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

On 4/18/2019 at 3:31 PM, Douglas Caddy said:

New York Times analysis of the released Mueller Report:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/us/politics/the-mueller-report-excerpts.html

I am going to guess The NY Times analysis is not going to deviate from their original narrative. It’s kind of their thing. 

 

Edited by Robert Wheeler
Link to post
Share on other sites

While at the CIA, William Barr drafted letters calling for an end to the Agency’s moratorium on destroying records

Decades before he was Attorney General (twice), Barr served in the Agency’s Office of Legislative Council in the wake of the the Church Committee hearings

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2019/apr/16/cia-barr-crest/?fbclid=IwAR2-EHPaIoyHNGe8MoPct6X3E7CJtNWqDAPUfXagjkbzYGCtHT5b6jKspI0

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

John Dean was the Michael Cohen of Watergate.

https://www.aim.org/media-monitor/liddy-wins-john-dean-loses/

 

If was only there was someone on this thread who would be willing to rebut Len Colodny’s assertions and explain how the Woodward / Bernstein narrative does not deserve to be challenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Yes.  Ending with an opprobrious conclusion.   

Hahaha whatever that means! Somebody really went searching for that one. Somehow I doubt they ever use it in polite conversation.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
Robert from whatever vague gleanings I can get from your actual leanings other than being obsessed with a permanent government Deep State, and the scandalous genealogy and associations of the upper crust, and their fishing and golfing habits and all, I think I've picked up that you're into open government. Did you read Doug's link that Barr under Bush, was for stopping the CIA's moratorium on destroying their records?
 
I think I've picked up that you're against the U.S. over extension of power and the war state, a point of view I think I share with you. Where we differ is you thought Trump would be your savior in this regard, but you weren't alone.
 
Does it strike you at all that the person carrying your water right now in your battle against the Deep State, was a Conservative preacher against the Anti Viet Nam War Resistance, (which I don't know you might be in favor of), but whose career was propelled forward by no less than George Herbert Walker Bush as head of the CIA in 1976. Then after Bush left his post, Bush backed him for a clerkship post with the U.S. Court of Appeals.
 
Then later he made him his Attorney General and his first opinion,”  recognized the president’s right to dispatch FBI agents abroad to arrest for­eigners even in violation of international treaties, and that through him, the attorney general have an “inherent constitutional power” to au­thorize certain overseas operations, includ­ing abductions, to fend off “serious threats” to U.S. domestic “security” from “international terrorist groups and narcot­ics traffickers.”.And sure enough 6 months later, we invaded Panama.Later, he successfully got pardons for Weinberger, Eliot Abrams, Mac Farlane, among others in the Iran Contra scandal.
That's about as Gung Ho American imperialist as it gets. How did you guys always fall in with these despicable suckers? How do you reconcile the inconsistencies?
Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
Robert from whatever vague gleanings I can get from your actual leanings other than being obsessed with a permanent government Deep State, and the scandalous genealogy and associations of the upper crust, and their fishing and golfing habits and all, I think I've picked up that you're into open government. Did you read Doug's link that Barr under Bush, was for stopping the CIA's moratorium on destroying their records?
 
I think I've picked up that you're against the U.S. over extension of power and the war state, a point of view I think I share with you. Where we differ is you thought Trump would be your savior in this regard, but you weren't alone.
 
Does it strike you at all that the person carrying your water right now in your battle against the Deep State, was a Conservative preacher against the Anti Viet Nam War Resistance, (which I don't know you might be in favor of), but whose career was propelled forward by no less than George Herbert Walker Bush as head of the CIA in 1976. Then after Bush left his post, Bush backed him for a clerkship post with the U.S. Court of Appeals.
 
Then later he made him his Attorney General and his first opinion,”  recognized the president’s right to dispatch FBI agents abroad to arrest for­eigners even in violation of international treaties, and that through him, the attorney general have an “inherent constitutional power” to au­thorize certain overseas operations, includ­ing abductions, to fend off “serious threats” to U.S. domestic “security” from “international terrorist groups and narcot­ics traffickers.”.And sure enough 6 months later, we invaded Panama.Later, he successfully got pardons for Weinberger, Eliot Abrams, Mac Farlane, among others in the Iran Contra scandal.
That's about as Gung Ho American imperialist as it gets. How did you guys always fall in with these despicable suckers? How do you reconcile the inconsistencies?

90% of all Americans are not aware of Barr's true career and extremely politically slanted activity background ( such as Kirk describes above ) except in the most superficial way and most of them don't even care to know more.

That is why things are the way they are.

