Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

It was the MSM that then swallowed the Steele Dossier.

Nobody swallowed the Steele Dossier. 

Buzzfeed tagged it "unverified" when they published it on Jan. 10, 2017.  On Feb 13, 2017, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigned for lying about discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador.  On March 1, 2017, it was revealed that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had lied to the Senate about his meetings with Russians during the campaign.  On May 9, 2017, Trump fired James Comey in order to suppress the RussiaGate investigation -- he twice admitted to such.

Those were the events that drove RussiaGate, not the Steele Dossier.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 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.

 

Whoa! Cliff. These are just the kind of questions Jim Di will run from like the plague. Just as any direct questions I ask, he'll inevitably evoke HC or Nixon. Just as "mum's the word" about the nature of the financial dealings throughout the world that can be verified from not only his family's statements but even more darkly from others he's associated with.

Don't take the MSM away from Jim, who  believes like Trump, they are the entire reason we are where we are. Where would Jim be without the wimpy victimization message he proselytizes to all his minions here that we have no free will in the face of the MSM omnipotence and are so all helpless to move the needle about the JFKA or anything else in the present.

Bob says:

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.

Oh Bob,So nobody bought the  Steele Dossier?!! It was only jammed down or throats by the MSM, so in choking desperation, our only mantra could be Impeach Trump! Impeach Trump!

Don't don't take away the Steele dossier! What would be left of our trio's buzzword's  peetape!, Prague!.  It's that same sort of wimpy susceptibility, that will cause someone to see a tabloid story about the Kennedys at a grocery checkout and cry foul  at the ungodly smearing of the Kennedy family from the Mainstream Media!

Bob says;

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...".

And apparently Trump now emboldened by what he has misread as "total exoneration" is going to go back after the ACA. Talk about a fool who could snatch defeat from the jaws of the hope of a victory!

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob:

I will reply to you since you are not rabid.

Look, as I have said from the beginning, if you are going to go after a president, you better be sure you can bring him down.  James Neal, a very able prosecutor, said this during the Watergate episode and he was not the only one who did.

Did Putin try and help Trump?  Maybe, maybe not.  I do know that the evidence usually adduced for this, the whole Guccifer 2.0 thing, has been brought into question.  By no less than Bill BInney, one of the best NSA analysts of modern times. 

https://raymcgovern.com/2018/09/02/bill-binney-explains-how-we-know-guccifer-2-0-is-a-fraud/

As I also noted, the whole xxxxx farm thing has also been brought into doubt by Gareth Porter.  And I already linked to his article at Consortium News.

I really don't know how many links I have to provide. Why not buy the book Shattered?

But can I ask you a question?  Why is it verboten for the Russians to try and interfere with our elections, but it is OK for us to interfere in theirs?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-07-09-mn-22423-story.html

Now, as you read this, our interference was not some xxxxx farms, it was blatant and it was massive. You are talking experts being shipped there plus tons of money, I mean tons of it. This helped cause the Russian economy to descend into the Stone Age via Jeff Sachs. It also emboldened the drunken fool Yeltsin to fire on his own people who were protesting, killing anywhere from 100-500 people. (There are much higher estimates)

Did Putin and the Russians do anything like that in 2016? :down

I just do not understand the double standard. Especially when what Bill Clinton did  is proven; but the Russian stuff in America is questionable. :mellow:

Is this supposed to be part of American Exceptionalism?  If so, if you recall, our record on that is not very good e.g.Guatemala in 1954.

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

Bob:

I will reply to you since you are not rabid.

Jim D. won't respond to me because he almost always takes the worst of it. 

Quote

Look, as I have said from the beginning, if you are going to go after a president, you better be sure you can bring him down.  James Neal, a very able prosecutor, said this during the Watergate episode and he was not the only one who did.

Did Putin try and help Trump?  Maybe, maybe not.

Jim D doesn't read his own links? 

