?  And paying the guy well into the six figures.  Ever hear of confirmation bias?

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per Maria Butina

https://newrepublic.com/article/153036/maria-butina-profile-wasnt-russian-spy

When a region or state votes overwhelmingly to save themselves from being taken over by a bunch of paramilitary Neo Nazi thugs and murderers who are intent on making Ukraine into a mini Fourth Reich, then that is not annexation from outside but inside.  Crimea is a beautiful, well frequented resort area.  They did not want any part of being tied in with a bunch of criminals and Fascists. Its that simple.  

I have CV on ignore because he is a broken record on the JFK case: Harriman and JFK's custom shirts.  I started yawning on that stuff about five years ago. On this issue, we may as well be listening to the Podesta Group or NY Times. So its the same thing. The examples above are what he thinks is "ass kicking".  😉  Therefore he is also an egotist. Why waste the time on someone I consider a t-r-o-l-l.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have CV on ignore because he is a broken record on the JFK case: Harriman and JFK's custom shirts. 

Pure bovine offal.

Here's the thread where DiEugenio put me on ignore:

Quote

 

I started yawning on that stuff about five years ago.

No, Jim DiEugenio started ignoring the physical evidence in the JFK murder case at least a decade ago.

I regard this as historical malpractice.

Quote

 

On this issue, we may as well be listening to the Podesta Group or NY Times.

 

Or Aljazeera, which I quoted.

Quote

So its the same thing. The examples above are what he thinks is "ass kicking".  😉  Therefore he is also an egotist.

Jim DiEugenio accuses someone of being an egotist!  The irony is rich.

Quote

 

Why waste the time on someone I consider a t-r-o-l-l.

 

As opposed to an over-rated self-aggrandizing hustler?

DiEugenio denounces Fascists in Ukraine while he carries water for Fascists in America.  Go figure.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, take a look at this new story:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/never-before-seen-trump-tax-documents-show-major-inconsistencies_n_5da767ebe4b0a9a0f1d0c715

I think this would tie in with the emoluments case would it not?  AOC actually touched on this in her examination of Cohen.

Why Trump did not put his holdings in a blind trust is really puzzling to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

And according to Mr Wheeler, the Mueller Report was available for reading in full to select members of congress. If that was enough then I am sure they would have agreed to have an impeachment vote based on it.  They then would have gone to court during the proceedings to get it fully released.

No, the Trump Administration kept the key witness to Trump's obstruction, former White House Counselor Don McGahn, from testifying.  Going to court to force his testimony would take so long that impeachment became untenable.

Those who closely follow the news understand this.

Quote

To me, the evidence in RG simply was not there for impeachment.  The Steele Dossier ended up being  something of a joke.  What with it being financed by Singer and then the DNC?  And paying the guy well into the six figures.  Ever hear of confirmation bias?

Nobody cares about the Steele Dossier.  Mueller barely mentioned it in his report.

Those who closely follow the news understand this.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really puzzled by this comment from McConnell:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/16/mcconnell-impeachment-trial-senate-048599

Pelosi has not even had a formal impeachment hearing yet.

Is he just trying to tell her, "Hey, its all sound and fury signifying nothing anyway?"  

I think so, since there is no way I think you could do it that fast.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Lol. I see the issue here, you and wn enjoy getting information from known propaganda outlets, whereas me and jim do not.

You guys take your talking points from Donald Trump's tweets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

The founder of rocor advocated for armed rebellion against the ussr. If the Russians didnt attempt to mitigate that church I would be stunned and they would be derelict in their duty to protect themselves. 
 

Regardless, that story doesnt make your false Ukraine narrative true. It just shows your perspective on this comes from a white russian viewpoint, again, like Cliff, not exactly unbiased. 
 

 

Dennis,

       Let me respond to this ROCOR comment and your previous comment about Putin's annexation of the Crimea in a single post.

