Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

Ty:

If you go over to Breitbart, you will see a direct parallel.

They are comparing the whole Russia Gate pandemonium to what Mark Lane started on the JFK case.

Which is what one would expect from them.

BTW, it does not appear to me that this is an exclusively I hate Trump thread.  Its really about how the media picked up what now looks like a false narrative, and how the liberal blogosphere and MSNBC decided to try and remove a president with it.

In that, there is another parallel with the JFK case.If you recall, on the day the WR was released, it was met with universal praise, hailing it as a masterpiece of crime detection.  Which was odd, for the simple reason that the 888 page report had 6,741 footnotes in it.  Almost every one of them referred to the 26 volumes of evidence and testimony--WHICH HAD NOT BEEN RELEASED YET!

In each case it shows how easy it is to mislead the MSM, especially when it wants to be.  And, of course, it then shows how the misdirection can then turn hundreds of millions of Americans  into lemmings.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 minutes ago, Ty Carpenter said:

Cliff,

 

Tantamount to killing the ongoing discussion? Can't the discussion continue in the proper section of the forum?

We've been down this road before.  We had a very lively discussion right after the election in a "Trump?" thread and as soon as it was moved it died.

Quote

 

Are you saying there is not enough traffic at the proper section so it needs to be here because you want to talk about it? I really don't care if this thread continues, but why does it need to be here? Without pulling a hamstring with a crazy stretch no one can say this discussion belongs here.

In 1963 there was a coup d'etat.  In 2016 there was a coup d'etat by another means.

The assassination of JFK marked the beginning of an era of public distrust in government and media -- Trump makes this dysfunction of democracy all the more intense.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ty:

If you go over to Breitbart, you will see a direct parallel.

They are comparing the whole Russia Gate pandemonium to what Mark Lane started on the JFK case.

Which is what one would expect from them.

BTW, it does not appear to me that this is an exclusively I hate Trump thread.  Its really about how the media picked up what now looks like a false narrative, and how the liberal blogosphere and MSNBC decided to try and remove a president with it.

In that, there is another parallel with the JFK case.If you recall, on the day the WR was released, it was met with universal praise, hailing it as a masterpiece of crime detection.  Which was odd, for the simple reason that the 888 page report had 6,741 footnotes in it.  Almost every one of them referred to the 26 volumes of evidence and testimony--WHICH HAD NOT BEEN RELEASED YET!

In each case it shows how easy it is to mislead the MSM, especially when it wants to be.  And, of course, it then shows how the misdirection can then turn hundreds of millions of Americans  into lemmings.

It was the MSM who removed from the 2016 Republican platform the policy of providing offensive weapons to Ukraine?

It was the MSM who announced to the world "Russia, if you're listening, find the 30,000 missing e-mails"?

It was the MSM who forced Michael Flynn to lie about what he discussed with the Russians?

It was the MSM who forced Jeff Sessions to lie about meeting Russians?

It was the MSM who forced Jared Kushner to leave off his meetings with Russians on his security forms?

It was the MSM who fired James Comey and then bragged the next day to the Russians that the firing took the pressure off the RussiaGate investigation, and then doubled down on that on national TV?

It was the MSM who sought to build a Trump Tower in Moscow and lied about it?

It was the MSM who admitted they met with some Russians in Trump Tower because they were promised dirt on Hillary Clinton?

It's the MSM who are forcing Trump to never say a bad word about Vladimir Putin?

Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and James DiEugenio refuse to acknowledge the behavior of Trump et al as the central driver of RussiaGate.

 

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

 Its really about how the media picked up what now looks like a false narrative, and how the liberal blogosphere and MSNBC decided to try and remove a president with it.

The raw ignorance of this statement is staggering.

DiEugenio believes there is a "false narrative" because of Bill Barr's bogus analysis.  DiEugenio buys Barr's crap hook/line/sinker.

https://www.salon.com/2019/03/26/bill-barrs-fake-mueller-report-is-this-wmds-in-iraq-all-over-again/

Bill Barr's fake Mueller report: Is this WMDs in Iraq all over again?

To suppress and spin the Mueller report, GOP pulls out the playbook of lies it used to sell us on invading Iraq

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It was the MSM who removed from the 2016 Republican platform the policy of providing offensive weapons to Ukraine?

