Cliff Varnell
-
Posts
8,627 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Cliff Varnell
-
-
50 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:
Why the need to make assumptions? Jeff is pointing out the evidentiary issues with guccifer vs wiki leaks. Wiki leaks says the whole thing was a leak.
When did Assange say it was a leak?
He said he didn't get the e-mails from Russian state actors, which is nothing more than a non-denial denial.
50 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:So it definitely does not mean the "CIA" hacked the DNC to help Trump.
So the release of the DNC e-mails at the start of the Democratic Convention didn't help Trump?
The alternative universe occupied by Trumpenlinks is such an amazing place! Lewis Carroll's got nothing on these people!
50 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:It is quite conceivable however, that the manipulations of guccifer 2.0 was a form of damage control to shift the focus from DNC/Clinton corruption, to the Russia baiting mess we have today.
So to Dennis Berube it is "quite conceivable" that the DNC was hacked to draw attention away from Clinton by focusing intense attention...on Clinton.
Genius!
-
Vince, as a student of the medical evidence what have you concluded as to the location of JFK's back wound?
-
2 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:
The Constitution was effectively gone long before Trump and blaming him like he is single handedly ruining America amounts to a weak and inappropriate analysis.
No one makes that analysis. That's just crap Berube made up.
2 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:He is a symptom of a larger disease that created the conditions for Trump. Like Brunings austerity in Germany led to the social/political conditions for Hitler. In this case we have many unaccountable runaway secret (some not secret) intelligence networks that influence politics and media to a point that Constitutional law isn't within sight anytime soon.
The "intelligence networks" are not monolithic, they are multi-polar. Faction-ridden.
Some people need to read (or re-read) The Yankee and the Cowboy War, by Carl Oglesby.
The Yankees are the Bankster Proto-Autocracy; nowadays the Cowboys are the Dominionist Proto-Autocracy. The Banksters want to make the world safe for Wall Street. The Dominionists want to make the world safe for the return of Jesus Christ.
In 2016 the Banksters and the Bible-Thumpers were on the same page -- they wanted Trump. The Banksters wanted tax cuts and the high TV ratings Trump generated. The Dominionists wanted the courts packed with right wing zealots who strive to make a woman's reproductive capacity property of the State.
Trumpenlinks echo the claims of the Trump Cultists who regard the the Bankster faction as the whole of the Deep State. Trumpenlinks are NOT supporters of Trump's policies per se, but they repeat the same talking points in regard to RussiaGate.
Face it, the whole "no collusion" narrative is a fascist Big Lie no matter who mouths it.
-
2 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:
The guy everyone ignores was cliff.
The ignore function is sweeeeet!
Trumpenlinks don't have to put up with arguments they can't challenge and I don't have to put up with their lame responses.
-
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
The way the MSM leaped to support this Russia Gate narrative was really puzzling to me.
1) Trump fired his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn for lying about a conversation with the Russian ambassador.
2) Trump admited he fired James Comey in order to tamp down the FBI investigation into Russia/Flynn.
3) Don Jr. released the texts of an e-mail chain "Russia - Clinton -- Private and Confidential"
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/07/politics/donald-trump-jr-full-emails/
The Trump Tower meeting was the result of "secret cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Kremlin figures.
Secret cooperation = collusion.
QuoteWhat made it worse is that this concept then engulfed and buried all the things Trump did that I thought were really objectionable, or at least should have been so.
Who stopped Jim DiEugenio from writing an article about Trump over the past 4 and a half years?
He reports being "engulfed" by RussiaGate, which is highly curious.
DiEugenio has all the time in the world to launch barbs at Democrats but it's taken this long for DiEugenio to not yet write an article thoroughly eviscerating Trump?
What pray tell is keeping him?
QuoteFor example, his giveaway tax plan, the Pentagon budget, recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, appointments like Betsy DeVos, loading up the judiciary system with rightwing crazies, his non existent support for antidotes to global warming etc. etc.
