Trump?

[Robert Prudhomme]

" PS Bob, there was a special prosecutor in the Watergate case.  For three years.  There is a big difference between an FBI inquiry and a special prosecutor."

Yes, I imagine there is a big difference, Jim. The most notable difference would be that a special prosecutor would only be appointed if the investigative agencies produced enough verifiable hard evidence to justify assigning a special prosecutor to the case. Hillary was still at the FBI enquiry level and, obviously, the FBI was unable to produce enough evidence against her.

[Kirk Gallaway]

29 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW Pam,  the Israel angle is something I will be discussing in Dallas at Lancer.  And you might want to read my review of the Grossman book at Consortium News entitled, "How Israel Stole the Bomb."  JFK was the last president who really resisted Israel getting the bomb.

As per the Mideast and Russia, its pretty clear that HRC had thrown in her lot with the neocons, CFR types on Putin and the Middle East.  Her policy in the latter was so different from Kennedy's.  I mean the whole Libya thing was simply a debacle, the likes of which Kissinger and Nixon would have done.  She had a very bad influence on Obama.  In fact, i cannot understand why he gave her that job.  She simply was not really qualified for it.  But it turned out great for the Clinton Foundation.

Jim you're back on this Hillary Libya thing.

I didn't mention it at the time but you're suggesting that in the middle of the Libyan crisis Obama could have chosen to prop up Qadaffi's son sounds like a sinister suggestion from PNAC to rocket Obama's political career into absolute oblivion and obscurity, and ignores all political reality, which was that no matter how much money Qadaffi was going to try to buy his victims off with, the American public, given their long history was not going to warm up to Qadaffi. Right or wrong. What makes you think they'd warm up to Obama propping up his son?(much less Lindsey Graham and John Mc Cain, when they smell blood?)

Yes he'd have the entire Republican establishment against him, Obama's use to that, and the usual public political ire given Democrats when they're perceived as being soft on their enemies, but do you realize he'd have about half of the Democrats against him as as well? The limited bombing in Libya was the low hanging fruit most centrist American politician would take. It doesn't make it right, and I don't like it either. Despite how you might interpret  his rhetoric, has Donald Trump ever passed up the low hanging fruit? He wades in the mud for low hanging fruit and often falls flat on his face. You think he'd pass up that chance to look tough?

i also don't know why Obama gave Hillary job that and I see no point in absolving Obama. i disagree that Hillary had a bad influence on him, (So that's the tail wagging the dog?) Obama signed off on everything she did.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Kirk:

 

You say "the Libya thing".  That is incorrect.  HRC was not just a hawk on Libya.  She was a hawk on the whole Middle East.  She voted for the Iraq War, she is very pro Israel to the point that she might as well be a member of AIPAC. She then wanted to start no fly zones over Syria.  It is incredible to me that the media and the public do not understand what that would produce. And the end result would be a triumph for Al Qaeda.  I do not see how you can separate out Libya from the rest of her Middle East ideas.  So no, I am not stuck on Libya, I am just trying to use that as an example for her whole neocon, Robert Kagan type CFR foreign policy orientation.  To me, HRC was sort of like the Condi Rice of the Democratic Party.  And I will never understand why Obama gave her that job.  We needed a really original, bold thinker who really understood the underlying tensions and what had happened there.  She did not in any way fit that bill.

Anyone who understands who JFK was and what he was trying to do in the Middle East should be repelled by HRC's policies.  Right now we are allied with Saudi Arabia on the Syria front. 

Edited November 12, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Kirk:

 

You say "the Libya thing".  That is incorrect.  HRC was not just a hawk on Libya.  She was a hawk on the whole Middle East.  She voted for the Iraq War, she is very pro Israel to the point that she might as well be a member of AIPAC. She then wanted to start no fly zones over Syria.  It is incredible to me that the media and the public do not understand what that would produce. And the end result would be a triumph for Al Qaeda.  I do not see how you can separate out Libya from the rest of her Middle East ideas.  So no, I am not stuck on Libya, I am just trying to use that as an example for her whole neocon, Robert Kagan type CFR foreign policy orientation.  To me, HRC was sort of like the Condi Rice of the Democratic Party.  And I will never understand why Obama gave her that job.  We needed a really original, bold thinker who really understood the underlying tensions and what had happened there.  She did not in any way fit that bill.

Anyone who understands who JFK was and what he was trying to do in the Middle East should be repelled by HRC's policies.  Right now we are allied with Saudi Arabia on the Syria front. 

 

What until Trump announces his national security team.

They'll make Hillary look like a Quaker Sunday school teacher.

Of course, one had to be paying proper attention to the 2016 race to know that Trump was far more of a war monger than Clinton.

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:

President Obama will likely pardon Hillary and her close aides that were involved in the email controversy, probably around Thanksgiving or Christmas when the public is absorbed in the holidays and not paying too much attention. The pardon for Hillary will cover both the email and Clinton Foundation controversies.

