Bob Ness

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Van Ness??

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Did you take Kirk's advice and watch North to Alaska?

Haha! No need. I've already seen it, several times on "Big Money Movie" during the 70's. The stock shots are great and I actually took a crew out on the paddle wheeler for two days as a DP and shot some commercial stuff on Puget Sound later on. Mostly the rest was sound stage in LA. Some nice historic exteriors though.

Congo was a newly independent country.
As is/was Ukraine.

There was an election under a written constitution to choose its first president.
In this example that would be Lumumba/Yanukovich.

I'm relieved you agree that a constitution has some meaning. Why you and Jeff stress that the absence of the President, for any reason, invalidates their constitution is beyond me. I have international law and norms on my side while you both seem to be saying "well, it depends."

The former colonizing mother country, Belgium, then sent paratroopers in and sponsored a breakaway government in Katanga to sap the Congo of its mineral resources, its functional economic strength.

I doubt Nuland and Pyatt had access to the instruments of the military on hand to accomplish that. Let's see who did ( English translation dated 1/3/2014 - one month before Yanukovich bugged out):

http://uaposition.com/analysis-opinion/english-translation-audio-evidence-putins-adviser-glazyev-russian-politicians-involvement-war-ukraine/

The following is a partial UA translation. Please see the source in the link above:
 

Quote

 

Russian presidential adviser Sergey Glazyev instructs unknown man on the organization of mass unrest and create a pretext for invading army of Russian Federation.

“Banderovtsy” (term derived from the name of the person Stepan Bandera). In soviet propaganda – Ukrainian nationalists (living abroad and in Ukraine) who opposed the Soviet national policy. In fact Banderivets is called any Ukrainian who goes against the Kremlin. (In further dialogue Glazyev himself says it in direct text) (BN note: see link above).

Sergey Glazyev: Hi, Anatoliy Petrovych, why is Zaporizhia silent, where are they? We know exactly that he had a thousand of people. Where they are? Where are Kazaki?

I have an order to raise everybody, to raise people. People should gather in the square to demand turn to Russia for help against “banderovtsy”.

Specially trained people should knock out “Banderovtsy” from the building council, and then they should arrange the meeting of the regional state administration, gather executive authorities. Collect regional executive committee and give him the executive power and subordinate police to this new executive. I have direct orders – to raise the people in Ukraine where we can.

So we must take people to the streets, so do as in Kharkiv and as soon as possible.
Because as you see the president has signed a decree, operation began, here has reported that the military are raised. What are they waiting for?

We can not do everything with force, we use the power to support people, not more. And if there are no people, what support there might be?

Listen well, tell him that it is a very serious talk about the fate of the country and therefore there the war is going…

 

 

How you can compare that situation with what happened in Ukraine is a bit incomprehensible.

It's really not you're overstating your complaint. I fully understand they aren't the same situation but the principle lay bare for all to see. Crimea was illegally annexed by the Russian Federation because the simple, undeniable fact is that it was a legally constituted entity functioning under and obligated to the constitution of The Ukraine which requires a full vote of The Ukraine to break away. It matters not whether the current occupants of the White House, Kremlin, you, myself or anyone else, including, short of a prior amendment or invalidation of that constitution, the people of Ukraine/Crimea, have a differing opinion. It does not matter if the President of The Ukraine is usurped, thrown out or takes his toys, burns the evidence (bet Manafort wished he did a better job of that!) and runs away. That in itself doesn't invalidate the underlying constitution, even if that's what all of us think is the best thing for those people, which very well may be true. The Constitutionally legal line of succession confer all the authorities of the President (with the Chairperson of the Parliament/RADA) thereby preserving the Government until a new election is held. That includes a temporary vacancy of the office, usually for illness or some such thing, at the end of which the elected President is restored. By all accounts (who knows?? maybe not - impossible to confirm), Yanukovich accepted permanent citizenship in Russia making it impossible to resume the roll of President.

2 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Well Bob,with that U.N.report and your own words, I'll say that's certainly the most nuanced contribution to this discussion yet..

Jim says:

Did you see Ukraine on Fire? !!!

Jim, did you see "North to Alaska!" You have to!, It will change your world!

 

Haha! well if you're interested (I don't really like posting links for others to go vet but...)

Here's 1600 pix of all those goose stepping NAZI's by a FedEx jet driver who happened to be there getting shot by the Berkut

https://www.flickr.com/photos/estabrook/albums/72157640636759884/page1

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob:

In concurring with Jeff, once a legitimate government is overthrown, not by covert but overt means, all bets are off. That is what happened here.  The Stepan Bandera neo nazis overthrew an elected government, began to murder people in the streets, set fire to buildings thus incinerating people inside, and threatened to assassinate the president.  All of this was done with the backing, encouragement and even the leadership of Victoria Nuland.  And since you cannot bring yourself to name her husband, I will.  Its neocon fruitcake Robert Kagan.  You know, the co founder of PNAC. Kagan backed HRC in 2016.

Nuland and Pyatt essentially guided the Bandera followers in their murderous overthrow.  In fact, as Parry and the film Ukraine on Fire show, , they helped pick the guys they wanted to run the government.  Now, if this was to help the people living there, that would be one thing.  But such was not the case. As Parry noted:

Some of the reasons for the Crimean attitudes are simply pragmatic. Russian pensions were three times larger than what the Ukrainian government paid and now the Ukrainian pensions are being slashed further in compliance with austerity demands from the International Monetary Fund.

This month, Nuland boasted about those pension cuts in praising the Kiev regime’s steps toward becoming a “free-market state.” She also hailed “reforms” that will force Ukrainians to work harder and into old age and that slashed gas subsidies which helped the poor pay their heating bills.

In other words, Freidman style Shock Doctrine.

I think what Nuland and Pyatt did was a disgrace. And why the State Department let her get away with this escapes me. To let loose the Bandera followers in the Ukraine would be a little like the US government fully backing the Klan in the south in the fifties.  For those who do not know who Bandera was, click here https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/stepan-bandera-nationalist-euromaidan-right-sector/

In their headlong madness to restart the Cold War, these are the kinds of people Nuland, Kagan and Pyatt jumped into bed with. 

