Bob Ness
-
Posts
1,440 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bob Ness
-
-
3 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:
Google it yourself next week when one of your trusted mainstream media publications reluctantly decide to run the story. You wouldn’t trust any source I post anyway because it does not conform to your worldview.
Post your list of Russian Spies in the meantime. Mueller and myself, for different reasons, would like to see at least one.
The point is Robert that Italian "reports" are often like grocery store check out headlines. If you're posting something that states "such and such" why don't you say who? Is it not credible? Why the redirect?
Italian (or any) journalists can't confirm Russian intelligence assets any more than you or I.
I know! Maybe we can see the UNREDACTED MUELLER REPORT!!
-
3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Bob, this is not in Italian, but you may have to get behind a pay wall to read it.
The NY times just confirmed what you were dissing about Mr. P.
The girl was an undercover FBI informant working for Stefan Halper, who himself was a longtime FBI asset. (See The Intercept.)
Jim, I'm aware of the story. This isn't anything unusual. When the FBI performs an investigation, particularly a startling one such as an investigation into the possible collaboration or conspiracy of a US Presidential hopeful reportedly seeking or accepting the assistance of an adversarial government to win an election, they will engage agents or assets to try to determine what is going on. Said assets have to be able to be called to give testimony in court or give detailed information in the form of a sworn statement for furthering the investigation.
When the Hell's Angels were being investigated in the 70's the FBI had paid informants that joined them, did drugs, violent acts, the whole nine yards because the nature of the group was such that the inside informants had to be credible to the people they were investigating. Couldn't get the Boy Scouts or LDS in to that group! Huge surprise!!
Whether you or anyone else like it or not, the Russians were engaging in hostile activities toward us and the FBI was alerted and followed up with an investigation. It's been proven, over and over again, that the people who were investigated and charged were either convicted in court or plead guilty did so because they were guilty.
Not once, even a tinsy bit, have you or anyone else here on the forum (particularly the obvious Trumpsters) ever questioned the "defense agreements" Trump engaged in, the fruits thereof or the obvious implications of them and called them into question! That's astounding to me because any fly speck of suspicion is raised by the usual suspects here and blown into a ridiculous family tree (literally) of conspirators based on who their great Aunt Edna boinked in Duluth 70 years ago.
I'm just so glad now that we have a President that doesn't have to abide by even basic laws such as responding to a subpoena and thanks to the AG is immune to prosecution or Congressional oversight. I'm so proud to have a King. How long do you think it will take for him to rid the land of the two term limit? Putin was able to, why not Trump?
-
10 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:
Mifsud, the “Russian Agent”, was an FBI informant who never actually worked for any Russian intelligence service.
Source please (originating).
I'm thinking he's on some sort of roster of Russian Spies listed alphabetically in Italian and English as well as Russian just so we can keep all the GRU, FSB etc etc assets sorted out.
-
45 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:
There is a deep concern about Trump's fitness for the job that transcends ideology.
That's what you Trump heads can't get -- people want Trump out because he's dangerously unfit for the gig.
That is correct, sir.
That and his unforgivable TV show.
-
2 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:
Yes, because at least 4 of the 5 participants I listed (Clark's Howard Stern reference excluded for now, as I may have misinterpreted the context) level of maturity is at most 7 years ahead of an 8 year olds.
Everyone is a Nazi; parents, teachers, the crossing guard, the cafeteria lady, after learning about Hitler your freshman year in high school and you have run out of arguments as to why you should be treated like an adult.
This doesn't make any sense to me in relation to the quote of mine you've used. I think I was pretty clear about it but maybe I should put it another way. I don't understand why any reasonable adult, regardless of political views, finds the current POTUS as a President worthy of their support. That is, he's intentionally so far beyond the norms of respectful representation and discourse anyone who doesn't recognize this is suspect in my estimation. I can only conclude POTUS' interests align so much with those people they don't care about the effects on their fellow countrymen or the dilatory effect his behavior has in societal exchange, or they're too busy to be bothered and prefer the sound bites they hear that reinforce their bias.
I don't think that's controversial. It's human nature really and when I speak of "low Information voters" I mean those people who don't take the time, have little of it to give or simply don't want to be bothered.
1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:I can not believe that on a JFK Assassination Forum that I have to say, "you do not get to kill, or incapacitate a President with made up criminal charges because you do not like his policies or you think he is a narcissist."