 

1)   CRIMEAN ANNEXATION

       Putin's military occupation and annexation of the Crimea in 2014 was illegal on multiple accounts-- and continues to be regarded as illegal by the international community.  The Russian referendum in Crimea, itself, was illegal-- and was conducted after Russian troops had illegally occupied sovereign Ukrainian territory.   The Crimea was a part of the sovereign, indissoluble nation of Ukraine in 2014-- and was subject to the Constitutional laws of Ukraine, which, among other things, required a nationwide referendum on matters pertaining to the secession or annexation of Ukrainian territory.

 

2)  ROCOR HISTORY   (Hint:  Don't trust Wikipedia on this one-- the FSB has aggressively edited the true history of the ROCOR since 2007.)

       The Bolsheviks assumed total control of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia by 1921, after poisoning Patriarch Tikhon (arsenic) and murdering or imprisoning most of the Metropolitans, Archbishops, and Bishops in concentration camps like the former Solovki Monastery.  Many Russian Orthodox Churches throughout the U.S.S.R. (including the Spaasky Cathedral near the Kremlin) were demolished by explosives, and even more were converted into skating rinks and gyms.   Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks re-organized what was left of the Russian Church hierarchy under the nominal supervision of Metropolitan Sergius Stragorodsky and other NKVD puppet bishops and priests (including the eventual KGB Moscow "Patriarch" Alexey II and the current Patriarch Kyril.) The concept was to use the outward form of the "Church" to advance the agenda of the atheistic Soviet state-- which did not preclude using the confessional as a form of state surveillance of the citizenry!

      So, following the Bolshevik murder of St. Tikhon and the Church hierarchy, and the torture and "conversion" of Metropolitan Sergius Stragorodsky to atheistic Bolshevism, the Russian Orthodox bishops in exile organized the ROCOR Synod outside of Russia to preserve what was left of "Holy Russia." To describe them as advocating "armed rebellion against the USSR" is tantamount to accusing Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany of advocating armed rebellion against the Third Reich.  It's a patently absurd statement.   The main difference is that everyone today knows the horrifying details of the Nazi Holocaust, but very few people know much about the worst genocide in world history-- the Bolshevik genocide perpetrated against Russians and Ukrainians in the Soviet Union (including the Ukrainian Holodomor.)

 

Edited by W. Niederhut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob:

I hate to tell you but if you look at Watergate, it was the same thing.

How many people did Jaworski indict?  Over sixty.

Did he indict Nixon?

It is a constitutional problem. 

And according to Mr Wheeler, the Mueller Report was available for reading in full to select members of congress. If that was enough then I am sure they would have agreed to have an impeachment vote based on it.  They then would have gone to court during the proceedings to get it fully released.

To me, the evidence in RG simply was not there for impeachment.  The Steele Dossier ended up being  something of a joke.  What with it being financed by Singer and then the DNC?  And paying the guy well into the six figures.  Ever hear of confirmation bias?

 

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.

Edited by Bob Ness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I am really puzzled by this comment from McConnell:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/16/mcconnell-impeachment-trial-senate-048599

Pelosi has not even had a formal impeachment hearing yet.

Is he just trying to tell her, "Hey, its all sound and fury signifying nothing anyway?"  

I think so, since there is no way I think you could do it that fast.

 

Many of us are salivating for an official impeachment hearing. You can bet that Trump is looking forward to his impeachment on at least one level, and most likely two.

Level One: What we have now is an unofficial impeachment inquiry. It is not a "thing", and Trump does not get to present his defense and avail himself of his rights, with the benefit of live feed testimony, not filtered by the MSM. Schiff, Pelosi and the gang have instead cooked up this "Impeachment inquiry" under the correct assumption that 90% of the American public will just hear the word "Impeachment" and assume Trump is being impeached. The MSM is of course going out its way to encourage the public's perception that an important impeachment of Trump is in process, even though it is not. As far as Team Trump is concerned, a real impeachment beats a fake impeachment any day, with 70% of the public (or whatever %) believing the current fake effort is real.

Level Two: Trump gets to present his case in an official impeachment. Do you think Team Trump knows a few things? The things that I know are bad. Imagine what Team Trump knows.