No.... after the riot police under the orders of Yanukovich started shooting and beating protestors and the crowds started fighting back. Yanukovich LEFT THE COUNTRY to avoid criminal prosecution and/or impeachment. To wit:

Underlying human rights violations, including lack of accountability for past human rights violations committed by security forces, the lack of independence of the judiciary and a perceived denial of equal rights and protection, including though mismanagement of resources and through corruption, lack of a system of checks and balances and the lack of free elections, were among the root causes of the popular protests that took place throughout Ukraine, and in particular on Independence Square (Maidan) from November 2013 to February 2014. While the protests were initially triggered by the Yanukovych Government’s refusal to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union, the excessive use of force by the Berkut special police and other security forces at the end of November initially against largely peaceful protestors on the Maidan led to a significant radicalisation of the protest movement. The violence on 30 November transformed the protests, from demonstrations in favour of signing the EU Association Agreement, to include demands to reform the system of authority and punish those responsible. Serious human rights violations were committed including during the Maidan protests, which resulted in the death of 121 individuals (this number includes 101 Maidan protesters, 17 officers of the internal affairs/police, 2 were members of NGO “Oplot” that attacked the Maidan in Kharkiv and a Crimean Tatar found dead). There have been also numerous reports of torture and ill-treatment of protesters. The Maidan protest movement1 also revealed historical, but still relevant divisions within Ukrainian society and long-standing grievances with respect to the lack of good governance and the rule of law of previous Governments.

1 The Maidan protest movement refers to the various groups that participated in demonstrations and centred on Independence (Maidan) square in the centre of the Kyiv. This initially included persons demonstrating for Ukraine to enter the Association Agreement with the European Union, hence the fact that there is often a reference made to “Euro-Maidan”. However, over time the movement included a number of other elements, including anti-Government, anti-corruption, far right wing groups and others, some of whom did not necessarily share the same pro-European aspirations. Sorce - UN Human Rights Report

Please don't tell me the Berkut were a bunch of lilly-white roses patriotically trying to uphold God's vision of Shangra-La in Europe. For whatever reason Yanukovich left the house and rendered the Ukraine leaderless. The legal, constitutional vote for his removal was 380-0. I'm not aware of any guns present for the vote although they sure were in Crimea after the parliament building was seized by armed "little green men". It was probably a good idea for Yanukovich to leave or at least hide but that wasn't an overthrow. He skedaddled to Daddy with as much as he could carry. And that doesn't make it open season on Ukraine once Yanukovich left. That's insulting to the people who live there. They have the right to be wrong you know, just like you and me. Invoking the Right Sektor as the prime movers behind the Maidan Square protests is BS. It's meant to fog the mind of people who have no time or memory. Putin only has to keep the region unstable and he gets what he wants. NATO buffer. Eventually the land.

Regardless of any warnings, conspiracies, overthrows, bad actors or whatever, they do not excuse or justify an external entity (read Crimean independence supporters, Russians, The U.S., Neo-Cons etc) from suspending or ignoring the constitution of a sovereign state. The Ukraine was and is a constitutionally formulated sovereign state that has laws pertaining to the separation of its provinces and regions that are governed by the Ukrainian constitution,  not our or anyone else's opinion of their leadership, personality quirks or anything else. It's not relevant! The process is in black and white for all to see and has been for some time, with the acceptance of its regional neighbors (including Russia) and the U.N. A putsch or coup or overthrow doesn't mean the Ukraine is up for grabs!!

As an example, with your argument the United States would be fully justified in granting citizenship to all residents of the East Venezuela province, assemble a vote for the day after tomorrow with the provincial regional authorities who are tired of Modura and annex that region for it's massive oil reserves. Believe me they'd love to have a U.S. passport! Aside from the likelihood that a similar plan may already be under way, I don't think that would be legal under international law and it doesn't matter what the results of their election were or who started what.

In exactly the same way Katanga broke away from the Congo and then did in Lumamba you're now saying that's the way to do it in the Ukraine.  Annex Crimea using in-country forces and mercenaries (thus securing your ultra-important naval base), bribe and intimidate the local officials and citizenry and follow that with an extra-legal, unconstitutional succession from The Ukraine.  The only thing left is to create a blizzard of propaganda using your state media, and nowadays your internet assets, resurrect the NAZI's, groom a successor and create havoc in the east along your own border. Super-easy to do that. Cheap too.

I'm not at all suggesting there wasn't Western interference. I'm sure there was much slobbering and panting after the Arab Spring, featuring many of our favorites. Russia has good reason to regard the west the way it does. That was earned.

Regarding documentary films and there usefulness as a source my 25 years in that business tells me they're as often a good misrepresentation as they are an accurate view of a complex subject. Mr. Stone and Mr. Parry I'm sure did an admirable job but it's not the sort of thing I take as a primary source. I watched much of what was going on at the time via indy journalists and residents of the country. I'm much more inclined to believe people who put their feet on the ground and live there and aren't chaperoned around like tourists. Been there. I will watch it though.

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I am not changing the subject at all Bob.

If you watch the film, which apparently you have not, the vote taken was illegal.  Here is the central issue:

But the agreement – though guaranteed by the European nations – was quickly negated by renewed attacks from the Right Sektor and its street fighters who seized government buildings. Russian intelligence services got word that an assassination plot was in the works against Yanukovych, who fled for his life.

On Feb. 24, Yanukovych asked permission to enter Russia for his safety and the Ukrainian parliament (or Rada), effectively under the control of the armed extremists, voted to remove Yanukovych from office in an unconstitutional manner because the courts were not involved and the vote to impeach him did not reach the mandatory threshold. Despite these irregularities, the U.S. and its European allies quickly recognized the new government as “legitimate.”

