Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

There are 2 choices for the Democrats Choice 1, the Nancy Pelosi solution, continue with investigations that she hopes will eventually bleed Trump dry, and emphasize her piecemeal Health Care solutions, that are really popular topics with the voting populace or  Choice 2, to go after Trump, and see if that can lead to taking some action. Some argue that's exactly what Trump wants and Trump will be able to use that as being a victim of a witch hunt and will draw the populace to his side.
But  I really think that people have pretty  much solidified into their relative tribes and there's simply more people in the non Trump tribe.  I don't accept that a failed impeachment attempt will necessarily backfire on the Democrats at all.
 
I would say people realize there are many faces in the political parties, particularly with the Democrats. They should let their potential candidates stake out a wide range of political issues, some can  see if they can make points taking a stand against Trump's obvious corruption. Some can be for hard core impeachment where they hope in the future their courageous stand will be rewarded just as Obama had the advantage over HC in 2008 because he voted against the War in Iraq.  Let them find their niches, if it's not about Trump and it's about Health Care or Green energy and combating climate change, or taking the money out and of politics and kicking the corporation's lawyers' out from dictating legislation verbatim  to our legislators. It's all good exposure. The only serious mistake will come from picking  the wrong candidate.
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

11 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
There are 2 choices for the Democrats Choice 1, the Nancy Pelosi solution, continue with investigations that she hopes will eventually bleed Trump dry, and emphasize her piecemeal Health Care solutions, that are really popular topics with the voting populace or  Choice 2, to go after Trump, and see if that can lead to taking some action. Some argue that's exactly what Trump wants and Trump will be able to use that as being a victim of a witch hunt and will draw the populace to his side.
But  I really think that people have pretty  much solidified into their relative tribes and there's simply more people in the non Trump tribe.  I don't accept that a failed impeachment attempt will necessarily backfire on the Democrats at all.

Couldn't agree more, Kirk.  The GOP took a momentary hit in the '98 mid-terms prior to impeaching Clinton, but Clinton's approval ratings dropped significantly by the end of the trial. 

Clinton governed over a period of relative peace and prosperity but the scandal suppressed the Dem vote in 2000.

Donald Trump committed impeachable crimes, period.  Do your job, Nancy.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2019 at 10:46 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

.... Obama had the advantage over HC in 2008 because he voted against the War in Iraq

 

Just curious Kirk....

Okay, maybe I'm a dope. But how could Obama vote against the War in Iraq given that he wasn't a U.S. senator till a couple years later?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No you're right Sandy , I'm the dope. Obama actually lost a race for  the House  in 2000. But politicians make public statements that they are later held to. ----From Wikipedia.

Obama was an early opponent of the George W. Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq.[126] On October 2, 2002, the day President Bush and Congress agreed on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War,[127] Obama addressed the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq War rally,[128] and spoke out against the war.[129] He addressed another anti-war rally in March 2003 and told the crowd that "it's not too late" to stop the war.[130]

I kinda eat up this stuff Sandy, you probably aren't as interested (though you were right!).The Senate voted 77 to 23 for Bush's War. Of that the Republicans voted 48 to 1!  The Democrats also voted for it. 29-21. Among the Democrats who voted for it was Biden, Hillary Clinton, Feinstien and Shumer.

In the House,  the Republicans voted for it, 215-6! The Democrats voted against it 126 -82.  The current Democrat notables who voted against it are Pelosi,  Bernie Sanders and Nadler.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not in the country but I saw the Mueller statement.He appeared very nervous to me as if the weight of the world was on his shoulders, and he just doesn't want to be a pivotal figure.
 
Hey, Sorry to interrupt your retirement dude! Yes, you are a pivotal figure and you do have the weight of the world on your shoulders. What the hell did you think was going to happen when you took the job? You should have come out 6 weeks ago.  And if Congress doesn't ultimately force you to testify, you all will be held in contempt of our citizenry.
 
I expect in his testimony he will stay as strictly to script as possible, reiterating everything from his report and decline to make any personal judgment whatsoever. And I expect the Democrats chicken out, out of some sort of compassion for the situation he finds himself. Still there's no way it won't be very damaging to Trump. And they'll hope that that will be enough to make their decisions easier.
 