Gareth Porter:

The Internet Research Agency (IRA), is a privately-owned company run by entrepreneur Vevgeny V. Prigozhin, who has ties with President Vladimir Putin. Its employees poured out large numbers of social media postings apparently aimed at stoking racial and cultural tensions in the United States and trying to influence U.S. voters in regard to the presidential election, as Shane and Mazzetti suggest. They even adopted false U.S. personas online to get people to attend rallies and conduct other political activities. (An alternative explanation is that IRA is a purely commercial, and not political, operation.)

Whether those efforts even came close to swaying U.S. voters in the 2016 presidential election, as Shane and Mazzetti claimed, is another matter.</q>

Quote

I do know that the evidence usually adduced for this, the whole Guccifer 2.0 thing, has been brought into question.  By no less than Bill BInney, one of the best NSA analysts of modern times. 

https://raymcgovern.com/2018/09/02/bill-binney-explains-how-we-know-guccifer-2-0-is-a-fraud/

As I also noted, the whole xxxxx farm thing has also been brought into doubt by Gareth Porter.  And I already linked to his article at Consortium News.

I really don't know how many links I have to provide. Why not buy the book Shattered?

But can I ask you a question?  Why is it verboten for the Russians to try and interfere with our elections, but it is OK for us to interfere in theirs?

It's not okay for any country to interfere with the elections of other governments.

The government of So Vietnam interfered in our election in 1968, the Ayatollah interfered in 1980, an Australian interfered in 2000, and Vladimir Putin interfered in 2016.

The 2016 election featured a multi-faceted voter suppression campaign spearheaded by GOP Voter ID laws and voter roll purges; a relentless Benghazi smear campaign, and James Comey weighing in on Trump's side.

What Putin did was on the level of a prank compared to all that.

As if your house gets egged and then falls down.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is everyone here on Ukrainian time or something, because all of the quick banter and fun arguments seems to happen when I'm sleeping here on the East Coast? (Despite the arguments, this thread is worth keeping because it is has remained civil relative to other forums. My Striped Bass Fishing forum has occasionally devolved into a thread of name calling and physical threats over a lot less controversial subjects. That being said, despite what NJ rules allow, anyone keeping a fish that weighs 30 lbs or more, instead of throwing it back, is helping to destroy the fishery, by taking a breeder out at its prime age and weight. Just because the NJ Fish & Game rules allow you to cook or mount that big of a fish, it does not mean you should. Dammit!)  

There has been plenty written about over the past few hours so I've grabbed one of Cliff's quotes as a catch-all for why most of you don't know what you are talking about.

16 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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

 

Trump's behavior was not the central driver of RussiaGate, by any means, nor at any level.

Hillary was the pre-ordained President. The Fix was in way before Trump became the Republican favorite to win the nomination.

Hillary and her minions were plotting to take out any potential primary challengers in the Summer of 2015.

As Donna Brazile explains in her book, the HRC Campaign took over the DNC in August 2015. In exchange for lending the nearly broke DNC money to operate their day-to-day operations, HRC acquired effective control of the DNC.

....Brazile wrote that she discovered an agreement that "specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff."

Note that Brazile discovered the agreement when she took over the DNC in late July 2016. Bernie did not know about the agreement when he was running against HRC in the primaries. He was doomed from the start. So everyone understands, the agreement allowed HRC to siphon off DNC resources (employees, money, voter databases) from her primary challengers, which turned out to be Bernie.

RussiaGate was just an extension of her hubris and duplicity after she had the "effective" nomination as the (D) candidate. (Effective meaning before the official nomination at the convention.So maybe around May?)

She rigged the primaries, with her DNC takeover being the starting mechanism, and she tried to rig the main Election with "RussiaGate", which included more than one component. The main components being the Pee Pee Dossier, the Russia Hacked the DNC Narrative and The Bathroom Email Server Cover-up.

The Russia Hacking Narrative was more of an on-the-fly opportunity, since it allowed the HRC Campaign to try to tie Trump to Russia, along with the Pee Pee Dossier, which was ready when needed. ("Insurance" as Peter Strzok & Lisa Butler Page texted.)

For reference, HRC tweeted 7 times about Russia, beginning August 6th, 2016 with this: 

“Seriously, what is going on with Trump and Russia?”

and ending October 31, with this:

"It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia."

