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

[James DiEugenio]

Joe:

Sorry to tell you but you are wrong.

First of all, I was trying to explain what Pelosi was thinking, not myself.

Second of all, that impeachment process really helped Clinton's approval ratings.  Most people disapproved of what the GOP was doing. In fact, his ratings went to their highest point, up by a significant number since from before the Lewinsky matter started. Anyone can look this up.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx

Third of all, the Democrats gained seats in the Senate, one in the House and everyone and their mother knows that they did not lose the presidential election.  The Republicans stole Florida.

  If I would say the sky is blue, CV would say no its green just to disagree with me. So, for me, he is not worth reading or replying to.  You are a different case.

[Douglas Caddy]

A Spy by Any Name

A few questions about the F.B.I.'s don't-call-it-spying on the Trump campaign.

From the column: Back in the golden age of presidential conduct, before Donald Trump wrecked every norm and smashed every guardrail, someone — either in Lyndon Johnson’s White House or in Langley, accounts differ — decided to have the C.I.A. spy on Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign.

The agent assigned to lead that illegal operation, in one of history’s winks, was E. Howard Hunt, who would later conduct campaign spying in a private capacity for Richard Nixon’s re-election. Hunt had subordinates volunteer for the Goldwater campaign and obtain advance copies of speeches and position papers, which were dutifully passed to the Johnson White House, which relied on them to pre-empt and befuddle Goldwater.

Hunt and others would later suggest that Johnson welcomed the intel because he needed a blowout win in 1964 to establish his own legitimacy. This is entirely plausible, but it’s also reasonable to connect the spycraft to the larger climate of the ’64 election, in which the entire political establishment treated Goldwater as a unique threat to the norms of postwar politics, a dangerous man likely to bring fascism to America or to lead the United States into thermonuclear war. It’s a lot easier to justify the abuse of counterintelligence powers when you’re convinced that the abnormal nature of a presidential candidacy demands it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/04/opinion/sunday/trump-2016-investigation.html

 

[Note: So it turns out that the CIA used Howard Hunt to help assure the 1964 election of LBJ who managed the cover-up of the CIA's orchestration of the assassination of JFK. Decades later Hunt in his deathbed confession would name LBJ as being at the top of the pyramid of the conspiracy to kill JFK.]

Edited May 5, 2019 by Douglas Caddy

[Douglas Caddy]

Fair Play Is No Match for Foul

After getting dissed by Barr, will Mueller man up?

From the article: And finally, we have the unfortunate Robert Mueller, who took a tortuous route to decide not to decide on obstruction of justice. Like Comey, Mueller believed in his own purity so much that he was blinded to his naïveté.

Barr helped the White House by outmaneuvering the mute special counsel in shaping the narrative about “my baby,’’ as the attorney general called Mueller’s report. Barr ground his wingtip into Mueller’s throat on Wednesday during his Senate testimony. He spoke of Mueller dismissively, like an errant errand boy who threw a silly snit after failing to complete the task he was given.

Mueller’s trust in Barr led him to miss the moment when Trump gobbled up the attorney general’s soul like a midnight snack — in one bite.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/04/opinion/sunday/mueller-barr-dowd.html

[Douglas Caddy]

Mueller to testify on May 15th.

 

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-report-testimony-house-tentative-date-20190505-story.html

[Kirk Ross]

Doug Collins (dougcollins.house.gov) hosts the transcripts to the congressional testimony of Baker, Priestap, the Ohr's, Strzok, Page, and Papadopoulos on the general subject being discussed here.  Has anyone posting on this thread read them?  They seem relevant to this discussion and yet I don't recall seeing a single reference to them.  I find this thread interesting/entertaining and would like to hear what some of you think of the testimony.

[Jeff Carter]

I've read a few of the congressional transcripts, the Papadopoulos interview was discussed on this thread a few weeks ago. I am fairly certain that many so-called professional journalists covering this story for once-esteemed news and cultural journals have not ventured to this territory. The discrepancy between the broad-strokes sanctioned narrative as presented in The Mueller Report, and the actual details as found in the interviews and document trails is not dissimilar to the official story as found in the Warren Report compared to the information found in the exhibits and documents.

[Douglas Caddy]

Barr can run but he cannot hide.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/05/13/trump-barr-and-the-rule-of-law?fbclid=IwAR2K0NbvGYaaLTFhNC-j4VJL7GJw8zLnEEYeYy_y5pFUyL3K5kP_B_QT3Ns

 

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/work-around-doj-prosecute-barrr/17764/?fbclid=IwAR0CbnX-VOcjzW4sqSOSvHvwU2a4meAHhgIZKwWpZqDG494dDTrhHarMh10

Edited May 5, 2019 by Douglas Caddy

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Joe:

Sorry to tell you but you are wrong.

First of all, I was trying to explain what Pelosi was thinking, not myself.

Second of all, that impeachment process really helped Clinton's approval ratings.

Temporarily.  Al Gore was afraid to use Clinton as a surrogate during the 2000 election because it turned off older voters.

Given the good economy in 2000 the Democrats should have rolled to an easy victory but they won the popular vote by a relatively thin half million.