Kill??? Huh?
I personally think there was plenty of reason to investigate Trump and his campaign and that isn't controversial either. Put it to the acid test. Were there investigations that resulted in Trump officials being convicted of crimes? Yes. That's the answer. Trump is still the "unnamed co-conspirator" in a campaign finance violation also. "Made up" is a ridiculous assertion although I realize there are plenty of people running about trying to fog the air. It wasn't made up and there was plenty of justification for a counter intelligence investigation.
-
9 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:
- Paul Brancato – “his ‘base’, which is a well conceived loose knit group of ‘deplorables’ like racists, homophobes, anti-immigrant, anti abortion, mixed with undereducated undernourished underemployed white people who are justifiably angry.”
- David Andrews – “the Deporables [sic.] vote”
- Cliff Varnell – “carrying water for a white supremacist.”
- Bob Ness – “The disenfranchised, low information types, radicals etc.” (Bob, your first paragraph was pretty spot on as far as I am concerned. The first sentence in the second paragraph too.)
- Michael Clark – “the Howard Stern feed lot of American men.”
I remain convinced that calling potential voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and other flyover states, "deplorables", "racists", "white supremacists", "homophobes", "radicals", etc. is not a winning strategy.
A guy like Obama can maybe get away with it a little. He already had a solid base of African American voters and while that base would vote for him anyway, he was able to get very high levels of participation of the already solid base. ie. alienating and insulting potential white voters were easily offset by enthusiastic black voters.
Obama did not spend all that much time calling people deplorable. Voters like myself would probably even give Obama a pass on insults since, as a person of color, and more importantly, his primary constituency of African American voters, might actually have some justifiable grievances with respect to their current or historical treatment by "the system."
When Hillary or five (5) white guys, like those listed above, start calling Trump voters "deplorable", it comes across as disingenuous.
Not only do you turn off potential white voters by insulting them, you suppress the black voter participation rates. When five (5) white guys and a white women (especially an extremely wealthy white woman running for President) try to appeal to black voters through the adoption of slogans that are meant to appeal to the specific and real grievances and concerns of Black voters, it comes across as pandering.
As anyone can see from the African American (Male) voter participation rate in 2016, Hillary did quite poorly versus Obama. Despite the tendency for Democrats to treat the Black Vote as a fait accompli, the inability to appreciate the black voter block's ability to recognize pandering, and then that voting blocks willingness to stay home on election day, makes Trump's win less surprising. In short, Black voters are not as "gullible" as white liberals make them out to be. The 5 White guys and Hillary can then avoid the false notion that Trump only won because of his natural appeal to deplorables, racists, and homophobes, etc. like myself.
Robert, if this were not the case then where are the objections from his base from his clear and unmistakable stabs in their backs (tax breaks, environment, Medicare etc) such as when people were in the streets against Clinton during GATT and NAFTA? Rather than getting behind a Ben Sasse or Rubio to run a challenge against him they double down on the charlatan! You may disagree but to me it's obvious his actions are strictly measured to benefit himself and his narcissism. He has not once tried to hold out an olive branch to OVER HALF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA because his little baby ass can't do anything but act like a spoiled 8 year old. If his supporters can't see his incredibly obvious faults - out in the open for all to see - what else am I supposed to think of them? They're a bunch of geniuses that I should listen to and get behind?
-
19 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:
Trump has tapped-into the Howard Stern feed lot of American men.
I think it's worse than just the Howard Stern zeitgeist. It's far deeper and older. Sort of revivalist. The immigrant/xenophobia schtick for instance has a long history. Much of his subtext don's that apparel.
-
In general, I think of these things as more of investor classes that function in ways to insure their own survival. It's easy to label media, politicians, corporations and the like as members of cabals or the "deep state" but really in most cases I believe they're independent actors whose imperatives intersect and actions reflect those interests.
Trump didn't represent any of the traditional investor groups and that probably explains his popularity with his base. His only choice of the two parties was the Republicans. For one, he'd never win a nomination in the Democratic party. Secondly, the Republicans have been sliding downhill since Nixon and the Dixiecrat invasion in the sixties. The more centrist Reganites have been siding with the traditional groups to the point of seeing George Will on MSNBC! YIKES haha!