As summarized with this Tweet from no one special in particular.

#HILLARYCLINTON was banking on the dossier to be released in October! So she tweets hints of Russia-
3 tweets in August
3 tweets in September
It never came due to no substantial proof..
2 desperate tweets in October! 

Pissed, her camp pressed on with #FakeNews!#WednesdayWisdom

The Bathroom Email Server Cover-Up was in process by the Fall of 2015 and curiously, Strzok & Page were leading that effort, mostly by trying to keep Comey out of the loop.

Like I said up top, Hillary was pre-ordained.

She made a lot of promises, and took a lot of money through the Clinton Foundation. A lot more than her ego was at stake if she lost the election.

Fun Facts

  • Peter Strzok's father (Pete Sr.) worked for Bell Helicopter in Iran up until the Revolution.
  • Pete Jr. grew up in Iran and speaks fluent Farsi.
  • Lisa Page's mother was born in Iran.
  • Lisa also speaks Farsi.
  • It looks like Lisa Page's father worked at Los Alamos.
  • Bruce Ohr's father was a Nuclear/ Atomic Energy Scientist at Oak Ridge National Lab.
  • Nellie Ohr worked for the CIA. 
  • Robert Mueller's Father worked for Dupont and Tugwell Mueller Associates as a broker of precious metals used in Nuclear weapons manufacturing and energy. (ie. platinum, paladium.)
  • Robert Mueller was in charge of the FBI raid on Rocky Flats, which was accused of losing uranium, plutonium, etc. 
  • The Rocky Flat records remain classified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Robert Wheeler
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cory:
 

I think what Ron means is that since the media is so concentrated now, it does not take much to get them all on the same bandwagon.  Which, if you recall from civics class, is a sure fire way to create propaganda.

Robert:

I agree about HRC being the anointed one, a year in advance. And Sanders arriving too late for the first pitch. I didn't know about her tweets though.

And BTW, I have to say, before I started working on other things, like JFK and Israel, I started to look into that whole E mail private server thing and the Clinton Foundation.  I was predisposed against it. But after doing some preliminary work on it, I have to say, I really think there is a there there.

 HRC should hope that Graham does not do a real inquiry into it.  The thing that struck me most about it was the multiple erasures of a single entry.  Plus the fact that the guy who did it took the fifth.

 

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

Bob:

I will reply to you since you are not rabid.

Don't sell me short Jim! I won't stand for it hahaha!

Look, as I have said from the beginning, if you are going to go after a president, you better be sure you can bring him down.  James Neal, a very able prosecutor, said this during the Watergate episode and he was not the only one who did.

Yep. No doubt about that! And it shouldn't be some spurious garbage created out of thin air with no preceding behavior that suggests, at the very least, a predisposition for compromise such as: relationships with alleged money-laundering people and entities such as Philip Sater, Deutch Bank, and the little spoken of, but very filthy Trump Ocean Club in Panama.

Did Putin try and help Trump?  Maybe, maybe not.  I do know that the evidence usually adduced for this, the whole Guccifer 2.0 thing, has been brought into question.  By no less than Bill BInney, one of the best NSA analysts of modern times.

I'm pretty certain Jim that Putin had it out for HRC (see below for more on that). I don't know of Binney's credentials currently (this field changes daily) but I'm personally not capable of disputing him. I don't think he has concluded this with certainty however and I'm inclined to believe at face value the current intelligence take on this. Regardless, the allegations of Russian interference do not hang by that thread alone. It's pretty clear there are a lot of benefits and justifications for actions by Russia.

As I also noted, the whole xxxxx farm thing has also been brought into doubt by Gareth Porter.  And I already linked to his article at Consortium News.

I really don't know how many links I have to provide. Why not buy the book Shattered?

No offense but links to articles sends me into a new round of checking sources, the countervailing opinions, relinking those etc. I often find links posted here to be suspect or outright false (not yours, but in general) so I only check those I think necessary (I'm also not not keen on rewarding comment spammers looking for traffic haha).

