W. Niederhut

Chris, There's a lot of nonsense in your post here. Briefly... 1) Touchy? Study the teachings of your English sage, Samuel Johnson. There's nothing inappropriate about having strong feelings about things that matter-- like the fate of liberal democracy vs. fascist authoritarianism. 2) The answer to your question was implicit in my (above) response. To wit, if Trump had succeeded in remaining in the White House after January 6th, he would have continued to control the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, and FBI. Perhaps you aren't aware that he had appointed his sycophantic flying monkeys to run all of those institutions, with the partial exception of the CIA (after Pompeo left the CIA to become Secretary of State.) 3) You and Ben continue to overgeneralize about the nature of censorship and disinformation in the higher quality M$M organizations in the U.S. It isn't all-or-nothing. For example, in the case of the Washington Post, their primary censorship and suppression/distortion of news has to do with CIA and military black ops. Trump's coup attempt was not a Deep State black op. It was run by Trump and his Willard Hotel goon squad-- Giuliani, Powell, Eastman, Bannon, Flynn, Meadows, et.al.

Incredibly, Ben is still parroting Donald Trump's debunked propaganda memes about the "Russia hoax." Ben, Have you still not figured out that Russiagate was not a hoax? Geez... Talk about a guy who continues to drink the kool aid... 🤥 As for Brian Sicknick, rather than re-writing my rebuttal of your repeated claims about Sicknick's death-- which I posted for you on April 27, 2021 -- I'm cutting-and-pasting it below. * I've been board certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology for decades, and I never bought the claims about his death being unrelated to his assault and exposure to toxic chemicals on January 6th. Among other issues, we were never informed about toxicology screens to clarify whether Sicknick was poisoned on 1/6 by chemicals that could have caused a fatal arrhythmia or hypertensive crisis. Sicknick's police colleague (Edwards) who testified in the Thursday Congressional hearing-- which you didn't bother to watch-- reported that Sicknick was sprayed by the Capitol attackers with a chemical that wasn't like pepper spray or mace, (i.e., didn't cause facial flushing) which caused him to collapse and turn deathly pale. What was it? What was its elimination half-life? What toxicology screening was done at autopsy? * W. Niederhut Posted April 27, 2021 (edited) Benjamin, I remain skeptical about the conclusions of the medical examiner in the Brian Sicknick case, as I mentioned the last time you raised this subject. What is the probability that a young man of Sicknick's age would suddenly die of unrelated "natural" causes shortly after being assaulted by a violent mob? Brainstem strokes are very rare in men of Sicknick's age, in the absence of unusual risk factors like extreme hypertension and/or stimulant intoxication. It also seems odd, IMO, that the medical examiner waited 100 days to release his unusual conclusion that Sicknick's death was unrelated to his assault and likely exposure to toxic chemicals on January 6th. Finally, if there was a Deep State conspiracy to make Sicknick a martyr, why was the medical examiner's report published in the mainstream media at all?

"The hardcore lot?" As opposed to what--the clueless, false-equivalence Trumplican ostriches who are still in denial about Trump's historic, unprecedented crimes against the United States? Newsflash... 1) Trump conspired to remain in office as POTUS by obstructing the January 6th Congressional certification of Biden's election, despite knowing full well that his Big Lie about alleged election fraudulence was a lie. (Did you listen to Bill Barr's testimony during last night's hearing?) 2) As part of that coordinated effort, he invited and incited an angry mob to invade the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, violently attacking and injuring the police, and he even supported calls to lynch the U.S. Vice President. Some of Trump's January 6th Proud Boys and Oath Keepers have already pled guilty to seditious conspiracy. 3) Trump watched the violent attack on television for three hours, and did nothing to intervene-- despite multiple requests from concerned staffers, family members, and members of Congress. If you really believe that Trump's concerted efforts to overturn the 2020 U.S. election are "just the media whipping up a storm," you need to find some reality-based news sources. You should also study some basic American history, to understand Trump's unprecedented crimes in historical context. As Presidential historian Michael Beschloss put it last year, "Trump did one of the worst things a President could do." BTW, where are you getting your "news" and opinions about January 6th? I'm curious about such disinformation sources.