The Republicans have managed to make up for their slide by recruiting and appealing to people who didn't even used to vote. The disenfranchised, low information types, radicals etc. It seems to me out of necessity and survival the remaining traditional Republicans have to choose between that group or centering the Dems. Not a great choice for them.
-
4 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
Yes. Ending with an opprobrious conclusion.
Hahaha whatever that means! Somebody really went searching for that one. Somehow I doubt they ever use it in polite conversation.
-
-
20 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
I got one of the best complements I could on this article, from the Watergate master, Jim Hougan.
When you google McCord's death, this comes up first, probably because we were the first to note it. But Wikipedia has now updated their info based on this. Thanks to all here who helped me.
McCord was such a singular character. Such a fine operator who effortlessly draped himself in there robes of a technician just following orders. I watched some of his testimony before the Ervin Committee last night. In retrospect its really something to see today. Talk about a clever guy. He redefines the term. And what a bunch of idiots to buy into him.
Anyway, here is the first obituary you will see of the man who did so much to upend our political system. And lied about it until the end.
https://kennedysandking.com/obituaries/the-mysterious-life-and-death-of-james-w-mccord
Thanks Jim, looking forward to reading it!
-
4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:
It is my understanding plea deals are the way the American justice system works these days, and that defence counsel often advises clients to accept the terms of the deal rather than risk the financial drain or an onerous sentence should they choose to fight. So notions such as telling the truth or telling lies have no substantive meaning when one is faced with, say, two weeks in jail and a probative period should one agree to an inaccurate and/or unfair prosecution plea deal, or face several years in jail and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees should you choose to fight - even if you are truthful - because the prosecutors have the decisive edge in the current system. So no, your statement doesn't stand. In the Papadopoulos case, the fact that there are no indictments means that nothing illegal or shady was found to have happened outside of the process crimes which got him two weeks in jail. Innocent until proven guilty. The Mueller Report is not going to state otherwise, as was explained by attorney Dowd. Again, the awful media have raised false expectations based on completely erroneous interpretations of the process.
The curious thing about this particular angle is that the FBI apparently did not bother to interview him until almost a full six months after they supposedly opened a file on Russian interference supposedly after an Australian diplomat alerted them specifically to Papadopoulos. What is going on there? Supposedly this was actionable intelligence regarding a real time conspiracy to interfere with America's core principles, and they sat on it until after the election? No other information regarding FBI activities in that period -and there is a lot of it - refer to Papadopoulos at all. All the activity related to the Steele dossier and the efforts against Carter Page in the FISA court.
No they don't advise clients to admit to crimes they haven't committed. Jeff, take it from the horses mouth. Pay close attention to the transcript below where the Judge asks him "is everything in that document (stipulation outlining the Governments assertions) true? He answers "yes".
RANDOLPH D. MOSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: Mr. Papadopoulos, going back to all the rights that I just described to you that you have. Do you understand that if you plead guilty in this case, you're giving up all those rights because there's not going to be a trial in the case?
THE DEFENDANT (Papadopoulos): Yes, I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Papadopoulos, what I'm going to do now is I'm going to ask that Mr. Goldstein or Mr. Zelinsky come back up to the podium. What I'm going to ask them to do is to describe in detail what the Government submits it believes it would be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt if this case were to go to trial. I'm going to ask that you listen very carefully to what they say. When they're done, I'm going to ask that you come back up and I'm going to ask you whether everything they've said is absolutely true or whether there's anything that needs to be clarified, modified or was incorrect, okay?
THE DEFENDANT: Absolutely, yes.
THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Mr. Goldstein?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thank you, your Honor. A fuller recitation of the offense conduct is set forth in the statement of offense that's attached to the plea agreement and that the Defendant signed. But for the purposes of this proceeding, the Government would be able to prove at trial that the Defendant was interviewed by the FBI on January 27th, 2017. During that voluntary interview, the agents with the FBI asked the Defendant a series of questions that pertained to the FBI's ongoing investigation into Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016presidential election; and whether there was any coordination between the campaign of candidate Donald Trump and Russia's efforts to interfere in the election. In the course of that interview, the Defendant made a series of deliberate false statements and deliberate omissions that are including, but not limited to, the timing of when he met certain individuals that the Defendant understood had substantial connections to high-level Russian government officials; and the extent and the nature of his communication with those individuals and with certain Russian nationals that he was communicating with during the campaign. The Government would be able to prove this conduct by, among other evidence, a record of the statement itself which was recorded; e-mails; text messages; communications via social media such as Facebook; Skype records; records of internet searches; location data; and other evidence which would show that the Defendant's statements that were made during that January 27th interview were false. And that he knew that they were false at the time they were made, and that there was a deliberate effort to provide false information to the Government.
THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Mr. Papadopoulos,you're welcome to come back up with your counsel. Mr. Papadopoulos, is what Mr. Goldstein just described completely accurate?
THE DEFENDANT: I believe so, yes.
THE COURT: Anything that you think needs to be modified or clarified with respect to what he said?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: And Mr. Stanley, do you concur in that?
MR. STANLEY: I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Stanley, if the Government were to take its case to trial, do you concur that the Government would be able to prove each of the necessary elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt?
MR. STANLEY: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Papadopoulos, do you have in front of you the statement of offense?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: And did you read that documentcare fully?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I did, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is everything in that document true?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is that your signature at the final page, page 14?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is, your Honor.
THE COURT: Is there anything in that document that you think needs to be clarified or amended?
THE DEFENDANT: No, your Honor.I've left out five pages of transcripts of the Judge going over these things with Papadopoulos, over and over and over again. You're free to check it at: https://www.lawfareblog.com/george-papadopoulos-stipulation-and-plea-agreement
-
30 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:
CONFIRMED: Bogus Trump-Russia Alfa Bank Connections Were Created By Hillary Supporter, Working with Fusion GPS
Your're joking right?
-
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Somebody please tell me if I am understanding this incorrectly....
According to Jeff and Jim D., Mueller coerced Papadopolous into agreeing to a dishonest plea deal. In the deal, Papadopolous agreed that it was his understanding that the man he met, Professor Milsfud, had high-level Russian connections and that they had dirt on Hillary Clinton. But in reality, Papadopolous understood Professor Milsfud to be a nobody.
In other words, Mueller made Papadopolous lie.
I find that extremely hard to believe. To me it seems much more likely that the plea deal was honest and that Papadopolous is now lying about it.
Right Sandy. Please see my last post. Utter BS and very likely arranged. Please keep your eye on pardons.
-
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Bob, I cannot really comprehend that you honestly think that the murder of Roselli is the same as a perjury trap.
C'mon.
In simple terms, a perjury trap is when an FBI agent or a prosecutor gets a subject to admit something on the record that he usually knows is either contested or wrong. It is not related to the actual aim of the inquiry, but he hopes to use it to further its ends.
You are going to compare the murder and dismemberment of Roselli, his involvement in the plots to kill Castro, and his remains being stuffed into an oil drum to that?
I was being facetious and so stated. He admitted to all of these things and yet you insist that "process crimes" have no influence on an investigation which is wrong. They do or they wouldn't be against the law. "Perjury trap" is another rationalization which is a gangster defense, or defense attorney flak, to throw suspicion on law enforcement. Trust me, I know these things from personal experience and it's BS. They don't go after innocent little starlings and pin a prison sentence on them for no reason, especially in a high profile case.
Neither you nor Jeff have said anything about the existence of the joint defense agreements which would point to the ex-post facto backpedaling of many of these targets, which seems highly suspect to me. A joint defense agreement with a President seems very handy considering the leverage an unindictable (according to the DOJ) US citizen who can hand out pardons like candy enjoys. His abrupt turn about along with Manafort's suggests the possibility that more shenanigans may have been involved particularly with Trumps public pronouncements.
-
2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:
Papadopolous’ lawyers negotiated a plea deal over two charges of “lying” to the FBI. Papadopolous said his introduction to mysterious professor Mifsud and Mifsud’s introduction of a fake “Putin’s niece” occurred before he was appointed to the Trump campaign, when actually such appointment occurred shortly before. Was he lying or was he simply mistaken? The indictment doesn’t establish how exactly the FBI were at all hindered by the misappropriation, as they already knew the material facts which were easily verifiable. The amazing thing, considering all the speculation, is that Papadopolous was a passive figure other than trying to impress the Trump campaign by making Russian contact (efforts which were not successful and received little response). Mifsud was the active party in befriending Papadopolous, in arranging the fake “Putin’s niece” episode, and in sharing information that Russians had Clinton emails. Similarly, it was Alex Downer who took the initiative and arranged to meet Papadopolous, a meeting which Papadopolous says consisted of one drink and in which Russia never came up. Then Downer waited seven weeks before contacting US authorities supposedly because Papadopolous supposedly spilled the beans over Russia’s involvement with Clinton emails. It seems the investigators really needed to speak to Mifsud and Downer, but apparently never did.