Still, you wonder how guys like Barr get confirmed so easily when Congress should know these things.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites

While the Lawfare bloggers breathlessly anticipate the collusion narrative will yet tie together via a  finding of direct conspiracy and coordination between Trump campaign-Wikileaks-Russian government, which will presumably be exposed during Roger Stone’s trial, I’ll predict with some confidence they will end up disappointed on this, much as the journalists for Salon and New York were disappointed when the anticipation of collusion via shared polling data produced nothing of interest. I will also predict that much of the talk of obstruction will fade to the background once the IG report on the activity of the intelligence community regarding these matters becomes public. The Mueller Report is just half of the story, and the other half - largely ignored by the media outlets most invested in the Russian collusion narrative - will flip the script, so to speak.

It is remarkable the intensity of the hysteria sparked by the Intelligence Community Assessment released in January 2017 has ultimately resulted in not much of anything at all, beyond the seeding of negative trends in society at large. For example, the automatic suspicion and accompanying reflex to surveil and investigate any communication between Americans and designated foreign nationals is a bizarre throwback to the most paranoid moments of 1950s Cold War. Accompanying this instinct has been efforts to restrict information and impose various levels of censorship, an effort applauded in an NY Times editorial published Friday, which called for intensified censorship of social media.

The Mueller Report’s conclusions that the Russian GRU hacked the DNC and coordinated with Wikileaks remains highly contentious. The Lawfare bloggers assume it is settled fact, but it is at this stage a prosecutors assertion which has not been tested or subject to cross examination, and which all of the accused firmly deny, and which knowledgable persons refute. The idea that $40,000 worth of Facebook ads in a multi-billion dollar election cycle constitute some sort of “attack” on American democracy is, on its face, simply absurd.

I can’t see any of this dying down, however, and these matters will likely continue to dominate the public conversation at least through the next election cycle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mueller Report makes clear that President Trump can be indicted and tried in a criminal trial should he run again in 2020 and be defeated or alternatively choose not to run again and leave office in January 2021. The statute of limitation for some of his crimes does not expire until July 2022, leaving plenty of time to indict.

This topic will emerge as major issue in coming months.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering a fair amount of effort was made to establish a public understanding that Papadopoulos’ reception of information in March 2016 that “Russians” had a trove of Clinton emails was the definitive starting point of investigation into possible illicit ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, the lack of any attribution to this information is a very curious ommission in the Mueller Report.While the Report is keenly focussed on the response of Papadopoulos and the campaign to such information, it is entirely mute on the question of where the information came from in the first place. While it is established that the “mysterious professor” Mifsud transmitted the information, his source remains unknown even as it is a most germane and possibly crucial data point - and has been referred to as such within previously published indictments.

The Report confirms that Mifsud retained the initiative in first befriending Papadopoulos, asserting access to high-level Russian contacts, setting up fraudulent meetings with falsely identified Russian nationals, and, in new information, controlling the later communications between Papadopoulos and the falsely identified Russian national. Mifsud was interviewed by the FBI, and one must presume he was asked the most obvious question: “from what source did you receive information about Russian possession of Clinton emails?” Mifsud’s answer is not referred in the Mueller Report.It seems obvious that if the source was Russian, as he claimed to Papadopoulos, this information would have appeared in the Report. The lack of such information therefore indicates that the source was either Mifsud’s own imagination or it came from a non-Russian source. If Mifsud’s background is, as those who know him assert, connected to western intelligence agencies, then this episode is most curious indeed.

Similarly, Larry Johnson of the VIPS organization has been highlighting another Russiagate episode - the Trump Tower in Moscow controversy - noting that the record establishes that the entire scheme came from the initiative of Felix Sater, a longtime FBI asset. The recognizable pattern, therefore, is less a matter of suspicious contact between the Trump campaign and Russian entities, and more a matter of western intelligence operatives taking the initiative to establish a paper trail suggesting such suspicious contact. It is my understanding that this was done in the interest of sabotaging any attempt to reset or turn away from a foreign policy of confrontation directed at Russia and Putin, as had been expressed by candidate Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2019 at 4:36 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:
Robert from whatever vague gleanings I can get from your actual leanings other than being obsessed with a permanent government Deep State, and the scandalous genealogy and associations of the upper crust, and their fishing and golfing habits and all, I think I've picked up that you're into open government. Did you read Doug's link that Barr under Bush, was for stopping the CIA's moratorium on destroying their records?
 
I think I've picked up that you're against the U.S. over extension of power and the war state, a point of view I think I share with you. Where we differ is you thought Trump would be your savior in this regard, but you weren't alone.
 
Does it strike you at all that the person carrying your water right now in your battle against the Deep State, was a Conservative preacher against the Anti Viet Nam War Resistance, (which I don't know you might be in favor of), but whose career was propelled forward by no less than George Herbert Walker Bush as head of the CIA in 1976. Then after Bush left his post, Bush backed him for a clerkship post with the U.S. Court of Appeals.
 
