Bob Ness

36 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Most of these folks are escaping the violence of drug cartels, the existence of which are due to the American appetite for getting loaded, and the legal prohibitions placed on that appetite.

The American people have a huge responsibility for the plight of these people, and we need to meet these responsibilities.

24 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?

Having personally known survivors of the holocaust who were fleeing the Nazis and turned away from several countries, I have a different perspective. Newer generations who have no idea of the historical basis for the TREATIES WE HAVE SPONSORED AND SIGNED regarding the treatment of asylum seekers at our borders will have no compunction whatsoever of discarding the victims without lending them an ear.

Much of the subtext of their arguments are based on racism and xenophobia, the touchstones of the new extreme right and what Chomsky refers to as an "emotionally potent oversimplifications" which are necessary to move a large group to action.

It's extremely important to fortify the oversimplification to dispense with our own responsibility. That is, it's easier to point the finger than change our behavior.

23 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

But if Mueller's report holds, Russia Gate was a mirage.  And the thing is, there were responsible journalists who looked at it skeptically from the start.  Like the late, great Bob Parry at Consortium News. But the mass of the alleged liberal blogosphere, and the people at MSNBC, went along with it.  In Maddow's case, she promoted it.  Sure Rachel: Russia Gate, yes, JFK murder, no.

But that is how crazy our MSM is.

To me, the only explanation for this bizarre behavior is what I proferred earlier.  Everyone out there, most of all Huffpost, predicted HRC was going to win the election.  And they wanted her to win.  They did not want Trump in the White House, plain and simple.  So Russia Gate became the apparatus for how they were going to get rid of him.

Well, unless Roger Stone says something like he was the go between for a Trump/Putin back channel, that will not work.  Although there is no doubt that it served as a distraction and it plagued Trump.  Maybe that was the aim all along.

There is no doubt the Mass Media can get crazy. John Oliver had a great interview with Monica Lewinsky about the Clinton affair that I found very touching. It's a real shark tank and ordinary people can get caught up in it unawares and destroyed. Amanda Knox comes to mind also.

I don't find what's happening to Trump to be unjustified however. He and many of his associate's public statements and actions gave rise to SC and it was formed under a unified government run by Republicans.

Off the top of my head I'd really like to know the results of the Alpha Bank/Trump server communications issue and where Milsfud is according to the Mueller report. There was plenty of suspicious activity going on.

6 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Is everyone here on Ukrainian time or something, because all of the quick banter and fun arguments seems to happen when I'm sleeping here on the East Coast? (Despite the arguments, this thread is worth keeping because it is has remained civil relative to other forums. My Striped Bass Fishing forum has occasionally devolved into a thread of name calling and physical threats over a lot less controversial subjects. That being said, despite what NJ rules allow, anyone keeping a fish that weighs 30 lbs or more, instead of throwing it back, is helping to destroy the fishery, by taking a breeder out at its prime age and weight. Just because the NJ Fish & Game rules allow you to cook or mount that big of a fish, it does not mean you should. Dammit!)  

There has been plenty written about over the past few hours so I've grabbed one of Cliff's quotes as a catch-all for why most of you don't know what you are talking about.

Trump's behavior was not the central driver of RussiaGate, by any means, nor at any level.

 

Nice post Robert but I diverge with you on your main thesis which to me seems to say Trump's behavior was not the central driver of RussiaGate, by any means, nor at any level.

Trump's behavior, prior to his walking down the elevator and announcing his candidacy, was not all prim and proper and as far as I can tell never has been. I'm willing to listen to anyone who comes to his defense to tell me how his endless contributions to the "Windows and Orphans" fund and his loving husbandry are examples atop the hill of righteousness but that ain't going to happen, I assure you.

This fiasco was bound to happen due to his past associations with Russian "businessmen", fly by night financiers, porn stars, sketchy lawyers and the like plus his unconscionable ethical rudder. I find it hard to believe anyone can't find that on the poster. Those were (is) a pre-existing condition of his candidacy and Republicans in his primary battle made sure everyone knew it. Not Dems, Republicans.

You state many of us don't know what we're talking about but really Cliff and I and some others are talking about Trump, not Hillary. Whether or not HRC and the DNC or anyone else were engaged in hostile political attacks is beside the point. Trumps behavior is what I'm speaking of and HRC's probing and assaults on the man and his character (?) is exactly what he was up against in his primaries, albeit with less arrayed against him.

In short, HRC's action regarding her political adversaries would make use of anything that could be made a political concern for voters. If Trump were a choir boy who stole candy from the store that would have been used. The inescapable conclusion I come to is that Trump is and was a terminally poor choice to head the Republican party and the investigations into his past and current conduct are outcroppings of the inevitable.

Re HRC I only rate her as a better choice because she has the political experience to consolidate the country and the disposition to lead responsibly. Trump, in my view, is constitutionally incapable to forsake his own interests.

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob:

I will reply to you since you are not rabid.

Don't sell me short Jim! I won't stand for it hahaha!

Look, as I have said from the beginning, if you are going to go after a president, you better be sure you can bring him down.  James Neal, a very able prosecutor, said this during the Watergate episode and he was not the only one who did.