Controversy over the release/non-release of the Mueller Report has been largely driven by a poor understanding of legal procedure. This is entirely the fault of the media. I had previously shared an interview with attorney John Dowd in which the procedure was clearly explained. I’ll relink as it is distinctly sober and grounded compared to most everything else:
The Mike Rogers/ FISA story is the other shoe which will soon drop when an Inspector-General report is released. The rampant misuse of surveillance authorities is the actual shocking information of this whole imbroglio, but most persons have no clue because the media has been wildly misrepresenting the facts.
Here are some facts:
He admitted the following, in writing and under coarse instructions not to admit to something untruthful, from a Judge, duly appointed under a Republican President. His attorneys also agreed to the stipulations of the agreement and had gone over them with the defendant. The plea agreement states:
a. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed that his interactions with an overseas professor (Milsfud - warned and disappeared), who defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials, occurred before defendant PAPADOPOULOS became a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS acknowledged that the professor had told him about the Russians possessing "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of"thousands of emails," but stated multiple times that he learned that information prior to joining the Campaign. In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS learned he would be an advisor to the Campaign in early March, and met the professor on or about March 14, 2016; the professor only took interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS because of his status with the Campaign; and the professor told defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails" on or about April 26, 2016, when defendant PAPADOPOULOS had been a foreign policy adviser to the Campaign for over a month.
b. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS further told the investigating agents that the professor was " a nothing" and "just a guy talk[ing] up connections or something." In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS understood that the professor had substantial connections to Russian government officials (and had met with some of those officials in Moscow immediately prior to telling defendant PAPADOPOULOS about the "thousands of emails") and, over a period of months, defendant PAPADOPOULOS repeatedly sought to use the professor's Russian connections in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials.
c. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS claimed he met a certain female Russian national before he joined the Campaign and that their communications consisted of emails such as, '"Hi , how are you?"' In truth and in fact, however, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the female Russian national on or about March 24, 2016, after he had become an adviser to the Campaign; he believed that she had connections to Russian government officials; and he sought to use her Russian connections over a period of months in an effort to arrange a meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials.
Through his false statements and omissions, defendant PAPADOPOULOS impeded the FBI 's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the Campaign and the Russian government' s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:David:
That was a plea deal. It was another process crime that Mueller got him on. It was a perjury trap. He was never tried, let alone convicted, on anything dealing with Russia Gate, just like no one else has been.
This insistence that a "process crime", the favored republican rationalization that everybody involved in them were lilly white roses, is ridiculous. To wit: The murder of Rosselli before his appearance in front of investigators would make the assassin guilty of a "process crime" that had nothing to do with the JFKA. Right (I know I'm being facetious but that's what this reasoning would conclude even if this person admitted to the murder).
Did it ever occur to you that these "process crimes" may have interfered with an investigation to the point where actionable charges would be difficult to mount? Could it be that a joint defense agreement with 20 or 30 of these people may have allowed the subjects to confer with Trump's counsel to "fix the books", which is what looks like happened to GP and Manafort at least?
-
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:
Bob, what I meant was that it was the Steele Dossier that made the issue an MSM shibboleth.
As if it were an accomplished fact.
Fair enough but I was hearing it was unverified op research. Yes some were all giddy about it but for me and I think most people it was eclipsed by information and statements by principals involved that sunset the whole thing into footnote land. The dossier itself was embryonic and I believe several things were shown to be valid although I admit I haven't revisited it for a while. If everything turned out to be true, I wouldn't have been surprised considering what I know to be true about the subjects now.
QuoteAugust 1st, 2018
Fox News’ Shepard Smith broke down the Trump administration’s false claims about the Steele dossier being the impetus for the Russia investigation and he did not mince words.
“The White House today echoed President Trump’s false tweets claiming that the dossier is the foundation of the special counsel Robert Mueller‘s Russia investigation,” Smith began. “We’ll play the sounds, show you the tweets, and then explain the facts.”