Then later he made him his Attorney General and his first opinion,”  recognized the president’s right to dispatch FBI agents abroad to arrest for­eigners even in violation of international treaties, and that through him, the attorney general have an “inherent constitutional power” to au­thorize certain overseas operations, includ­ing abductions, to fend off “serious threats” to U.S. domestic “security” from “international terrorist groups and narcot­ics traffickers.”.And sure enough 6 months later, we invaded Panama.Later, he successfully got pardons for Weinberger, Eliot Abrams, Mac Farlane, among others in the Iran Contra scandal.
That's about as Gung Ho American imperialist as it gets. How did you guys always fall in with these despicable suckers? How do you reconcile the inconsistencies?

AG Barr has never been above suspicion with myself or cohorts. I am somewhat aware of his past work with the Bush Presidents, and all else being equal, his past affiliations with the Bush family alone, would normally disqualify him in my mind, without getting into any actual evidence of misdeeds.

There were a lot of other names out there that would have provided more assurance that the Deep State is being cleaned up. A Larry Klayman, or Trey Gowdy or Whitaker (the interim AG) would have been red meat for the Drain the Swamp Crowd.

Taking the recent Caddy postings at face value, and not yet having looked into the allegations of Barr at a more detailed level,  I am still somewhat perplexed as to why Trump picked Barr.

However, since the Mueller report has been out, picking Barr makes more sense, if only for the specific reason that Trump knew exactly where Barr stood with respect to the efforts of the Mueller Team.

As you may or may not know, Bill Barr, while in private practice, submitted the following 19 page Memorandum on June 18, 2018 to Rod Rosenstein and Assistant AG Steve Engel. To be brief on my part, the Memo says that Mueller's "Obstruction" Theory is BS.

In light of the memo, whether Barr is a Swamp Creature; was a Swamp Creature but has since "repented"; or never was a Swamp Creature and any Swampy actions in his past were done so under some sort of professional loyalty, ambition, without evil intent, or duress, Trump's pick of Barr appears to be simply a function of knowing where the guy stands. (Plus he would easily get through Senate Confirmation since he already was AG.)

In short, and in my opinion, Barr's position with respect to Mueller's efforts were known when Trump picked him to be AG. 

There may well have been other horse trading and strategy behind the Barr pick. If the Bush Family is as detestable as myself (a four time Bush Voter) and most on this forum think, then Trump would certainly have a lot of leverage on the Bush Family (for example, imagine if there was something in the 2017 JFK Records Release that the Bush Family did not want to be made public.)

As anyone who has read my past postings can see, I believe the Mueller Investigation was entirely contrived. Under that premise, bringing in Barr served a specific purpose, whether he is a good guy, bad guy, or agnostic.

You are more than welcome to dismiss Mueller's genealogy and water sports preferences (the Mueller's sail, not sure about fishing.) My original motivation to show his relatives and hobbies was to counter the MSM narrative that Mueller is but a dedicated public servant with no other motive than to get to the truth. (A number of MSM articles have even gone on to claim that Mueller stepped up to the job at considerable financial sacrifice since he would not be drawing income as a Senior Lawyer in a prestigious private practice firm.) The fact is that Mueller comes from an extremely wealthy family, and at the very least, the idea that Mueller has sacrificed substantial financial gain by accepting the position of Special Counsel out of duty and commitment to right a suppossed wrong, is at least partially misleading.

Whether you and a few others on this thread appreciate the Mueller Family Tree or not, in the context of the entire JFK Assassination Debate Education Forum, an examination of the Family Tree is not out of the scope of the overall theme of the Forum. This forum has certainly delved (deservedly) into the minutia of bullet fragments, Oswald's grammar school records, and the veracity of statements made by Dallas strippers. The forum has also delved (also deservedly) into the broader motivations of groups of potential conspirators, including Pro Castro and Anti Castro Cubans, Swiss Bankers (via Permindex), the KGB, former Nazi SS Officers, Secret Argentinian Nazi's, Texas Oil Men, Mobsters, the CIA and Eastern Elite Families.

The Mueller Family has certainly crossed paths with at least two of the above mentioned ten groups. Richard Bissell was a close relative. The Cabell brothers (Texas Cabells) are more distantly related, but we recently found that branch summered on the same small Island in the Chesapeake with the Mueller for over 30 years, beginning in the 20s. The Cabell Brothers are also related to the Bissell's and Mueller's via the Cushing Family.

These are some "Eastern Elite" families. One of the Cushings was a spy for the OSS, as well as his wife Julia Childs. The Prudhomme family included Hector, who helped bring down Mosaddegh in 1953. If you dig deep enough into the Mueller family, you can see they were involved in some suspicious activities for decades, with the same crowd, and mostly involving moving war materials and involving the same companies that always seem to pop up in a variety of post WWI conspiracy theories, including Freeport Sulphur, Davison Chemicals, duPont and any other number of former subsidiaries of Standard Oil.

If an examination of Eastern Elite families is relevant to JFK Conspiracy Theories, then the context of Mueller's motivations with respect to President Trump will become more apparent, whether the primary narrative espoused on this thread, that Mueller is a good guy, dominates or not.

 

 

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...