Jeff Carter

This ITV report features the reporter and cameraman following the crowd into the building. At times, it appears as oversized high school students who had found the principal's office door wide open https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-06/donald-trump-fires-up-protesters-in-washington-as-congress-prepare-to-confirm-biden-victory

But I wasn't referring to media coverage of the 2016 election. And a reliance on "circumstantial evidence" is not punk rock. Very disappointing Cliff, particularly your Assange smear on this day.

" it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was."

But the cases you refer did not result in publicized indictments. And the concept of “proof in a legal sense” is the foundation of your country’s justice system. You instead transfer these requirements onto me - “what you seem to be asking for…”. “your strict requirements…” Situations such as the Cuban Missile Crisis featured exactly directed exposure of “sources and methods” because the United States was making serious accusations against an adversary and had to back such allegations with evidence for the international community. It is notable in the contemporary situation that serious allegations of direct manipulation of internal politics were not expressed through international bodies as previously, but were largely publicized solely domestically. I noted this three years ago - Russiagate is/was all about domestic US politics. The Mueller indictments against Russian Federation nationals was entirely domestic political theatre - deliberately released with extensive media coverage on the eve of Trump’s one and only meeting with Putin. The obviousness of this observation shouldn’t be controversial, or lead to vague suppositions of relationships or items “not disclosed’. At all times on this subject I have referred to primary open source documentation.

You have done this at least a half-dozen times now - with Crowdstrike and the Mueller Report conclusions - where you describe my position as “egregious” “misrepresentation” followed by a block quote which essentially corresponds to my representation. I said “there was no direct evidence of exfiltration”. Your quoted text confirms: “We did not have concrete evidence…it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was.” You are just trolling on these issues.

The story has developed quite a bit since 2017/18, not least the once classified admission by the Crowdstrike guy that there was no direct evidence of exfiltration.

Bob, you already know the answers to your questions - and present them again as some sort of lame “gotcha” reflex. No sane individual would voluntarily surrender themselves to the caprices of the US justice system. The foolishness of doing such was well-described by Julian Assange some years ago when similar questions were being posed to him: “It is not possible for a national security whistleblower now in the United States to have a fair trial. It’s not possible to have a fair trial because all the trials are held in Alexandria, Virginia, where the jury pool is comprised of the highest density of military and government employees in all of the United States. It’s not possible to have a fair trial, because the U.S. government has a precedent of applying state secret privilege to prevent the defense from using material that is classified in their favor. It’s not possible to have a fair trial, because as a defendant in a national security case, you are held under special administrative measures, which makes it very hard to look at any of the material in your case, to meet with your lawyers, to speak to people, etc. So, this is — it’s just simply not a fair system.” (Democracy Now interview 2014) And that’s leaving aside the sadistic SuperMax prisons where all the political prisoners are sent these days. I am baffled by the fealty to the vicious Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-National Security Complex on display for four full years in this Forum. William Binney's service and contributions have long been acknowledged and celebrated - that is, until he voiced the wrong conclusions to a matter of controversy and suddenly began to be trashed. These sorts of rapid conversions from hero to heretic are purely political constructions, and generally try to obscure weak foundations to assertive positions. I strongly doubt Cliff has spent anytime at all researching Binney's work to develop a thesis that he has "done wrong" or "got it wrong" on anything.

Kirk - nothing in your loose and unfocussed reply contradicts the simple observation that the “Newspaper of Record” has been serially misinforming the public on matters of serious geopolitical consequence. The constant repetition of materially false (i.e. the ICA) or evidence-free allegations (Russian hacking) could have grave consequence, particularly as taking the country to war on false flag pretext has a long history in U.S.A. Your apparent advocacy of an “ends justify the means” judicial posture contradicts the spirit of the Law described in your country’s own founding documents. And your dismissal of observation based on material sources - I.e. people who “read” - echoes none other than Allen Dulles, and seems ultimately cynical.