But can I ask you a question?  Why is it verboten for the Russians to try and interfere with our elections, but it is OK for us to interfere in theirs?

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-07-09-mn-22423-story.html

Now, as you read this, our interference was not some xxxxx farms, it was blatant and it was massive. You are talking experts being shipped there plus tons of money, I mean tons of it. This helped cause the Russian economy to descend into the Stone Age via Jeff Sachs. It also emboldened the drunken fool Yeltsin to fire on his own people who were protesting, killing anywhere from 100-500 people. (There are much higher estimates)

Did Putin and the Russians do anything like that in 2016? :down

I just do not understand the double standard. Especially when what Bill Clinton did  is proven; but the Russian stuff in America is questionable. :mellow:

It's not verboten as I stated earlier in this thread it's a tit-for-tat that has been going on for decades. The Russians traditionally have been much better at it since they've been engaged in this sort of business with their neighbors since before Dzerzhinsky. HRC and the U.S. State Department had plenty of enthusiasm after the Arab Spring to engage in low-intensity antics which no doubt fueled a response. I don't know the gory details so much but I tend to look at these things from a high altitude. Regarding our current President, all of these points don't lead to Trump being innocent or a good choice as POTUS. He looks to be another Republican disaster which is too bad ( he's still not as bad as GWB, IMO). I'd much rather see a political commingling of the two parties which tends to bring out mutually beneficial discourse rather than "rabid" entrenchment of the clergy, so to speak. I'm definetly not a "beta" centrist either it's just my personal policy is I learn more from those I disagree with than those whom I concur.

Is this supposed to be part of American Exceptionalism?  If so, if you recall, our record on that is not very good e.g.Guatemala in 1954.

"American Exceptionalism", otherwise known as "Alice in Wonderland". Nuff said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like that last comment Bob.

I agree that some people's links need to be further checked about sources.  Thanks for not dissing mine.

BTW, here is a quote from Gareth Porter's update  on the whole xxxxx farm operation:

And now, according to the further research, the odds that Americans saw any of these IRA ads—let alone were influenced by them—are even more astronomical. In his Oct. 2017 testimony, Stretch said that from 2015 to 2017, “Americans using Facebook were exposed to, or ‘served,’ a total of over 33 trillion stories in their News Feeds.”

To put the 33 trillion figure over two years in perspective, the 80,000 Russian-origin Facebook posts represented just .0000000024 of total Facebook content in that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW Bob, I think I would agree with you. In the overall scheme of things, Trump is still not as bad as W.

I say that largely based on the fact that, although his domestic policies are pretty horrid, he does not have a foreign policy disaster like the invasion of Iraq on his hands.  IMO, Iraq is the worst overseas debacle since Vietnam. 

And I also agree that Putin really did not want to see HRC win the election and favored Trump.  The question I have is about the proof of a conspiracy.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who gave us NAFTA and ruined the middle class economy?  Not Trump.  Who signed the 2012 NDAA?  Not Trump.  Who released terrorist?  Not Trump.  Who sent the military into Iraq and Afghanistan?  Not Trump.  Who destroyed the decency of our country by having an affair in the White House and then lying about it?  Not Trump.  Who was behind Iran Contra?  Not Trump.  Who pardoned Nixon?  Who lied about the Gulf of Tonkin and USS Liberty?  I could go on.

Whats my point?

First, to compare Trump with other presidents now is somewhat nonsensical because he has not been president long enough to properly evaluate and consider his actions.  Is he doing the right thing with N. Korea?  We have to wait and see.  The tax changes and low unemployment?  Again it will take time to see.  

Second, the above shows President Trump did not create the mess we are in.  50 years of post WWII thinking mixed with other things economically, socially, morally and technologically did that.  

The breakdown in government started well before Trump and must be blamed partly on the MSM and lack of real journalism-as evident in the Russia collusion  scare and, coincidently, the failure of the MSM to properly vet and or investigate the JFK assasination.

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

BTW Bob, I think I would agree with you. In the overall scheme of things, Trump is still not as bad as W.