Trump's white supremacy doesn't rate a mention?
QuoteAll of this was drowned out by Russia Gate.
Jim DiEugenio has no one to blame but himself for not going after Trump ages ago.
QuoteWhich now appears to have been a false alarm.
Another guy who doesn't understand the word "collusion."
"Russia - Clinton -- private and confidential" is the operative definition of "secret cooperation."
QuoteNot only was it a terribly missed opportunity, but it now provides a chance for the GOP to take advantage of a misfire.
Jim DiEugenio missed the opportunity.
QuoteTo say this was all badly played does not really do it justice.
To refer to you as over-rated really doesn't do it justice.
-
-
1 hour ago, James R Gordon said:
I do not believe we can - nor should we donate to support all the forums on the EF.
Bollix. What's a few liggers?
-
1 minute ago, Andrej Stancak said:
One solution maybe to stay with Invision as a "JFK Educational Debate" or similar group and decouple from the rest of EF, the large EF would be closed in due time. Invision would setup the new Debate group and move all JFK-related threads and archives to the new interest group before closing down the existing EF. We would continue existing in the same format and under a viable funding regime. We cannot pay for unrelated topics after the fee has been raised so dramatically.
Why not? What difference does it make why we need `17 people to put up 20 bucks a month?
4 grand a year? Chicken feed among the active posters on the JFK forum. So what if we have to carry dead weight. BFD...
-
So we need 17 people to kick in 20 bucks a month?
We need 16 more.
When the time comes, cough it up y'all....
-
18 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:
Thanks to Gary Murr.
I take it the glass door swung both ways.
I don't have a problem with Oswald as Prayer Man, I just wonder if there were other ways he could have watched the P. Parade?
Could he have opened the front door inward and stood in the doorway for the duration of the shooting? All eyes on the parade, no one notices him and then he ducks back in?
-
34 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:
He asked us intel if mifsud was theirs and they said no, thats the sum of this story. If we look to the washington post for clear answers and diligent reporting, we will end up agreeing with the Warren report.
We don't need the DOJ IG or the WAPO to tell us this theory is bunk.
We're being asked to believe that US intl and Crowdstrike framed Putin and Trump for the DNC hack. And then this story was covered twice (twice!) during the 2016 election, nothing over the last 70 days. Who executes a false flag attack and then keeps it under wraps?
Meanwhile Hillary's e-mails got heavy blanket coverage until the last 11 days when it was total saturation anti-Hillary on cable news.
And these genius Trumpenlinks think the deep state wanted Clinton!
-
8 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:
Click this pic 3 or 4 times before its original size appears and becomes readable
Thanks Bart. From what I can gather, out of all the employees who showed up for work that day there were only 4 in the building who didn't watch the motorcade: Doris Burns, Jack Dougherty, Geneva Hine and Troy West.
Burns statement:
I listened to the radio, and by that time they said that he was on Main and turning at Houston or Main by the courthouse, so since he was tha tclose, I thought, well, I guess I will go look out the window. I didn't care-- enough to go downstairs, but I thought I will go look out the window. So I thought I would have plenty of time, if he was just coming around Main Street, that I could still get around there, so I went around to American Book Co., which is the office closest to us that had a window looking out on Elm. There was nobody in there, so then I started down the hail to Allyn and Bacon. As I went down this hall towards the windows that looked out on Houston Street, I heard a shot, but I didn't think much about it. I didn't, of course, know it was a shot because when you hear tires backfire and all, they all sound alike to me, so I didn't think a thing about that.