The economy in 2016 was in pretty good shape and Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton cost the Democrats votes in 2000.

Quote

Most people disapproved of what the GOP was doing. In fact, his ratings went to their highest point, up by a significant number since from before the Lewinsky matter started. Anyone can look this up.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx

Third of all, the Democrats gained seats in the Senate, one in the House

After 8 years of relative peace and prosperity the Democrats won one seat in the House.  One seat!

The Republican strategy of impeachment paid off handsomely.

Quote

 

and everyone and their mother knows that they did not lose the presidential election.  The Republicans stole Florida.

  If I would say the sky is blue, CV would say no its green just to disagree with me. So, for me, he is not worth reading or replying to.  You are a different case.

If one disagrees with James DiEugenio he takes it very personally. 

These are the issues with which I disagree with Jim: the Bay of Pigs, the partition of Laos, the overthrow of Diem, the root facts of the JFK assassination, and the nature of modern American poilitics.

Jim found he cannot tangle with me on these issues without taking the worst of it.

Edited May 5, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Douglas Caddy]

Trump Objects to Mueller Testifying Before Congress

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/05/us/politics/trump-mueller-testimony.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 5/3/2019 at 8:13 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Bob, this is not in Italian, but you may have to get behind a pay wall to read it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The NY times just confirmed what you were dissing about Mr. P.

The girl was an undercover FBI informant working for Stefan Halper, who himself was a longtime FBI asset. (See The Intercept.)

Here we have a President who can flaunt impropriety and dare the authorities to prosecute him knowing there will always be, a supposedly" respectable" Republican group of  politicians, and backers allied with this silly fringe right and left group of "Deep state" people  who  will lose their lunch at the thought of Trump being investigated and run to his aid.

Imagine if Jim had been old enough, the kind of screaming he would be doing over the heat AG Bobby Kennedy would have brought to Trump's affiliations  the second Trump started emerging on the national scene. Yeah, somehow I think not, but that's the mind altering  magic of the "Save Trump" coalition.

Jim, I told Bobby  you wouldn't give a straight answer but you know how persistent Bobby is, and he's pissed! He asked me to ask you,  "Jim, Did the President obstruct justice?"

he heh

************* 

 

Jeff, you know I've been thinking about the this former CIA agent, Larry C.Johnson who Jim gave a link to  that you're defending here against a ""years old indiscretion"  ' to use your words

Jeff said:

Otherwise you are just dismissing it based on unrelated activity by the author. This technique is rather commonplace and has no determinative value, as is readily apparent recalling similar dismissals of Mark Lane (because he once represented the People’s Temple) and Fletcher Prouty (because he once published with the Liberty Lobby). Not to condone trafficking in gossip, but to single out Johnson’s years-old indiscretion

 

Perhaps Trumps obsessive birther claim  about Obama comes to mind, but I can't think of an example of greater white scumball tabloid journalism  than Johnson just weeks before the 2008 Presidential Election, trying to hunt down Obama for having once used the word"whitey' when all of us white people have in numerous incidents in our lives, heard other white people say much worse things about blacks. And then to try to pull the same stuff about  Michelle Obama, and in both cases he was unsuccessful. It's pretty obvious he just couldn't accept the idea that a black man should become President.We won't even deal with his piecing together words from John Kerry in a debate to make it seem that he said that while serving in Vietnam he used to" rape for pleasure"

 

Jeff said: Otherwise you are just dismissing it based on unrelated activity by the author.This technique is rather commonplace and has no determinative value,

 

No Jeff this isn't some debating technique. Perhaps you don't find that a bit disturbing but it's holding people accountable for what they say and do. I'm not so eager to find people who agree with me that I make no judgments from their past behavior about the credibility of them as a source.

 

Also Jeff, that's a poor example of Lane and  Jim Jones and the People's Temple. I'd suspect he regretted getting involved in that. People do make mistakes but Mark Lane is not a racist like Larry C.Johnson. We'll leave your example of Prouty out of this for now.

 

************

To give you some idea how somebody should have smelled something about Trump many years ago, (among the more legitimate current claims made against the MSM here.) Here are some Trump business stories of his past. early Trump Lite life.

That a lot of this can be gotten away with in only a few civilized countries and we're actually one of them, means that maybe, by Trumps bad example of what counts for success,    there could be hope to clean up a measure  of this preying, exploitive sickness that we've all come to live with, accept and in some cases, applaud as a sort of necessary "initiative involved in getting ahead" in our society???? Well  I'm not holding my breathe.

 

 

10 of Donald Trump’s Business That Completely Failed

 

[Joe Bauer]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Joe:

Sorry to tell you but you are wrong.

First of all, I was trying to explain what Pelosi was thinking, not myself.

Second of all, that impeachment process really helped Clinton's approval ratings.  Most people disapproved of what the GOP was doing. In fact, his ratings went to their highest point, up by a significant number since from before the Lewinsky matter started. Anyone can look this up.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx

Third of all, the Democrats gained seats in the Senate, one in the House and everyone and their mother knows that they did not lose the presidential election.  The Republicans stole Florida.