I say that largely based on the fact that, although his domestic policies are pretty horrid, he does not have a foreign policy disaster like the invasion of Iraq on his hands.  IMO, Iraq is the worst overseas debacle since Vietnam. 

And I also agree that Putin really did not want to see HRC win the election and favored Trump/  The question I have is about the proof of a conspiracy.

Putin did have it in for Hillary.

Back in 2009, when General Motors was looking to sell off assets after the financial crisis, a deal was struck for a consortium of Russians, Germans and Canadians to buy GM's Opel unit (essentially General Motors Europe.)

The machinations are a little boring and convoluted, but the gist of the story was that Hillary scuttled the deal at the last minute. The Canadian part of the Consortium was led by Magna International. While it originally looked like Magna was playing a significant roll in the transaction, and were sort of "pushed to the front" to be the face of the eventual new owners, it turns out they were not going to have much of a financial interest when all was said and done.

The Russians and Germans, via private interests, but with lots of guarantees and financing by both governments, were supposed to end up with most of the ownership stake. There were lots of political ramifications for the Germans and Russians, as about 10,000 union jobs in Germany could potentially be lost without a deal, as it looked like GM was on the verge of collapse. On the Russian side, the prestige and economic impact of moving some of the production lines to Russia was a big deal for Putin.

None of this was apparent at the time, especially the major role the Russians were playing and the exaggerated role of Magna.   The  2016 HRC Wikileaks releases shed light on the story and it looks like HRC was the most responsible for the deal's failure.

"Clinton overruled the advice of several of her Department subordinates who were in favour of the Russian Opel bid, including Deputy Secretary of State William Burns (below, left), a former US Ambassador to Moscow. Clinton pitted the State Department against the advice of other US officials on the Auto Task Force (ATF), set up by the White House, the US Treasury and Commerce Department to save General Motors from bankruptcy."

The Germans were pretty ticked off and you will get a queasy feeling from reading the uncomfortable position the US Ambassador to Germany (Phil Murphy, now Gov. of NJ) had to deal with as he explained to Merkel and her ministers why the transaction would not move forward (he did not know why either, so that made it worst.)

Putin seemed to have been the most angry, and I'm sure he wrote her off as not to be trusted going forward. 

On November 5 [2009] in Moscow Putin told a meeting of government ministers: “The last-minute refusal to complete the Opel deal is not harmful to our interests, but it shows that our American partners have a very original culture when dealing with counterparties. We will have to take into account this style of dealing with partners in the future, though this scornful approach toward partners mainly affects the Europeans, not us. GM did not warn anyone, did not speak to anyone… despite all the agreements reached and documents signed. Well, I think it is a good lesson.”

Any number of articles (including the one posted below, suggest that Hillary cancelled the deal because the Russians did not donate enough to the Clinton Foundation and wherever else she stashed her cash at the time. Put another way, Putin's bribed HRC and had nothing to show for it.

I can totally imagine Putin having a preference for Trump, because Trump is a businessman.

A Trump and a Hillary may both decide to accept a bribe from a guy like Putin.  

Putin may not like paying the bribe, but at least he can trust Trump to deliver on the goods the bribe was intended for.

Hillary, not at all.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/john-helmer-did-hillary-clinton-take-money-from-russia-oligarch-oleg-deripaska-for-a-favor-in-the-general-motors-opel-deal.html

Edited by Robert Wheeler
link added
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Is everyone here on Ukrainian time or something, because all of the quick banter and fun arguments seems to happen when I'm sleeping here on the East Coast? (Despite the arguments, this thread is worth keeping because it is has remained civil relative to other forums. My Striped Bass Fishing forum has occasionally devolved into a thread of name calling and physical threats over a lot less controversial subjects. That being said, despite what NJ rules allow, anyone keeping a fish that weighs 30 lbs or more, instead of throwing it back, is helping to destroy the fishery, by taking a breeder out at its prime age and weight. Just because the NJ Fish & Game rules allow you to cook or mount that big of a fish, it does not mean you should. Dammit!)  