I went around to Allyn and Bacon, and Mr. Wilson, the manager, was at the window looking out. He was the only one in there, so I asked him if I could look out the window with him. About that time he said "Oh, my God, there's been a shooting." I still didn't think anybody, of course, had been killed, just thought somebody had shot in the air or something, so I said "Has the President already passed? And he said "Yes," so I looked out and that big bus that had the press in it, had the word "Press" or whatever it was on the bus, was passing. so I said "Well, I guess I have missed the President then," and I started on back out of the office and I just said as I left, "Well, I hope nobody got hurt."Dougherty's statement:
Mr. BALL - Did you know that the President was going to pass in a motorcade that noon?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, they said something about it.
Mr. BALL - Did you intend to go out and watch him?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I would have loved to have went out and watched him but the steps were so crowded---there was no way in the world I could get out there.
Mr. BALL - Did you take a look at it---did you go out and take a look at it, or didn't you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well---no, sir.Hine's statement:
Mr. BALL. On the 22d of November 1963, did you know that there was to be a motorcade or parade come by your building?
Miss HINE. Oh, yes, sir.
Mr. BALL How did 'you find that out?
Miss HINE. Sir, I don't remember. I probably heard over the news but I cannot remember.
Mr. BALL. You were just aware of the fact?
Miss HINE. Yes; I knew it and the girls were discussing it in the office that morning. Many of them, probably six, had not seen the President close. You see, I had seen him on two different occasions and I had been very close to him and so they were lamenting that they couldn't go out so I spoke up and said "I will be glad to answer the telephone so you girls may go out and see the motorcade" and I bad previously answered the telephone when we were in the other building before we moved in this building, so they were delighted and I thought nothing about it.
Mr. BALL. Did they all go out?
Miss HINE. Yes, sir; everyone went out.
Mr. BALL. Was there anyone left in the office part of the building on that second floor office?
Miss HINE. Only Mr. Williams and myself and he stayed with me because he was working on his desk until he thought that the motorcade was about there.
Mr. BALL. Then he went out?
Miss HINE. When he thought it was about there he said "I think I will go out for 5 minutes."West's statement:
Mr. BELIN - Now going back to November 22, you said you quit for lunch around noon on that day on Friday, November 22?
Mr. WEST - Yes. About 12 o'clock we always quit for lunch.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember any of the men coming down the elevator that day? Bonnie Ray Williams or James Jarman Jr., or Danny Arce, or any one else coming down that morning? Charlie Givens? Do you remember them coming down the elevator, or don't you remember.
Mr. WEST - I don't remember.
Mr. BELIN - Now, after you quit for lunch, you made the coffee then?
Mr. WEST - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Were did you make the coffee?
Mr. WEST - I made the coffee right there close to the wrapping mail table where I wrap mail.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. WEST - Well, I sit down to eat my lunch.
Mr. BELIN - Then what did you do?
Mr. WEST - Well, I had just, after I made coffee, I just had started to eat my lunch because I was a little hungry - I didn't anything that morning before I went to work - and I had started to eat my lunch.
But before I got through, well, all of this was, I mean, the police and things was coming in, and I was just spellbound. I just didn't know what was the matter. So I didn't get through eating. I had to eat about half my lunch, and that is all.
Mr. BELIN - Did you hear any shots fired?
Mr. WEST - I didn't hear a one. Didn't hear a one.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see anyone else on the first floor while you were eating your lunch? Anyone else at all did you see on the first floor?
Mr. WEST - It wasn't anybody. I didn't see anybody around at that time.
Mr. BELIN - At any time while you were making coffee or eating your lunch, did you see anyone else on the first floor?
Mr. WEST - No, sir; I didn't see.
Mr. BELIN - Who was the first person you saw on the first floor after you - while you were eating your lunch? Someone came in the building?
Mr. WEST - Yes; before I got through. The officers and things were coming in the front door.
Mr. BELIN - Who was the first person or persons that you saw coming through there while you were eating your lunch?
Mr. WEST - Well, that was the police.
Mr. BELIN - A police officer?
Mr. WEST - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Anyone else?
Mr. WEST - I guess it was a bunch of them, I guess, FBI men, and just a crowed of them coming in there.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see Roy Truly coming in at all that time? Do you know Mr. Truly?