One of the many damning segments in the Congressional hearing last night, IMO, was the testimony by Bill Barr and other Trump associates establishing that Trump always knew that his Big Lie was a lie. It's a shame that the Trumplicans didn't watch these historic hearings. They need to be de-programmed by the facts. It's also a shame that some people mistakenly believe that there is some sort of equivalence between the historic, unprecedented crimes of Donald Trump (and key Republican associates) and "liberals." Only a person who flunked American History 101 could believe something that ridiculous. What this kind of confused thinking illustrates, among other problems, is the corrosive effect of incessant right wing disinformation on a sub-population of American citizens.

No. It should happen post-judicially, on gallows erected on the steps of the Capitol. What Trump did was an abomination. And he was in a position of public trust and great authority, making his crimes all the more egregious. Not sure what it will take to de-program the Trump cult, though, especially when they wall themselves off from reality.

Impressive opening statements by both Thompson and Cheney, IMO. They certainly laid out the case for Trump's historic, unprecedented crimes against the United States. The testimony of Bill Barr and other Trump staffers about the absence of any evidence that the election was stolen, and Trump's persistence in lying about that fact and actively seeking to overturn the election, was compelling. The footage of the attack on the Capitol was chilling, as was Edwards' testimony. Trump should be hanged on the steps of the Capitol, along with his co-conspirators, including Eastman, Giuliani, Flynn, Meadows, et.al. What a bunch of scoundrels. It won't happen, but it should.

My hunch is that Krulak knew enough about CIA assassination ops to fear getting whacked. He didn't want to publicize his positive identification of Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza.

Nearly 1,100 Segments on Benghazi, But 'Of Course' Fox News Won't Air January 6th Hearings https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/06/08/nearly-1100-segments-benghazi-course-fox-news-wont-air-jan-6-hearing June 8, 2022

Rob, I'm re-posting some of your debunked claims about Prouty from a 2020 forum thread. Enjoy. 🤥

Here's the forum thread from 2020 where Rob Clark and another forum member posted a lot of defamatory claims about Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, paralleling false commentaries about Prouty by Ed Lansdale and Warren Commission propagandist John McAdams. It's interesting to review this 2020 discussion in light of James DiEugenio's recent article about Prouty at Kennedys and King.

Mark, My question today about preferred crow entrees for Mr. Clark needs to be interpreted in the context of an older thread on this forum in which Mr. Clark posted some derisive, defamatory claims about the late Col. L. Fletcher Prouty-- quite similar to those published in the past by the late John McAdams. Mr. DiEugenio's recent essay at Kennedys and King debunked some of the McAdams/Clark defamatory claims about Mr. Prouty. Hence, my question for Mr. Clark about his preferred crow recipes. Naturally, I regret any injury, real or imagined, that I may have inflicted upon Mr. Clark's tender feelings.

Ben, David Ray Griffin's books and essays about 9/11 are excellent-- essential reading on the subject, IMO. So are the scientific research articles at websites like the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and 911 Research. https://www.ae911truth.org/ https://911research.wtc7.net/ Be advised that there is an vast array of government-funded disinformation about 9/11 on the internet, and those are the reasonable-sounding sites that surface prominently on Google searches-- e.g., Rational Wiki, Metabunk, 9/11 Myths Debunked, etc. (It's similar to what I noticed when I first began to study the JFK assassination research several years ago, only worse.) As with the JFK assassination, it takes time and effort to learn to differentiate the true scientific and historical facts about 9/11 from the ubiquitous, government/M$M bunk.