There has been plenty written about over the past few hours so I've grabbed one of Cliff's quotes as a catch-all for why most of you don't know what you are talking about.

Trump's behavior was not the central driver of RussiaGate, by any means, nor at any level.

 

Nice post Robert but I diverge with you on your main thesis which to me seems to say Trump's behavior was not the central driver of RussiaGate, by any means, nor at any level.

Trump's behavior, prior to his walking down the elevator and announcing his candidacy, was not all prim and proper and as far as I can tell never has been. I'm willing to listen to anyone who comes to his defense to tell me how his endless contributions to the "Windows and Orphans" fund and his loving husbandry are examples atop the hill of righteousness but that ain't going to happen, I assure you.

This fiasco was bound to happen due to his past associations with Russian "businessmen", fly by night financiers, porn stars, sketchy lawyers and the like plus his unconscionable ethical rudder. I find it hard to believe anyone can't find that on the poster. Those were (is) a pre-existing condition of his candidacy and Republicans in his primary battle made sure everyone knew it. Not Dems, Republicans.

You state many of us don't know what we're talking about but really Cliff and I and some others are talking about Trump, not Hillary. Whether or not HRC and the DNC or anyone else were engaged in hostile political attacks is beside the point. Trumps behavior is what I'm speaking of and HRC's probing and assaults on the man and his character (?) is exactly what he was up against in his primaries, albeit with less arrayed against him.

In short, HRC's action regarding her political adversaries would make use of anything that could be made a political concern for voters. If Trump were a choir boy who stole candy from the store that would have been used. The inescapable conclusion I come to is that Trump is and was a terminally poor choice to head the Republican party and the investigations into his past and current conduct are outcroppings of the inevitable.

Re HRC I only rate her as a better choice because she has the political experience to consolidate the country and the disposition to lead responsibly. Trump, in my view, is constitutionally incapable to forsake his own interests.

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

Is everyone here on Ukrainian time or something, because all of the quick banter and fun arguments seems to happen when I'm sleeping here on the East Coast? (Despite the arguments, this thread is worth keeping because it is has remained civil relative to other forums. My Striped Bass Fishing forum has occasionally devolved into a thread of name calling and physical threats over a lot less controversial subjects. That being said, despite what NJ rules allow, anyone keeping a fish that weighs 30 lbs or more, instead of throwing it back, is helping to destroy the fishery, by taking a breeder out at its prime age and weight. Just because the NJ Fish & Game rules allow you to cook or mount that big of a fish, it does not mean you should. Dammit!)  

There has been plenty written about over the past few hours so I've grabbed one of Cliff's quotes as a catch-all for why most of you don't know what you are talking about.

Trump's behavior was not the central driver of RussiaGate, by any means, nor at any level.

It wasn't Donald Trump who fired James Comey because, in his own words, "the Trump-Russia thing was a made up story"?

That spurred the appointment of the Special Counsel.

That anyone can deny this is gobsmacking.

Who hired Michael Flynn as National Security Advisor?  Without Flynn lying about his conversations with the Russian ambassador there would have been no significant RussiaGate investigation into Trump.  No Flynn, no Jeff Sessions recusal, no firing of Comey.  The Papadopolous/Page/Cohen-in-Prague leads would have fizzled out

Donald Trump brought all of this upon himself, not the mythical "deep state," the MSM, or Hillary Clinton.

Quote

 

 

Hillary was the pre-ordained President. The Fix was in way before Trump became the Republican favorite to win the nomination.ms

The Fix was In, all right.  Republican Voter ID laws and voter roll purge programs like CrossCheck rigged the vote in states like Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina.

Republican politicians pick the voters, not the other way around.

The fix was in with the New York office of the FBI when they got ahold of Hillary's e-mails on a sex pervert's computer, checked to see if they were duplicates, then forwarded them to James Comey who announced a re-opening of the e-mail controversy.

The fix was in when the GOP launched 8 investigations into Benghazi, one clown actually bragging about how it undermined Clinton's campaign.

Quote

Hillary and her minions were plotting to take out any potential primary challengers in the Summer of 2015.

