Douglas Caddy

From the article: But the prospect of genuine legal jeopardy upends the calculation, certainly for Trump’s subordinates, who have future careers to lose, families to raise and, unlike the president, no general insulation from criminal prosecution. It is probable that some powerful people will be going to jail as a result of the Mueller investigation. Among the likeliest candidates are those who don’t realize that the game has changed, and that in the ambit of the special counsel investigation, and the courts of law, a lie is a lie. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-litman-the-special-counselor-is-already-getting-the-truth-out-20170714-story.html

Text of Anthony Sutton's book "National Suicide": https://www.alor.org/Library/Sutton_AC_national_suicide.pdf

https://twitter.com/PuestoLoco/status/885238473376100352/photo/1

http://www.downgoestrump.com/donald-trump/roger-stone-donald-trump-jr-russia-all-along/258/

The History Channel's program Ancient Aliens interviewed me for its Series 12, Episode 9 that aired on July 7, 2017. The title of the episode is "The Majestic Twelve." The only other participant in the show that I have met is Linda Moulton Howe for whom I have the highest regard and respect. I may also appear in episodes that are aired later. In this one I was asked what Howard Hunt told me as to why JFK was assassinated when Hunt and I had dinner in 1975 just before he entered prison to serve his sentence for Watergate. I recognize that there are some members of the forum who predictably will attack the program based on their past postings on the topic in the forum. No one has a monopoly on "the truth" and I certainly have never maintained that I do. My philosophy has always been to encourage the free exchange of ideas. http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens

Because Hoover was key to the cover-up of JFK's assassination, it is appropriate to examine his mode of operation in regard to another public figure, William F. Buckley. https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2015/oct/01/william-f-buckleys-fbi-file/

My small contribution to this discussion of Cord Meyer is as follows: In February 1972 attorney George Webster telephoned John Kilcullen, a partner in the law firm where I worked as an associate, and asked him to assign an attorney as a volunteer for the Lawyers Committee for the Re-election of the President, of which Webster was chairman. I was volunteered to be that attorney. Webster then told me to report to John Dean, who was White House Counsel in the White House. Dean gave me ordinary legal campaign work to do, such as visiting the office of columnist Jack Anderson to get certain information if possible about Senator Edmund Muskie about whom Anderson had written in one of his columns. Webster then telephoned me around March 1972 and told me to report to Gordon Liddy, who was the Legal Counsel to the Finance Committee for the Re-election of the President. I did ordinary legal work pursuant to assignments given to me by Liddy. So I found myself working for both Dean and Liddy. Around April 1972 Howard Hunt invited me to join him and Gordon Liddy for lunch at a club. I believe it was the Federal Club located in the Georgetown section of Washington, which was a dining club for CIA employees and their guests. While we were having lunch, Hunt suddenly blurted out, "There's that S.O.B. Cord Meyer", who was seated at lunch at a nearby table. I pass this incident along as it would appear that there was great animosity between Meyer and Hunt at that time. I have no idea what might have brought it about sometime in the past.

JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM&app=desktop

http://midnightwriternews.com/horne-makes-jfk-national-security-presentation-available-to-mwn/

This guy missed his primary calling. He should have been an actor in Hollywood. He would have been perfect on Dragnet where Sgt. Joe Friday would have interrogated him. They both have the same style. 1967 INTERVIEW WITH ATTORNEY DEAN ANDREWS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD3CdA7Ad-I&app=desktop

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/340918-russia-steps-up-spying-efforts-after-election-report

Buzz Aldrin says not punching Trump is his greatest achievement http://rochdaleherald.co.uk/2017/07/03/buzz-aldrin-says-not-punching-trump-greatest-achievement/amp/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2017/07/05/liam-neeson-mark-felt-deep-throat-movie-new-photos/103399022/

