Jump to content
The Education Forum

Attorney's file on Roger Stone, LaRouche and Russia influencing the 2016 presidential election


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I mean you did not even know that Kamala Harris covered up the murder of Bobby Kennedy.

Let's do a hat!

"Make Harris Probe RFK Again"

Jim doesn't understand the political opportunity here -- elevating Kamala Harris elevates the issue of the RFK assassination.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Is this really true?  Where has it been reported?

This is the first (original) source of the quote. (Truepundit - October 2, 2016.)

Wikileaks tweeted out the same article within a few hours.  Depending on how familiar you are with Wikileaks, the tweet of the TruePundit article can be viewed as an endorsement of the accuracy of the article. That is, Julian Assange was very discerning with respect to endorsing assertions from sources not directly vetted by Wikileaks. Put another way, if the use of TruePundit as source is suspect,  in all likelihood, Wikileaks had independent verification, or else it would not have tweeted TruePundit. 

In the TruePundit article, reference is made to US Department of State Cable leaked to Wikileaks dated November 23, 2010, which was shortly after the reported meeting where HRC mentioned the Droning. 

"Immediately following the conclusion of the wild brainstorming session, one of Clinton’s top aides, State Department Director of Policy Planning Ann-Marie Slaughter, penned an email to Clinton, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and aides Huma Abebin and Jacob Sullivan at 10:29 a.m. entitled “an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.”

For context, the meeting referenced in the quote above and the alleged "droning" comment by Hillary came shortly before Wikileaks "Cablegate" releases in the fall of 2010. These releases and subsequent threats are what prompted Assange to seek refuge in the Ecudorian Embassy, which is where he remains as far as we know. 

Another useful document is "Hillary Clinton Emails FBI Interview" Linked Here , which shows that HRC repeatedly discussed the droning of individuals. (see Page 3 for an example.) 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding "Pizzagate" or "Comet Pizza."

It is a "throw". It is intended to distract. The only people mentioning "Pizza" on this thread are those that are pushing the narrative that "Russia Gate" is not a hoax.

If their is anything connecting "Pizzagate" to "Russiagate", I have not seen it. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Seriously Jim, You seem to like Bernie and there's no question you love the Kennedy's. If you were to walk up to either of them in the streets and tell them for the last 2 years the government "Deep state" was plotting to remove an innocent Trump from office. What do you think they'd think of you?

Do you, or anyone else who wants to answer, believe their is still a coordinated effort to cover-up who killed JFK?

That's all I'm asking. I'm not asking about Trump, or RFK or MLK, or aliens or pizza.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The largely successful effort to associate Wikileaks and Julian Assange with an alleged Russian email hack and conspiracy to subvert the US election is the most pernicious aspect of all this. Assange seriously embarrassed a lot of powerful people by letting their own communications demonstrate what a bunch of lawless corrupt XXXXX they are. Retribution is demanded, and many persons who are truly interested in human rights, civil rights, and freedom of information will sadly cheer it on if and when Assange is taken into custody.

If Mueller was actually running a serious investigation determined to establish the facts, then 1) he would not have remained silent about the FBI’s major failure to examine the physical server which was supposedly hacked (it was only examined by a private company hired by the DNC)  2) he would have interviewed persons associated with Wikileaks who have consistently maintained the information published by Wikileaks did not come from the Russians and that it could be proven so. This is on top of the technical information from William Binney which confirms it was an internal leak and not a hack. An honest investigation would have taken the above into proper account. Mueller has not, and therefore, with some confidence, one could say he is not running an honest investigation and in fact this is actually all about US domestic politics.

 

800 Page Document: Special Counsel Files Manafort Sentencing Memo

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-special-counsel-files-manafort-sentencing-memo-0?fbclid=IwAR2SL01dOB8X2-hxYbBMR4Vsno-E3I7Wzzd8JVQl3EbWle9HEcnLTcnwd04

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

This thread has established that "Russia gate" has nothing at all to do with Russia, and is in fact concerned solely with US domestic politics.