Mr. WEST - Yes, sir; that is the boss, the superintendent.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see him, do you remember, while you were eating your lunch, come in the building?
Mr. WEST - Yes, sir; I think he came in with the police.
Mr. BELIN - Was he one of the first people in, or did other people come in ahead of him, if you remember?
Mr. WEST - Really, I just don't know.
Mr. BELIN - That is okay if you don't remember. That is all I want you to say if you don't remember. Did you hear anyone yelling to let the elevator loose or anything like that?
Mr. WEST - I can't remember.
Mr. BELIN - Were you working when you were eating your lunch? Were you facing the elevator or not when you were eating your lunch? Were you facing any on the elevators back there?
Mr. WEST - No, sir; I was always - I mean I would always be with my back kind of, you know, towards the elevators and facing the front side over on the side.
Mr. BELIN - The Elm Street side?
Mr. WEST - Toward Elm Street side.
Mr. BELIN - So you don't know whether anyone was using the elevators?
Mr. WEST - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BELIN - Do you know whether anyone was going up and down the stairs?
Mr. WEST - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BELIN - Do you know anything else about what happened on November 22, that might be helpful or relevant here?
Mr. WEST - No, sir; I don't really.
Mr. BELIN - Were you ever on the second floor on November 22?
Mr. WEST - No, sir; I never did hardly ever leave the first floor. That is I just stayed there where all my work was, and I just stayed there.
Mr. BELIN - On November 22, did you ever leave the first floor?
Mr. WEST - No, sir; I never did leave the first floor.
Mr. BELIN - Anything else that you can think of, whether I asked it or not?
Mr. WEST - Well, I don't know anything else. I know of nothing else.Of the four TSBD employees in the building who didn't watch the motorcade one got to the window too late, one wanted to watch the motorcade but continued to work, one worked the phones so "the girls" could watch the motorcade, and one guy was eating his lunch and saw nothing, heard nothing, said nothing.
Only Troy West expressed no desire to see the motorcade.
Conclusions: JFK's back wound was inconsistent with a strike by a 6.5mm FMJ round. Oswald's alibi was consistent with the behavior of almost all the employees in the building that day.
Question: Does Oswald's alibi depend on his being Prayer Man?
-
A question for those who are far more knowledgeable about the Oswald Assassination than I:
How many TSBD employees didn't watch the motorcade parade by?
Oswald was charged with shooting JFK with three 6.5mm Full Metal Jacket rounds. The shallow wound in JFK's back was in the soft tissue between T3 and the upper margin of the scapula.
Since 6.5mm FMJ rounds don't leave shallow wounds in soft tissue, the official charge is provably false. Oswald's alibi is that he went out to watch the parade.
So who didn't watch the parade?
-
On 12/2/2019 at 10:28 PM, Jeff Carter said:
Addendum: Cliff’s furious reargusrd action, fueled by the Time Magazine article, is a form of Denial akin to the Iraqi WMD true believers.
No WMD were found.
Lots and lots of Trump-Russian collusion was found.
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/07/politics/donald-trump-jr-full-emails/
-
21 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:
Nice deflection.
Spare me, Jeff, all you do is deflect, spin, deny.
I don't think you're capable of a good faith discussion on this topic.
Kilimnik was loyal to the United States alone? Bad faith. You can't possibly believe that.
QuoteThis might seem arcane, but there is an epistemological issue here which is both current and cuts across the arguments over the JFK assassination and historical truth.
Given your denial that JFK was shot in the back at T3, you're one of the last people on earth entitled to lecture anyone about "historical truth."
-
3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:
Could you explain what or where exactly in your long and disparate list of mundane deceits, evidence of “cooperation” or “conspiracy” arise, particularly as relates to the 2016 US election. Otherwise, you are not talking of “collusion.”
Whack-A-Mole!