Trump-Russia colluder Peter W. Smith dropped dead just days after Donald Trump fired James Comey By Bill Palmer Updated: 11:48 pm EDT Mon Jul 3, 2017 | 7 In the days since Republican operative Peter W. Smith was first identified by the Wall Street Journal as having been a mysterious key player in the Trump-Russia election collusion scandal, more evidence is surfacing about Smith’s role – and his life in general. Smith died just ten days after the WSJ spoke with him. But it’s another contemporaneous event that’s now garnering more attention. (According to his obituary, Peter W. Smith died on May 14th of this year (link). That means he spoke with the WSJ on May 4th. So what happened in between those two dates? On May 9th, Donald Trump took his biggest, boldest shot at trying to end the Trump-Russia collusion investigation by controversially firing FBI Director James Comey. How does all of this fit together? Three hypothetical scenarios come to mind. The first and most straightforward is that Smith was eighty-one years old and he coincidentally died of natural causes shortly after he spoke with the reporter. But what are the odds he just happened to drop dead right after speaking with a reporter about his role in the political conspiracy of the century? We’re still seeking his certificate of death, which is complicated by state law in Illinois, where Smith lived and died. The second scenario is that Smith knew he was dying, and this was some sort of attempt at a deathbed confession. But if so, he didn’t tell the WSJ reporter that he was dying, and he doesn’t appear to have given away his full story. In fact the WSJ only ended up belatedly publishing the Smith story last week after UK based cybersecurity expert Matt Tait read a related headline about Michael Flynn and concluded that he should come forward with the fact that Smith had tried and failed to recruit him during the election. The third scenario – which may be difficult to swallow on its face – is that after Smith began talking to a reporter about his role in the Trump-Russia collusion scandal, someone had him killed before he could keep talking. Vladimir Putin appears to have had several people murdered who were involved in the scandal, though none of them were Americans. But this does take us back to the fact that, just five days after Smith started squealing about his collusion role with Michael Flynn, Trump fired Comey in an attempt at preventing the investigation going further – and another five days after that, Smith was dead.

David Talbot posted this on Facebook today: So what are you supposed to celebrate on this Fourth of July if the nation has been hijacked by an imbecilic oligarchy and patriotism is a refuge for scoundrels? If fireworks just remind you of all the missiles and bombs we've hurled at defenseless populations? If the body politic is, by and large, fat and stupid, narcotized and brainwashed? I know this can get you lynched in red-white-and-blue America, but I'm ashamed to be an American. And I felt it even more acutely when t...raveling overseas last month. Everywhere I went in Italy, there were crude, oversized Americans taking up too much space, braying at one another in restaurants, even when they were sitting at opposite ends of the dining rooms ("Hey, bro, you're from Texas too! What city?") Cannon-balling into public pools, screaming at the top of their lungs, as the dismayed Italians looked on. The Americans I came across in Italy showed zero curiosity or interest in the centuries-old culture around them, treating the treasures and ruins as if they were just a Disneyland backdrop. They should have been moving silently and meekly among the locals, in disgraced penance for the dangerous fool they elevated to world leadership. Ancient Rome itself, of course, suffered from the same idiotic hubris and clownish leadership in its final stage. Sic semper imperium. I've been reading British novelist Lawrence Osborne's "Hunters in the Dark." Like Graham Greene and Paul Bowles, Osborne has a good feel for Westerners who stumble into overseas locales where they're way out of place, but too clueless to realize it. Here's Osborne's description of Americans at play in a hotel pool in Phnom Penh: "The men out in the pool all had shaved heads, the concentration camp look, with tattoos hard-edged on painfully white skin. The girls were immensely fat and arrogant and loud, and carrying much the same tattoos though on different parts of their bodies. They disported themselves through those blue waves like elephant seals, and the Asians coolly dressed at the restaurant in their pressed white shirts and cufflinks looked at them with a kind of despairing amazement and a quiet certainty that the economic decline of these beasts was somehow legible in the obscure codes of their tattoos and the weight of their belly fat. They were no longer the lean aggressors and masters of yesteryear."