Calling a Coup a Coup

But the ouster of Yanukovych had all the earmarks of a coup. An intercepted phone call, apparently in early February, between Nuland and Pyatt revealed that they were directly involved in displacing Yanukovych and choosing his successor. The pair reviewed the field of candidates with Nuland favoring Arseniy Yatsenyuk, declaring “Yats is the guy” and discussing with Pyatt how to “glue this thing.” Pyatt wondered about how to “midwife this thing.” They sounded like Gilded Age millionaires in New York deciding who should become the next U.S. president. On Feb. 27, Yatsenyuk became Prime Minister of Ukraine.

And in the face of this, you are saying that Crimea should have gone along with the coup as engineered by Victoria Nuland?  And you know who she is married to don't you?

This is how nutty this Russia Gate stuff has become.

 

Nutty it is...

The problem is these are two distinct actions, Jim. A referendum on Crimean succession does not follow a purported coup. You're conflating the two which is what Russia wants. The coup, real or not, is irrelevant to the validity and legal standing of the referendum or the constitution. Russia had gone years recognizing the Ukrainian constitution until their boy was removed!!! I don't even think they ever claimed the constitution was illegal!! The referendum vote assumed Crimea as independent of Ukraine but was never voted on by Ukrainians. That's the rub. No can do and still be legal. No matter hard it's spun.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is not the end of story Bob, and I have a hard time thinking you do not know it.

What happened in Ukraine was illegal.  All you have to do is watch the film.

It was achieved through terrorism and threats. Crimea did not want to be a part of it.

Again, the late great Bob Parry: https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/22/crimeans-keep-saying-no-to-ukraine/

Jim. You're changing the subject. Regardless of what happened (which is disputable) you're side stepping the fact that under the Ukrainian constitution Crimea wasn't allowed to unilaterally remove itself from the State and give itself to Russia. After that nothing can be justified to make it okay for Russia to invade and force referendums on the people in Crimea, even if they want it! Same-same those pesky states south of Mason-Dixon, right?

Crimea is actually Tatarville which dates back to the forced removal and displacement of the indigenous people to central Asia by Stalin. The "Crimeans" are ethnic Russians placed there (ala' Hitler) to access the oil of the Balkans and a warm water port. The "referendum" given to the Crimeans was a "heads I win, tails you lose" choice with a miraculous 90 percent participation (or some such according to Russia) taken during occupation. Crimea was part of Ukraine and therefore had to negotiate its separation constitutionally with Ukraine, not with itself. The Tatar minority did not take part in the referendum and neither did pro-Ukrainian supporters.

My limited experience of this (at the time) was by monitoring the situation on local blogger sites (I did the same in Syria) where I felt I'd get an on-the-ground reading of the situation rather than listen entirely to the spittle coming out of the various press organizations. Unfortunately Governments have caught on to the idea of closing these down and this isn't possible any more. The sources I was paying attention to are long gone. Either way, the impression I got was pretty close to what has been presented by western media. Largely local, liberal types objecting to the graft and corruption that has become the norm in Russia (this I know as a fact from first hand sources - we had the chance to help them out but didn't IMO).

It's bad. But I'm also sympathetic to the Russian conundrum of having the worst neighbors one could ask for (see European history) and the sacrifices they made while the U.S. was dilly-dallying and playing footsie with Hitler et al. To a degree we still do but I don't think to the extent many assume. I also understand their resistance to "NATO creep" but the Russians have a share of the blame there also as they could have easily become the economic power of the region if they had continued to liberalize. Easy for me to say though...

Much of this is familiar to European history - where chaos exists, opportunity abounds! A brief look at the borders of Europe through the ages will confirm that the region is a cluster freak of intrigue and violence and in my view the Crimean annexation is a continuation of that and one of the reasons we have soldiers shacked up over there. The World War Two group we closely study here reflects that view, for better and worse, and the tragedy of JFK's assassination was that he very well could have made strides to bring the USSR along a path of recovery. In fact they still haven't recovered from World War Two to the extent they should have. We had a golden opportunity to help them and passed after the fall.

Putin's behavior on the world stage is discouraging to say the least and I don't think I'll see a time in my life where our two countries live in a relatively harmonious co-existence.

Hope I'm not adding to your woes by giving you a PIA! hahaha!

36 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh please Bob. My aching back.

Just what when we are trying to get away from the NY Times version of all this.

Did you see Ukraine on Fire?  

The reason that Crimea wanted the referendum was to get away from the neo-Nazi, Stephen Bandera followers from Ukraine.   I mean you know who Bandera was right?  You know how in bed his followers were with the CIA right?  You don't?

If you will not see it, then read my review which the late great Bob Parry let me pen for his site: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/13/a-documentary-youll-likely-never-see/

 

Yes I know who he was and the people who sprinkled holly water on the referendum were the Austrian fascists with the NAZI lineage. Welcome to Europe!

Montana doesn't get to hold a vote to succeed from the U.S. because Canada gave them passports and invaded Jim, and that fact renders everything else irrelevant. Crimea was legally part of Ukraine, end of story. To succeed they needed a referendum IN UKRAINE, with negotiations to comply with their constitution. Putin apologists keep resurrecting NAZIs and fascists ad naseum but the fact is Europe is lousy with them, in closets everywhere. The Ukrainian uprising had many political factions involved but the Putineers insist on describing them as fascists for western consumption and I'm surprised you so easily pick up on it. I realize of course there was probably much western interference (read Hillary, CIA etc) prior to the annexation/invasion. That doesn't justify Russian annexation in any case.

Sorry to hear about your back. Get well soon!

22 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Andrew, 

There was a referendum in Crimea.  They did not want to happen there what happened in Ukraine:  A Neo Nazi takeover.  You need to watch the documentary Ukraine on Fire.

 

Yes. A nice little referendum overseen by little green men with machine guns. Sorta like if Russians guarded our ballot box in 2020. Methinks they should offer Trumpsters Russian passports so they can protect Russian citizens in the U.S. and make the whole thing legitimate.

1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Ahoy Polloi!

Just a photo of Robert Swan Mueller Sr. (L.) showing off his recently won sailing cup with the winner of the Cruising Division, Eugene DuPont.