Ben, I'm going to take a break from trying to correct your reading comprehension problems and erroneous theorizing about history and current events. Interestingly, one of the RNC propaganda strategies for the upcoming January 6th hearings is, apparently, to re-cast the investigation of Trump's serious 1/6 crimes as mere partisan politics-- precisely what you are doing in your confused rants (above) about my analyses of Trump, Robert Mueller, 9/11, etc. You repeatedly misinterpret my comments, then pretend to "rebut" your misinterpretations of what I wrote. That approach to a debate/discussion serves no useful purpose. It's like wrestling with a tar baby.

Ben, you ignorant slut... 🤥 Did you forget that you, yourself, are the guy pushing the "Russiagate was a Deep State plot against Trump" narrative? I merely reminded you that Robert Mueller went easy on Trump. Trump and his family members were never subpoenaed by Mueller, nor did Mueller indict Trump for witness tampering and obstruction of justice. My own hunch is that Mueller was acting as a Republican Party loyalist. As for 9/11, your knowledge of the subject is minimal. Don't project your ignorance and confusion on to me. Regarding the subject of Trump and 9/11, Donald correctly surmised on 9/11 that only "bombs" (explosives) could have demolished the WTC towers. He also announced during the 2016 Republican primary debates with Jeb Bush that, "When I'm President, the American people are going to find out who really destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11." Needless to say, Trump never told the American people who really destroyed the World Trade Center. Nor did he release the suppressed JFKA records. So much for Trump being an adversary of the Deep State, eh? As for Liz Cheney, she deserves her Profiles in Courage Award for participating in the investigation of Trump's January 6th coup attempt. Your blathering misogyny is duly noted, again. Meanwhile, have you figured out yet that Trump's January 6th coup attempt was a very serious, unprecedented seditious conspiracy against the U.S. government?

Ben, Get a clue, for once. You, obviously, still haven't read or understood the commentary that I posted (above) about Robert Mueller, Louis Freeh, Sibel Edmonds, and the FBI in relation to 9/11. This is one of the reasons that I stopped responding to your erroneous posts this year. You don't read or understand the facts and references that people post for you. In that post, I referenced the FBI's role in covering up the 9/11 evidence-- both before and after 9/11-- and I specifically said that Mueller had to be in the loop on the post-9/11 cover up. Right? But let me take a wild guess about your reasons for repeatedly talking about Robert Mueller recently. You are trying to imply that Mueller's tenure as FBI Director during the Bush/Cheney administration proves that his later investigation of Russiagate was part of a Deep State plot against Donald Trump, right? That theory is easily debunked by the facts. Did Mueller even subpoena Trump in his Russiagate grand jury investigation? Did he subpoena Don, Jr., Eric Trump, Jared Kushner, or Ivanka? Did he indict Trump for the multiple counts of obstruction of justice detailed in the Mueller Report? Are you aware that Robert Mueller is a personal friend and colleague of Trump's former AG Bill Barr-- the ex-CIA lawyer who managed the Iran-Contra pardons? Tell us how Mueller persecuted Donald Trump. On the contrary, he let him off the hook.

Ben, Rather than repeating myself, I would suggest that you go back and read what I already posted recently in response to your (tangential) questions about Robert Mueller and 9/11. Apparently, you didn't read my comments about the FBI, Louis Freeh, Sibel Edmonds, and 9/11.

Wow. Quite a vindication of Prouty. I always thought the man was a straight shooter. Time for the Prouty defamers to eat some serious crow.

Kirk, Perhaps we all owe Ben a certain debt of gratitude. In a sense, Ben has served during the past year as an erstwhile canary in the Trump/MAGA coalmine. He has tirelessly promoted dubious theories from the right wing, Greenwald/Carlson MAGA-verse-- e.g., that Russiagate was a Deep State hoax, that Trump's January 6th coup attempt was a scrum-like Deep State "patriot purge," and that Bill Barr's Durham investigation debunked Trump's Russiagate scandal. Ben's singing about his theories has forced all of us to be mindful of the toxic Trumplican fumes. Then, ultimately, Ben succumbs to the fumes and stops singing, before moving on to the next MAGA mine shaft.