It was the MSM who announced to the world "Russia, if you're listening, find the 30,000 missing e-mails"?

It was the MSM who forced Michael Flynn to lie about what he discussed with the Russians?

It was the MSM who forced Jeff Sessions to lie about meeting Russians?

It was the MSM who forced Jared Kushner to leave off his meetings with Russians on his security forms?

It was the MSM who fired James Comey and then bragged the next day to the Russians that the firing took the pressure off the RussiaGate investigation, and then doubled down on that on national TV?

It was the MSM who sought to build a Trump Tower in Moscow and lied about it?

It was the MSM who admitted they met with some Russians in Trump Tower because they were promised dirt on Hillary Clinton?

It's the MSM who are forcing Trump to never say a bad word about Vladimir Putin?

Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi and James DiEugenio refuse to acknowledge the behavior of Trump et al as the central driver of RussiaGate.

 

Thanks Cliff. I don't know where all the "exoneration" talk comes from. Although Mueller/DOJ may have decided not to charge Trump at this time for conspiring with the Russian Government, the standard for indictment isn't the same as a reason to launch a CI investigation.

By Barr, Mueller's and others on this forum estimation, nothing should preclude a Presidential candidate from raising $30 million dollars and buying time during halftime of the Super Bowl to request help from foreign Governments. It's unbelievable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob:

It was the MSM who fell for the HRC/Podesta story about Russian interference with the election. 

It was the MSM that then swallowed the Steele Dossier. Without verifying it. Neither could Mueller.

Well, let me add, they failed to verify it since the Post did sent a team to Prague to see if Cohen was there.  They could not find any evidence.  Apparently, this did not count, or  as Jim Garrison said about his conviction of Dean Andrews for perjury, "You might have seen that on page 72 of the NY Times, right next to ship departures."

If you still want to march to Moscow over this, be my guest.  You will need a lot of luck since, as an FBI agent said long ago, "There is no there there."

But if you go to today's Washington Post, there is a quite interesting article about how the House, including my girl AOC, wants to turn away from this and go back to the issue that won last year. Namely Health Care.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob:

It was the MSM who fell for the HRC/Podesta story about Russian interference with the election. 

The FBI launched an investigation into Russian interference and it had nothing to do with Hillary or Podesta.

From which orifice does DiEugenio pull this carp?

Notice how hard he falls for the Barr Report!

Quote

It was the MSM that then swallowed the Steele Dossier. Without verifying it. Neither could Mueller.

No one ever said it was verified.  Michael Cohen shot down the Prague angle when he flipped many months ago.

Only Team Trump goes on and on about the Steele Dossier -- conveniently ignoring all the incriminating stuff like Manafort and Gates meeting a former Russian intelligence agent and handing him polling data.

Quote

Well, let me add, they failed to verify it since the Post did sent a team to Prague to see if Cohen was there.  They could not find any evidence.  Apparently, this did not count, or  as Jim Garrison said about his conviction of Dean Andrews for perjury, "You might have seen that on page 72 of the NY Times, right next to ship departures."

I repeat -- the only people who care about the Steele Dossier are late night comics, and the useful idiots of Team Trump.

Quote

If you still want to march to Moscow over this, be my guest.  You will need a lot of luck since, as an FBI agent said long ago, "There is no there there."

  We still have to see the Mueller Report.  If it weren't damning they'd release it immediately instead of fighting tooth and nail to keep parts under wrap.

Quote

But if you go to today's Washington Post, there is a quite interesting article about how the House, including my girl AOC, wants to turn away from this and go back to the issue that won last year. Namely Health Care.

The Dems can multi-task, thank you.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some conspiracists believe everything the media tells them is a fake lie.  Thus, they seek out alternative news sources which they believe do not have an agenda-even though some sell subscriptions, health products, etc.  I keep seeing Ron mention operation Mockingbird so clearly he feels at least some of the MSM is "controlled".  Others above keep talking about the MSM as if the CIA runs all news in this country.  So CNN was lying that President Trump was guilty?  Ok, assuming that I agree with you -which I do not- then when CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc. all spent the last 2 years predicting the end of President Trump and acting giddy like little school girls over the idea of an indictment are you suggesting the CIA was behind trying to remove President Trump from office?  Certainly if they have no ability to speak on their own without the CIA overlords approving the content, ergo the CIA must have been behind this?