One can almost hear Judge Smales Sr. congratulating old “Swanny” for his expert skippering of the “Quest” as he offers him a celebratory Glenfiddich.

Dinner at the club with the Bissells, Avery’s. Walkers Pearres, and Symingtons must have been electric, that night. I can imagine a young Charles of the St. Louis Cabells doing his best to try to convince his mother Sadie (née Pearre) Cabell to extend their stay on the Chesapeake to avoid the ponderous Texas heat a little longer. 

“Prohibition for thee, but not for me”, Alice Truesdale exclaimed to her older cousin Richard Bissell and future husband Robert Swan Jr.

Haha gads, how cliche'...

4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

hi Bob

The information regarding the FAT files supports the idea Wikileaks received the purloined emails on or uploaded from a thumb drive, which is consistent with the position they have always maintained. The claim that the files may have been hacked then uploaded to a thumb drive is also possible, and that argument has been made by others as well.  But there are other mitigating factors:  the technical argument that online download speeds are/were not fast enough to facilitate the hack; the fact that, if there was a hack, the NSA would have the forensic evidence, but they don’t, as confirmed by their middling “moderate confidence” that the hack occurred (this alone should end the matter); Wikileaks and associates with direct involvement insist the emails were leaked, and there was no connection with Russia; Wikileaks and associates such as former British ambassador Craig Murray have a stirling record of integrity and truth-telling; Wikileaks and associates have approached the Mueller people to share information pertinent to their investigation and have been ignored.

On the other hand, the hack allegations stem from the DNC’s tech firm Crowdstrike and have no third-party confirmation; the FBI did not examine the servers though persons familiar with these types of investigations say they should have; Crowdstrike’s activity in wake of the security breach was slow, piecemeal, and not consistent with discovery the problem which they allege; Crowdstrike’s personnel have an anti-Russia bias ev ident in both personal and professional conduct.

Weighing the positions of the two sides - hack vs leak - it seems obvious that the “leak” argument is far stronger on both technical and procedural grounds, backed by Wikileaks proven integrity. If there’s a coherent argument why Crowdstrike’s assertions should be believed instead, I have not yet seen it.

Thanks Jeff. Right but flying from DC to Chicago, hanging at Starbucks on their network and snagging an Email client's index files is 15 minutes (not including the flight and taxis haha). It's done all the time by script kiddies and the like who have that as a hobby. The modern day listening to conversations at a bar so to speak. Most people don't know how to protect their server creds and so forth from people who actually know what they're doing and that's where the hacks come from, not some blizzard of password requests followed by a login and download. I obviously don't know the full story but the article Robert posted raised some eyebrows with me because there are assertions in it that don't jive with my experience.

Oh, and by the way, the NSA isn't likely to reveal their capabilities, even slightly. Their preference is to be viewed as the village idiot.

On 2/21/2019 at 5:41 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Not so fast!

A Leak or a Hack? A Forum on the VIPS Memo

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/#independent-review

Conclusion: Good-faith efforts to parse the available data to provide insight into the unlawful extraction of documents from the DNC in 2016 are admirable and necessary. All parties, however, must exercise much greater care in separating out statements backed by available digital metadata from thoughtful insights and educated guesses. Walking nontechnical readers down any narrative path that cannot be directly supported by evidence must be avoided. At this point, given the limited available data, certainty about only a very small number of things can be achieved. [/q]

Russia Indictment 2.0: What to Make of Mueller’s Hacking Indictment

https://www.lawfareblog.com/russia-indictment-20-what-make-muellers-hacking-indictment

This indictment...offers a potential factual breakthrough. It tells us that the prior factual premise was wrong: the alleged conduct violating the CFAA continued to occur throughout the summer of 2016. That affects the earlier analysis in two ways. First, it makes clear that the Russians did intend to release the information at the time the hacking occured. Second, and perhaps more important, the indictment alleges that the criminal hacking conspiracy was ongoing at the time individuals in the Trump campaign were in contact with charged and uncharged Russian conspirators, raising the possibility of more straightforward aiding and abetting liability.

In other words, stay tuned. This indictment represents a tightening of the ring in the story of criminal prosecution for the 2016 election hacking. The government has now alleged that the social media manipulations by Russian actors constituted a criminal conspiracy. It has alleged as well that the hacking of Democratic Party and Clinton campaign emails were crimes conducted by officers of the Russian state. The question remains: Who, if anyone, helped? [/q]

Sorry I'm late to the party haha..

After reading the article Robert posted (https://disobedientmedia.com/2019/02/fat-anomalies-in-leaked-dnc-emails-suggest-use-of-thumbdrive/) and having some knowledge of the subject,  it seems the author has disproved his own point with this:

This data alone does not prove that the emails were copied at the DNC headquarters. But it does show that the data/emails posted by Wikileaks did go through a storage device, like a thumbdrive, before Wikileaks posted the emails on the World Wide Web.

Who says that Assange or whoever wasn't delivered this in a diplomatic pouch to be uploaded? The author states that the file allocation table isn't common but that's pure BS as techy dweebs like me and I assume hackers don't exclusively use NTFS or HFS+ (Mac) file systems. FAT 32 is readable by both PCs and Macs and are commonly used together to transfer files between the two. The forensic information they relay in the article is useless to determine the originating source as the hacker could have added the files to their own Dropbox account on a FAT drive (NOT necessarily a USB) or transferred otherwise.

Although the article seems to suggest somebody copied them at the DNC onto a USB drive (which is convenient for the author to make a point) I don't think it means anything.

35 minutes ago, David G. Healy said:

1/2" video tape is associated with VHS & Beta (Max) and Digi Beta tape (in some circles). Neither of these formats provides more than 220-240 (1st generation) lines of resolution. Although digi-Beta was a marked improvement over the other two and was used exclusively in the "pro" market place. 

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHS#Signal_standards ) 

 For your info, 3/4" video tape was know ibroadcast industry wide as U-matic tape. This tape format provides max 280 lines of resolution (1st generation). (http://www.derose.net/steve/resources/video-resolution.html ) Regarding today's video standards all these formats leave much to be desired from a quality standpoint..

