Bob Ness Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 (edited) 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. Edited February 5, 2019 by Bob Ness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 19 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said: 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. Where's the argument that Richard Bissell had anything to do with the JFK assassination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 5, 2019 Share Posted February 5, 2019 (edited) Robert, I appreciate your response. I'm sorry I made a joke about it. I'll deal with your first stuff which didn't directly address my question, but does give me more detail where you're coming from. Then I'll get on to the last stuff in a little bit. It's not the DNA similarities between Mueller & Bissell that make the conspiracy, it's the lack of media inquisitiveness. So Mueller chose to marry, by your own words a "distant cousin" to Bissell. But so what? I don't think it's through lack of media inquisitiveness . It's not uncommon for people in law enforcement or intelligence backgrounds to marry. But in this case, I don't even think it's that. It's simply not a news story. You wouldn't believe how much more stratified the leadership of the country was throughout it's history, in the 30's and even in the 60's. A great many of the huge administrative posts were held by the Ivy League. It's much less like that now. But I still don't think that's at all unusual in developed countries. 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. Does he really need distracting? This whole debate would be a 1000 times more interesting if he wasn't a complete buffoon and showed any degree of competence. If you think the majority of us and the public in general are being stupidly duped by the MSM as result of one issue about Trump, that's not the first time I've heard that implied here. I would think that a hopeless fantasy,( that is a fantasy of hopelessness) born out of some sense of isolation. JMO Edited February 5, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 (edited) Robert said They are not. They (Charles and Earl Cabelle)are distant relatives of his wife, Ann Cabell Standish Mueller. I picked up from what you wrote here that Mueller married a distant relative of Charles and Earl Cabelle. If I got that wrong ,I'm sorry, but you've made a dizzying number of guilt by association allegations. And my answer is exactly the same to you about your assertion about the "lack of inquisitiveness by the MSM." Now about the second half of what you wrote. Robert Wheeler said being quoted below by Bob Ness.; 15 hours ago, Bob Ness said: 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. You're saying it's a present day CIA/FBI conspiracy. I've got some thoughts about that though I don't think it's what people necessarily want to hear on a typical jfk conspiracy forum. It's not unnerving, fear instilling and exciting or sexy enough for such an appetite. In the post war era, the CIA came to power when government was king, because government spending was the driving force behind the war. The U.S, had already established a corporate dominance, all their potential competitors were ravaged by war. And the U.S. held financial control over 25% of the total world's resources in the late 40's,50's and 60's. Government almost overnight became a big business and they constructed a huge bureaucracy. Government jobs were much desired and a venue of great power. Heads of defense and intelligence agencies became autonomous Titans. But now the people you see Mc Cabe, Brennan, Coates, Sally Yates, Clapper,Rosenstien,Christopher Wray. Are you really shivering in your boots at any of these characters Robert? Are you experiencing any awe and fear? After all, these are your stated enemies. Ok there's Comey, no one really likes him, but unlike Hoover, he didn't have leverage on anybody, and was fired. It's not near the top down structure now. These guys have nothing like the uncontrolled fiefdom of Hoover, the Dulles's, Angleton, Helms. I don't agree with their, in some cases neocon stance but they are pretty much who they appear to be- bureaucrats. Nothing that powerful, nothing like the 60's.Those glory days are long gone. The last hurrah of that was GHWB #1. The decision to go to the second Gulf war in Iraq was not influenced at all by the CIA or the intelligence institutions but they were brought along by the elective choice of Bush and Cheney PNAC etc. It wasn't really institutional, and there was no political pressure to do it either. It was a cabal of men acting like teenage boys. Relatively speaking, No one wants government jobs anymore. Robert. They can make more money and have more power in the private sector. You'd have much more luck with the financial conspiracies that have pervaded our political system and are doing it frankly right out in the open than the bureaucratic military, intelligence conspiracies you're pursuing. Times are continually changing. Similarly,there are no Generals in dark, bureaucratic cul de sacs plotting our future, as there was in the 60's. The power contingents have changed drastically. But I understand that still leaves questions of abuses unanswered. Yes, it is for example alarming, and there is a sense of omnipotence at the NSA and their infringement on citizen's rights. These (snoops)people are part of every national culture, and to certain degree , they live apart from it.. Just as many Russians distrust Putin for his being part of the KGB. Across all national lines, the people involved in these Intelligence activities, are so convinced of their mission that they will covertly push their limits, and in democracies,they leave it to politicians to find out and then they try to make their case.Their powers are increased with the increased technological age. They overstep because the citizenry as reflected by their politicians are frightened to death of confronting many of the security/human rights questions, like say torture being used in the face of great imminent national danger. That and the fact that with advent of