Yep. No doubt about that! And it shouldn't be some spurious garbage created out of thin air with no preceding behavior that suggests, at the very least, a predisposition for compromise such as: relationships with alleged money-laundering people and entities such as Philip Sater, Deutch Bank, and the little spoken of, but very filthy Trump Ocean Club in Panama.

Did Putin try and help Trump?  Maybe, maybe not.  I do know that the evidence usually adduced for this, the whole Guccifer 2.0 thing, has been brought into question.  By no less than Bill BInney, one of the best NSA analysts of modern times.

I'm pretty certain Jim that Putin had it out for HRC (see below for more on that). I don't know of Binney's credentials currently (this field changes daily) but I'm personally not capable of disputing him. I don't think he has concluded this with certainty however and I'm inclined to believe at face value the current intelligence take on this. Regardless, the allegations of Russian interference do not hang by that thread alone. It's pretty clear there are a lot of benefits and justifications for actions by Russia.

As I also noted, the whole xxxxx farm thing has also been brought into doubt by Gareth Porter.  And I already linked to his article at Consortium News.

I really don't know how many links I have to provide. Why not buy the book Shattered?

No offense but links to articles sends me into a new round of checking sources, the countervailing opinions, relinking those etc. I often find links posted here to be suspect or outright false (not yours, but in general) so I only check those I think necessary (I'm also not not keen on rewarding comment spammers looking for traffic haha).

But can I ask you a question?  Why is it verboten for the Russians to try and interfere with our elections, but it is OK for us to interfere in theirs?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-07-09-mn-22423-story.html

Now, as you read this, our interference was not some xxxxx farms, it was blatant and it was massive. You are talking experts being shipped there plus tons of money, I mean tons of it. This helped cause the Russian economy to descend into the Stone Age via Jeff Sachs. It also emboldened the drunken fool Yeltsin to fire on his own people who were protesting, killing anywhere from 100-500 people. (There are much higher estimates)

Did Putin and the Russians do anything like that in 2016? 

I just do not understand the double standard. Especially when what Bill Clinton did  is proven; but the Russian stuff in America is questionable. 

It's not verboten as I stated earlier in this thread it's a tit-for-tat that has been going on for decades. The Russians traditionally have been much better at it since they've been engaged in this sort of business with their neighbors since before Dzerzhinsky. HRC and the U.S. State Department had plenty of enthusiasm after the Arab Spring to engage in low-intensity antics which no doubt fueled a response. I don't know the gory details so much but I tend to look at these things from a high altitude. Regarding our current President, all of these points don't lead to Trump being innocent or a good choice as POTUS. He looks to be another Republican disaster which is too bad ( he's still not as bad as GWB, IMO). I'd much rather see a political commingling of the two parties which tends to bring out mutually beneficial discourse rather than "rabid" entrenchment of the clergy, so to speak. I'm definetly not a "beta" centrist either it's just my personal policy is I learn more from those I disagree with than those whom I concur.

Is this supposed to be part of American Exceptionalism?  If so, if you recall, our record on that is not very good e.g.Guatemala in 1954.

"American Exceptionalism", otherwise known as "Alice in Wonderland". Nuff said.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob:

It was the MSM who fell for the HRC/Podesta story about Russian interference with the election. 

It was the MSM that then swallowed the Steele Dossier. Without verifying it. Neither could Mueller.

Well, let me add, they failed to verify it since the Post did sent a team to Prague to see if Cohen was there.  They could not find any evidence.  Apparently, this did not count, or  as Jim Garrison said about his conviction of Dean Andrews for perjury, "You might have seen that on page 72 of the NY Times, right next to ship departures."

If you still want to march to Moscow over this, be my guest.  You will need a lot of luck since, as an FBI agent said long ago, "There is no there there."

But if you go to today's Washington Post, there is a quite interesting article about how the House, including my girl AOC, wants to turn away from this and go back to the issue that won last year. Namely Health Care.

But Jim, you well know a CI investigation by Cyber Command, The FBI, CIA and NSA was well under way during the campaign regarding Russian trolls and election meddling. I personally think this was a tit-for-tat by Russia as has been going on for years, if not decades.  A drunk George Papadopolous, in May of 2016, whimsied such to an Aussie diplomat prior to his miraculous "come to pardon" moment later. After his arrest, he gave the heads up to Joseph Milsfud who vanished mysteriously, never to be seen again for questioning. Laying this at the feet of HRC and Podesta is ridiculous.

Nobody that I'm aware of has ever said the Steele dossier was anything but an unverified draft political hit piece including Steele.

I've never stated in any way whether Cohen was in Prague or not, which in my view doesn't make any difference and has no bearing on whether or not Trump was colluding or conspiring with Russians. It refutes one claim but my concern has been what Trump's said in the open and the bee hive of lies and misrepresentations by him, his family and other high ranking members of his entourage, including his National Security Advisor!!

But if you go to today's Washington Post, there is a quite interesting article about how the House, including my girl AOC, wants to turn away from this and go back to the issue that won last year. Namely Health Care. Oh Trump's after health care because his only concern of course is that Obama's signature accomplishment be dashed on the rocks. Ol Trumpster doesn't exactly care too much for the black man gettin all uppity and making jokes of him. If anyone think Trump's actions reflect a policy disagreement they're sorely mistaken "Who knew health care was complicated etc...".