I'm still waiting for an accurate documentary about Watergate entitled, They Weren't All the President's Men. The John Dean-centric Gaslit series ain't it. In fact, I noticed while watching the Gaslit series recently that they dedicated a lot of screen time to the story of John Dean and L. Patrick Gray burning the documents from E. Howard Hunt's safe in the White House, without even raising the question of why Hunt left the documents in the White House and why they needed to be urgently burned. Does anyone know what was in the safe? (Mr. Caddy probably can't answer the question without violating attorney-client confidentiality.)

My impression is that LBJ's successful Presidential support for the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act-- after sabotaging civil rights legislation in Congress for years-- was part of a cynical, self-serving maneuver to endear himself to northern liberals in the Democratic Party after 11/22/63. IMO, it was also part of a calculated strategy to reduce suspicion of his involvement in the JFK assassination, by publicly aligning himself with JFK's policies on civil rights. Similarly, LBJ worked hard to create the public impression that he had not altered JFK's Vietnam policy, as John Newman, James DiEugenio, and other historians have demonstrated so clearly. I should mention that I was not fully aware of LBJ's serious character pathology until I read Mr. Nelson's LBJ biographies (Mastermind and Colossus) a few years ago. These threads are personally interesting to me because, several years ago, after reading the Nelson LBJ biographies, I had a rather heated argument with a family member who revered Robert Caro. (I ended up sending her copies of the two Nelson books.)

And, shockingly, 76% of Republicans in a new poll still believe Trump's Big Lie about the 2020 election. It's Orwellian. https://www.mediaite.com/news/new-poll-whopping-76-of-republicans-say-biden-did-not-legitimately-win-the-election-as-jan-6-hearing-approaches/ June 4, 2022

Excellent post, Pat. I never bought the narrative about widespread Russian (GRU) hacking not altering vote tallies in critical swing states in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. If I recall the numbers correctly, Trump unexpectedly won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by a combined total of only 80,000 votes. Highly suspicious. The post-election spin in the M$M was that Hillary's lead in pre-election and exit polling in those critical swing states had been grossly flawed-- deserving of ridicule. But an alternative explanation is that the vote tallies were altered by hackers. After the 2016 election, a professor in Wisconsin found evidence of an estimated 23,000 valid, uncounted votes in the Milwaukee metropolitan area alone. Vote tallies in Democratic Detroit were also suspiciously low, as I recall. That 80,000 vote margin in WI, MI, and PA gave Trump the Electoral College win in an election that he lost by a full 2% of the popular vote. The Russian (GRU) hackers knew precisely where to concentrate their efforts.

Yes, and there are numerous parallels between 9/11 and the JFK assassination, as a number of historians/analysts have pointed out-- including Peter Dale Scott and Laurent Guyenot. Among other parallels, both black ops were covered up by the M$M and sham Federal investigations. Incidentally, George W. Bush had initially asked Henry Kissinger to chair the 9/11 Commission. It was Kissinger who referred Dubya Bush to Condoleeza Rice's associate, Phillip Zelikow, to chair the 9/11 "investigation." (Kissinger and his associate, L. Paul Bremer, were also two of the key M$M "experts" who promptly pinned the blame for 9/11 on Osama Bin Laden and "Al Qaeda" immediately after the 9/11 attacks.)

Paul, Russ Baker published an interesting op-ed on February 22, 2017 about the mainstream media's "Deep State conversion moment." (I had to track this one down on another forum where I had posted it on... February 22, 2017-- one month after Trump's inauguration.) That was around the time that Fox News and the Trumpsters first "discovered" the concept of the "Deep State"-- part of Trump's public relations effort to blame his involvement with the Kremlin on persecution by the FBI, etc. By February of 2017, Donald Trump was frantically trying to shut down the FBI investigation of Michael Flynn's efforts to undermine the sanctions imposed against Russia for meddling in the 2016 U.S. election. Trump, ultimately, fired FBI Director James Comey on May 9, 2017 for his refusal to end the Flynn investigation. Russ Baker on the Media’s Deep State Conversion Moment - WhoWhatWhy February 17, 2017