As Donna Brazile explains in her book, the HRC Campaign took over the DNC in August 2015. In exchange for lending the nearly broke DNC money to operate their day-to-day operations, HRC acquired effective control of the DNC.

....Brazile wrote that she discovered an agreement that "specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff."

Note that Brazile discovered the agreement when she took over the DNC in late July 2016. Bernie did not know about the agreement when he was running against HRC in the primaries. He was doomed from the start. So everyone understands, the agreement allowed HRC to siphon off DNC resources (employees, money, voter databases) from her primary challengers, which turned out to be Bernie.

What doomed Bernie was his inability to appeal to people of color.  Hillary got more than 3.5 million more votes from non-whites. 

The DNC had nothing to do with that.

Here's where Bernie went wrong:

How many people color can you find in this video?

I count 6.

Quote

RussiaGate was just an extension of her hubris and duplicity after she had the "effective" nomination as the (D) candidate. (Effective meaning before the official nomination at the convention.So maybe around May?)

...What?  Trump was publicly cozy with Vladimir Putin and that was Hillary's fault?

Quote

She rigged the primaries,

Pure propaganda.

Hillary lost the Dem nomination in 2008 because Barack Obama locked up the non-white vote; Hillary won the Dem nomination in 2016 because she locked up the non-white vote.

Anyone beginning to sense a pattern here?

Quote

with her DNC takeover being the starting mechanism, and she tried to rig the main Election with "RussiaGate", which included more than one component. The main components being the Pee Pee Dossier, the Russia Hacked the DNC Narrative and The Bathroom Email Server Cover-up.

The Russia Hacking Narrative was more of an on-the-fly opportunity, since it allowed the HRC Campaign to try to tie Trump to Russia, along with the Pee Pee Dossier, which was ready when needed. ("Insurance" as Peter Strzok & Lisa Butler Page texted.)

The Pee Dossier didn't come out until after the election.

The Russian hacking story got ZERO coverage over the last two weeks of the campaign.

Quote

For reference, HRC tweeted 7 times about Russia, beginning August 6th, 2016 with this: 

“Seriously, what is going on with Trump and Russia?”

and ending October 31, with this:

"It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia."

As summarized with this Tweet from no one special in particular.

#HILLARYCLINTON was banking on the dossier to be released in October! So she tweets hints of Russia-
3 tweets in August
3 tweets in September
It never came due to no substantial proof..
2 desperate tweets in October! 

Pissed, her camp pressed on with #FakeNews!#WednesdayWisdom

8 tweets over 3 months!  OMG, whatta load!  How does that compare to 24/7 coverage of Sex Pervert's possession of Hillary's e-mails?

Over the last 11 days of the election there wasn't one minute when cable news wasn't harping on Hill.

Quote

 

The Bathroom Email Server Cover-Up was in process by the Fall of 2015 and curiously, Strzok & Page were leading that effort, mostly by trying to keep Comey out of the loop.

Like I said up top, Hillary was pre-ordained.

She made a lot of promises, and took a lot of money through the Clinton Foundation. A lot more than her ego was at stake if she lost the election.

Fun Facts

  • Peter Strzok's father (Pete Sr.) worked for Bell Helicopter in Iran up until the Revolution.
  • Pete Jr. grew up in Iran and speaks fluent Farsi.
  • Lisa Page's mother was born in Iran.
  • Lisa also speaks Farsi.
  • It looks like Lisa Page's father worked at Los Alamos.
  • Bruce Ohr's father was a Nuclear/ Atomic Energy Scientist at Oak Ridge National Lab.
  • Nellie Ohr worked for the CIA. 
  • Robert Mueller's Father worked for Dupont and Tugwell Mueller Associates as a broker of precious metals used in Nuclear weapons manufacturing and energy. (ie. platinum, paladium.)
  • Robert Mueller was in charge of the FBI raid on Rocky Flats, which was accused of losing uranium, plutonium, etc. 
  • The Rocky Flat records remain classified.

None of this has anything to do with Donald Trump driving RussiaGate.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
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...