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

32 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Your insights on this.

 

Edit:  Would you have preferred that a former Moscow-based U.S. intelligence officer have been given the contract to look into Trump & Co.'s dealings in Russia? 

If so, should it have been A Republican?  A Democrat?  A Libertarian?

Or perhaps you think they need not be looked into at all? 

I refer my honorable friend to the comments I made previously about the sum total of my original text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

I read it. Very interesting and the reason why I don't want to get into the nah, nah, nah-nah games "enjoyed" at the present by devout opponents to Donald Trump. I can't say that they are devout opponents to something else because they are clearly a rag-tag coalition whose main energy is devoted to attacking Donald Trump and not in promoting something of an alternative positive nature that makes sense within the framework of a constitutional republic as-is in 2018. So therefore I refer back to my outline and wonder when someone will pause for a moment and ask: "Did the British really set fire to the White House and burn down the Library of Congress using paid German troops? Did the British really hoodwink America into WWII by manipulating the election of FDR?" If they do, then maybe they will wonder whether Britain is the enemy with its President-for-life in China not far behind. As for Russia, well they did liberate all of those captive countries held hostage by the USSR, and they are still launching Americans into space for a capitalistic fee, and Big Macs are spreading to ever more locations under the Golden Arches within Russia. Now back to the British Crown, the people who set fire to the White House and burned down the Library of Congress and imported slaves into North America and built a warship for the Confederate Navy, and oh yes, hoodwinked Americans by dragging them into WWII. http://uk.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-in-russia-2016-1?r=US&IR=T/#ah-the-familiar-golden-arches-lets-take-a-closer-look-1

Edited by Mervyn Hagger
added a link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

I refer my honorable friend to the comments I made previously about the sum total of my original text.

Like reading tea leaves.

Question: Does this tie in with the Rothschilds and the Illuminati, et al., and conspiracy theories regarding The New World Order?

Or just the Bank of England, or some such thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Like reading tea leaves.

Question: Does this tie in with the Rothschilds and the Illuminati, et al., and conspiracy theories regarding The New World Order?

Or just the Bank of England, or some such thing?

Answer: No idea. I don't read conspiracy rubbish and I don't engage in party politics. I just deal in the facts that can be verified as being true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Answer: No idea. I don't read conspiracy rubbish and I don't engage in party politics. I just deal in the facts that can be verified as being true.

Would you care to name some sources (books, websites, newspapers, journals, television shows, etc.) where you the get the "facts" that you "deal with" regarding Steele, Trump, KGB-boy Putin, Obama, that sort of thing?

Thanks!

PS  How do you go about "verifying" those "facts," by the way?

Do you fact-check?  If so, do you use any of the fact-checking websites on this list?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/2016/07/20/the-10-best-fact-checking-sites/amp/#ampshare=https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2016/07/20/the-10-best-fact-checking-sites/

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

What a bunch of garbage.

--  Tommy. :sun

Well, thanks for clearing that up in nah, nah, nah-nah language.

 

18 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Would you care to name some sources (books, websites, newspapers, journals, television shows, etc.) where you the get the "facts" that you "deal with" regarding Steele, Trump, KGB-boy Putin, Obama, that sort of thing?

Thanks!

PS  How do you go about "verifying" those "facts," by the way?

Do you fact-check?  If so, do you use any of the fact-checking websites on this list?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/2016/07/20/the-10-best-fact-checking-sites/amp/#ampshare=https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2016/07/20/the-10-best-fact-checking-sites/

No, I don't do any of the above. I buy books and read books on line and in libraries and I have archive newspaper subscriptions. In short: I do my own research and my own fact checking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

What a bunch of garbage.

Tom

For what it's  worth John Kennedy said this exact same thing (more or less) during his AU speech 55 years ago.

Ironically  the Georgetown "liberals" (and I  use that term loosely because there's  no such thing any more, then or now) attacked him as soft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doug's original August, 2017 post seems amazingly prescient in how Mueller's investigation is proceeding 8 months later regarding Paul Manafort and possibly Roger Stone and the investigation taking longer than a year.

I just re-read Doug's original thread post.  If he had never written and posted this we would not be informed of so much back story that is so important to understand what is going on with these back channel and Wikileaks characters.

And the video of Stone "predicting" violence if Trump is impeached is still hair raising in it's threat implications. Especially the mentioning of what would happen to the Senator who first initiated such an action.

Lastly, just a few common sense comments regards Trump's reported corrupt business dealings.

Isn't it obvious when you buy a run down property in Florida as Trump did for what ...$45 million?   And then four years later you get someone else to pay you almost double for this, who then tears it all down to an empty lot?

 That is so nonsensical in any business sense ( from the higher price paying person's perspective ) it's obviously anything "but" a legitimate business deal.