 

Doug, that you state this as a likelihood indicates to me that you seem pretty convinced they have an open and shut case against Hillary Clinton.That you think that Trump will choose to prosecute tells me that you think he is a pathologically divisive person and is learning nothing from current trials. I think the distraction of a prolonged court trial would be disastrous for everyone including Trump. And what for? Trumps followers already have Hillary out of the picture. What would really be gained? If you're right, we're headed into a national disaster.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by Kirk Gallaway

[Cliff Varnell]

This is the sort of thing Jim DiEugenio wouldn't know about because he's obsessed with Hillary's damn e-mails.

Moscow had contacts with Trump team during campaign, Russian diplomat says

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/moscow-had-contacts-with-trump-team-during-campaign-russian-diplomat-says/2016/11/10/28fb82fa-a73d-11e6-9bd6-184ab22d218e_story.html

[Kirk Gallaway]

28 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Kirk:

 

You say "the Libya thing".  That is incorrect.  HRC was not just a hawk on Libya.  She was a hawk on the whole Middle East.  She voted for the Iraq War, she is very pro Israel to the point that she might as well be a member of AIPAC. She then wanted to start no fly zones over Syria.  It is incredible to me that the media and the public do not understand what that would produce. And the end result would be a triumph for Al Qaeda.  I do not see how you can separate out Libya from the rest of her Middle East ideas.  So no, I am not stuck on Libya, I am just trying to use that as an example for her whole neocon, Robert Kagan type CFR foreign policy orientation.  To me, HRC was sort of like the Condi Rice of the Democratic Party.  And I will never understand why Obama gave her that job.  We needed a really original, bold thinker who really understood the underlying tensions and what had happened there.  She did not in any way fit that bill.

Anyone who understands who JFK was and what he was trying to do in the Middle East should be repelled by HRC's policies.  Right now we are allied with Saudi Arabia on the Syria front. 

Jim, Did you read what I wrote? I was talking about your suggestion that Obama should have propped up Qadaffi's son in the Libya crisis and that it ignores political reality and would have relegated Obama to the political waste basket. And I think your insistence that Hillary "had a bad influence" on Obama is a lame attempt to absolve Obama as he had appointed her, and signed on off everything she did, and certainly would share whatever blame.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Kirk Gallaway

[Douglas Caddy]

Dr. Gary North wisely wrote on his website, Specific Answers, today

Trump is the most naïve elected senior politician in the history of Western civilization. He has no skills whatsoever for the position which he has now been elected do. He is what is sometimes called a babe in the woods. More to the point, he is a sitting duck.

Before January 20, the revolution that millions of voters hope for today will be gone with the wind. The revolution is going to die a stillbirth. Trump is going to cooperate with Ryan. He is going to cooperate with McConnell. He is going to cooperate with the Council on Foreign Relations. It has already begun.

This is a unique historical situation. We have never seen anything like this before. This is why the conventional approaches to explaining what is gone on will fail. This really is sui generis. There are no historical precedents for what is now taking place…..

I am not saying that Trump is going to sell out the voters. The powers that be cannot buy him. He owns too much wealth. He is already at the top of the political system. I don't think anybody is threatening him with assassination. I think it is a situation in which a politically naïve man with no political experience finds himself at the top of the most important political hierarchy in the world, yet he doesn't know what he's doing. Nothing he has ever done in the free market has prepared him to sit on the throne of political power.

Today, there are no powers behind the throne, but there soon will be.

[Mark Knight]

As an administrator, I decided to let this thread continue because it seems we all needed a place to vent about current politics, and it CAN be tied, with varying degrees of success, to the JFK assassination.  STILL, I think it would be better suited for the Controversial Issues discussion board...BUT...I'm not going to change course now.

I'm NOT out to censor discussion; I merely ask, "Relevance?"

MAYBE there is some.Or, if you're a LN, such as Mr. Von Pein, you see no connection to the Lone Nut who killed JFK, but you still wish to make the folks on this board your whipping boys for another round. Whatever works for you.

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Yes, James, Ford and Nixon. Didn't they have some actual evidence against Nixon in that particular case? They certainly had enough to send several of Nixon's staff to jail.

Obama granting a pardon, and Clinton accepting tat pardon, would only serve to confirm, in the eyes of the unwashed Trump masses, that Hillary actually was guilty of the vast array of conspiracy theories set against her.

As I requested before, show me the list of indictable offences she could conceivably be convicted of, and supporting evidence.

You're right Bob. I forgot to mention that. That would be an admission of guilt of the previous Democratic Party Presidential nominee, who had just been campaigning for President for the entire last year and a half. Doug,IMO  I wish not to infringe on anyone's rights. But I think you should take Heavy news off your reading list.

Quote

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/hillary-clinton-pardon-barack-obama-pardoned-clemency-will-the-president-pardon-hillary-trump-video-josh-earnest-white-house-press-secretary-gerald-ford-nixon/

 

 

Doug, that you state with such certainty indicates to me that you seem pretty convinced they have an open and shut case against Hillary Clinton.That you think that Trump will choose to prosecute tells me that you think he is a pathologically divisive person and is learning nothing from current trials. I think the distraction of a prolonged court trial would be disastrous for everyone including Trump.And what for? Trumps followers already have Hillary out of the picture. What would really be gained. If you're right, we're into a national disaster.