  If I would say the sky is blue, CV would say no its green just to disagree with me. So, for me, he is not worth reading or replying to.  You are a different case.

Jim, as you know I respect your research achievements and standing highly.

However, I think you can see we are of different views regards Trump and the current political situation centered around him.

I did understand that you were stating what you thought Pelosi was thinking and not you personally.

I don't think the Republicans lost much in pursuing impeachment against Clinton.

And I don't agree with Pelosi's view of impeachment hurting the Dems chances as much as she is inferring they might in 2020.

I believe that those who voted Democratic in 2016 will still vote Democrat whether the Dems go all the way with Trump and others in their investigations or not.  Those that voted for Trump will still vote for him or some other Republican in 2020...regardless of any impeachment hearings.

The reason I believe the Democrats should pursue these charges as far as they can is because I feel some of them are going to reveal even more corruption than we could imagine regards Trump.

And this reality about Trump needs to be out there for people to make a wiser and more informed choice before supporting his policies and/or deciding to vote for him again or not.

I've always believed that Trump's true Achilles Heel are his business dealings before he ever became president.  I believe they involve mob and mob bank money laundering on a massive scale.

I believe the Southern District Of New York has more damning evidence against Trump, his family and his organization in regards to these corrupt business dealings and others than Mueller had.

The more Trump fights to keep his tax filings hidden as well as his Deutsche Bank activity, the more it bolsters the possibility of these illegal activities being true in my mind and I'm sure most rational, law abiding and respecting citizens.

I think that the investigations need to keep going to allow us to see what it is Trump is so desperately trying to hide.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Joe:

I'm not saying Pelosi is correct. Maybe she is, maybe she is not.  But the fact is that Clinton left office with approval ratings at 66 per cent, and his second term was much more popular on average than his first.  Just look at that chart. And the Dems gained in congress.  And we all know Gore would have won the election if not for the covert action in Florida. On the evidence,  in political terms, that nutty impeachment struggle helped him and his party.

Pelosi is, I think, trying to bleed Trump.  Which, in political terms, might be a smart strategy.

 

[Bob Ness]

On 5/4/2019 at 12:41 PM, Jeff Carter said:

The allegations that Russian intelligence agents “hacked” the DNC and conspired with Wikileaks have not been proven, in part because the FBI did not conduct a proper forensic examination. Otherwise, all of the events which came to the attention of the FBI were in fact initiated by persons connected to the FBI or Fusion GPS which was handling the opposition research. Papadopoulos, for example, pled guilty to “lying” to the FBI by insufficiently describing the fake credentials of the FBI’s own informant (Mifsud). No one has pled guilty to being involved in any conspiracy involving Russians or the Trump campaign. The developing record instead shows that all the basic tenets of "Russiagate" were conjured as part of the opposition research effort. 

Jeff, please read my quote first so I don't have to respond to this kind of argument. I said clearly "Russian hostile activities" which is not debatable. You are referring to something I didn't state in the quote. This activity is proven and non-negotiable. This is my quote:

On 5/4/2019 at 12:34 AM, Bob Ness said:

Whether you or anyone else like it or not, the Russians were engaging in hostile activities toward us and the FBI was alerted and followed up with an investigation. It's been proven, over and over again, that the people who were investigated and charged were either convicted in court or plead guilty did so because they were guilty.

The people who plead guilty did so because they were guilty of what they were charged with, whatever that was. The FBI responded to suspicious election activity by a foreign adversary that has done the same thing in other countries. That is not debatable either. Mueller has standing indictments, properly predicated, that accuses various Russian nationals of attempting to interfere in the 2016 election. Parts of those indictments have been judiciously redacted and we have no idea why. That is also not debatable.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Neither you, Jim, Robert or any other Trump defender has yet to explain to me why the joint defense agreements between the President of the United States and several of the subjects and targets of the investigation might seem peculiar. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Why would they need a JDA??? UNLESS OF COURSE THEY WERE JOINTLY DEFENDING THEMSELVES! AHA!

Maybe, just maybe, the JDA gave them the opportunity to harmonize their stories and negotiate an agreement! Not saying they did but still... it stinks more than anything in this whole mess.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Bob Ness

[James DiEugenio]

Bob:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/395122-trumps-joint-defense-agreement-with-cohen-ending-report

I guess this JDA did not harmonize that well?  Or will you say he would rather go to jail than reveal his role in Russia Gate? Corsi has one also.

I don't know if you know this, but the White House has 32 of these in play right now.  Its common for lawyers to try and do this since it allows them to garner information about certain cases that may be forming. Its like an advanced form of discovery.  I mean, if you are a White House lawyer, you try and form these as part of  your job.

Now, are you going to say that there were 32 people involved in Russia Gate?  And somehow, with that many targets, Mueller could not find anyone to indict except people like George P.?  And xxxxx farms in Russia?

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Douglas Caddy]

Guide to claims that Trump's presidential campaign was spied upon:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/06/whats-evidence-spying-trumps-campaign-heres-your-guide/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_fact-check-spying-523am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans&utm_term=.cc0921d21069