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

[Douglas Caddy]

Stone violated the judge's gag order again yesterday with a posting on Facebook promoting his alleged innocence.. By day's end today he may be jailed.

[Joe Bauer]

7 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Stone violated the judge's gag order again yesterday with a posting on Facebook promoting his alleged innocence.. By day's end today he may be jailed.

How much more can Judge Amy Burman Jackson tolerate and allow regards the multiple violations ( 3? ) of her gag order by Roger Stone?

If I was the Judge in this case I would have had enough.

I would tell Stone that I don't even want to hear excuses and apologies anymore.

No more comments on Stone's part needed or allowed at this point. This would simply be a waste of the court's time.

I would tell Stone this isn't a child's game here that he is playing with and

that it's time to show Stone how serious this case is.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Joe Bauer

[Stephanie Goldberg]

9 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Stone violated the judge's gag order again yesterday with a posting on Facebook promoting his alleged innocence.. By day's end today he may be jailed.

I didn't see the Facebook post, but if I remember what I read immediately following the gag order, isn't Stone allowed to ask for money for legal expenses and claim that he's innocent?  I could be mistaken, but I remember laughing at the time that he could protest his innocence to his heart's content.  (Working off what I read then which now feels like several years ago given the pace of current events.)

[James DiEugenio]

Robert,

Is then Ohr's wife the source for Buzzfeed?

 

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.

 

[Douglas Caddy]

9 hours ago, Stephanie Goldberg said:

I didn't see the Facebook post, but if I remember what I read immediately following the gag order, isn't Stone allowed to ask for money for legal expenses and claim that he's innocent?  I could be mistaken, but I remember laughing at the time that he could protest his innocence to his heart's content.  (Working off what I read then which now feels like several years ago given the pace of current events.)

The judge yesterday moved Stone's court hearing to Thursday, the day after she sentences Manafort.

[Jeff Carter]

"Liberals Are Digging Their Own Grave With Russiagate"

discussion with Robert Scheer, Stephen Cohen, and Katrina vandal Heuvel

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/03/12/liberals-digging-their-own-grave-with-russiagate.html

[Paul Brancato]

34 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

"Liberals Are Digging Their Own Grave With Russiagate"

discussion with Robert Scheer, Stephen Cohen, and Katrina vandal Heuvel

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/03/12/liberals-digging-their-own-grave-with-russiagate.html

Jeff - What do you think?

i agree with the basic premise of the article. 

[Douglas Caddy]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

"Liberals Are Digging Their Own Grave With Russiagate"

discussion with Robert Scheer, Stephen Cohen, and Katrina vandal Heuvel

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/03/12/liberals-digging-their-own-grave-with-russiagate.html

Interesting report.

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/pelosi-pretending-impeach-trump-d/16649/?fbclid=IwAR3Cneq3Ln9MUILlTCAT744xR12e3I_NBymuYjgTx2W3o1l-cVeYkfFbOmU

[Jeff Carter]

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jeff - What do you think?

i agree with the basic premise of the article. 

Stephen Cohen should have a wide audience for his sensible informed insights, but he said only two weeks ago that he isn’t being invited on network news programs anymore.

The Nation initially covered Russiagate without skepticism until about a year and a half ago, and when it did publish skepticial commentary it received a huge angry pushback from a large-ish segment of its readers. It has remained largely skeptical since then however, because that position is supported by the record.

vanden Heuvel sees possibility in bi-partsan coalitions forming in support of specific policies. The field is wide open right now for progressives to team with libertarians in an effort to establish some control over the widespread surveillance of everyone. The FISA scandal, as it stands now, displays exactly the nightmare of politicized intelligence gathering as predicted when Snowden’s revelations were made public. The argument that proper safeguards and protections were in place to prevent exactly what happened has been shown as misplaced.

This is an interesting perspective re: Mueller from former Trump attorney John Dowd. He says there won’t be a “report”, that he’s seen everything that Mueller has seen and there will be “no exposure” for Trump, and that he was told the investigation was wrapping up a full year ago.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-trump-attorney-john-dowds-interview-abc-news/story?id=61008948

[James DiEugenio]

Steve Cohen started getting blackballed when Yeltsin replaced Gorbachev.  