That's for playing, Jeff. Better luck next time.
-
On 11/30/2019 at 5:34 PM, Jeff Carter said:
You are welcome, of course, to fantasize whatever you wish, although it doesn’t rise above speculation no matter how “obvious” it may appear.
In Jeff Carter's fantasy world "well known broker of valuable information" Konstantin Kilimnik owed all of his loyalty to the United States.
Astonishing.
-
On 11/30/2019 at 5:34 PM, Jeff Carter said:
I’m sorry, but neither polling data, phone call with Russian ambassador, or the non-existent communications with Wikileaks constitutes “collusion”.
col·lu·sion
/kəˈlo͞oZHən/ nounSECRET or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others. <emphasis added>
Why do people lie? To keep secrets!
Michael Cohen, in the role of Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, lied to Congress about the timeline of negotiations over a Moscow Trump Tower proposal.
As Trump’s nominee for US Attorney General, Jeff Sessions lied to Congress about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/3/16599426/jeff-sessions-russia-testimony
Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner failed to list his contacts with Russians on his security clearance forms.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/jared-kushner-russians-security-clearance.html
Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos lied to the FBI about his contacts with Russians.
Erik Prince, an informal advisor to Trump, lied about his meeting in the Seychelles with Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund.
https://thinkprogress.org/did-erik-prince-lie-to-mueller-or-to-congress-58321687dfad/
Donald Trump Jr. and his dad lied about the reason for Junior’s meeting with a Russian government attorney at Trump Tower.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/31/trump-statement-donald-trump-jr-russia-meeting
Roger Stone lied to Congress about the nature of his contacts with Wikileaks. His lawyers didn’t bother to mount a defense.
Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI when he “denied that he told Kislyak to back off from escalating situation in response to the sanctions.”
https://apnews.com/d47a5be3e46442d0a1243c7dc52278f3
At his first sentencing hearing the judge wondered aloud if Flynn should have been charged with treason.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/18/trump-michael-flynn-judge-emmet-sullivan-sentencings
Paul Manafort’s lawyers inadvertently revealed that the Trump campaign manager shared internal polling data with “a well known broker of valuable information”, GRU-educated Russian citizen Konstantin Kilimnik.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html
“Ex-aide Gates said data was intended for Putin ally Deripaska”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-24/manafort-kilimnik-polling
The Trump campaign colluded with Russians by definition. -
26 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:
This is what you said:
You're taking the quote out of context.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/full-text-mueller-reports-executive-summaries
Mueller, emphasis added:
The social media campaign and the GRU hacking operations coincided with a series of contacts between Trump Campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government. The Office investigated whether those contacts reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia in its election-interference activities. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities. </q>
Mueller catalogued the Trump collusion without finding grounds for charging conspiracy.
That's a long, long way from a "discredit."
QuoteI responded that no "collusion" had been identified or catalogued.
And I responded with long-time Fed attorneys Barbara McQuade and Joyce White Vance who identified and catalogued the collusion.
QuoteNeither the "series of contacts" or the Campaign's expectation "it would benefit electorally" constitutes an active process of "collusion".
Whack-A-Mole! Pull out the magic wand and wave it around and pretend the resulting hot air is anything other than vapor.
QuoteThe investigation could not find any information "that “reflected or resulted in the Campaign conspiring or coordinating with Russia.”
That's "conspiracy," a chargeable crime.
QuoteThe paragraph is very clear. Your assertion that "Mueller catalogued the Trump collusion" has no basis of fact.
Not any fact you're capable to grasping, evidently.
QuoteI directly challenged the article's assertion that polling data, phone call with Russian ambassador, or non-existent communications with Wikileaks constituted "collusion".
Your egregious misrepresentation of fact is not a challenge.
You ignore the fact that Kilimnik -- a well-known broker of valuable information -- brokered valuable information passing internal polling from the Trump campaign to a Putin-connected oligarch.