[Cliff Varnell]

2 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

As an administrator, I decided to let this thread continue because it seems we all needed a place to vent about current politics, and it CAN be tied, with varying degrees of success, to the JFK assassination.  STILL, I think it would be better suited for the Controversial Issues discussion board...BUT...I'm not going to change course now.

I'm NOT out to censor discussion; I merely ask, "Relevance?"

MAYBE there is some.Or, if you're a LN, such as Mr. Von Pein, you see no connection to the Lone Nut who killed JFK, but you still wish to make the folks on this board your whipping boys for another round. Whatever works for you.

Moving the thread at this late date, Mark, would be Comey-esque. 8->

Coup d'etat come in many forms.

There was the assassination of JFK by military-style weaponry, and there's the political assassination of Hillary Clinton by e-mail.

American politicians don't get assassinated much anymore, do they?

Because those who would execute such an event have learned to use character assassination instead.

[Robert Prudhomme]

21 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

There have been recent news articles pro and con on this issue. 

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/hillary-clinton-pardon-barack-obama-pardoned-clemency-will-the-president-pardon-hillary-trump-video-josh-earnest-white-house-press-secretary-gerald-ford-nixon/

 

 

Sounds like Republican propaganda, Doug. Plant the seed that Obama might pardon Clinton and the subconscious conclusion is drawn that she must have been guilty in the first place and, therefore, all Democrats must be guilty of something.

You folks have no idea how comical all of this is from our perspective, north of the 49th Parallel.

[Cliff Varnell]

12 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Dr. Gary North wisely wrote on his website, Specific Answers, today

Trump is the most naïve elected senior politician in the history of Western civilization. He has no skills whatsoever for the position which he has now been elected do. He is what is sometimes called a babe in the woods. More to the point, he is a sitting duck.

Before January 20, the revolution that millions of voters hope for today will be gone with the wind. The revolution is going to die a stillbirth. Trump is going to cooperate with Ryan. He is going to cooperate with McConnell. He is going to cooperate with the Council on Foreign Relations. It has already begun.

This is a unique historical situation. We have never seen anything like this before. This is why the conventional approaches to explaining what is gone on will fail. This really is sui generis. There are no historical precedents for what is now taking place…..

I am not saying that Trump is going to sell out the voters. The powers that be cannot buy him. He owns too much wealth. He is already at the top of the political system. I don't think anybody is threatening him with assassination. I think it is a situation in which a politically naïve man with no political experience finds himself at the top of the most important political hierarchy in the world, yet he doesn't know what he's doing. Nothing he has ever done in the free market has prepared him to sit on the throne of political power.

Today, there are no powers behind the throne, but there soon will be.

And they'll all be fighting each other...intensely.

To whom will President Trump turn when all the factions surrounding him are tearing each other apart?

Barack Obama?

Maybe under pressure the New York Liberal will bust out of Trump's stomach like that alien in John Hurt and Trump will embrace abortion, public health option, infrastructure spending...

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

7 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Sounds like Republican propaganda, Doug. Plant the seed that Obama might pardon Clinton and the subconscious conclusion is drawn that she must have been guilty in the first place and, therefore, all Democrats must be guilty of something.

You folks have no idea how comical all of this is from our perspective, north of the 49th Parallel.

You're right Bob, that's exactly what it says. 1) The Democrats are guilty 2) they know they're guilty. 3) it's a sinking ship and they must save one of their own while they can.

Doug, I realize the message  in that piece you just sent is that Trump is a Trump card, and you don't know what he eventually will do. But conferring with Mitch Mc Connel and Paul Ryan doesn't reinforce your belief that Hillary will be prosecuted. Quite the opposite.

Quote

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/hillary-clinton-pardon-barack-obama-pardoned-clemency-will-the-president-pardon-hillary-trump-video-josh-earnest-white-house-press-secretary-gerald-ford-nixon/

 

 

Doug, that you state with such certainty indicates to me that you seem pretty convinced they have an open and shut case against Hillary Clinton.That you think that Trump will choose to prosecute tells me that you think he is a pathologically divisive person and is learning nothing from current trials. I think the distraction of a prolonged court trial would be disastrous for everyone including Trump.And what for? Trumps followers already have Hillary out of the picture. What would really be gained. If you're right, we're into a national disaster.

[Cliff Varnell]

Telecommunication industry is drooling over the promise of a two-tiered internet.

How Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality and the rest of Obama’s Internet legacy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ternet-legacy/

"Net neutrality has a big target on its back," said Robert Kaminski, a telecom analyst at Capital Alpha Partners.



How was the 2016 election stolen?

Trump turned the campaign into Reality TV and cable news made so much money they wanted him to win so they'd get four more years of high profits.

CNN gave three times more coverage to Clinton's e-mails than they did her policy proposals.

Comey's Treason Letter allowed the MSM to take the focus off Trump's tax returns and pussy grabbing and the last 11 days of the election focused on e-mails.

It's amazing Clinton still won the popular vote!

So after the fascist take-over of cable news, they are emboldened to take over the internet.