Lawrence Wright has penned a lengthy recap in New Yorker - "The Plague Year". Detailed breakdown of mistakes made. Two most crucial were the CDC's failure with tests in February, and Trump administration's failure to assume national leadership in March. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/04/the-plague-year

The primary sources investigating this presumed “attack” have not as yet identified a responsible entity beyond a “nation-state” actor, presumed as such due to the stated “sophistication’ of the activity. See: https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2020/12/21/december-21st-2020-solorigate-resource-center/. (Last updated Dec 31) Nation-states believed to possess the stated capabiities include the US, China, Russia, Israel, and the UK. Whether this was a state-directed operation or a “rogue” event directed by a factional interest, is simply, at the moment, unknown. Therefore, the New York Times, yet again, is irresponsibly misinforming its readership by publishing claims of Russian responsibility which have no corresponding evidence and are contradicted by the published primary record. Why the NYTimes insists on doing this is unknown, but the more interesting question is why the Times is allowed any credibility on this or any issue related to attribution of Russian culpability when most of its publishing on the topic has been utterly wrong again and again for at least the past four years. Wednesday marks the fourth anniversary of the infamous Intelligence Community Assessment which, it is now known, used the thoroughly discredited “Steele Dossier” to publicly accuse an incoming US administration of treasonous links to an official adversary. I would say much of the rancour and partisan division currently enveloping the USA can be tracked back to the publication and broad endorsement of that highly dubious document. As the article shared by Kirk above clearly shows, Trump’s basic incompetence and lack of qualification could have and should have been dealt with by the simple application of politics, instead of a ridiculous evidence-free conspiracy theory amplified with hysterical coverage by the legacy media. America’s current troubles are in actuality an “own-goal”. It’s interesting that the continuing attempts to reverse the election result base themselves on procedural regulations. It is one of the dark secrets of constitutional democracies that there is always a legal fail-safe to disavow the “will of the people”, although meant only to be deployed as a “nuclear option” in response to highly unlikely events such as a Black Panther Party candidate winning the presidency. Such a nuclear option was in fact deployed in Australia in 1975 with the removal of the Whitlam government by a form of royal consent. The full extent of this act, formally denied by the Australian government and media for decades, was only revealed this past summer by a very stubborn determined effort using Australia’s Freedom of Information laws. Regardless, there is almost no chance for success in overturning Biden’s inauguration later this month, so the congressional support for such can be read as really about posturing for future position. The sound argument against the damaging effect of these legal manoeuvres to the nation’s polity, would find consistency with criticizing the likewise rash publication of the ICA four years ago.

Back ion 1994, Peter Dale Scott was formulating "Phase One" and Phase Two" to describe an attribution of responsibility for the assassination - moving from a Soviet/Cuban conspiracy to a lone-nut. This was derived from the document releases mandated by the ARRB. I am curious if this notion had been previously formulated (i.e. ahead of ARRB) by any researchers.

Tulsi Gabbard co-sponsors legislation to repeal the Patriot Act https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/reps-gabbard-and-massie-bill-repeal-government-surveillance-laws-which-threaten

I don’t think a huge amount of money was required for this operation. Sniper teams would have to be located, coordinated and transported in and out of Dallas. An advance team - several men? - would have to work or circulate in Dallas for some weeks. Most of the rest piggybacks onto already existing programs and agencies, which already have their own budgets.