That doesn't really follow at all. Collusion has already been proven via the Trump Tower meeting on June 9 and Manafort providing Killimnick (sp?) with sensitive, private polling data in a meeting on Aug. 2. Manafort managed the campaign that is under investigation for colluding with the Russians and he's headed to jail for life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

"Russia gate" actually has a lot to do with Russia. What some people on this thread do not realize, is that the collusion or conspiracy part started and continues with the Hillary Campaign and careerists in the FBI, DOJ, CIA and State Department who did not anticipate having to clean up her mess because they were told she would never lose.

Take the famed "Trump Tower Meeting",

"We know now that nothing about the meeting was what it seemed. While Veselnitskaya promised Trump Jr. dirt on Hillary when pushing a mutual acquaintance to set up the meeting, she didn’t even pretend to possess that information when meeting Trump Jr. in person. And that wasn’t the only thing she lied about." 

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/trump-tower-meeting-setup/

Amazingly, and never reported by the same Newspapers that are still backing the findings of the Warren Commission, which every person on this forum laughs at (except for a xxxxx or two), no matter what their politics are, is the fact Veselnitskaya was working with Fusion GPS, 

"Veselnitskaya met with Fusion GPS’ co-founder Glenn Simpson the day of her meeting with Trump Jr., and the night of the day before."

Never mind that she had an expired Visa and was not allowed to enter the country. Luckily Attorney General Lorretta Lynch stepped in and issued a Visa under "extraordinary circumstances"  (technically "Parole Immigration.")

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump

--

Apologies for formatting mistakes (or broken links if that happens.) Slow connection.

t-r-o-l-l turned into xxxxxx, not sure why.

The Russians were already leaking the dirt when the meeting occurred. All they were after there was Trump Jr.'s promise that his father would look at sanctions if elected, and he obliged them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My prediction:

Whoever the Dems choose as their final 2020 candidate will not be running against Trump.

Trump himself knows he won't be the Republican candidate. If he isn't forced to resign before 2020 he will come up with some contrived reason ( such as a personal health concern ) for dropping out of running again.

Trump and for sure his entire family have many reasons ( but one main one ) for his not running in 2020.

They never dreamed that their personal, private and especially their "business" lives would be scrutinized as thoroughly as they have been with disastrous results.

Trump and his family simply have too much dirty laundry baggage and dealings that being so publicly exposed, have for sure made them regret the day Donald Trump accepted the nomination as the Republican candidate in 2016.

They want out of this 24/7 glaring, exposing and stressful spotlight nightmare ... like tomorrow.

And one can so easily see how much Melania hates her loss of privacy and that of her son.

She must yearn for the day she can again shop for and buy a $50,000 designer dress on 5th Avenue without the national press blaring this indulgence to the public masses.

Ivanka and Jarrod Kushner have basically been hiding out compared to their initial high profile involvement in the administration after so many negative stories came out regards their own business dealings such as the billion dollar 666 Fifth Ave. building boondoggle that somehow got taken care of by suspiciously mysterious investors.

They have young children too and of course want them out of this spotlight.

Big game hunter Trump Jr. has never been subjected to so many legal charges and investigations.

However, he seems to like the national celebrity spotlight despite the negative exposure. An ego like his father?

Donald Trump himself has never been so negatively exposed like he has as President.

His sexual trysts outside of marriage, their payoffs, his proven lies about them, his taxes, his decades of past business dealings with very shady characters, he hates living in the White House ( which he likens to a dump ) versus his lavish NY and Mar-a-Lago digs, he can't go a day without letting his hair down or taking a break from the make-up routine.

And Trump will be 74 in 2020.  Please.

Trump of course cannot be truthful about his not running in 2020. Not at this time.

Imagine if Trump announced today his true intentions of not running in 2020?

That would immediately take so much steam out of his Presidency ( lame duck syndrome ) it would be disastrous.

Everyone would say...hey, the guy isn't even gonna be around in another year and 10 months.

The major interest news and political spotlight would immediately be refocused onto perceived candidates running in 2020.