There is no obligation of the intelligence agencies to mount a criminal case against anyone outside our borders. It is clear in my mind there is plenty of reason to suspect someone who is the beneficiary of their (Russians) efforts and displays the kind of denials he still does in the face of the contrary assessments of the intel agencies. The information derived from that investigation is often times not actionable legally and is just as often unwise to do so; for example when WW2 spies and objectives were discovered by code breakers in Europe and the Pacific but the method of discovery was deemed too valuable to risk. Off the top of my head NSA's ability to break 256 or 512 bit encryption methods would be comparable today.

I just don't think it's right that a Presidential candidate can solicit election interference from an adversary on live TV and his coward political flock say nothing. Combine that with the countless times his underlings lied about the nature of the campaign's meetings with Russians and Trumps business entanglements and the picture is pretty clear.

The President was also in a "defense agreement" with 37 other people which of course allows their attorneys to horse trade information, pardon agreements, testimony and all those other wonderful items which would make Mueller's job difficult. I haven't seen any outrage from the right about that and how it could play into the big scheme.

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It was the MSM who removed from the 2016 Republican platform the policy of providing offensive weapons to Ukraine?

It was the MSM who announced to the world "Russia, if you're listening, find the 30,000 missing e-mails"?

It was the MSM who forced Michael Flynn to lie about what he discussed with the Russians?

It was the MSM who forced Jeff Sessions to lie about meeting Russians?

It was the MSM who forced Jared Kushner to leave off his meetings with Russians on his security forms?

It was the MSM who fired James Comey and then bragged the next day to the Russians that the firing took the pressure off the RussiaGate investigation, and then doubled down on that on national TV?

It was the MSM who sought to build a Trump Tower in Moscow and lied about it?

It was the MSM who admitted they met with some Russians in Trump Tower because they were promised dirt on Hillary Clinton?

It's the MSM who are forcing Trump to never say a bad word about Vladimir Putin?

Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and James DiEugenio refuse to acknowledge the behavior of Trump et al as the central driver of RussiaGate.

 

Thanks Cliff. I don't know where all the "exoneration" talk comes from. Although Mueller/DOJ may have decided not to charge Trump at this time for conspiring with the Russian Government, the standard for indictment isn't the same as a reason to launch a CI investigation.

By Barr, Mueller's and others on this forum estimation, nothing should preclude a Presidential candidate from raising $30 million dollars and buying time during halftime of the Super Bowl to request help from foreign Governments. It's unbelievable.

4 hours ago, Ty Carpenter said:

By the way, can we remove this topic from the JFK forum yet? When is the last time anything relevant to the assassination was mentioned here? I think there is a section on the forum dedicated to boomer socialist Donald Trump elimination fanfiction.

Yeah but at least its been more civil than most of the JFKA threads hahaha...

I think that the SCI has served to illustrate how differently the various offices and actors within the Government compare to a very different set of people and attitudes extant in the 60's. Some would disagree I suppose but the experiences of WW2 and the Cold War colored the attitudes of those involved much differently than today IMO. The justifications for their actions, whether  we agree with them or not, I believe come from a different, better place.

I've always thought his real vulnerability is money laundering. Russia using cutouts isn't exactly a huge surprise, if that's what happened.

Meanwhile Trump's DOJ moves to shutdown the ACA and slash SS and Medicare bennies...

Making America great again, one tyrd at a time.

6 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

David Talbot wrote on Facebook today:

So now we know that Trump will not be removed from office in handcuffs. It will take an overwhelming majority of American voters to evict him from the White House. And that's how it should be. Trump might not be a traitor -- at least not in the strict legal sense. But he's still a crook of global proportions. In exonerating Trump on treason charges, Robert Mueller exposed many stinking pools of swampy corruption in both Trump Inc. and Trump Campaign 2016. A rogue's nest of Tr...ump associates has already been imprisoned or indicted based on Mueller's probe -- and more evidence of criminality has been referred to state and federal prosecutors by Mueller's office.

But as for Russia-gate, I always feared that Rachel Maddow and the MSNBC/CNN/Washington Post/NY Times media consortium was focused much too heavily on that story. In fact it became Maddow's overriding obsession for two years. Maybe now the liberal cable news channels will rethink outsourcing their programming to the Deep State -- i.e., the countless numbers of former CIA, NSA, DoD officials, national security think tank pundits, and Capitol Hill Intelligence Committee politicians who suck up all the cable news airtime. Trying mightily to stir up a new Cold War with Russia, these Deep State types succeeded in handing Trump a big political victory. He'll be crowing about how he beat the Deep State and its Democratic Party acolytes for the next two years.

Mueller's massive investigation shows once again that FBI types and other high justice officials are not suited to investigate criminal oligarchies like Trump's -- this type of corporate corruption is too embedded in the capitalist system for establishment law officers like Mueller to recognize it as criminal.

It will take crusading members of Congress to keep enlightening the American people about how a gangster like Trump amassed his fortune and power, and who colluded with him to take the White House. Trump's key conspirators were not in the Kremlin -- they are the captains of Wall Street, the energy industry, the weapons trade, the mobbed-up construction business, the casino and sex trafficking racket, etc. House Democrats -- and state law officials -- should keep turning over these rocks so we can see all the creepy-crawlers in Trump's world.