Message to the private detectives harassing me. The message is that you are too late. I sent a letter to FBI Director James Comey on December 10, 2016, with copies to President Obama and CIA Director Goss. Enclosed with my letter were the relevant documents. I sent another letter on June 27, 2017, to Special Counsel Robert Mueller with copies to Senator Mark Warner on the Senate Intelligence Committee and Congressman Adam Schiff on the House Intelligence Committee. My letter to Mr. Mueller included my prior letter to Mr. Comey and additional relevant documents uncovered since December. My personal testimony is not needed by Special Counsel Mueller because my letter and the numerous documents provide all the information that I know and that he needs. So you are too late. Your harassment of me is futile. I look forward to the indictments of those who employ you that might follow based on the information that I provided.

David Talbot posted the following on Facebook today and I wish to state that I concur in what he wrote: There was the George W. Bush era of "American Idiot" -- and now we have the Trump era of the "American Id." An out-of-control gluttonous drive to gratify immediate desires, violently settle grudges, spew expletives, and bully everyone into submission. America has been headed this way through my entire life, as I've examined in my books -- turning into a lawless, domineering, exploitative state, year by year, presidency by presidency, ever since the deep state eliminated John F. Kennedy. So in that sense, the Trump era should come as no surprise. But he's ripped off the veneer and fully exposed the full deep ugliness of what we've become as a nation. Because we never blocked the U.S. power elite from doing whatever it wanted, and we never demanded a full reckoning for its crimes and grotesque appetites.

Howard Dean: based on new evidence, Russia may have installed Donald Trump with “falsified votes” By Bill Palmer Updated: 2:35 pm EDT Fri Jun 23, 2017 | 36 Home » Politics 36948 SHARES Facebook ShareTwitter ShareEmail this articlePrint Article LinkedinGoogleWhatsappPinterestRedditStumbleuponBufferTumblrPocketLine (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); advanced_ads_pro.hasAd('26', 'ad', null); Back in November, I conducted an in-depth look at the vote totals in the swing states that Donald Trump shockingly won, and I came away with the distinct impression that they didn’t look like naturally occurring numbers. The trouble: I could only demonstrate that the voting results looked falsified, not that they had been falsified. But based on new evidence, a major Democratic Party figure believes those vote totals may have indeed been falsified by Russian hackers. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); advanced_ads_pro.hasAd('26', 'ad', null); It started yesterday when Time Magazine published new evidence that Russian hackers altered voter data, in an in-depth must-read article (link). The key quote from the article: “Congressional investigators are probing whether any of this stolen private information made its way to the Trump campaign.” This led former Vermont Governor and former DNC Chair Howard Dean to chime in. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); advanced_ads_pro.hasAd('27', 'ad', null); Governor Dean’s assessment: “This is much more serious than previous information. This opens the door to the idea that Trump may have won with falsified votes” (link). This distinction is crucial. Up to now, the Trump-Russia investigation has centered around the role that Russian hackers played in accessing voter data, and allegedly informing the Trump campaign as to which voters and states it should target with its campaign efforts – thus using illegal tactics to convince people to vote in a certain manner. But now we’re talking about Russian hackers having actually changed people’s votes without their knowledge. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); advanced_ads_pro.hasAd('28', 'ad', null); As I pointed out last year, from a strictly mathematical standpoint, the results in most swing states ranged from overwhelmingly unlikely to impossible. The odds were infinitesimal of Trump conveniently winning every swing state he needed, even while badly losing the overall popular vote nationwide (akin to a football team scoring no touchdowns but winning by scoring ten safeties). It was even more suspicious that he won every one of those swing states by the same one percent of the vote, just enough to avoid an automatic recount. If this new evidence ends up proving Russian hackers did change people’s votes, then Donald Trump was not elected President of the United States.