Or, is only Fox controlled by the CIA?  Which, if true, means CNN and its justice league of other friendly networks were telling the truth.  But, then why did Mueller not indict President Trump? This conspiracy thinking on this subject makes no sense.  

Now they tell us well, once the full report is read, there will be evidence - but then if there was evidence, why did Mueller not become the most notorious prosecutor in history and indict the President?

I will stick with JFK.  Makes more sense.

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Some conspiracists believe everything the media tells them is a fake lie.  Thus, they seek out alternative news sources which they believe do not have an agenda-even though some sell subscriptions, health products, etc.  I keep seeing Ron mention operation Mockingbird so clearly he feels at least some of the MSM is "controlled".  Others above keep talking about the MSM as if the CIA runs all news in this country.  So CNN was lying that President Trump was guilty?  Ok, assuming that I agree with you on that-which I do not- then when CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc. all spent the last 2 years predicting the end of President Trump and acting giddy like little school girls over the idea of an indictment are you suggesting the CIA was behind trying to remove President Trump from office?  Certainly if they have no ability to speak on their own without the CIA overlords approving the content, ergo the CIA must have been behind this?

Or, is only Fox controlled by the CIA?  Which, if true, means CNN and its justice league of other friendly networks were telling the truth.  But, then why did Mueller not indict President Trump? This conspiracy thinking on this subject makes no sense.  

Now they tell us well, once the full report is read, there will be evidence - but then if there was evidence, why did Mueller not become the most notorious prosecutor in history and indict the President?

I will stick with JFK.  Makes more sense.

"controlled"?  The one percent own 98 plus percent of the Main Stream Media. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ron.

But beyond that, i never said this was a Mockingbird Operation. I don't think it was.

If you read that book Shattered, a chronicle of the HRC campaign, you will see that when the Assange Wikileaks emails broke, her campaign decided to blame this on Russia.

What compounded that was this fact:  the MSM really thought she was going to win.  There are several You Tube videos which show the increasing disbelief and disappointment in their faces and voices as it dawned on them that they were wrong.  This is what I think helped fuel their rush to Russia Gate.

The other factor was the Steele Dossier.  I mean, I think Mr. Wheeler did a very nice job on showing its origins, and how it was distributed and pushed on the FBI.  And how the top level of the Bureau somehow bought it, along with people in the DOJ.  I mean when you are thinking of using the 25th amendment?  How much more evidence do you want?

After that, Russia Gate was picked up by the liberal blogosphere.  Which has millions of followers e.g. Talking Points Memo, Huffpost etc.  Many of those people who run those sites also thought HRC was going to win.  If you recall, Huffpost actually wrote that HRC had an over 90% probability of winning that election. Even 538, which also thought she was going to win, thought that probability was way too much. Instead of admitting they were simply wrong, or that HRC and Podesta ran a lazy, uninspired and stupid campaign--which they did-- the life raft was Russia Gate.  Nobody likes to admit they were wrong, especially politicians and the MSM.

None of the analysis above has anything to do with the CIA.  It all points to how easy it is to control the MSM, especially if they are already predisposed to accept your pitch.  A good comparison is what happened with the WCR.  

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

But, then why did Mueller not indict President Trump?

DOJ guidelines prevent indicting a sitting President.

There's a strong case for obstruction, apparently, and Mueller may have wanted the Congress to take it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just one example of what I am talking about.

https://fair.org/home/the-utility-of-the-russiagate-conspiracy/

This article shows that HRC and Podesta  decided to make the whole Putin thing a part of their campaign. 

It was easy then to switch it into overdrive as the reason for their loss.  There are many stories like this on line.  A guy named Aaron Mate at the Nation was excellent on this issue.

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

Bob:

It was the MSM who fell for the HRC/Podesta story about Russian interference with the election. 

It was the MSM that then swallowed the Steele Dossier. Without verifying it. Neither could Mueller.

Well, let me add, they failed to verify it since the Post did sent a team to Prague to see if Cohen was there.  They could not find any evidence.  Apparently, this did not count, or  as Jim Garrison said about his conviction of Dean Andrews for perjury, "You might have seen that on page 72 of the NY Times, right next to ship departures."