And that Trump named Condo project in Panama where drug cartel and organized crime figures were purchasing units as part of a money laundering scheme  and Trump's family pocketed 14 million to have their name on this building until they recently removed it under public scrutiny pressure ...please.

There is a You Tube video of a Trump appearance on David Letterman several years ago where Letterman asks Trump directly if he ever had to deal with organized crime figures in his many New York construction projects. At first Trump says no, then he stammers that maybe he had met one or more people of this type in the context of Letterman's question. And then Trump makes this startling comment to Letterman:

 You know I have met a few of those types..and "they were very nice people."

I don't know how others would interpret that last Trump quote...but in my mind it raises many huge red flags regards Trump's true business dealings, practices and ethics.

Also reminds me of Trump's nationally broadcast comments about there being nice people "on both sides" of the racially charged violence protests of last year.

God help us through this presidential crisis in confidence.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Doug's original August, 2017 post seems amazingly prescient in how Mueller's investigation is proceeding 8 months later regarding Paul Manafort and possibly Roger Stone and the investigation taking longer than a year.

Did you read the link I  posted  for an alt take?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Walton:

Tommy called your "alt take" as a load of garbage - which is why I stay out of the nah, nah, nah-nah games. Notice that I have stated that the enemy is the British Crown who set fire to the White House and burned down the Library of Congress using paid German troops, and it was the British Crown who brought slaves to North America and it was the British Crown who facilitated the building of the Confederate Navy raider that attacked US ships. It was the British Crown that dragged the USA into WWII by stealth, and it was the British Crown who influenced the reelection of FDR by keeping the lid on their activities to manipulated American foreign policy. None of this involved Russia. Even the Declaration of Independence attacks the 'Christian King of Great Britain' for attempting to start race wars in the former colonies. The enemy is the British Crown. It has always been the British Crown. But the anti-Trumpers seem to have a fixed bee in their bonnets that it is all about Russia, even though Christopher Steele is a product of MI6. Sad, sad, sad how brainwashed these people are.

Edited by Mervyn Hagger
I forgot to add a link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Well, thanks for clearing that up in nah, nah, nah-nah language.

 

No, I don't do any of the above. I buy books and read books on line and in libraries and I have archive newspaper subscriptions. In short: I do my own research and my own fact checking. 


If you want to learn about the general "philosophy," development, implementation, and history of the kinds of counterintelligence ops the Soviets and Russians waged (and are still waging against us in this clickbait "Social Media" Internet Age) against us and our allies (including, yes, the British), you might want to read these: 

https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362




Question:  Which books have you read that significantly influenced your opinions on the issues you've spoken about, above?

Clinton Cash ?

 

Question:  When you say you do your own fact-checking, how do you go about doing that? 

Do you use any reputable fact-checking websites or encyclopedias, etc, or do you just, as so many other people unfortunately do, apply your own built-in "BS Meter"?

 

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thomas Graves said:


https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362


Question:  Which books have you read that have significantly influenced your opinions on this matter?

 

Question:  When you say you do your own fact-checking, how do you go about doing that? 

Do you use any reputable fact-checking websites or encyclopedias, etc, or do you just, as so many other people unfortunately do, apply your own built-in "BS Meter"?

 

--  Tommy  :sun

1. I don't engage in party politics.

2. I follow a process similar to that of following a pebble thrown into a pond and see where the ripples go and how they interact and connect as they radiate outwards.

3. I read as many books and other sources as possible about the subject that I am researching. I get the various interpretations about the same subject but from different angles.

4. Having done this for decades I now have a new body of material.

5. I don't call myself a historian, in fact, I needed a new term and I adopted 'yestertec' investigative researcher, and became a 'yesterwriter' to document this work.

6. I was writing academic articles but I decided that this approach was impractical. See http://foundthreads.com

7. To see how my 'pebble' approach works, see http://yesterdayneverhappened.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

1. I don't engage in party politics.

2. I follow a process similar to that of following a pebble thrown into a pond and see where the ripples go and how they interact and connect as they radiate outwards.

3. I read as many books and other sources as possible about the subject that I am researching. I get the various interpretations about the same subject but from different angles.

4. Having done this for decades I now have a new body of material.

5. I don't call myself a historian, in fact, I needed a new term and I adopted 'yestertec' investigative researcher, and became a 'yesterwriter' to document this work.

6. I was writing academic articles but I decided that this approach was impractical. See http://foundthreads.com

7. To see how my 'pebble' approach works, see http://yesterdayneverhappened.com

 

Fascinating stuff.

How do you go about verifying the "facts" you've come upon in these (apparently title-less) books?

Do you use a reputable fact-checking website, an encyclopedia, etc, or do you just go with your own built-in "BS Meter" and / or cross-reference said "facts" with other books with which you already agree?

 

--  Tommy  :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...