Smith then played a clip of White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders saying that the investigation is “based off of a dirty discredited dossier” and showed a tweet that President Donald Trump wrote saying the dossier was fraudulent.
“In the main and in its parts, that statement is patently false,” Smith explained. “According to the Republican majority on the House Intelligence Committee, the feds started the Russia investigation in July of 2016 after then-Trump foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. The diplomat then gave that information over to the FBI.”
“And while the U.S. Intelligence community has not confirmed parts of the dossier, there are elements of it that are confirmed true,” Smith continued. “No part of it to Fox News knowledge has been confirmed false. The special counsel, Robert Mueller, is a registered Republican. The deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mueller, is also a Republican. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who swore in Rosenstein, is also a Republican. President Trump, a Republican, appointed Sessions.
So there it is from Fox news.
-
3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Paul and JIm,
A few pages ago in this thread, Jeff Carter posted Matt T's devastating report on the Steele Dossier.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million
Even Mr Ness later said that the Dossier was nothing more than paid for oppo research.
To point out some things: Cohen was not in Prague, Page was not offered a nineteen per cent stake in a multi billion dollar company in Russia, and there is no golden shower tape.I mean Cohen should know. And the idea that Putin was cultivating Trump for the presidency back in the nineties is kind of absurd.
But Adam Schiff proclaimed to the world that geez nothing in it is disproven and this became the CW. He then fought the effort to expose that the vast majority of it was done by Fusion for Lincoln Coie, which was a cut out for HRC. It was shameful that we had to wait that long for that info.
Steele actually borrowed stuff from online postings. He himself never went to Russia, and had not been there in over a decade. He never vetted any of his second and third hand reports. He gave his customers what they wanted. And then several people like Nellie Ohr, Simpson and McCain shopped it around tirelessly in order to get it in the media. They finally succeeded with Buzzfeed.
And this is what sent Russia Gate which had only been simmering, into the stratosphere.
Not quite Jim. Firing Comey and then stating he did because of the "Russia thing" is what directly lead to the Special Counsel from a unified Republican Congress. There's no getting around that.
-
1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:
Exactly? Schiff's a Hero for saying that's not ok.
That's my take although I think it's self-evident. I edited for clarity.
-
3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:
Exactly Schiff. Watch how fast the subject gets changed to HRC whenever this gets pointed out.
-
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:
God, this gives me a headache.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-attacks-democrats-michigan-rally_n_5c9d6325e4b00ba632799519
What kind of country is this that makes us choose between HRC and this guy?
When I was growing up we had JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcolm X.
And they killed them all.
Unbelievable.
-
4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
Ty, It doesn't sound like the concept of collective responsibility is necessarily one you subscribe to. But the entire problem of the suffering of misplaced people out of Syria and throughout the Middle East can be directly attributed To GWB's invasion of Iraq and his deposing of Saddam Hussein who was a Sunni minority leader who held control over a Shia majority.
After Democratic elections, the Shia majority won and took retribution at the Sunnis forcing them to flee their homes and in part to form radical groups such as Isis. Right now other countries in the Middle East and throughout Europe have taken it upon themselves to relocate the refugees from this calamity, and yet our immigration policy takes little to no responsibility for taking care of the problem that we have, in fact created.
Here here haha!!
3 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:Cliff, I think the point is that much of the news you have read is actually factually incorrect or a half-truth misleadingly presented. I.e. the Russian who set up the Trump Tower meeting did not represent the Russian government or have any influence with same, and in fact had provable ties with Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS. Manafort and Gates met with their long-time business partner, as they had done most every day for over a decade, and rumours of his status as a "Russian military intelligence officer" seem completely daft when seen in context. The particular meme of over 100 contacts with Russian operatives requires one to understand the term “Russian operative” or “agent” as meaning anyone with a Russian passport or surname. That’s a loopy premise, to say the least. Otherwise, none of these alleged contacts had anything to do with the current Russian government. This is the left/liberal version of the Frances Fox Piven conspiracy, and just as intellectually vapid. I trust that Cliff is just working through his seven stages of grief and will be back to T3 soon enough.