https://teapainusa.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/data-patterns-suggest-trump-towerspectrum-health-ran-a-stealth-data-machine-with-russia/

than just email. Ask Jared Kushner. By Bill Palmer Updated: 1:21 am EDT Tue Apr 11, 2017 | 14 LinkedinGoogleWhatsappPinterestRedditStumbleuponBufferTumblrPocketLine (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); advanced_ads_pro.hasAd('26', 'ad', null); It’s long been documented that a private email server inside Donald Trump’s home base Trump Tower was communicating almost exclusively with a Russian bank during the 2016 election. More recently it’s been documented that the server also had connections to Trump’s Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos (link). But based on new data analysis from political pundit Tea Pain, it turns out there was a whole lot more going back and forth than just email – and Trump’s son in law Jared Kushner was at the center of it. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); advanced_ads_pro.hasAd('26', 'ad', null); Tea Pain, who has made a name for himself in political circles on Twitter, has rolled out a website of his own in order to document his analysis of the data traffic to and from the Trump Tower server. It builds on the revelation that Jared Kushner had a “stealth data machine” (source: Forbes) for figuring out how to target voters. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); advanced_ads_pro.hasAd('27', 'ad', null); Tea Pain has focused in on Database Replication, which is how two or more computers in different locations manage to store and share the same collection of data. Changes to that database on one computer get automatically applied to that same database on other computers. And the data flowing between Trump Tower, Russia’s Alfa Bank, and Betsy DeVos’ Spectrum Health exhibits telltale signs of Database Replication. Tea Pain goes deep into analysis of the data logs and comes up with the following stunning and well supported conclusion: “Tea Pain’s working theory is that Russia created a voter targeting database with information gleaned from hacked DNC data rolls and other data rolls ‘acquired’ from other states to feed this growing contact database. That database originated at Russian Intelligence which was in turn replicated to Russia’s Alfa Bank. This is where the ‘data laundering’ takes place, Alfa Bank is the pivot point where the FSB’s data fingerprints are wiped clean.” (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); advanced_ads_pro.hasAd('28', 'ad', null); His data analysis is long and technical, but worth your time because it’s so crucial in providing an understanding into why the Trump Tower server existed and why it’s so important that the FBI is investigating it. And it plays right into what we already know about Jared Kushner’s role with voter data. You can read Tea Pain’s analysis here.