But in the end, Trump will have to be forced from the Oval Office the same way he crawled in -- on Election Day. We have to build an anti-Trump movement so powerful that it will withstand all the treachery and racism and corruption that is built into our electoral system. Then Trump will not only lose -- Democracy (not the Deep State) will win.

Dunno. I'm scratching a bald spot in my head trying to figure out if it's now fair game to request assistance from a foreign adversary to win an election in the U.S. Mueller's conclusion? Yup! No problem there!

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh, I thought it was an evil genius from an Austin Powers movie. 

Synonymous 

36 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Whatever Q is, he/she/it/they may follow this forum.

Robert, it's a sarcastic reference to Q-anon.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Well, Mueller came in with the verdict Dowd said he would.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/robert-mueller-no-more-indictments-russia-investigation_n_5c955a74e4b01ebeef0f479e

If one adds in the fact the Gates and Manafort cases were not related to his immediate objective, that most of the other convictions are called process crimes, and the whole xxxxx farm and intel directorate are quite questionable, then what did this actually produce?

What does Bob say, well this is Trump's fault somehow.   And let us leave out Nellie Ohr.   

IMO, what is so unfortunate about this is that 1.) It diverted from the really bad things that Trump has done in places like Venezuela, and his love affair with Likud, and 2.) His disastrous tax plan which was always a way to benefit the upper classes and later steal from the middle class through Social Security and Medicare cuts.

But the really negative end result  is that now Trump can crow that he was right all along.  As Archibald Cox said long ago, when you take aim at a king, you better bring him down.

The Democrats will now rant and rave and try to make something out of the remnants. But his will invigorate Trump's base. There will be no impeachment proceedings. And it will make him harder to beat next year.  All to my distress.

It looks like the late great Bob Parry was right about this way back then in 2016.

 

The opera ain't over til the fat lady sings (that may be her warming up in the wings though haha). I take it the Bob you're referring to is me - but that's not what I said at all. I said he was a vulnerable candidate for a jillion reasons and I'll stand by that. I mean common Jim, he was raw-dogging porn stars while his wife was pregnant, lying about trying to close a real estate deal in Russia, I could go on but you well know his problems. Any other candidate would have been flushed down the drain (and would have if the public knew the realities of this stuff) and he will still have to defend these things possibly in a primary, and for sure against a democrat. It's a long slog.

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Bumping this for Bob Ness on the Is McCord Dead thread. 

Thanks Ron. My original post:

Methinks McCord was Sheffield Edwards' "Mr. Wolf" (from Pulp Fiction). He goes out and tidy's up boo-boos for the CIA (or any other customer) when they get clumsy. Tracing his whereabouts with that in mind and analyizing the results of his actions could lead to some interesting conclusions. For instance, filleting Nixon et al benefits whom? He was alleged to be all over the Frank Olson death with the NYPD making sure they concluded it was suicide.

Do you know whether he is lurking around in the RFKA or is that what you're (Ron) asking?

The Steele Dossier is what it has always been. A draft Op research memo, not yet verified, that was meant to gather damning information about a candidate. Op research is going on today with just about any candidate we could think of. All candidates are vulnerable to this activity and many people earn money gathering information to use. Hilary was subjected to this activity probably more than any person alive, for decades. That didn't work very well for her opponents so they started outright slandering her about child sex rings, murders and on and on. I know I'm stating the obvious but that is all still true.

When a party decides to run a candidate who is as vulnerable as Trump is they get what they deserve. It's not a big mystery how this came about. Steel raised legitimate red flags and passed those on to people he thought should know including the DOJ's Russian Organized Crime expert, Bruce Ohr, who was exactly the person to give it to. Steele's supposed bias against Trump was almost certainly due to him not wanting a Russian mole in the White House. That would be my "guess". Most media companies sat on the dossier for a significant period of time due to the difficulty verifying the information.

Regardless of any findings by the Special Counsel, Trump has shown his true colors by obstructing, lying, obfuscating, manipulating and politicizing the people and laws that are intended to protect the Country from abuses by the Executive and Legislative branches of our government. He's now complaining about "how could an unelected person hold him to account?" He's clearly trying to manipulate and groom a segment of our population to oppose any adverse finding by law enforcement and judicial bodies as that is the only course he can take and succeed.

Sad. Very sad.

On 3/20/2019 at 8:38 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Maheu - McCord?  Maheu-Cesar-RFK.  Does it all connect?

Methinks McCord was Sheffield Edwards' "Mr. Wolf" (from Pulp Fiction). He goes out and tidy's up boo-boos for the CIA (or any other customer) when they get clumsy. Tracing his whereabouts with that in mind and analyizing the results of his actions could lead to some interesting conclusions. For instance, filleting Nixon et al benefits whom? He was alleged to be all over the Frank Olson death with the NYPD making sure they concluded it was suicide.

Do you know whether he is lurking around in the RFKA or is that what you're asking?

4 hours ago, Rob Couteau said:

Yes, Bernard Spindel. Also lots of stuff on Maheu in there, and Vesco. And Howard Hughes. What a cast of characters! It's been decades since I read it, but it left a lasting impression. I stumbled upon Hougan's work accidentally, I just happened to spot a used copy of his Watergate text in an English-language bookshop in Paris one day and bought it. And that led me to Spooks. I'm glad to see he has an active website now. PS: Checking the index now, and I see that McCord is mentioned in passing on five different pages.