Your website makes confusing references to 3/4" and 1/2" videotape.

Congrat's on your recent work...

Betacam and Digital betacam are 1/2" formats but the biggest difference is that VHS is a composite format that combines the chroma and luma information into a single signal whereas the old broadcast formats (other than Umatic) were component with the rgb in separate signals. I belive Betamax had a similar component recording but it's tape speed was half - or something like that. Many of the Betacam and Digital betacam formats would record up to about 850 horizontal lines but the quality has a lot to do with the originating format and transfer method. Shoot on Digibeta and then the workflow would keep that through quite a few generations as long as you stay in Digibeta. The betacam formats were usually digitized at 720x486 pixels (D-1 pixel aspect ratio) and the difference between the original tape and the digitized copy were insignificant. Digital betacam is roughly 1k by today's terms.

1 hour ago, Vanessa Loney said:

Nice misdirection there David. We are not talking about Clemons we are talking about Frazier who is a key witness. Your side has stated that that the fact the Frazier won't identify PM is evidence that PM wasn't Oswald. The PM side say that quite possibly witnesses, including Frazier, were intimidated.

Frazier says his family were threatened.

And you do a quick sidestep. 

What is your actual response to Frazier's claims? Was he lying?

Well done! My thoughts exactly. Whataboutism...?? Zzzzz. Frazier's and other's claims of prosecutorial or police malfeseance is totally believable to me. Our family new well what it meant to get snarled up with Texas police (actually anywhere in the deep south) and when this all went down (particularly Oswald's shooting) it raised all sorts of eyebrows. I'm not saying one way or another whether Oswald is PM or killed Kennedy but any suggestion that the "Pros from Dover" at DPD cracked this case in 24 hours is highly suspect. To me it shows gross naivete on American values and norms that existed at the time. I personally know former cops that had several plants on them at all times (they'd brag about it in the bar in hushed tones). They always justified it because they knew better and fixing prosecutions helped streamline justice. Bart's discovery of Hosty's notes just adds another piece of evidence that the original investigators left quite a bit to be desired.

I also wonder whether the Secret Service wanted grab everything they could and get out of Dodge ASAP for exactly that reason. The DPD had a well earned reputation at the time and any testimony taken by them is always suspect in my mind.

On 2/12/2019 at 10:46 PM, François Carlier said:

Yeah, sure. To think that if YOU had been the head of the Dallas police that day, everything would have been done neatly and professionally. The real assassin would have been caught, there would never have been any cover-up, and everybody would be happy.
Satisfied ?
OK, I can now go back to my serious posts.
 

Uh. no, I'm not satisfied. I think my question was reasonable. Apparently you also agree the investigation was botched as why else would you be making excuses for the parties involved?

I'll quote an assistant prosecutor who worked with Wade at the time:  Long-time Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade, whose tenure in office spanned the years 1951 to 1987, once told an assistant prosecutor, “If you ever put another n****r on a jury, you’re fired.” An office manual first written in 1963 instructed Dallas County prosecutors not to “take Jews, Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter how rich or how well educated.” That's your boy! All professional and everything.

My question was: What leads you to  " ... defer to the conclusions of experts and witnesses and police officers who were there in the field to investigate the case" that these people had any kind of expertise in their respective fields? Fritz didn't even have a stenographer present? Then marched the most hated and despised American on the planet, Oswald, into an underground garage chock full of people who could come and go as they pleased? Yeah,  I could ask a random person what their opinion is on how to handle the transfer and he/she could do better! I could go on...

It just seems to me there was a lot of Keystone Cops going on and it presents several problems whether Oswald was the assassin or not or if the whole affair was covered up. I don't expect a learned person to dance by those points with a wave of the hand.

16 hours ago, François Carlier said:

I defer to the conclusions of experts and witnesses and police officers who were there in the field to investigate the case.

 

Francois - I'm not being snarky here - which police, experts and witnesses "in the field" are you referring to? I didn't think anyone could argue against the idea that the DPD and local FBI were so ridiculously incompetent that their "prowess" guaranteed what we have today; a genuinely botched case that I doubt would result in a conviction except at kangaroo court. Wade, Fritz, Hosty? When Oswald was shot in their custody everyone one with a tick of time in Texas knew the fix was in. Oswald was executed by all appearances and likelyhood.

Wasn't it Wade and Fritz that went on to having long careers framing innocent people and having many of their convictions overturned? Yikes!

19 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Bob, I appreciate your service. I'm sorry you feel that you have to leave your post. I assume that was a while coming.

I noticed in Jim's Di's thread after Trump met Putin in  Helsinki a while back you were the most nuanced poster, and I got the distinct impression I was listening to an adult with some experience.  I think you make a unique contribution here that's sorely needed.

 

It seems in the age of social media, the most inexperienced and narrowly read people have transformed into experts, and there's no shortage of innuendo and character assassination of things they know nothing about.

 

I know very little about the FBI. I was not being disparaging when I referred to the leaders as bureaucrats, really the opposite. I would guess there are more checks and balances now than there's ever been and there they are probably as good as they've ever been. I know I've heard frank dialog from FBI agents about how Waco and Ruby Ridge were badly bungled and how it damaged the agency. Obviously the eyes of the country are  greatly focused at this time on the FBI, and the Mueller investigation. My guess is that no matter how overwhelming the evidence is against the President, there will be some resistance. We'll deal with that bridge when we come to it.

 

You are coming into the eye of the tiger here, Bob. It would be interesting to know why you chose to.  People are obsessed with events 50 years ago, and that's the age of the first Director JEH. We know very well some of the things he was up to, on a number of fronts. Some here think he had a positive hand in JFK's death but there's no doubt he was part of a great coverup.  I've  thought for many years now, they should take his name off that building. I think it would symbolically show the public that the FBI has broken with it's past. Though I've never heard anyone else say that. It would be good to at last have a national dialog about him.