If you still want to march to Moscow over this, be my guest.  You will need a lot of luck since, as an FBI agent said long ago, "There is no there there."

But if you go to today's Washington Post, there is a quite interesting article about how the House, including my girl AOC, wants to turn away from this and go back to the issue that won last year. Namely Health Care.

But Jim, you well know a CI investigation by Cyber Command, The FBI, CIA and NSA was well under way during the campaign regarding Russian trolls and election meddling. I personally think this was a tit-for-tat by Russia as has been going on for years, if not decades.  A drunk George Papadopolous, in May of 2016, whimsied such to an Aussie diplomat prior to his miraculous "come to pardon" moment later. After his arrest, he gave the heads up to Joseph Milsfud who vanished mysteriously, never to be seen again for questioning. Laying this at the feet of HRC and Podesta is ridiculous.

Nobody that I'm aware of has ever said the Steele dossier was anything but an unverified draft political hit piece including Steele.

I've never stated in any way whether Cohen was in Prague or not, which in my view doesn't make any difference and has no bearing on whether or not Trump was colluding or conspiring with Russians. It refutes one claim but my concern has been what Trump's said in the open and the bee hive of lies and misrepresentations by him, his family and other high ranking members of his entourage, including his National Security Advisor!!

But if you go to today's Washington Post, there is a quite interesting article about how the House, including my girl AOC, wants to turn away from this and go back to the issue that won last year. Namely Health Care. Oh Trump's after health care because his only concern of course is that Obama's signature accomplishment be dashed on the rocks. Ol Trumpster doesn't exactly care too much for the black man gettin all uppity and making jokes of him. If anyone think Trump's actions reflect a policy disagreement they're sorely mistaken "Who knew health care was complicated etc...".

There is no obligation of the intelligence agencies to mount a criminal case against anyone outside our borders. It is clear in my mind there is plenty of reason to suspect someone who is the beneficiary of their (Russians) efforts and displays the kind of denials he still does in the face of the contrary assessments of the intel agencies. The information derived from that investigation is often times not actionable legally and is just as often unwise to do so; for example when WW2 spies and objectives were discovered by code breakers in Europe and the Pacific but the method of discovery was deemed too valuable to risk. Off the top of my head NSA's ability to break 256 or 512 bit encryption methods would be comparable today.

I just don't think it's right that a Presidential candidate can solicit election interference from an adversary on live TV and his coward political flock say nothing. Combine that with the countless times his underlings lied about the nature of the campaign's meetings with Russians and Trumps business entanglements and the picture is pretty clear.

The President was also in a "defense agreement" with 37 other people which of course allows their attorneys to horse trade information, pardon agreements, testimony and all those other wonderful items which would make Mueller's job difficult. I haven't seen any outrage from the right about that and how it could play into the big scheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is just one example of what I am talking about.

https://fair.org/home/the-utility-of-the-russiagate-conspiracy/

This article shows that HRC and Podesta  decided to make the whole Putin thing a part of their campaign. 

Let's imagine if the Russian hack story were the focus of cable news coverage over the last 11 days of the election.

Hillary probably would have won in a landslide.

But RussiaGate never came up over the last 11 days -- cable news shows were all over the Hillary e-mail story exclusively.

So much for the deep state plot against Trump...

Quote

It was easy then to switch it into overdrive as the reason for their loss.  There are many stories like this on line.  A guy named Aaron Mate at the Nation was excellent on this issue.

I'd list it #6 in the reasons Hillary lost.

GOP voter suppression; James Comey re-opening the e-mail controvers;, Hillary's poor campaign; Bill's visit with Loretta Lynch; and the free advertising cable news gave Trump are all bigger reasons for Hillary's loss than the Julian/Vlad Show.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

DOJ guidelines prevent indicting a sitting President.

There's a strong case for obstruction, apparently, and Mueller may have wanted the Congress to take it up.

Yes, though I think legally there is still a debate between scholars as to whether it is constitutional to indict a president prior to impeachment.  I think the issue is more rich than that.  Question, if some evidence connected LBJ to the assasination could he have pardoned himself?  Did he have an ace in his pocket when he lied about the assasination, gulf of Tonkin and the USS Liberty?  Are presidents therefore above the law?  Interesting things to consider.

Edited by Cory Santos
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...