The Dems should be preparing to face someone highly vetted as a much more broad appealing candidate ( especially regarding the female vote ) on the Repub side in 2020. Someone who is so well groomed to counter the Trump daily conflict and confrontation craziness legacy that he will be tougher to beat than Trump would be.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

FYI - There are 2 documents at the link Mr. Caddy posted. The two documents are the sentencing memo (25 pages) and the second document is the Exhibits (823 pages.)

The Exhibits are highly redacted.

In Total, Trump is mentioned once in both Documents (in a footnote), though as mentioned, the Exhibits are highly redacted.

The Podesta Group is mentioned about 7 times. 

Since most of the crimes that Manafort was found guilty of, and none of the crimes he was charged with involved his work on the Trump Campaign, the appearance of the Podesta Group 7 times is what one would expect to see.

Manafort was with the Trump Campaign from February 2016 to August 19, 2016. He ran the day to day operations from June 20, 2016 until August 19, 2016.

Manafort was certainly a "player" in the Campaign Business. From Wikipedia - "In 1976, Manafort was the delegate-hunt coordinator for eight states for the President Ford Committee; the overall Ford delegate operation was run by James A. Baker III." 

He was also just a weird overall guy.

Strangely, the hack of his daughters emails have not received much attention in the MSM.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/manaforts-ukrainian-blood-money-caused-qualms-hack-suggests-235473

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

FYI - There are 2 documents at the link Mr. Caddy posted. The two documents are the sentencing memo (25 pages) and the second document is the Exhibits (823 pages.)

The Exhibits are highly redacted.

In Total, Trump is mentioned once in both Documents (in a footnote), though as mentioned, the Exhibits are highly redacted.

The Podesta Group is mentioned about 7 times. 

Since most of the crimes that Manafort was found guilty of, and none of the crimes he was charged with involved his work on the Trump Campaign, the appearance of the Podesta Group 7 times is what one would expect to see.

Manafort was with the Trump Campaign from February 2016 to August 19, 2016. He ran the day to day operations from June 20, 2016 until August 19, 2016.

Manafort was certainly a "player" in the Campaign Business. From Wikipedia - "In 1976, Manafort was the delegate-hunt coordinator for eight states for the President Ford Committee; the overall Ford delegate operation was run by James A. Baker III." 

He was also just a weird overall guy.

Strangely, the hack of his daughters emails have not received much attention in the MSM.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/manaforts-ukrainian-blood-money-caused-qualms-hack-suggests-235473

 

 

Why do you suppose he met with Killimnick on Aug. 2 to discuss private polling data if it were not to collude? Whether he's charged with that offense or not. I don't believe Al Capone went to jail for murder or anything like it. Are you suggesting he was innocent of those allegations because he wasn't charged with them? Seems like you are.

 

A big part of the reason his texts have not been reported on much is because they largely center on Manafort doing things like having groups of black men gang bang his wife while he watched. It's kind of a delicate topic for mainstream discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

Why do you suppose he met with Killimnick on Aug. 2 to discuss private polling data if it were not to collude? Whether he's charged with that offense or not. I don't believe Al Capone went to jail for murder or anything like it. Are you suggesting he was innocent of those allegations because he wasn't charged with them? Seems like you are.

 

hi Andrew

what makes you believe that Kilimnik has anything to do with the Russian government, let alone be a go-between for “collusion”?

What makes you believe that the sharing of polling data constituted a sinister act?

There is a lot of inference at play here which is raising all sorts of suspicion and leading people towards assumptions which may not be accurate.

The use of inference, for example, is a hallmark of the Warren Commission’s work: Oswald was in the building, a gun we have linked to him was in the building, therefore Oswald did it. Remember that the Warren Report, and the major defence of it such as Posner and Bugliosi, was in effect a prosecutor’s brief which could sound very convincing, but as we know withers under cross-examination. We also know that the CIA was pushing false information linking Oswald to Cuba and Russia. What would have happened in 1964 if the intelligence agencies and the major media persuaded a significant portion of the American public that these stories may be accurate? In a “where there’s smoke there must be fire” kind of way - like we are seeing currently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...