You ignore the fact that Michael Flynn discussed with the Russian ambassador lifting sanctions on Russia, and then lied about it to the FBI.
You ignore the fact that both Steve Bannon and Rick Gates testified that Roger Stone was regarded as Trump's point of contact with Wikileaks, and many e-mails indicate Stone's foreknowledge of Wikileaks releases.
When Roger Stone bragged that it was soon to be John Podesta's "time in the barrel" -- just a coinkydink that Podesta's e-mails were then released?
QuoteClearly they did not because the Mueller Report states "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." Despite the author's credentials, it should be obvious.
It should be obvious that "does not establish" isn't the same thing as "discredit" but you will obviously never get off of it.
QuoteThe point about Kilimnik is that his status as a longtime routine contact with officials representing the US State Department was omitted in favour of playing up an identity as a "GRU operative" which doesn't exist much beyond rumour.
Since he was a well-known broker of valuable information isn't it obvious that he'd also supply valuable information to his homies?
You can't be this naive, can you?
QuoteThe omission allowed an inference that something nefarious was at play, which, as Matt Taibbi noted, led to reams of speculation in the media which was deliberately stoked by Mueller's associate Weissman back in January. So that strongly suggests that the Mueller investigation was deliberately deceptive about Kilimnik.
No, the fact that this broker of valuable information had more than one client couldn't be more obvious.
-
3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:
Taibbi notes that the long New York Times piece on Kilimnik seems to confirm him as a routine source: “To American diplomats in Washington and Kiev, [Kilimnik] has been a well-known character for nearly a decade, developing a reputation as a broker of valuable information…”
We're asked to believe that Kilimnik -- a well-known broker of valuable information -- ONLY did business with Americans!
Astonishing, the naivete...
-
3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:
Your "debunking" of my "discrediting" consisted of
Consisted of myself and others pointing out to you -- apparently to no avail -- that "does not establish" is not the same thing as "discredit" and "conspiracy" is not the same thing as "collusion."
"Does not establish conspiracy" = "discredit collusion" -- is a non sequitur.
That you appear unable to grasp this is astonishing.
Quotean article by an MSNBC reporter which outlined three instances of "collusion" which were not in fact collusion or much of anything at all.
It was an article by two long-time Fed prosecutors who happen to appear on MSNBC as analysts. You can't factually challenge anything they wrote, so you wave your magic wand around as if it was actual evidence.
QuoteShortly after The Hill piece on Kilimnik's routine State dept contacts was published, Matt Taibbi noted that the story was barely picked up by any other media outlet, and no denials been issued by either the named individuals in routine contact with Kilimnik, FBI interviewers or the Mueller team.
“It would be one thing if other outlets were rebutting his claims about Kilimnik, as people have with some of this other stories. But this report has attracted zero response from non-conservative media, despite the fact that Kilimnik has long been one of the most talked-about figures in the whole Russiagate drama.
This story matters for a few reasons. If Kilimnik was that regular and important a U.S. government source, it would deal a blow to the credibility of Special Counsel Robert Mueller...
This is one of a growing number of examples of people whose status as documented U.S. informants goes unmentioned in the Mueller report, where they are instead described under the general heading, ‘Russian government links to, and contact with, the Trump campaign.’”
Taibbi notes that the long New York Times piece on Kilimnik seems to confirm him as a routine source: “To American diplomats in Washington and Kiev, [Kilimnik] has been a well-known character for nearly a decade, developing a reputation as a broker of valuable information…”
Taibbi reflects on the mainstream media:
“MSNBC burned up countless hours obsessing over the Manafort-Kilimnik relationship…with Kilimnik routinely described on air as a ‘Russian asset’ with “ties to Russian intelligence,” who even bragged that he learned his English from Russian spies.
CNN has likewise done a gazillion reports on the guy… Some reports said Manafort’s conduct “hints” at collusion, while Chris Cilizza said his meetings with a “Russian-linked operative” were a ‘very big deal.’