The Time I Got Recruited to Collude with the Russians By Matt Tait Friday, June 30, 2017, 10:50 PM https://www.lawfareblog.com/ I read the Wall Street Journal’s article yesterday on attempts by a GOP operative to recover missing Hillary Clinton emails with more than usual interest. I was involved in the events that reporter Shane Harris described, and I was an unnamed source for the initial story. What’s more, I was named in, and provided the documents to Harris that formed the basis of, this evening’s follow-up story, which reported that “A longtime Republican activist who led an operation hoping to obtain Hillary Clinton emails from hackers listed senior members of the Trump campaign, including some who now serve as top aides in the White House, in a recruitment document for his effort”: Officials identified in the document include Steve Bannon, now chief strategist for President Donald Trump; Kellyanne Conway, former campaign manager and now White House counselor; Sam Clovis, a policy adviser to the Trump campaign and now a senior adviser at the Agriculture Department; and retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who was a campaign adviser and briefly was national security adviser in the Trump administration. I’m writing this piece in the spirit of Benjamin Wittes’s account of his interactions with James Comey immediately following the New York Times story for which he acted as a source. The goal is to provide a fuller accounting of experiences which were thoroughly bizarre and which I did not fully understand until I read the Journal’s account of the episode yesterday. Indeed, I still do not fully understand the events I am going to describe, both what they reflected then or what they mean in retrospect. But I can lay out what happened, facts from which readers and investigators can draw their own conclusions. For the purpose of what follows, I will assume readers are already familiar with the Wall Street Journal’s reporting on this matter. My role in these events began last spring, when I spent a great deal of time studying the series of Freedom of Information disclosures by the State Department of Hillary Clinton’s emails, and posting the parts I found most interesting—especially those relevant to computer security—on my public Twitter account. I was doing this not because I am some particular foe of Clinton’s—I’m not—but because like everyone else, I assumed she was likely to become the next President of the United States, and I believed her emails might provide some insight into key cybersecurity and national security issues once she was elected in November. A while later, on June 14, the Washington Post reported on a hack of the DNC ostensibly by Russian intelligence. When material from this hack began appearing online, courtesy of the “Guccifer 2” online persona, I turned my attention to looking at these stolen documents. This time, my purpose was to try and understand who broke into the DNC, and why. A few weeks later, right around the time the DNC emails were dumped by Wikileaks—and curiously, around the same time Trump called for the Russians to get Hillary Clinton’s missing emails—I was contacted out the blue by a man named Peter Smith, who had seen my work going through these emails. Smith implied that he was a well-connected Republican political operative. Initially, I assumed the query must have been about my work on the DNC hack; after all, few people followed my account prior to the DNC breach, whereas my analysis of the break-in at the DNC had received considerably more coverage. I assumed his query about the “Clinton emails” was therefore a mistake and that he meant instead to talk to me about the emails stolen from the DNC. So I agreed to talk to him, thinking that, whatever my views on then-candidate Trump, if a national campaign wanted an independent non-partisan view on the facts surrounding the case, I should provide it to the best of my ability. Yet Smith had not contacted me about the DNC hack, but rather about his conviction that Clinton’s private email server had been hacked—in his view almost certainly both by the Russian government and likely by multiple other hackers too—and his desire to ensure that the fruits of those hacks were exposed prior to the election. Over the course of a long phone call, he mentioned that he had been contacted by someone on the “Dark Web” who claimed to have a copy of emails from Secretary Clinton’s private server, and this was why he had contacted me; he wanted me to help validate whether or not the emails were genuine. Under other circumstances, I would have gone no further. After all, this was occurring in the final stretch of a U.S. presidential election, and I did not feel comfortable, and had no interest in, providing material help to either of the campaigns beyond merely answering questions on my already public analysis of Clinton’s emails, or of the DNC hack. (I’m not a U.S. citizen or resident, after all.) In any case, my suspicion then and now was that Hillary Clinton’s email server was likely never breached by Russia, and moreover that if Russia had a copy of Clinton’s emails, they would not waste them in the run-up to an election she was likely to win. I thus thought Smith’s search for her emails was in vain. But following the DNC hack and watching the Russian influence campaign surrounding it unfold in near real-time, Smith’s comment about having been contacted by someone from the “Dark Web” claiming to have Clinton’s personal emails struck me as critically important. I wanted to find out whether this person was merely some fraudster wanting to take Smith for a ride or something more sinister: that is, whether Smith had been contacted by a Russian intelligence front with intent to use Smith as part of their scheme by laundering real or forged documents. I never found out who Smith’s contact on the “Dark Web” was. It was never clear to me whether this person was merely someone trying to dupe Smith out of his money, or a Russian front, and it was never clear to me how they represented their own credentials to Smith. Over the course of our conversations, one thing struck me as particularly disturbing. Smith and I talked several times about the DNC hack, and I expressed my view that the hack had likely been orchestrated by Russia and that the Kremlin was using the stolen documents as part of an influence campaign against the United States. I explained that if someone had contacted him via the “Dark Web” with Clinton’s personal emails, he should take very seriously the possibility that this may have been part of a wider Russian campaign against the United States. And I said he need not take my word for it, pointing to a number of occasions where US officials had made it clear that this was the view of the U.S. intelligence community as well. Smith, however, didn’t seem to care. From his perspective it didn’t matter who had taken the emails, or their motives for doing so. He never expressed to me any discomfort with the possibility that the emails he was seeking were potentially from a Russian front, a likelihood he was happy to acknowledge. If they were genuine, they would hurt Clinton’s chances, and therefore help Trump. When he first contacted me, I did not know who Smith was, but his legitimate connections within the Republican party were apparent. My motive for initially speaking to him was that I wondered if the campaign was trying to urgently establish whether the claims that Russia had hacked the DNC was merely “spin” from the Clinton campaign, or instead something they would need to address before Trump