 

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

No you're right Sandy , I'm the dope. Obama actually lost a race for  the House  in 2000. But politicians make public statements that they are later held to. ----From Wikipedia.

Obama was an early opponent of the George W. Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq.[126] On October 2, 2002, the day President Bush and Congress agreed on the joint resolution authorizing the Iraq War,[127] Obama addressed the first high-profile Chicago anti-Iraq War rally,[128] and spoke out against the war.[129] He addressed another anti-war rally in March 2003 and told the crowd that "it's not too late" to stop the war.[130]

I kinda eat up this stuff Sandy, you probably aren't as interested (though you were right!).The Senate voted 77 to 23 for Bush's War. Of that the Republicans voted 48 to 1!  The Democrats also voted for it. 29-21. Among the Democrats who voted for it was Biden, Hillary Clinton, Feinstien and Shumer.

In the House,  the Republicans voted for it, 215-6! The Democrats voted against it 126 -82.  The current Democrat notables who voted against it are Pelosi,  Bernie Sanders and Nadler.

Pelosi organized the Dem opposition in the House.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I kinda eat up this stuff Sandy, you probably aren't as interested (though you were right!).


Yeah, you're right about my not being as interested as you. The only reason it struck me odd when you said Obama voted against the war is because my earliest recollection of  Obama was his convention speech, where he spoke of there being only one America, the United States of America. (What an awesome speech!) And I knew that was after the war had started.

I can't believe it's been 15 years since that speech... I remember it like it was last year.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The traitor-in-chief encouraged Russian interference in our election.

I protest against the USA interfering in other countries' elections so I'm sure as hell gonna protest when it happens to us.

Twitterbots: Anatomy of a Propaganda Campaign

Internet Research Agency archive reveals a vast, coordinated campaign that was incredibly successful at pushing out and amplifying its messages.

https://www.symantec.com/blogs/threat-intelligence/twitterbots-propaganda-disinformation

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

As suggested some weeks ago, Roger Stone's legal team's efforts to establish the source of the concept that the DNC was "hacked" rather than "leaked" has resulted in a more complete picture. As suspected, the sole attribution and the sole investigation was conducted by the DNC's own security agency - Crowdstrike. Further to this, Crowdstrike's own investigation never produced a finalized report, and the government received only a redacted draft. It therefore appears that the entire concept of a Russian hack, which the US government claims as "established fact", relies entirely on a redacted draft by a private company hired by the DNC.

https://www.scribd.com/document/413428947/Stone-De-123-DOJ-Response-to-MTC-Crowdstrike-Reports

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, it just occurred to me, are you related to Roger? You are definitely the forum's foremost Roger Stone legal expert. Or maybe you're just attracted to his image and personality?

It looks like the rest of your life will be dedicated to exonerating Russia. I know it's just inconceivable that they would resort to such things other than, as you say  a little novice dabbling in Facebook, right?

It's not the heroes in the white hats, villains in the back hats world that you want so much to believe.

Of course the Russians screw with us and we screw with them . Are you really that naive?

Figure it out, it's easy,  it's cheap and it can be done with impunity. What fool country wouldn't do it?

It's called life in the big leagues and I think there are millions of even Canadians who are worldly enough to understand that, even if you don't.

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

The revelation that the sole evidence held by federal prosecutor's regarding the alleged GRU "hack" of the DNC was a redacted draft "report" by the DNC's own private security firm has now been joined by the revelation that no actual evidence exists to tie the Internet Research Agency to the Russian government, and a federal judge has ordered that public statements asserting such ties should be stopped. The IRA was a clickbait firm, and the idea that it was a Kremlin-led psyop program designed to "sow discord" in the US electorate was always ridiculous nonsense.

The entire "Russiagate" concept has been shown to be without foundation. As was predicted long ago by those journalists and researchers who actually looked at the details.

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/07/12/concord-management-and-the-end-of-russiagate/

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

a federal judge has ordered that public statements asserting such ties should be stopped.