Bernard Spindel. Good memory. He was supposedly the inspiration for Gene Hackman's character in "The Conversation". Years later I met Hackman on a shoot I was visiting but never asked him about that (kickself!). My brother gave me the book to read. Quite illuminating. Did anyone ever questioned Spindel about that time period while he was alive? Supposedly all sorts of people thought Spindel had the goods to take down a lot of power players and may have kept insurance around for his family. Would be interesting.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

There is no doubt about that Bob.  This will hurt Trump in a serious way in the elections.  Heck, the GOP may get someone to run against him.

With a 24/7 online, TV/radio unquenchable news cycle we have, this was made to order for it.  

Its really a win, win situation for them and the Democrats.  

But I am just not sure its the right way to win.

 

 Yeah I just think the GOP hasn't run a decent candidate for years (excepting McCain minus Palin). It's not like there aren't any reasonably acceptable options for centrist types who are more reflective of the country's true political majority. The yapping poodles like me get the airplay on both sides but I think the divisiveness would be mitigated quite a bit with more rounded candidates. Trump was/is flat out over his head and HRC was up to her ass, to put it anatomically hahaha!

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

It's not the right way to win if we go back to the status quo.  But it may be the only alternative at this time.  With hopefully, Some, progress in the process.  Something better than now.

IMO the status quo ante (just I'd throw that in hahaha) mo betta than what we've got now. I'm really not certain what progress has been made? Maybe the attack on the hyper-sensitive political correctness is overdue for instance. A case can be made for that. The racist subtext of the Presidential message? Hmm... Continuous and unrelenting lies spewing forth? We've seen sociopathic presidents before but clinically narcistic sociopaths with fingers on the big red button I'm not keen on. I could go on...

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Almost every crime that Mueller has indicted anyone on is what is called a process crime.  Or in the case of Manafort they are crimes which usually do not get prosecuted since you could indict half of Washington lobbyists for what he is going to jail for.  Same with Cohen.

 

This assumes no other charges arrise from the relationship of the process crimes and underlying conduct. Even if the conduct does not rise to an indictable offense, Trump apparently was willing to illegaly pay large sums of money to hide legal conduct. The "process crimes" they're charged with aren't meaningless. They're serious and could be found to further more serious crimes.

Pelosi's statement on impeachment volleys the ball back to Meuller's side of the court. In essence she's saying the will isn't there yet and these investigations need to generate bipartisan agreement by way of evidence, not necessarily charges. Falling short of that, the ultimate penalty will be determined at the polls.

1 hour ago, Rob Couteau said:

Bob, I agree, Spooks is also a great book. Packed with intriguing leads and information.

Was the first book I read that made me interested about the topic. In fact I almost bought a Mac 10 after I read about them in the book but eventually ended up with an Uzi. I was going to work for Detonics at the time (ended up elsewhere tho) and, well let's say I had different hobbies then. I found his research on Werbell and the audio guy whose name escapes me was really interesting.

12 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Bob, Thank You, Those are some great pictures, some great faces. Though  perhaps in my ignorance,  it does raise a few questions.

Being American I first assumed all those sacks were untended trash bags. Then I see them used as a barricade for that tent. Those shields the police use are also unusual, they look like covers to industrial heaters. 

Am I to assume this is before Yanukovich fled the scene?

Kirk! I didn't get my ass shot taking them thank Marc Estabrook hahaha!

I think you may mean the shields some of the Maidan used. Some of them had improvised riot shields for obvious reasons.

The exact circumstances of his leaving remain a mystery I believe. He high-tailed it to his Russian sponsors either way while passing through Khirkiv and Crimea under Russian guard. He had been accused of looting several billion dollars from The Ukraine and I'm sure that weighed heavily on many of his decisions, if true. I doubt he took time to stop and pose for selfies, kiss babies and shake hands though. As has been stated, there we're plenty of people after him. I'm not certain that the money wasn't of more immediate concern to him though. A guard detail protecting a small entourage against some hooligans shouldn't be too much trouble for even a small military force but maybe he wasn't willing to stay (which would be my bet).

5 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Simply referring to the New York Times, who had reporters on the ground in Kiev, allows one to see what happened.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/world/europe/ukraine.html

On Friday a mediated settlement between the elected president, Yanukovych, and the political opposition is announced. In line with this announcement, Ukraine security forces are withdrawn. The radical militant groups from western Ukraine, associated with Right Sector, react angrily to the agreement, and insist on the removal of the president.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/world/europe/ukraine.html

On Saturday, the legal elected government effectively goes into hiding because security has been removed and armed militants are now the new “guards” at government buildings. The political opposition unilaterally declares itself the new government, while Yanukovych declares a coup has occurred.

"Regional governors from eastern Ukraine met in Kharkiv and adopted a resolution resisting the authority of Parliament. They said that until matters were resolved, “we have decided to take responsibility for safeguarding the constitutional order, legality, citizens’ rights and their security on our territories.'"

So half of the country immediately refuses to recognize a new government, and reject a constitutional argument that the new government had the power to declare itself such. On Friday, the opposition concludes negotiations with the recognized elected government, and then 24 hours later decides the president is “unable to fulfill his duties”. Is that indicative of any kind of deliberative process? Armed militants patrol government buildings, and their leaders are appointed to the “new” government.

