James DiEugenio Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 Kirk, Sometimes I wonder about you. Do you have a dartboard on the wall labeled DiEugenio? Is that your obsession? The idea that I ever liked Trump or his policies is so ridiculous that I cannot think you buy it. The only thing that ever appealed to me, or anyone else of my political orientation, was that Trump early on looked like he was going to take a new look at the Middle East. Well, he backed off of that pretty quickly. So, please excuse me if I do not take your comments seriously about me and Trump. As far as I am concerned, in some ways, Trump has done what I thought was not possible. He may actually be worse than W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said: I haven’t read this entire thread, but are some people here denying that the Russian government was involved in an enormous effort to help Trump win the election? If so, I’m convinced they’re wrong. The original U.S. Intel assessments that the Russians were involved in a big e-campaign to discredit Clinton and promote discordance among U.S. voters was significantly lacking in hard evidence. But as time went by, a lot of evidence of Russian involvement was developed by what at least appear to be independent tech sources. For example, evidence that the original spearphishing attack that John Podesta fell for came from Russians was developed more than a year ago by the three outfits listed below, and many others. This all came well before Mueller’s indictments. SecureWork, an Atlanta-based subsidiary of Dell Computers, wrote a report that can be read here: https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign CrowdStrike Company, a Sunnyvale, CA outfit founded by a former McAfee technical executive named George Kurtz came to the same conclusion. Kurtz wrote the best-selling bible of Internet security called “Hacking Exposed: Network Security Secrets and Solutions.” CrowdStrike’s report can be read here: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ A CrowdStrike associate named ThreatConnect took CrowdStrike’s original research and delved even deeper, showing the technical evidence linking the email theft to FANCY BEAR and COZY BEAR, both Russian-based intel groups. Read ThreatConnect’s report here: https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-national-committee/ We all know the power of Amercian Intel and how its tentacles go everywhere, but above is just the tip of the iceberg of evidence that Russians hacked Clinton’s campaign. There are many more studies. The subject was of great interest to tech nerds everywhere, and because the Wikileaks releases were done electronically rather than on paper, all the smtp headers in the emails were preserved, making full analysis of this stuff by private techies reasonably straightforward. As opposed to the crappy CIA/Homeland Security report more interested in preserving its secrets than giving compelling technical proof, the reports above, and many others, include real evidence! You realize Clinton had close ties to Russia right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 (edited) As far as continuing this, I kind of doubt it. If Mueller could only do what he did, which was pretty anemic, then why would there be anything of substance left over? Recall, the standard is high crimes and misdemeanors. xxxxx farms which Trump is not connected to? Also, you will have a very loud GOP minority in the House objecting all the way and you will not have the votes in the senate. So why even try? The only way you could is if there was some bombshell piece of evidence that arises. Edited March 23, 2019 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Kirk, Sometimes I wonder about you. Do you have a dartboard on the wall labeled DiEugenio? Is that your obsession? The idea that I ever liked Trump or his policies is so ridiculous that I cannot think you buy it. The only thing that ever appealed to me, or anyone else of my political orientation, was that Trump early on looked like he was going to take a new look at the Middle East. Trump made it clear from the beginning that he was going to push for war with Iran. Folks who don't regularly watch cable news don't know that. Quote Well, he backed off of that pretty quickly. No, it was just your mis-perception that changed. Those of us who have studied Donald Trump (I first wrote about him in 1992) knew that he'd spoil for war. The Gullible Left fell for the okey-doke and believed a certified l-i-a-r. Quote So, please excuse me if I do not take your comments seriously about me and Trump. As far as I am concerned, in some ways, Trump has done what I thought was not possible. He may actually be worse than W. It's taken you all this time to figure that out? Edited March 23, 2019 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 23 minutes ago, Cory Santos said: You realize Clinton had close ties to Russia right? Uranium One? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 23, 2019 Share Posted March 23, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said: Kirk, Do you have a dartboard on the wall labeled DiEugenio? Jim DiEugenio's work is not above criticism. He's wrong about the Bay of Pigs (no, Kennedy wasn't a hero), the partition of Laos (it wasn't a "neutralization"). the overthrow of Diem (it was the CIA who incited the Buddhist-Catholic conflict that brought Diem down), the root facts of the JFK assassination (T3 back wound/throat entrance wound). and anything related to Donald Trump. Trump made his racist entry into American Presidential politics almost 4 years ago -- and DiEugenio is only now getting around to denouncing him? Edited March 23, 2019 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 9 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Exactly Paul, but read what Jim has written. Jim has never acknowledged that corruption and still doesn't. It wasn't until last night that Jim could even criticize Trump's policies. Jim finally says last night.: 1.) It diverted from the really bad things that Trump has done in places like Venezuela, and his love affair with Likud, and 2.) His disastrous tax plan which was always a way to benefit the upper classes and later steal from the middle class through Social Security and Medicare cuts. Whoa, so after 2 years Jim's finally mustered up the courage to actually criticize the damage of Trump's policies, much less the corruption of the Trump Presidency? When for the last 2 years he's been the foremost apologist and even showing praise for Trump. Jim, you were given every opportunity .to reverse yourself and were dared to utter a word against Trump about 6 weeks ago Jim, do you remember?. Kirk Said Jim, So now you're sensitive to the little guy? For 2 years never a word from you about the lies and corrosion of discourse, the bullying, the sexism, the divisive behavior, the fearmongering, the intimidation of people who can't defend themselves. Then on a macro scale, the economic suppression, the tax cuts for the wealthy. The total disregard for the environment at what some of us