 

I don't know what part of the country you're from, or if you feel isolated or unappreciated in your personal experiences with people you've come in contact with as a member of the agency, but  I wouldn't let the opinions of know nothing lightweights tarnish your thoughts about the value of the service you've given. Please continue to contribute here.

 

Thanks for the nice remarks Kirk - I'm still checking in. I think Robert's inquiry is fine but I just don't think any conclusions can be drawn or supposed from what is there. My first thought on his post was whether he was related to an old acquaintance of mine, Don Wheeler (OSS), who was a suspected member of the Perlo Group during the Red Scare. Don and his wife were fantastic people who I enjoyed chatting with (when I was much younger) and they had been blacklisted to the point where he could no longer find employment in the academic world. I recall he was pretty bitter about that. When the Venona intercepts were decrypted apparently his name came up (lending credence to the suspicions) but I believe he was possibly a passive Soviet source. They were committed life-long Communists. Either way it's a pretty good example of the consequences of speculation and the real world impact they can have on people.

I've never been under the mistaken impression that intelligence and law enforcement personnel of today are lilly-white roses - look at the Snowden revelations. It's common for people of all stripes to justify errant nonsense "for your own good" and Robert's skepticism isn't without a prologue, which is probably why most of us are here. When skepticism turns to cynicism is when things can go bad though and I try to parse through information in a fair way. I don't think I'm being unfair in my assessment of the current POTUS. His current predicament was completely predictable. It doesn't take the Amazing Kreskin to figure that out. I think we'd be in a similar swirl of crap with Hillary also but she's been so thoroughly investigated most likely she could do a better job of governing (she also has a lot more experience).

One of the things I appreciate about this forum (and the Ed site in general) is the passion and care people take to present theories and arguments and do the best they can to research subjects. I hear enough from opposing viewpoints that the forum doesn't read to me like a bunch of ditto heads, although I realize there's a fair amount of debate about that.

19 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Kirk - did you quote Wheelers words and attribute them to Ness?

I thought that got changed? Oh well... thanks Paul.

3 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

There was nothing on Dulles CV or any evidence in his actions at the time that prevented him from heading the Warren Commission. I'm sure (in a good way) as you said, "the intelligence and law enforcement people of today are largely a different breed of cat than of yesteryear." The Rank and File are no doubt mostly honorable people just doing their jobs.

These are the Executive Level Departures at the FBI since Trump has been President. To be clear, except for maybe Comey, the names under the FBI Heading of Departure or Demotions was prompted by the FBI's Office of the Inspector General, which is headed by Michael E. Horowitz (Appointed by Obama and confirmed by Senate 2012.) Also, these are not normal change of administration exits. 

FBI Departures/Demotions:

• James Comey, Director – FIRED
• Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director - FIRED
• Jim Rybicki, Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor – FIRED
• James Baker, General Counsel – FIRED 
• Bill Priestap, Director of Counterintelligence (Strzok’s boss) – Cooperating witness [power removed]
• Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence – FIRED
• Lisa Page, Office of General Counsel – FIRED/FORCED
• Mike Kortan, Assistant Director for Public Affairs – FIRED
• Josh Campbell, Special Assistant to Comey – FIRED

The Official OIG summaries of the investigations are currently breaking. 

OIG Release January 29, 2019.

OIG Release Feb. 5, 2019 (today)

DOJ Departures/Demotions:

• David Laufman, Chief of the Justice Department’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section [NAT SEC - HRC email invest] - FIRED/FORCE
• John Carlin, Assistant Attorney General – Head of DOJ’s National Security Division - FIRED/FORCED
• Sally Yates, Deputy Attorney General & Acting Attorney General - FIRED
• Mary McCord, Acting Assistant Attorney General – Acting Head of DOJ’s National Security Division - FIRED/FORCED
• Bruce Ohr, Associate Deputy Attorney General – Demoted 2x - cooperating witness [power removed] - 

Since I may have derailed the discussion, which started out about Roger Stone, I'll bring it back to Stone.

Andrew A. Weismann works for Team Mueller.

The night before 29 agents showed up to arrest Roger Stone last week, Weismann sent a Draft Copy of the Sealed Indictment to CNN. This was before Roger or his attorney received the document and before it was made available to the public on Pacer. FYI - Prosecutors are not supposed to show the press or anyone an indictment until the defense has received a copy.  
Link to Stone Lawyer Complaint.

 

Robert: If you're going to copy, paste and post please do so after doing your own fact checking.

"After more than a decade of service, which included investigating terrorism, working to rescue kidnapping victims overseas and being special assistant to the director, I am reluctantly turning in my badge and leaving an organization I love.

Why? So I can join the growing chorus of people who believe that the relentless attacks on the bureau. My resignation is painful, but the alternative of remaining quiet while the bureau is tarnished for political gain is impossible." Josh Campbell's resignation statement.

I  really don't have time/desire to chase around assertions when the poster doesn't value the accuracy of what they post. I'm NOT going to do any more fact checking for you regarding the others in the list but suffice to say I find it highly suspect.

I think my point is from your original topic is that you'll hoist yourself on your own petard by tying threads from suspected JFK conspirators to Mueller. I for one remain very skeptical and it's indisputable that Roy Cohn bounced little Donny on his knee - far more incriminating than anything you've presented so far.

4 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Anyone here can continue to hate Trump all they want, but with the foreknowledge, from a study of the JFK Assassination, that many of our institutions are endemically corrupt, any assertion of Mueller's bonafides, from a cursory acceptance of the Main Stream Media narrative, is naive at best.

 

I for one don't hate Trump although I think he is corrupt and unqualified for the job. This has been true since day one IMO and you can see the fruits of that every day if you choose to. To suggest that people (or me) on this forum blythely accept the assertions or claims of the MSM IS naive as you have pointed out in your previous posts. After all, why are you here if you think that we're all buying off on pablum spit out by Rachelle and Sean? I won't even address the bullet points you've given as illustration as I think you could do a lot better.