the internet, the younger people are just not that concerned about the loss of their privacy as their elders were. So they can push with impunity. Another question I've often asked is why does the MSM seem to promote this neocon geopolitical fearmongering?. You never find the permanent spokesman who argue against the American war machine or the preservation of the American empire as you do their advocates. But actually there was a lot of debate about that in my youth during the Vietnam War. I remember in the daytime talk shows as tame as Merv Griifin and Mike Douglas which were watched mostly by housewives where people were yelling at each other about foreign policy. It was very disruptive and to people my age, very exciting. But you don't get anything for free and with the exception of a very controlled protest to the Second Gulf War, there hasn't been an anti war movement worth a sh-t for 50 years. A lot of it is because there is no longer a draft. But back then, people were coming back from the Viet Nam War and speaking out against the war.. You really don't see that much in either the Iranian Wars, quite the contrary there seems to be a new group of mostly young candidates who have used their faithful, unquestioning service as a selling point for their candidacies, which they have every right to do. But the reason there is no opposition to the neocon talking heads on the Sunday morning talk shows is that there's no real visible resistance. I could be wrong, but now I see elements of resistance from both the right left to the maintaining the great American Empire, and a new resistance from the millenials, who are now becoming politically aware, because they are beginning to realize that if priorities of policy continue as they are, they will be the future losers. I have more hope than I've had in a long time, but I don't know how it will pan out. So there's my opinion. I'll grant it's not very satisfying but I'm not into playing into people's fears. Dammit , you know I wrote this thing twice and it somehow got lost right at the end?. Edited February 6, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 On 2/5/2019 at 4:23 PM, Bob Ness said: 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 Kirk - did you quote Wheelers words and attribute them to Ness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 On 2/4/2019 at 5:42 PM, 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. Paul, The above, starting with "Trump is an outsider" is what I quoted from Robert Wheeler. I somehow lost where it was initially and excerpted Bob Ness's quotation of that same passage from Wheeler. When I reviewed it, I realized it said "Bob Ness said" so I inserted " Robert Wheeler said being quoted below by Bob Ness.; " I'm sorry I know it was confusing. Wheeler's response had 2 different parts, and I addressed each part separately. I sometimes have a problem clearing the editor. I'll think I've cleared it, write something new, I'll log out and come back to it, and it defaults to my original writing that I thought I had cleared. I don't know if anyone else has had this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 Well, Mr. Wheeler this is sure as heck interesting isn't it, the Bureau was trying to get rid of Trump. And the guy said it on national TV: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/02/16/the-fbi-came-close-to-staging-a-coup/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Well, Mr. Wheeler this is sure as heck interesting isn't it, the Bureau was trying to get rid of Trump. And the guy said it on national TV: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/02/16/the-fbi-came-close-to-staging-a-coup/ The Bureau installed Trump. Now it's like Dr. Frankenstein with the monster loose in the village. Edited February 18, 2019 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 8 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: https://consortiumnews.com/2019/02/16/the-fbi-came-close-to-staging-a-coup/ No where in this article does John Kiriakou mention the fact that James Comey swung the election to Donald Trump. Instead we get bullshed like this: I was a member of that “Deep State” throughout my 15 years at the CIA. I can tell you from first-hand experience that the CIA doesn’t care who the president is. Neither does the FBI. Senior CIA and FBI officers are there for decades, while presidents come and go. They know that they can outwait any president they don’t like. At the very least, at the CIA, they could made administrative decisions that would hamstring a president: Perhaps they don’t carry out that risky operation. Maybe they don’t target that well-placed source. Maybe they ignore the president’s orders knowing that in four years or eight years he or she will just go away. [/q] Maybe they'll come out 11 days before the election and make the end of the campaign all about one candidate's e-mails in the possession of a sex pervert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 Isn't it interesting that this was all over Trump canning Comey. In other words, the president fired your boss and now you are going to remove him from office? Compare that with what JFK was doing. I mean its night and day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Isn't it interesting that this was all over Trump canning Comey. In other words, the president fired your boss and now you are going to remove him from office? No Jim, Trump ratted himself out as an asset of the Kremlin. Interesting how the apologists for Trump/Putin fascism play blind to the obvious Trump/Putin conspiracy. 4 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Compare that with what JFK was doing. I mean its night and day. I mean it's apples and hand grenades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 This started the day after Comey was canned. Here is some more info on it. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/17/mccabe-60-minutes-interview-graham-investigation/2870876002/ Now, lapdog Lindsey is going to call these guys to testify on the hill. Round and round it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now