went too far down the road of denying it. My guess was that maybe they wanted to contact someone who could provide them with impartial advice to understand whether the claims were real or just rhetoric. Although it wasn’t initially clear to me how independent Smith’s operation was from Flynn or the Trump campaign, it was immediately apparent that Smith was both well connected within the top echelons of the campaign and he seemed to know both Lt. Gen. Flynn and his son well. Smith routinely talked about the goings on at the top of the Trump team, offering deep insights into the bizarre world at the top of the Trump campaign. Smith told of Flynn’s deep dislike of DNI Clapper, whom Flynn blamed for his dismissal by President Obama. Smith told of Flynn’s moves to position himself to become CIA Director under Trump, but also that Flynn had been persuaded that the Senate confirmation process would be prohibitively difficult. He would instead therefore become National Security Advisor should Trump win the election, Smith said. He also told of a deep sense of angst even among Trump loyalists in the campaign, saying “Trump often just repeats whatever he’s heard from the last person who spoke to him,” and expressing the view that this was especially dangerous when Trump was away. Over the course of a few phone calls, initially with Smith and later with Smith and one of his associates—a man named John Szobocsan—I was asked about my observations on technical details buried in the State Department’s release of Secretary Clinton’s emails (such as noting a hack attempt in 2011, or how Clinton’s emails might have been intercepted by Russia due to lack of encryption). I was also asked about aspects of the DNC hack, such as why I thought the “Guccifer 2” persona really was in all likelihood operated by the Russian government, and how it wasn’t necessary to rely on CrowdStrike’s attribution as blind faith; noting that I had come to the same conclusion independently based on entirely public evidence, having been initially doubtful of CrowdStrike’s conclusions. Towards the end of one of our conversations, Smith made his pitch. He said that his team had been contacted by someone on the “dark web”; that this person had the emails from Hillary Clinton’s private email server (which she had subsequently deleted), and that Smith wanted to establish if the emails were genuine. If so, he wanted to ensure that they became public prior to the election. What he wanted from me was to determine if the emails were genuine or not. It is no overstatement to say that my conversations with Smith shocked me. Given the amount of media attention given at the time to the likely involvement of the Russian government in the DNC hack, it seemed mind-boggling for the Trump campaign—or for this offshoot of it—to be actively seeking those emails. To me this felt really wrong. In my conversations with Smith and his colleague, I tried to stress this point: if this dark web contact is a front for the Russian government, you really don’t want to play this game. But they were not discouraged. They appeared to be convinced of the need to obtain Clinton’s private emails and make them public, and they had a reckless lack of interest in whether the emails came from a Russian cut-out. Indeed, they made it quite clear to me that it made no difference to them who hacked the emails or why they did so, only that the emails be found and made public before the election. In the end, I never saw the actual materials they’d been given, and to this day, I don’t know whether there were genuine emails, or whether Smith and his associates were deluding themselves. By the middle of September, all contact between us ended. By this time, I had grown extremely uncomfortable with the situation, so when Smith and his colleague asked me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, I declined to do so. My suspicion was that the real purpose of the non-disclosure agreement was to retrospectively apply confidentiality to the conversations we had already had before that point. I refused to sign the non-disclosure and we went our separate ways. As I mentioned above, Smith and his associates’ knowledge of the inner workings of the campaign were insightful beyond what could be obtained by merely attending Republican events or watching large amounts of news coverage. But one thing I could not place, at least initially, was whether Smith was working on behalf of the campaign, or whether he was acting independently to help the campaign in his personal capacity. Then, a few weeks into my interactions with Smith, he sent me a document, ostensibly a cover page for a dossier of opposition research to be compiled by Smith’s group, and which purported to clear up who was involved. The document was entitled “A Demonstrative Pedagogical Summary to be Developed and Released Prior to November 8, 2016,” and dated September 7. It detailed a company Smith and his colleagues had set up as a vehicle to conduct the research: “KLS Research”, set up as a Delaware LLC “to avoid campaign reporting,” and listing four groups who were involved in one way or another. The first group, entitled “Trump Campaign (in coordination to the extent permitted as an independent expenditure)” listed a number of senior campaign officials: Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Sam Clovis, Lt. Gen. Flynn and Lisa Nelson. The largest group named a number of “independent groups / organizations / individuals / resources to be deployed.” My name appears on this list. At the time, I didn’t recognize most of the others; however, several made headlines in the weeks immediately prior to the election. My perception then was that the inclusion of Trump campaign officials on this document was not merely a name-dropping exercise. This document was about establishing a company to conduct opposition research on behalf of the campaign, but operating at a distance so as to avoid campaign reporting. Indeed, the document says as much in black and white. The combination of Smith’s deep knowledge of the inner workings of the campaign, this document naming him in the “Trump campaign” group, and the multiple references to needing to avoid campaign reporting suggested to me that the group was formed with the blessing of the Trump campaign. In the Journal’s story this evening, several of the individuals named in the document denied any connection to Smith, and it’s certainly possible that he was a big name-dropper and never really represented anyone other than himself. If that’s the case, Smith talked a very good game. I’m sure readers are wondering: why did I keep quiet at the time? Actually, I didn’t. In the fall, prior to the election, I discussed the events of the story first with a friend, and secondly with a journalist. The trouble was that neither I nor the reporter in question knew what to make of the whole operation. It was certainly clear that the events were bizarre, and deeply unsettling. But it wasn’t reportable. After all, Clinton’s private emails never materialized. We couldn’t show that Smith had been in contact with actual Russians. And while I believed—as I still do—that he was operating with some degree of coordination with the campaign, that was at least a little murky too. The story just didn’t make much sense—that is, until the Journal yesterday published the critical fact that U.S. intelligence has reported that Russian hackers were looking to get emails to Flynn through a cut-out during the Summer of 2016, and this was no idle speculation on my part. Suddenly, my story seemed important—and ominous.