IMO the intelligence and law enforcement people of today are largely a different breed of cat than of yesteryear. I say this having a significant amount of personal knowledge of people in those professions. It can be fairly said that the investigations of the 70s had an effect as has a general liberalization of attitudes that has weeded out a large portion of personality types that were recruited after WW2. In my experience, peripheral actors in Army, Navy and the CIA who I knew were often nut jobs who could be easily manipulated into doing all sorts of unconscionable things. I'm not suggesting that doesn't still exist to some extent but my point is I find it difficult to arbitrarily assign these traits to present day characters any more than I can suspect Nancy Pelosi of hating Indians because her Democratic forerunner George Armstrong Custer did.

I just haven't seen anything in Mueller's CV or actions that raise red flags for me. Regarding Bissell, Dulles, Phillips, Angleton et al I think they operated under a zeitgeist which justified their actions in their own minds and of course had the additional advantage of benefiting them personally in many cases.

8 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

The East Coast Establishment Financial "conspiracy" is probably pretty mundane. Not a lot of black robes and incantations, just a function of who they knew. The East Coast Families sent their sons to Ivy League schools. When World War II broke out, the Ivy League types ended up in Military Intelligence Units (OSS, ONI, etc.) rather than being dispersed over the globe in Infantry units  or submarines. The Ivy League types were highly educated, well traveled, probably exposed to, or spoke, other languages. The Intelligence branches were probably the best fit for Ivy League Educated soldiers, given their skill set.

There missions or actions or networks they built during and after the war is what bound them in various types of secrecy. Some forged the papers of German Rocket scientists and did so with no nefarious intent (better to have the scientist working for the US than the USSR), other's forged the papers of SS Colonels because the Colonel provided a map to a cache of gold fillings. Some of these intelligence guys stuck with it after the war and formed the CIA. Others went into private industry. I bet most turned out to be decent citizens and would never consider leveraging their secrets for personal or political gain. It seems like there are a few that did though. Guys like Angleton or Dulles. Bissell had an interesting job during the war. He was not, at least on the surface, an Intelligence agent. Those United Fruit Boats he was in charge of probably held some interesting cargo on the return trip from Algiers.   

• Trump was an outsider.
• His outsider status meant the Bush family and the CIA had a limited ability to control him.
• Mueller's ultimate goal was originally to get rid of Trump.
• Mueller was chosen because he has played well for the Bush/CIA team.
  • East Coast Family Connections (Bissells, Cabels, Cushings (Julia Child married into Cushings - FYI.)
  • Bush Jr. picked him as FBI Director. (Does anyone want to bet Bush picked Mueller to be FBI chief because he was finally going to bring the CIA to justice for running drugs in prior decades?)
  • Saudi links to 9/11 were kept quiet under Mueller's FBI tenure.
• It's not the DNA similarities between Mueller & Bissell that make the conspiracy, it's the lack of media inquisitiveness. (Mueller has been around for 2 years now. On a JFK forum, where Bissell is likely one of the top suspects, my mention of the relationship was the first?)
• If Bissell had something to do with the JFK assassination, and George HW Bush really was CIA in 1963, is it not fair to wonder if Mueller's appointment to be FBI director was more than coincidence.
• One theory is that Mueller’s goal, at this point, is to just obfuscate and rally the media against Trump. He is not going to be impeached, but he can be distracted.
• Another theory is more far fetched. You would give even less credence to it than I do. It does not involve aliens.

 

Mueller's bonafides are less questionable the Trump's by a factor of a million. That's non-negotiable. Sorry.

1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:

I found this forum a month or two ago to read up on General Charles Cabell. A few websites have claimed Charles and Earl were uncles of Robert Swan Mueller III (RSM3)

They are not. They are distant relatives of his wife, Ann Cabell Standish Mueller.

Although Charles & Earl are distantly related by marriage to RSM3, it turns out, RSM3 and Richard Bissell are first cousins once removed. (RSM3’s mother was Alice Truesdale. Alices Aunt was Marie Truesdale. Marie’s married Richard Bissell Sr.. Their son was Richard Bissell Jr.)

Is any of this relevant to this forum, or this thread? I kind of think so.

Mueller is not just some career Government Lawyer who through grit and hard work eventually became head of the FBI. He is as Eastern Establishment as the Dulles, or Bushes, or Forbes, or Bissells, or Cabells.

A branch or two of RSM3’s extended family even intertwine with the Rockefeller’s. (The Standish Clans petroleum & coal barge companies in Pittsburgh were once part of Standard Oil.)

RSM 1 & 2 are interesting in their own right. The grandfather (RSM1) seems to have run in the same St. Louis Society circles, circa WW1, as Herbert Walker.

RSM2, landed a nice Job with DuPont after graduating from Princeton in 1938 and his WW2 service. From what can be gleaned so far, he brokered rare metals for Dupont’s nascient War & Post war nuclear projects. Uranium seems to be in the Mueller blood. First the father after WW2 and then the son only a few years ago as a Uranium One Bagman.

RSM3 and his relatives travelled in some pretty elite family circles. It's quite the Rabbit hole once you dig a little and that’s all I’ve done.

Any of this is only relevant to JFK if you think Oswald did not act alone. It becomes more relevant if you have some level of suspicion the CIA provided the operational expertise, but not necessarily the ultimate authority to act.

Someone posted that the Mueller Investigation is like Watergate on Steroids. It is, but it is not Bob Woodward’s version of Watergate, it is the Len Colodny version.

That's interesting for sure but it's hard for me to rope Mueller into anything more than what he appears to be. Any bio of me is much more suspicious: close association with famous "America First"figures. Grandfather operated super top-secret ONI radio intercept station and intercepted Pearl Harbor Japanese attack messages. Naval Intel liason to Chiang Kai Chek. Later became originating Naval legat to AFSA and NSA. Served with and followed Louis Tordella (longest serving Deputy Director of NSA) to Skaggs Island secret Soviet intercept and language school. Father was AF Inteligence etc etc etc. What I actually am is a forgetful old man who had to cheat to graduate High School with a D average. The poster you referred to was the Watergate burglers first attorney so he has some cred when it comes to comparing the two... BTW kudos for getting the thread back to forum relevance haha.