I could go up and down the line with the Times, The Washington Post and other print outlets. Every major news organization that covered Russiagate has covered the hell out of this part of the story. But the instant there’s a suggestion there’s another angle: crickets.”
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/expos-in-the-hill-challenges-mueller
I already discussed this. What part of the following can't you get your head around?
Of course Kilimnik briefed the State Department for years! Just like he briefed the Ukrainian government under Yanukovych and the Putin government in Moscow.
He operated in all three countries, and in order to maintain maximum freedom of movement he had to give every one something.</q>
TrumpSpeak is all about ginning up optics and pretending the optics are real. In this case the assumption is that since Kilimnik provided valuable information to the US State Department he was -- therefore! -- precluded from furnishing valuable information (Trump internal polling data) to a Putin-aligned oligarch like Oleg Keripaska.
Right out of the Trumpenlinks playbook: Gin up an "angle" that only exists in the minds of Trump apologists. Repeat endlessly.
-
On 11/28/2019 at 11:34 AM, Jeff Carter said:
It starts from the simple observation that a known "GRU operative" does not work for the National Endowment for Democracy for ten years, just as a "Marxist Marine" doesn't serve as a radar operator at Atsugi.
Oh really??
Kilimnik worked for the International Republican Institute, which promotes American center-right concepts of "freedom" and "democracy." Non-profit. Non-Governmental Organization. Closely associated with the United States Agency for International Development. Offices all over the world. In every one of their offices they employ locals. A certain number of the local staff will have ties to the host country's intelligence services.
Konstantin Kilimnik was perfect for the role. A great pick for the Americans because Kostya wasn't a former GRU employee per se, and perfect for the Russians to keep tabs on most of the IRI's activities in Moscow . Both sides try to mushroom the other -- keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em sh-t.
QuoteDespite their credentials, the reporters you cite are simply repeating spoon-fed information.
First you said the Mueller report discredited"Russian collusion". Then you found that claim readily debunked. So now you try to discredit the Mueller Report yourself?
Going Full Metal Trump on us, Jeff?
QuoteThe only reporter actually doing his job on this issue actually dug up the fact Kliminik was briefing the State Department for years, as the Mueller people well knew even as they deliberately fed a false portrayal to the stenographers.
Of course Kilimnik briefed the State Department for years! Just like he briefed the Ukrainian government under Yanukovych and the Putin government in Moscow.
He operated in all three countries, and in order to maintain maximum freedom of movement he had to give every one something.
Quote(you will gnash your teeth over the reporter, but the information has not been disavowed, just ignored)
Your observations are not "simple" so much as "simplistic."
-
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:
You haven’t described it because no one has yet described an actual event that fits the description.
Whack-A-Mole!
QuoteWhy are you sourcing Time Magazine? -
Because I've been watching the authors of the article -- Barbara McQuade and Joyce White Vance -- on MSNBC for a couple of years now.
Barbara McQuade 'Has Become Something of a Celebrity' Explaining Trump Inquiries
QuoteHave you become an Eisenhower Republican?
As opposed to a serial repeater of Fascist propaganda?
QuoteNothing they try to describe as “collusion” actually fits the description.
McQuade spent 19 years as a Federal prosecutor. Vance was the US Attorney for Northern Alabama for 8 years.
What are your legal qualifications, Jeff?
QuoteCome on, Cliff. Up your game. You are more sophisticated than that, but your partisan bias is leading you astray. “Kostya, the guy from the GRU” does not work for the IRI.