Cohen essentially said that this was a turn for the worse.  All the other paid hacks from, for example Heritage, disagreed with him and favored Yeltsin.  

As far as the health and wealth of Russia was concerned, Cohen was correct.  And that is why he was blackballed from the media.  But he was and is a very fine scholar, rocket miles ahead of Richard Pipes who was the Reagan stooge on this subject.  Pipes was so wrong about everything that today he looks like a failing graduate student.

If Dowd is telling the truth, that is a real eye opener of an interview.  He seems to agree with Mr. Wheeler, that it was a cabal in the FBI who favored the Clintons who wanted to get Trump.

 

Edited March 13, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Bob Ness]

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.

[James DiEugenio]

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/

 

[Bob Ness]

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!

[James DiEugenio]

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/

Edited March 13, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

20 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

"Liberals Are Digging Their Own Grave With Russiagate"

discussion with Robert Scheer, Stephen Cohen, and Katrina vandal Heuvel

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/03/12/liberals-digging-their-own-grave-with-russiagate.html

That 3 way discussion is a good article , Jeff. I've always liked Cohen. Is their  (Cohen , Sheer, Van Huevel) lack of influence because they're not spouting  the official war state party line that the powers that be want to propagate through the MSM? To a degree, yes.

I use to think Van Heuvel was my only real spokesman on the MSM Sunday morning talk shows. Ultimately she comes off as stiff and sort of what the general public hates about NPR. (though I think she did make the single most cogent comment in this 3 way.)  Cohen in his MSM appearances comes off as reasonable, mild mannered and professorial. Good for us  advocates of World Peace.  But his presence is kind of forgettable, and somewhat boring.  Hey I didn't make the rules! There's certainly been a scarcity of any dynamic presence to show the historic folly, the plundering of our resources, death, casualties of all combatants or whoever in the way, and the displacement of the U.S. foreign policy.

Granted they're not Hillary alarmists about Defense but put Trump and HC in about the same category, (though I don't really think she'd be asking for 3/4 of a trillion dollars for Defense right now.) But these guys seem like old liberals who are way out of touch and are really just as stuck in the old Cold War paradigm with Russia as the Neocons they're deriding. They're seeing  the neocons as lighting a fire among the American masses to go to war with Russia is so 60 ish. The truth is getting some revenge on Russia and Putin is way down the list of American people's concerns, they are much more concerned with domestic policies, their health care and in the case of the Democrats, increasingly climate change, and income inequality.

They talk about as much about Putin as the MSM does. And being intellectuals, they're usually protected somewhat from want, and it's reflected in their conversations and their almost non existent consideration of economic realities.

The American policy toward Russia up to this, has been  more  one of indifference. And truly knowing America's priorities, why would it be otherwise? They are the single biggest underachieving country in the world with an economy not even as big as the touted Mediteranean basket case of the EU, Italy, (that's right I said Italy!) Russia is a fossil fuel based economy which if you believe in climate change is in itself a futuristic retrograde position. They get a lot of their food through the Netherlands, who aren't a hundredth of their size. They are an economic basket case with a still present kleptocracy to match, and an earnest  populace with historically such modest expectations.

 The obsession Scheer , Van Heuvel and Cohen have with Russia is so completely in the past, just as it is with a number of posters on this forum. In this discussion, they mentioned Russia Putin probably 50 times and they mentioned China in one paragraph? I understand Cohen's gotta sell books, and does believe there's a danger, and that is his area of expertise. But try going to Shanghai and seeing the true 21st century country and infrastructure they've built for themselves, (they just completed a 50 mile bridge that saves 3 hours of driving time) and then compare it to the 1930's American dilapidated Russian infrastructure when you get out of any major city. China by some economic  accounting systems has had a bigger economy than ours, and unless something unexpected happens is due to irrevocably pass us in this next decade. It's completely the opposite with Russia, with whom the U.S. could have a big trade surplus, but they choose to impose sanctions.   However sad some of you may think that is. It does give pause to reflect on where the true power is in the world, and where the priorities lie.

It's the one callously proclaimed sh-thole country that Trump has actually visited, for the same reasons as always, to make or pay down  money. And that is the tragedy.