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The Ruskies started the Paradise fire!

That one reminds me of General Ripper: "Mandrake, we cannot allow the communist conspiracy to contaminate our precious bodily fluids."

6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

That one reminds me of global warming and Trump's role in exacerbating it.

Yeah! Tired of Trump's preversions... That's one Bat Guano for a Ripper.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

"The future of our country and of Western Civilization is at stake."  

Not even Bill Buckley could have outdone that one.

Hahaha! Yeah, maybe overstated but I for one am tired of having to leave my home because of wild fires.

11 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

 

Trump/Russia is Watergate on steroids. The future of our country and of Western Civilization is at stake. Mueller knows this and is proceeding accordingly. Lawyers recognize this if the general public does not.

There's also a great many career civil servants who are aware of this calamity and I'm sure are doing their best to keep the boat afloat in spite of the cynisism we all often bring to the table. Yes it is "let's see how it shakes out" time but I for one wouldn't let Trump near my 401k much less trust his governing the good ol USA. Also keep in mind Mueller is not just racing around after Trump et al he's conducting an investigation on Russian election interference - something Trump and the Republican led Congress has done about as well as Helen Keller would.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for that Jeff.  I never liked Stockman's politics, but I have admired his brains and candid style.

From reading this, he agrees with the FBi agent Strzok, collusion is not a crime.  And also "There is no there there."

He makes an interesting point with this line of argument:

In fact, Stone’s purported crimes all happened long after Trump was duly elected President and had sworn the oath. But for the Russia collusion hoax itself, Stone’s crimes wouldn’t have even happened because they stem from his appearance before a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) investigation in September 2017 – long after the fact.This 12 month time gap is of crucial importance because Mueller’s charges are based on Stone’s recollections of phone calls and emails during the final few months of the 2016 election – not anything he did or any one else did at the time.That is, he’s not charged with colluding with the Trump campaign or any Russians – just allegedly "lying" about his interaction with two absolutely marginal figures – a comedian and a whacko right-wing conspiracy theorists – who had exactly zero impact on the 2016 election.

Indeed, the only reason these two bit players – Credico and Corsi (see below) – show up in Mueller’s comic book prosecution is that they were peripherally involved in one of Stone’s self-promoting publicity stunts during the campaign.To wit, Stone had publicly claimed that he was in direct communication with WikiLeaks and its editor Julian Assange. It turns out, however, that he wasn’t and that his claims were based on brief communications with Credico and Corsi about second hand knowledge they may have obtained from WikiLeaks or Assange about further leaked materials from the DNC.

And I should add, Jonathan Turley is a distinguished law professor who apparently agrees with him. From what I understand it was Schiff who urged Mueller to go ahead and indict Roger Stone, based on his congressional testimony.  So we went from one extreme with Nunes, Jordan and Gowdy, to the other.  

Is there something here, something more than collusion?  Maybe.  But Mueller is sure taking a long time to get there.  Its a year and a half now. From the time McCord wrote his letter to Sirica, it took about that time to remove Nixon from office.

I'm sorry but Stockman's obviously biased (comic book prosecution, huh???). A simple accounting of the fruits of the Mueller probe shows it netting to date about 34 indictments and guilty pleas, something like 200 separate criminal charges and no doubt oodles of CI information that will be of long term use to all of the intelligence agencies and US law enforcement groups. It took Trump a year to answer a few questions which, if he were innocent, he could of done on the potty instead of tweeting garbage like he usually does. Seriously - why does everyone around him lie about innocent behavior and risk perjury charges?? Neither Stockman or I know what may have been held in abeyance - a common prosecutorial technique in complex federal crime investigations. To characterize this in such a way is ridiculous. Even the smallest of dope rings often take years to investigate.

In case we've lost track:

ORDER NO. 3915-2017APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: (i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and (ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and (iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

Of all the people in the world I would think people on this board would understand the rats nest that Mueller has waded into and would be supportive of a maximum effort.

2 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Well worth the read:

https://www.juancole.com/2019/01/states-corrupt-country.html

He's sugar-coating it I'm afraid. Outta come out and say what he means without the soft sell hahaha

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Bob, it's crazy hilarious what these people are trying to get away with.

I love this:

Regardless of who resigned or was fired first, the campaign shakeup was the first sign that Trump’s election effort was seriously damaged from within after his Thursday night debate performance and his subsequent comments in which he attacked one of the Fox debate moderators, Megyn Kelly.

Trump's machismo roiled his campaign!  

Roger Stone certainly wouldn't sit still for Trump dumping on Rosie O'Donnell and Megyn Kelly!

Paul Manafort worked for murderous dictators and Roger Stone was cool with that -- but calling Rosie a pig and Megyn a bleeder??  How dare that Trump fellow!

The Richard Nixon on Stone's back shed a tear...

Are you trying to say Roger couldn't have had his feelings hurt by the insults Trump served out to these people? The problem is he is getting away with it with a lot of low-voltage people. It's unbelievable to me.

8 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

And David Stockman isn't partisan?

Seems to me you're mis-applying the lessons of the JFK assassination in regards to government perfidy.

The FBI installed Trump as President in a right-wing coup d'etat.  The American people are in the process of course correction.

The notion that Mueller is waging a politically motivated investigation isn't informed by clear thinking.

Bureaucrats to the rescue!! The fourth branch!! Thank God there's still some deputy directors and non-political appointees that are decent people. These people were the one thing Trumpsters couldn't do anything about because they need them to run things. In an earlier time many of their predecessors were the people we rail about here but I'm sure glad we have them now. Trump calls them the Deep State. I call em our Lord and Saviors hahaha.

X2 Cliff!! The true art of the perfect con is when the mark is too embarrassed to admit they've been had. It's like Trump's been to Madoff University. A con man gets your confidence by giving you his. He knows how to appeal to the various degrees of larceny in his associates and that's why he's surrounded by poisonous characters. It's true that you can't cheat an honest man because that doesn't work with them. They drift away as can be seen with the many departures from Trump's administration.