at least think is a critical time. But you didn't take it. None of these things even mattered to you only 6 weeks ago.Mum was the word. Blind to the corruption around you in your pursuit of just one overriding issue.Now Jim scrambles to cover his silence. I might be mistaken about this Kirk, but the corruption, and the damage, is so completely obvious that maybe Jim didn’t think it necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 (edited) Paul, you are not mistaken. That is correct. How anyone on this forum could not recognize Trump's tax plan for what it was, and then not understand that it was going to be used to cut Social Security and Medicare, utterly escapes me. This has been the GOP tactic for years upon years. Somehow, we cannot find anything to cut in the defense budget, we cannot raise taxes on billionaires like Larry Ellison and Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, so we have to take it from middle class and working class people. And recall how this all started? Arthur Laffer's supply side economics, which Stockman said was really another name for trickle down. But they could not say that because it brought up memories of 1929. But it did not trickle down. It just hollowed out the middle class. At the same time it created massive federal deficits. Trump just did more of it, like W did. AOC was on Colbert a few weeks ago and she said, is our economy better now because of the Reagan tax cuts than it was from the forties to the seventies when the top rate was 70 percent? She was on Seth Myers the other night. She showed a picture of a long line of homeless people lined up in the corridors of congress. Seth asked what they were doing there. She said that lobbyists get them off the street and pay them money to attend hearings so that the general public cannot get in. That is how sick our system has become. Does the MSM report on any of this? Not that I have seen. It takes a 29 year old former cocktail waitress to do it. Edited March 24, 2019 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 (edited) Paul said: I might be mistaken about this Kirk, but the corruption, and the damage, is so completely obvious that maybe Jim didn’t think it necessary. I don't make assumptions Paul, but I do listen to what people say. This is his first real criticism of Trump, but it's totally about policy. Jim has mentioned nothing about your charge of corruption, nor as he ever mentioned one indictable thing about Trump in 2 years. and hasn't today. I personally think in the scope of corruption, Trump makes Nixon look like a boy scout. But that's my opinion. But Ok, it's a new day. We'll even leave Putin and the election tampering issue aside.------ Jim do you think Trump is compromised by Russian Oligarchs? Edited March 24, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 9 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: I might be mistaken about this Kirk, but the corruption, and the damage, is so completely obvious that maybe Jim didn’t think it necessary. So Jim DiEugenio finds it necessary to rip on Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and any other Dem who doesn't attach the word "socialist" to their party ID? The 2016 election illustrates that old line about politics -- "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." For lots of lefties Hillary Clinton was THE Enemy in 2016 -- they voted for Julie Stein but rooted for Trump to win. That's Jim D. Other lefties held Donald Trump as THE Enemy -- we held our nose and voted for Hillary because Trump, in the words of Bernie Sanders, was "100 times worse." Recent history has borne out our concerns, and vindicated our sense of realpolitik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 (edited) Trump makes Nixon look like a boy scout? LOL Well, that pinpoints the problem with Kirk. And why it makes no sense to argue with him. The historical record now shows Nixon to have been on the take from at least three different external sources: Batista, the Greek Junta, and the Shah of Iran. And that does not include Howard Hughes or Malaxa, the Romanian industrialist. And this completely leaves out the role of Murray Chotiner, and perhaps Mickey Cohen. Did Trump secretly continue the worst war in American history in order to win an election? As Nixon did with Anna Chennault? And then expand that war, causing the overthrow of two governments, and the rise to power of a Maoist dictator who then took the lives of between one and two million people in perhaps the worst genocide in the post World War II world? Please Kirk, you and your Trump dog whistle and DiEugenio dart board dishonor history. Edited March 24, 2019 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 Matt Taibbi “It’s Official: Russiagate is this Generation’s WMD” “The Steele report occupies the same role in #Russiagate the tales spun by Ahmed Chalabi occupied in the WMD screwup. Once again, a narrative became turbo-charged when Officials With Motives pulled the press corps by its nose to a swamp of unconfirmable private assertions… As a purely journalistic failure, however, WMD was a pimple compared to Russiagate. The sheer scale of the errors and exaggerations this time around dwarfs the last mess. Worse, it’s led to most journalists accepting a radical change in mission. We’ve become sides-choosers, obliterating the concept of the press as an independent institution whose primary role is sorting fact and fiction.” https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted March 24, 2019 Share Posted March 24, 2019 (edited) Where to begin with that article. Its devastating. Carter Page was offered a 19 per cent stake in a multi billion dollar company? The Post sent a team of reporters to Prague, and they spent days on end and could find no trace of Cohen ever being there? Steele took stuff from an online posting? This is so bad because now the Trump camp will be reinvigorated since his whole motto of Fake News has at least been partly shown to be accurate. One of the most acute things he says is that Resistance turned into Russia Gate. Edited March 24, 2019 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted March 24, 2019 Author Share Posted March 24, 2019 Attorney General Barr's Summary of the Mueller Report. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/24/us/politics/barr-letter-mueller-report.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted March 24, 2019 Author Share Posted March 24, 2019 Jennifer Rubin writing just now in the Washington Post: "However, in a major respect, Barr’s action in declaring no crime of obstruction is inexplicable. Because it is the Justice Department’s position that Trump cannot be indicted as a sitting president, there is no requirement — indeed, it is inappropriate — for Barr to weigh in. The job is up to Congress, according to Barr’s own department guidelines. Suspicions about Barr’s willingness to clear the president, based on a memo he wrote to the Justice Department before being nominated as attorney general, look well-founded." 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