The appropriate context is not limited to that, as Robert Parry often commented:

You have foreign money, including from the U.S. government, pouring into Ukraine to finance political and propaganda operations. You have open encouragement to the coup-makers from senior American officials.

You have hundreds of trained and armed paramilitary fighters dispatched to Kiev from Lviv and other western cities. You have the seizure of an arsenal amid rumors that these more powerful weapons are being distributed to these paramilitaries. You have international pressure on the elected president to pull back his security forces, even as Western propaganda portrays him as a mass murderer.”

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukraine/

What Parry was criticizing particularly in regard to Ukraine was a simplifying tendency to appoint white hats and black hats which served to promote an active misunderstanding of the events. Crimea continues to be "Exhibit A" in charges that Russia represents a unique malign international actor, a false narrative which eventually morphed into the current US domestic politics dispute.

Well then Jeff you'll have to argue with these people about the validity of the referendum:

Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Latvia, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Spain, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States

That's the UN majority that condemned the annexation. Of course these stellar state actors disagreed:

A regular all-star team of the most principled countries on the planet:

Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

Yanukovich was unable to fulfill his duties as President because he fled the country to save his money rather than his country ! If there was support for him I'd think he would enlist his Army to give a helping hand don't you? Here's a few more highlights from the UN report:

SPECIFIC HUMAN RIGHTS CHALLENGES IN CRIMEA

ASG Šimonović visited Crimea on 21 and 22 March and travelled to Bakhchisaray, Sevastopol and Simferopol. The main objectives of the visit, were to: discuss the presence and operation of the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission’s sub-office in Simferopol and, in this context, present Mr. Harutyunyan as the Head of the UNHRMM in Ukraine who will be based in Kyiv; discuss the human rights concerns and allegations collected so far, and inquire about actions undertaken by the authorities to address them; and finally, to discuss measures pertaining to human rights which would contribute to addressing urgent protection concerns and thus also alleviating tensions and leading to the de-escalation of situation in and around Crimea.

ASG Šimonović collected first-hand information through meetings with the authorities in Crimea, leaders and members of the Crimean Tatar community, other representatives of civil society and journalists, and Ukrainian military officers and officers without insignia. Additional information has been gathered from a variety of reliable sources, including some through extensive telephone and Skype discussions.

The political aspects of recent developments in Crimea are beyond the scope of the assessment of this report. At the same time, however, these developments have a direct impact on the enjoyment of human rights by all people in Crimea. The delegation met with sources, who claimed that there had been alleged cases of non-Ukrainian citizens participating in the referendum, as well as individuals voting numerous times in different locations.

Preliminary findings, based on publicly available information as well as reports from civil society representatives in Crimea, suggest that the referendum of 16 March raised a number of concerns in terms of respect for human rights standards. Such concerns relate to the free communication of information and ideas about public and political issues. This implies a free press and other media are able to comment on public issues without censorship or restraint and to inform public opinion. A local Ukrainian journalist reportedly received threats through posters, which were disseminated near his place of residence. According to other reports, people in Crimea had limited access to information during the week prior to the referendum. According to some reports, Ukrainian TV channels were blocked since 10 March.

For the full enjoyment and respect for the rights guaranteed in articles 19, 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is necessary to ensure, inter alia, freedom to debate public affairs, to hold peaceful demonstrations and meetings, to criticize and oppose, to publish political material, to campaign and to advertise political ideas. Bloggers and local civil society representatives reported cases of human rights violations regarding journalists and civil society representatives who were perceived to be against the referendum.

Reports included a number of cases of abduction, unlawful arrest and detention by unidentified armed groups, harassment, and violence against peaceful demonstrators. Some activists and journalists were arbitrarily detained or disappeared. According to information provided by civil society groups, seven persons were known to have gone missing. Some previously considered missing were later released but found to have been subjected to torture or other ill-treatment. Some victims were kept in the Military Drafting Center (Voenkomat) in Simferopol. For example, on 9 March, two persons – Mr. Andrei Schekun and Mr. Kovalski – were allegedly kidnapped and later released on the administrative border with Kherson Oblast – with signs of ill-treatment or torture. However, the media reported soon after the referendum about the disappearance of a Crimean Tatar, Mr Reshat Ametov, who had been missing for several days. Reportedly, he was taken away by uniformed men. Mr. Ametov’s body was found on 16 March in the village of Zemlyanichne, in the Belogoski district of Crimea, with alleged signs of torture, hand-cuffed and with adhesive tape over his mouth. The HRMMU is verifying the whereabouts of all those who went missing.

The presence of paramilitary and so called self-defence groups as well as soldiers without insignia, widely believed to be from the Russian Federation, was also not conducive to an environment in which the will of the voters could be exercised freely. According to reports, some individuals had their documents/ passports taken away before the poll by unidentified militias, and searches and identity checks were conducted by unauthorised or unidentified people, in the presence of regular police forces1.