FDR’s New Deal reforms were extremely popular, but the New Deal representatives began to be squeezed out of the Democratic Party starting in 1944. Donald Gibson set out the case in “Battling Wall Street” that JFK’s domestic economic policies were an updated version of New Deal style reform - with the federal government serving as a countervailing power against private interests in the pursuit of policies which prioritized human and social development ahead of elite profit-making. So its a question of politics, not personality. If allowed to follow its natural path, JFK’s policies could have initiated a brighter future for many people, and the popularity such policies would help cement New Deal style reform and the Four Freedoms into the fundamental structure of US economy (rather than merely represent a temporary defunct measure from the depths of the 1930s as imagined by the captains of industry). This scenario can perhaps be disputed, but I have yet to see a refutation of Gibson’s premise or scholarship. Internationally, two JFK terms would have likely meant: no wide scale Vietnam War, no overthrow of Sukarno in Indonesia, and probably no Middle East war in 1967. The negative consequences of these three events have been profound and lasting. Perhaps as well the seeds of true nationalist development-prioritized governments across Africa and Latin America are established. And a somewhat idealist reform program would find itself pulled by the baby-boomer wave, itself an idealistic generation (or so it appeared). The old-line conservative imperialism/ interventionism of Eisenhower years could have quite possibly been permanently set to pasture, rather than coming back through the neo-conservative / Reagan counter-revolution.

Absolutely the world would have been perennially changed if JFK had served two terms. Are you arguing that Nixon would have won in 1968 regardless?

The U.S. power elite - i.e. the cabal which is presumed to exist above the president - is remarkably and uniquely opaque. The extensive cover-up of the circumstances of the crime, and seeming coordination of personnel across official agencies, seems to indicate the murder was at least sanctioned somewhere up in those stratospheres - but there is no means to clarify these things because the most crucial information, at least as it appears, has been removed from the record. That would include items such as the complete Air Force One transcripts (or recording), and the briefing boards from the NPIC analysis (Nov 23-24/63) or official description or memo re: those briefing boards.

Steve Thomas Have the Proud Boys ever been in a hockey fight?

I don’t know that it was a “huge operation”. It was compartmentalized, and Bill Kelly has been making the point that there already was a working plan which could easily be switched from one target to another (i.e. from Castro to JFK). The operating motive seems to reside within the two identifiable contingencies involving Oswald - specifically that he would be fingered as a collaborator working with Cuban or Soviet sniper teams, and thus Kennedy’s death would generate at the very least the removal of Castro by US military. Sniper teams of Cuban exiles would be rather well motivated, and the branches of CIA involved with Oswald and who were actively establishing this contingency’s narrative had direct contact with the Cuban exile paramilitary people. Assistance within DPD and SS may have been secured without the personnel knowing exactly what was to occur. At some point within two hours after the shooting, the WW3 contingency had been scrapped in favour of the lone nut, and this itself may have been part of the plan. A more generalized establishment consensus that JFK had to be removed does not imply direct awareness of how or when. But the depth of opposition to reformist policies directed at the structural framework of the US economy should not be underestimated.

Bill Kelly at his JFK CounterCoup blog has been honing in on the actuated plot. A problem is that actual conspirators/assassins will likely never be identified - although the cover-up is a proven event. The evidence as is points to a triangulated sniper operation with Oswald as designated patsy within various contingencies (i.e. as lone nut or as willing collaborator with a presumed Cuban or Soviet hit team who “get away”). Conspirators worked with friendly factions in DPD, SS, and Army Intelligence. In my opinion, the reason Kennedy was killed was first: his domestic and foreign policies were not acceptable to the prevailing Establishment, and second: his policies were popular, he was well positioned for a second term, and even worse, his popular policies could achieve a momentum which could not be later reversed. I think Kennedy was following a politics based on human development, articulated previously in New Deal era reforms, which were anathema to an establishment fully committed to a laissez-faire structure based on resource exploitation. I see Kennedy’s experience in Congress as teaching him to avoid direct ideological battles, and so the depth of his policies were not telegraphed ahead of achieving the presidency. Otherwise, establishment interests would have neutralized him somehow before such event.