Informers, agents, spies, contacts etc don't hand out business cards with Joe Schmoeski, Russian Spy written on them. They also don't sign contracts spelling out the exchange they're proposing or are in engaged in. Often times they work both sides of the street or even sell outright lies in intelligence mills (think Curve Ball). Sometimes people are unwitting, use legal and illegal covers in country, sub contract (Edwin Wilson) to other countries on and on. Your examples of Manafort and Gates meeting and being business partners with Kilimnik and the meetings with Veselnitskaya mean nothing as these relationships are often exactly how they would appear under the same circumstances than if they were doing something wrong. Although it sounds like a "heads I win tails you lose" type of argument, that is exactly why the special counsel often has difficulty pressing a criminal case. It's also why spies are often charged for not registering as an Agent of a Foreign Government, if all else fails (sound familiar?). For you to dismiss them as being possible agents without personal knowledge is every bit as ridiculous. Do you really think potential Russian agents would be advertising on buses?
Any serious contender for the US Presidency would be approached by individuals from other countries seeking influence or to try to establish a relationship. That's not the point. In nearly every instance in this case the parties tried to deny, obfuscate and deflect rather than just come out and explain (honestly) the nature of the discussions and even the existence of same.
-
2 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:
Non-Political Opinion - The linked article is a great example as to why the Mainstream Media is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Not necessarily through anyone's fault, a typical MSM reporter will usually lack the expertise, technical knowledge or understanding of relevant minutia to be able to accurately present a set of facts, or opine with the authority of an expert.
-------------
That being said, the summary "money line" from the article is this:
"Alfa Bank believes that these malicious attacks are designed to create the false impression that Alfa Bank has a secretive relationship with the Trump Organization. In fact, there is not and never has been such a relationship."
Some Summary Bullet Points (direct quotes.) (Linked Full Article Below.)
- In the attacks, multiple DNS requests were made by unidentified individuals, mostly using U.S. server providers, to a Trump Organization server.
- The DNS requests were made to appear as if they originated from Alfa Bank.
- The DNS responses from the Trump server were then erroneously returned to Alfa Bank, activating Alfa Bank’s automated security systems on February 18 and again on March 11 and 13.
Robert, her primary source for the information in this article is Alpha Bank's website and a 303 page??? What gives? Snopes raises a better defense with neutral third parties. This is why I don't go through links people copy and paste. You're a smart guy I expect better.
Either way all I was saying is that I'd like to see the information, if any, the SC found about that issue.
-
11 minutes ago, Ty Carpenter said:
So the cartels are America's fault? I understand supply and demand but doesn't personal responsibility come in to play somewhere? Why did their government allow their country to be overrun and why don't they do something about it? They were offered asylum in Mexico and they need to accept that. If someone was trying to murder you at your house and you escaped would you run to the first person that could help or would you keep going until you got to a house of your liking?
International law states it's the applicant's option to apply wherever they want. The reason is simple. If you're a refugee from Nazi Germany, your argument would be the refugees should simply apply in Poland, where the ovens were waiting. People fleeing Guatemala may have family here or their pursuers may be FROM Mexico. You're oversimplifying IMO and I don't know that they have been offered asylum, since you haven't sourced your claim. That may be true, I just wonder if it's true for all of them.
Attorney's file on Roger Stone, LaRouche and Russia influencing the 2016 presidential election
in TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND PRESIDENCY DISCUSSION
Posted · Edited by Bob Ness
Jeff, please read my quote first so I don't have to respond to this kind of argument. I said clearly "Russian hostile activities" which is not debatable. You are referring to something I didn't state in the quote. This activity is proven and non-negotiable. This is my quote:
The people who plead guilty did so because they were guilty of what they were charged with, whatever that was. The FBI responded to suspicious election activity by a foreign adversary that has done the same thing in other countries. That is not debatable either. Mueller has standing indictments, properly predicated, that accuses various Russian nationals of attempting to interfere in the 2016 election. Parts of those indictments have been judiciously redacted and we have no idea why. That is also not debatable.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Neither you, Jim, Robert or any other Trump defender has yet to explain to me why the joint defense agreements between the President of the United States and several of the subjects and targets of the investigation might seem peculiar. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Why would they need a JDA??? UNLESS OF COURSE THEY WERE JOINTLY DEFENDING THEMSELVES! AHA!
Maybe, just maybe, the JDA gave them the opportunity to harmonize their stories and negotiate an agreement! Not saying they did but still... it stinks more than anything in this whole mess.