A real impeachment opens up a can of worms that Pelosi has been trying to keep closed for months now. Unfortunately for her though, the Schiff's, Ted Lieu's, Wasserman-Schultzs and another roughly 30+ Democrats who carried around Awan brother's Blackberry's have no choice but to move forward with the fake impeachment. (Trump could have video and audio of Schiff injecting crystal meth into the necks of black teenagers with Ed Buck laughing in the background; or arraigning for the payment from George Clooney to a helicopter mechanic that can arrange an "accident" that kills the General Manager of the Standard Hotel because it was being used by pedophiles in the entertainment industry and Epstein style compromise, but Trump would be accused of obstructing the impeachment, even though it is fake.)

As mentioned above, the Awan brother's were handing out special Blackberry's (highly secure and custom configured) to roughly 30 congressman on the Democrat side of the aisle. ("Coincidentally" (#sarcasm) those 30 were also super-delegates for Hillary.) The Awan's did not actually configure the Blackberries, they just made sure they surreptitiously synced  to the laptops they carried in their backpacks when ever they visited the office of the Congress person to do normal IT maintenance. Obviously, the information on the lap tops was pretty valuable and it's not like CrowdStrike was going to do the actual configuration for free. Always the entrepreneur,  Hillary was able to offset the CrowdStrike expense by selling the information to whatever foreign intel. agency was willing to find a straw donor to funnel cash into the Clinton Foundation. 

The President looks like he is "chomping at the bit" to get an official impeachment underway. He mentioned the CrowdStrike server eight times yesterday;

Quote

 "The server - they say - is held by a company whose primary ownership individual is from Ukraine," the President told reporters in the Oval Office.

At this point though, he probably doesn't care all that much about the Awan's congressional Blackberries, and what classified and personal information ended up on the CrowdStrike server. The compromised congress people obviously care, so that faction is making Pelosi continue the impeachment charade despite her better judgement. Brennan, Clapper, Obama and a host of other "conspirators" must be feeling backed up against the wall, or else they would not have thrown Biden under the bus wheels over his Ukraine issues. Everyone in DC knows Hunter Biden is a malcontent (who gets thrown out of the Navy for smoking crack these days?), and Pelosi certainly wouldn't let the "impeachment" inquiry go on if the Biden's stupidity didn't threaten a closer look into Paul Pelosi Jrs. own connections to a Ukrainian energy company.

To be clear, Brennan, Clapper, Obama, HRC know they are safe as long as a fake impeachment (a "real" one opens the worm can) prevents Trump from dropping the hammer, which the MSM would spin as politically motivated. Hence, the CIA "whistle-blower" inadvertently (sarcasm) exposes Biden's corruption, which is not new news, but conveniently exposes potential problems for the Pelosi family, forcing her to get on the fake impeachment bandwagon.

Does anyone know that Trump met with Nixon over a long weekend back in 1987?

What do you think they talked about? Who killed JFK? That Watergate was an internal coup and always view transition team volunteers suspiciously?    

Addendum: It's embarrassing when a CIA operative posing as a Russian Intelligence agent looses his Crowdstrike Blackberry and Attorney General Barr and &nbsp;US Attorney John Durham travel all the way to Italy to retrieve it.

 

 

 

cliff 2019-10-17 104256.jpg

Edited by Robert Wheeler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

      On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 8:07 PM, John Butler said:

"Trump is a traitor and he's going down."

In the last 3 years, I have seen nothing in these madcap, fake MSM / Democrat scenarios that would indicate Donald Trump is a traitor or a criminal."

Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine in return for a favor -- blame Ukrainians for the 2016 election meddling, and launch phony investigations into Joe Biden and his son.

It's a crime to solicit foreign influence in an American election.

 

Has Donald Trump been indicted for a crime?  Has he been tried in court?  Has he been found guilty of being a traitor or a criminal by a court?  Has the House of Representatives brought impeachment articles?  Has the Senate tried those imaginary impeachment articles?  Has he been removed by the Senate?   

Until these conditions are met all is sound and fury offering spite and invective and little else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...