It is widely assessed that Russian-speakers have not been subject to threats in Crimea. Concerns regarding discrimination and violence were expressed by some ethnic Ukrainians members of minorities, and especially Tatars, as indigenous peoples. In a meeting with authorities in Crimea these concerns regarding inter-ethnic tensions were dismissed, assuring that ethnic Russians, ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars and other minorities receive sufficient protection, with their three languages recognized as official languages. Despite this, Tatars largely boycotted the referendum and remain very concerned about their future treatment and prospects. Although there was no evidence of harassment or attacks on ethnic Russians ahead of the referendum, there was widespread fear for their physical security. Photographs of the Maidan protests, greatly exaggerated stories of harassment of ethnic Russians by Ukrainian nationalist extremists, and misinformed reports of them coming armed to persecute ethnic Russians in Crimea, were systematically used to create a climate of fear and insecurity that reflected on support to integration of Crimea into the Russian Federation.

What I continue to hear is this victimization of Yanukovich, The Russian Federation and their allies in The Ukraine, which is ridiculous. Did hooligans move in when Yanukovich ordered the shooting and beating of protesters (ala' Tienanmen) by the Berkut? Yeah! You would too if they were shooting little old ladies, students and so on. The Maidan were not an armed militia of right-wing thugs. Sorry. It paints a nice picture but that wasn't the case. "Hundreds of para military - money pouring in - massive arsenal"  my god man.

I guess Robert Parry never saw a dime of cash change hands between the RF and Ukraine? Nary a bullet or bad thought ever crossed that border? Uh.... I don't think so. My bet would be that the RF had a nice little well of money in the East and real estate in Crimea with a compliant, well paid administrator and when the people of Ukraine got fed up  and contemplated moving to the EU with everyone else in the twenty first century they panicked. I know that sounds crazy! What am I thinking! Couldn't be anything like that... etc.

This I agree with: What Parry was criticizing particularly in regard to Ukraine was a simplifying tendency to appoint white hats and black hats which served to promote an active misunderstanding of the events. These type of discussions almost always become over simplified for the sake of brevity with no one particularly worse than the other.

As I've stated elsewhere and will again here I remain unconvinced that you or Jim have showed how the annexation of Crimea was all cricket and so forth and agree with the majority of the people  that the Crimean referendum foisted on the Ukraine was in violation of its constitution and illegal under international law..

On 3/13/2019 at 7:21 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Jim Hougan's book on Watergate, Secret Agenda, was a game changer.

 

His book "Spooks" was also phenomenal.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob, 

Congo was a brand new country coming out of brutal colonization.  Recall Leopold?  You have heard of the book Leopold's Ghost?  

Lumumba was the first leader chosen by those previously colonized citizens.  So right then and there, these are all significant differences with Ukraine.  In Congo, Lumumba was the guy who outside forces were determined to get rid of or assassinate.  Which they eventually did.

In Ukraine, the elected leader was deposed by the neo Nazis who were followers of the Hitler collaborator Bandera. I mean you are aware of him are you not?

They were determined to get rid of the elected leader because he opposed memorializing Bandera, as these neo Nazi thugs had done.

It was the neo nazis who began the whole rioting thing over who they were going to get aid from, since the previous leader, who the USA liked, had driven the country's economy into the ground.

When Yanukovych reversed course and decided to take the EU offer, even thought it was worse for the country, the neo nazis began to upgrade the violence and terror. And threaten his life.

Until the point he had to leave the country or be assassinated. They did not remove him legally.  There was no judicial process and there were not enough votes to impeach at the time he left. This was all egged on, guided, supervised and essentially managed by Nuland and Pyatt.  There is a pile of documentary evidence that proves this.  The overthrow was being run by those two.

The Russians did not invade Crimea, they already had a detachment of troops there to protect their naval base.  The violence by Bandera's followers was now spreading into Crimea.  (Unless you think those films are all faked.)  So a referendum was arranged. In addition to the terror, Russia was in much better shape economically than Ukraine, which was a basket case.  There was no referendum in Katanga.  (Unless your Ukraine sources can invent one Bob. I would not put it past them.)  

Every source said the overwhelming majority of Crimeans  preferred being part of Russia.  Even bodies like Forbes.

Your arguments and your sources are so bizarre,  perverse and desperate that I really have a hard time thinking that you believe them.

 

PS What happened in Ukraine is not being recycled in Venezuela.  The so called opposition leader is a CIA flunky, and they sent in that neo con thug Abrams to run things.  

 

 

 

 

And so it was only possible for a massive power like Russia to annex Crimea and not possible for them to restore order and return the country back to civilian control under the auspices of the United Nations, which it was uniquely situated to do. Bovine scatology. The fact is Jim, whether you care to admit it or not, is that the Russian grab of Crimea, justified on some level though it may have been, was a land grab to restore that region and The Ukraine back to where they felt it belongs. They did what they could to further that and foment chaos once it became clear Yanukovich was deemed ineffective and unable to share his plunder.

The Russian Federation is not the sterling silver guardian of all Saintly wishes the world over. Your defense of them on every single item of contention in every subject I'm aware of is curious to me. I believe I've rightly stated why their aggression in Crimea was illegal. You have presented no valid, authoritative third party opinion stating why the annexation and extra-constitutional referendum should be recognized as legal.

I remain unswayed in my opinion but recognize (as I've always stated) that the Russian Federation has a different set of considerations concerning their neighbors along their border areas.