Robert Tosh Plumlee wrote on Facebook today: There was a top secret program in the early to late fifties that would enlist your men who were, as some said, '... on their way to a penitentiary somewhere...' Some of the young men, who fit this mold, were recruited by the military. Some of these young boys were young as 15 years old. Some were homeless and Juvenile delinquents. These young men were assign to special operational programs and used as 'cut- outs' to shield secret operations. Most of the time the...se young men did not know what or how they were being used. Lee Harvey, and myself, were two of these young men. I was Army in 1953 (15years old) and Lee was Marine. We met at Nags Head NC around 1957 and again in 1959 in Hawaii shortly before Lee went on assignment to Japan, where he later defected to Russia and married Marina. That was his operational assignment. The US Government sent him to Russia as a defector and as a disgruntled American citizen and paid his way back to the USA. His duty assignment was to 'defect to Russia by telling the Russians he held Top Secret information about the U-2 program, radar tracking, and other matters. This information (about young men as young as 15 years old being enlisted) was given to the United States Senate in 1964 and also to the FBI at Buena Vista Colorado. A map was drawn for them in reference to our assignment on the south knoll of Delay Plaza, in Dallas Texas, November, 1963. The CIA was furious about this secret information being released to the public. They started a "Character Assassination" program, worked covertly within operation Mockingbird. I hope this helps you in some way as you investigate these matters ... Robert Therrell: replied: A fellow from State Department told me that Lee Harvey Oswald was worth his weight in gold to Naval Intelligence and that after they killed him there were resignations all over the agency when they found out that they had burned one of their own. A fact not relayed to the American public.

[deleted]