A Trump appointee.  He's stacked the court with die-hard loyalists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'This wasn’t just a briefing’: Pompeo grilled CIA analysts on Russia findings

The DOJ is now reviewing those same findings after Mike Pompeo found no wrongdoing in how the agency concluded Russia wanted to help Trump in 2016.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/12/pompeo-cia-russia-findings-1409190

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Once again President Donald Trump shows his willingness to fight the "Deep State" aka "British Empire. President Trump has declassified the name of one of the suspected Saudi conspirators. There s a on going lawsuit by survivor victims and victims families against the Saudi Government. British agent Barrack Obama vetoe'd the bill allowing the 911 victim's to sue but congress nullified the veto.

 

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration decided Thursday to declassify a key name long sought by relatives of 9/11 victims who are suing Saudi Arabia over allegations of that country's involvement, but declined to release the name publicly.

The name of the individual, which the 9/11 families believe may support their allegation of Saudi involvement in the terror attacks, will be disclosed to the plaintiff's lawyers under a protective order. The order makes it illegal for those attorneys to release the name to the public, meaning the identity of the individual will remain a secret — at least for now.

The decision by the FBI and the Justice Department was a partial victory for the 9/11 families, who have been fighting in court to compel the Trump administration to hand over the name. Terry Strada, who chairs the group 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism, called it "a good result."

“The families are dedicated to getting to the truth, and we shouldn't have to beg for this sort of basic information, or be kept in the dark, about the Saudi role in the attacks," Strada said in a statement.

Still, the administration did not declassify other documents the 9/11 families have sought as part of their lawsuit, although the FBI said more documents could be produced in the future.

The FBI pointed out that the name of the individual had been the families' top priority, calling it "the primary piece of information that the plaintiffs in the 9/11 litigation have been seeking."

The Saudi Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The White House, which earlier referred all questions about the matter to the Justice Department, also did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The long-awaited decision involved whether to disclose the name of a person who allegedly directed two men in California who assisted hijackers in the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 families and their lawyers believe the person may be a Saudi official, but the name was redacted when a 2012 summary of the FBI's inquiry into the matter was previously released.

But the decision pitted President Donald Trump's efforts to show he's seeking justice for 9/11 victims against his desire to maintain close ties with Saudi Arabia, already strained in the wake of the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi agents last year. Trump has worked to preserve the relationship with the Saudis despite widespread criticism in Congress of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's leadership.

Lawyers for the 9/11 families have sought to get the unredacted version released by the FBI, and a deadline for the Justice Department to decide whether to release was delayed several times at the government's request, most recently until Thursday.

In the end, the Justice Department declined to invoke the "state secrets" privilege, a provision in U.S. law that allows the government to refuse to release information in lawsuits that could undermine national security. The FBI said in a statement that the decision was made "in light of the extraordinary circumstances of this particular case."

"The Attorney General has decided not to assert the State Secrets privilege over that name," the FBI said.

Advocates for the 9/11 families were given some reason for optimism this week when Jim Kreindler, a prominent attorney representing some of the 9/11 families, was a guest of the White House at a ceremony at the Pentagon marking the anniversary of the attacks, several people familiar with his attendance tell NBC News.

White House officials have previously maintained that the decision about how to handle the legal matter rests with Attorney General William Barr. But the significant implications for the U.S. relationship with close partner Saudi Arabia, combined with Trump's past record of seeking to influence Justice Department decisions, has raised speculation that he might get more personally involved.

Although 15 of the 19 attackers in the 9/11 attacks were Saudi citizens and mastermind Osama bin Laden was born there, Saudi Arabia's government has long denied involvement in 9/11. The 9/11 Commission that investigated the attacks found it likely that Saudi government-funded charities did fund the attacks but did not find evidence that the government or senior Saudi officials were involved.

The lawsuit against Saudi Arabia was enabled by a 2016 law called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act that allowed for a civil suit against a foreign state if it supports international terrorism against Americans or their property. Former President Barack Obama vetoed the law, warning it could create a precedent for the U.S. or its officials to be sued in foreign courts, but Congress voted to override his veto.

 
Edited by Jim Harwood
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...