There have been legendary rip-offs in the rock and roll world: Dylan’s contract with Albert Grossman is one. Rolling Stones with Allan Klein (which Keith Richards referred wryly as “the price of an education”). Creedence Clearwater. Leonard Cohen licensed his work and believed he had a lasting nest egg to retire to Mt Baldy with, only to discover his manager lost/stole the whole thing and he had to go out on tour for three years when in his seventies. Even the punk rock world was prone to bitter recrimination from record contracts - and this over thousands, not millions, of dollars. Dylan’s long time manager has done an outstanding job representing his client, keeping him in the public eye, and shoring up his legacy. The Bootleg Series alone has resulted in 15 multi-disc collections since the early ‘90s, most of which is excellent and not redundant. Last week they released an extremely limited edition of 3 CDs of previously unavailable studio outtakes from 1970 - which renews the performance copyright for that material and was specifically labelled “Copyright Collection”. Dylan will be one of those artists - like, say, Billie Holliday or Miles Davis - who will retain a public profile and sell records for a very very long time, so it’s to his credit that his business affairs have been run so well.

Section 230 has been an important structural component of the internet as we have known it to date. A repeal will, it has been argued, effectively transform the free and open nature of the internet, already under attack by censorship proponents. Biden, as well, has expressed support for the repeal. There is a great chance this will occur without public debate, and without the public even realizing what is at stake. https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/05/28/what-is-section-230-and-why-does-trump-want-to-change-it/?sh=51e99262389d

short answer - yes. here's Walt Brown:

Cliff Varnell: “…(it) was a novel event from which no identification of "anomalies" can be made…(t)he notion that anomalies can be detected in a novel event is absurd…Since (it) was unlike any(thing) previous … you cannot logically identify an ‘anomaly’.” Cliff - the topic at hand is the 2020 election results, not Maradona's 1986 "hand of god" goal.

It’s your defensiveness which is interesting. It seems to be widely shared, if the tweeter from the Raw Story post is indicative. The Vote Analysis people don’t address any allegations or conclusions, rather simply say that the anomalies “invite further scrutiny.” None of their numbers are factually incorrect (though some have been recently revised via recounts), and their methods are reproducible. So why the impulse to dismiss or censor the post, or demand its vetting by some “group” as others would have it? The anomalies themselves aren’t even controversial, as they have been recognized since Nov 4 when the first screen captures from network news captions began to be shared. It is a matter of record now where the anomalous updates were filed, what they represented, and the precise time they were introduced. And it is not at all difficult to believe that inner-city voters in Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia voted for the Democratic candidate in margins of 7:1 and higher, and took advantage of the opportunity to vote via mail rather than endure the usual crappy and inadequate polling stations provided on election days. It’s just very interesting that the reflexive instinct you seem to support is to prevent speech, prevent debate and clarification. And, since you are going to hammer this particular nail - your personal definition of “paper ballot” is a bit more expansive than most laypersons would have it. Most persons understand a paper ballot as a sheet featuring a list of candidates onto which a voter makes a mark. Your definition includes print-outs of QR codes, printed on paper, made by a machine by scanning and reformatting a previously marked paper ballot. That process is one-step removed from the common understanding.

What is your complaint? The authors state they are working from “publicly available data”, available from NY Times and other sources ( I.e. official government election statistics), covering “8954 individual vote updates” dispersed across the nation. The information is easily verifiable, and in fact one of their data sets was widely republished in the form of recount results in just the last few days. How do you come to describe this as an “assumption”? What do you mean by “predetermined methodology” - is the statistics field or most other scientific pursuits not largely dependent on “predetermined” methods? Are you suggesting that sites such as Substack and Medium, hosting self-published essays and academic papers, should be put under the control of some “group” so as to verify or approve information? That seems sort of authoritarian. Who gets to choose the group? Should this vetting process extend across all electronic platforms? There are educated people advocating exactly that. Have you not noticed that in the space of a few short years the “marketplace of ideas” touted as the functioning framework of western intellectual endeavour and participation since the Enlightenment has flipped conceptually into a dangerous dark forest of disinformation that the citizenry needs to be protected from?