9 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The argument that Yanukovych “LEFT THE COUNTRY to avoid criminal prosecution and/or impeachment” is highly contentious, to say the least. There were no impeachment or prosecutorial actions active on the day the government was chased out of town. Regardless of what an unsourced UN human rights report may say, there is no evidence that government forces were responsible for the sniper event in February 2014, and most of the agreed witness testimony holds that the shooting occurred from a building controlled by opposition forces. There was no “legal constitutional vote for his removal” to change the legal government in Ukraine. No one claims Right Sektor were “prime movers” in the Maidan protests, rather that they were prime movers in the unconstitutional coup which occurred on a particular day, and their particular involvement was recorded in on-the-scene reports published in the NY Times, among others.

“A putsch or coup or overthrow doesn't mean the Ukraine is up for grabs!!”

What are you talking about? The initiation of a putsch or coup implies a political entity is “up for grabs” simply by the initiation of a putsch or coup. That Ukraine was a “constitutionally formulated sovereign state” was never at question here, it was the expressly unconstitutional assertion that the duly elected government could be somehow suddenly replaced by a “legitimate” body of opposition representatives which is contentious.  That is, your arguments appear as contrarian talking points which lack basis in material reality. I also watched what was going on at the time and have a diametrically opposed analysis of events. The arguments invoking Montana, Venezuela and Katanga are irrelevant in this case, as the resources are not at stake compared to the geography. The geographical issue of Crimea is the primary geopolitics informing this debate , best to acknowledge that. Overturning the apple cart, or kicking the hornet’s nest, however you phrase it, was a poor policy initiative and should be seen as such.

The argument that Yanukovych “LEFT THE COUNTRY to avoid criminal prosecution and/or impeachment” is highly contentious, to say the least.

He left, Jeff. What's contentious? The reasons why? He could have gone to Donbas, Donetsk, Odessa, Kharkiv or for that matter Sebatopol but where did he vanish to? What could he avoid there that he couldn't even in sympathetic regions?

There were no impeachment or prosecutorial actions active on the day the government was chased out of town.

He left to go view factories in Kharkiv supposedly. The actions of the parliament came the day after. At what point does this invalidate the constitution, Jeff? If, as you say, it's "up for grabs" then what is your problem with his removal? You're trying to get it both ways here and that doesn't work. It's wrong when the Ukrainian Parliament extra-constitutionally removes its President but when Crimea votes itself into the Russian Federation it's a different story. I personally believe they had more right to assign a temporary succession in lieu of an election or return of the President than Crimea had to split off. Neither case renders the constitution invalid however.

Regardless of what an unsourced UN human rights report may say, there is no evidence that government forces were responsible for the sniper event in February 2014, and most of the agreed witness testimony holds that the shooting occurred from a building controlled by opposition forces.

Okay here ya go. Now where are your sources?? Agreed by whom?

Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights
Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine

During March 2014 ASG Ivan Šimonović visited Ukraine twice, and travelled to Bakhchisaray, Kyiv, Kharkiv, Lviv, Sevastopol and Simferopol, where he met with national and local authorities, Ombudspersons, civil society and other representatives, and victims of alleged human rights abuses. This report is based on his findings, also drawing on the work of the newly established United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU).

There was no “legal constitutional vote for his removal” to change the legal government in Ukraine.

The removal of the President doesn't change "the government" any more than the removal of Trump would. There is still a judiciary, parliamentary and the executive successor. There are still Ukrainians too!

What are you talking about? The initiation of a putsch or coup implies a political entity is “up for grabs” simply by the initiation of a putsch or coup. That Ukraine was a “constitutionally formulated sovereign state” was never at question here, it was the expressly unconstitutional assertion that the duly elected government could be somehow suddenly replaced by a “legitimate” body of opposition representatives which is contentious. 

The parliament, judiciary and executive successor were legitimate according to their constitution. What was clearly, unambiguously, unarguably true was that Crimea was a portion of a sovereign state and it was annexed illegally. The examples I gave were built with your and Jim's argument which is seen above.

26 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The counter-argument is that the constitution of Ukraine was not functioning:

"In Kiev there was a coup, and it means that the legitimate authorities disappeared. The president fled under the threat of murder, the government partially fled and was partially not able to fulfil its duties, the parliament made decisions under the barrels of machine guns… at the time of the Crimean events there weren’t any constitutional, legitimate, and internationally recognised authorities in Ukraine… Internationally recognised elections that formally established the activity of constitutional structures in Ukraine happened only at the end of May… when Ukraine formally restored the action of its Constitution, Crimea was Russian for already a long time."

https://www.stalkerzone.org/ishchenko-crimea-recognition-trump/

The deliberate scuttling of an internationally mediated political agreement in the form of an armed attack on the country’s legislature seems to me the signal event from which all else transpired. That is why Stephen Cohen describes what happened in Crimea as a “reactive” move, rather than an “aggressive” move which is how it has been portrayed in the west.

By whose estimation was the constitution not functioning? The Rada approved an interim President on 2/22/2014 while the Russians invaded and occupied Crimea on the 27th. There was no overlap and the new government was formed according to the constitution's provisions. He fled because he was going to be impeached and criminally charged for thousands of criminal offenses, Jeff. He was worth $12 billion dollars but never made over $2,000 dollars a month! How many dollars made it over the border?

What armed attack on the legislature? I can find no reference to the RADA voting with guns to their heads.