So Wikipedia entirely made up his biography? You need to go on Wiki and clean this stuff up, since you know so much more about Kilimnik's background than anyone else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Kilimnik
Kilimnik was born on April 27, 1970[5] at Kryvyi Rih, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, Soviet Union.[6] Fluent in Russian and Ukrainian before his service in the Soviet Army,[6] he became fluent in Swedish and English as a linguist[6] at the Military University of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation,[7][8] which trained interpreters for the Soviet Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU).[9] He served in the Soviet Army as a translator and worked closely with the Soviet Army's GRU.[6] He took Russian citizenship after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.[9] He worked in Sweden as an interpreter for a Russian arms dealer.[9] In Moscow, Kilimnik then worked for the International Republican Institute (IRI) from 1995 to early 2005.[6][9] According to anonymous sources, when applying for his position with the IRI, he responded to the question about how he learned English by stating that the "Russian military intelligence" taught him and he became known among Moscow political operatives as "Kostya, the guy from the GRU".[6] In 1997, he traveled to the United States using a Russian diplomatic passport.[5] He claims he was dismissed in the early 2000s after the Federal Security Service's chief gave a speech discussing internal private meetings at the Institute.[9] A former colleague told the FBI that Kilimnik was fired because of his strong links to Russian intelligence services.[5] </q>
Then there's this from the Mueller Report:
[O]n August 2, 2016, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort met in New York City with his long-time business associate Konstantin Kilimnik, who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence. Kilimnik requested the meeting to deliver in person a peace plan for Ukraine that Manafort acknowledged to the Special Counsel's Office was a "backdoor" way for Russia to control part of eastern Ukraine; both men believed the plan would require candidate Trump's assent to succeed (were he to be elected President). They also discussed the status of the Trump Campaign and Manafort's strategy for winning Democratic votes in Midwestern states. Months before that meeting, Manafort had caused internal polling data to be shared with Kilimnik, and the sharing continued for some period of time after their August meeting. </q>
You have an interesting double standard, Jeff. If anyone can be associated with the CIA in any way -- they are suspect.
But if someone is associated with the GRU -- they're innocent.
Why is that?
-
On 11/24/2019 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Carter said:
Cliff - if you could describe the supposed “collusion” involving Veselnitskaya or Kilimnik you might then be doing more than blowing hot air.
I have described it -- repeatedly. You just refuse to acknowledge it. And chances are you will continue to play Whack-A-Mole on the subject.
On 11/24/2019 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Carter said:“Collusion” refers to “a secret or illegal cooperation in order to deceive others”, which Mueller specifies for his purpose as coordinating in “election-interference activities”.
These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die. Here’s Why They’re Wrong
https://time.com/5610317/mueller-report-myths-breakdown/
Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”
Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.
While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”
To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting. This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.
Mueller found other contacts with Russia, such as the sharing of polling data about Midwestern states where Trump later won upset victories, conversations with the Russian ambassador to influence Russia’s response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to election interference, and communications with Wikileaks after it had received emails stolen by Russia. While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.” </q>
On 11/24/2019 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Carter said:He then very clearly and unambiguously states “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government.” Can’t be any clearer.
"Does not establish" isn't the same thing as "discredit."
Why you think that it does is bizarre.
On 11/24/2019 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Carter said:The “key conclusion” which you instead refer is not in fact a conclusion - it is an observation, which itself is essentially meaningless in that the phrase “individuals with ties to the Russian government” is, in the Report, extremely elastic, such that it could describe basically every citizen of the Russian Federation.
Sure, because as every schoolboy and girl knows all citizens of the Russian Federation work closely with the GRU, or can be described as a "Russian government attorney."
On 11/24/2019 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Carter said:Ovechkin went to the White House after winning the Stanley Cup. Did something sinister happen then? It was a direct contact between Trump and an “agent of the Kremlin”, no? Maybe the quid pro quo was cemented then. “The red dog barks at dawn, comrade.”
Does Ovechkin have a reputation in the NHL as "Alex, the guy from the GRU"?
That was Kilimnik's rep when he worked for the International Republican Institute -- "Kostya, the guy from the GRU".
Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump
in JFK Deep Politics
Posted
No sht, Sherlock.
On page 33 in this thread: