Joe Bauer Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 Former congressman offered Trump pardon to Julian Assange in exchange for discrediting Russia probe IGOR DERYSH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) Will Richard Grenell Destroy the Intelligence Community? President Trump selected an unqualified loyalist as his top spy. We know what happens next. From the article: In terms of process as distinct from substance, the outlook is similarly bleak: Mr. Grenell recently applauded the president’s unrestrained tweeting after Attorney General William Barr — considered one of Mr. Trump’s staunchest bureaucratic allies — had criticized the practice. It’s hardly fanciful to imagine the president commanding his new acting DNI to provide tailored intelligence that he can include in a provocative tweet, and readily getting it. To make matters worse for the national security bureaucracy, Mr. Grenell will continue to serve as ambassador to Germany while trying to direct and coordinate the United States’ vast and complex array of intelligence of intelligence agencies. Thus, in a single stroke, Mr. Trump has appointed an official who is unsuited to the job and has rendered it circumstantially impossible for him to do that properly, even if he had the ability. This absurdly cavalier arrangement, even if it lasts just a few months, manages to denigrate the role of both the State Department and the intelligence community. Mr. Trump’s contempt for and evisceration of the interagency process putatively coordinated by the National Security Council staff — serially showcased, last month with the strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani — are again on display. And his increasingly autocratic inclinations ominously shine through. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/opinion/richard-grenell-trump.html Edited February 21, 2020 by Douglas Caddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) Will it be that Trump's decision in 2020 to eviscerate the U.S. intelligence community makes a decision inevitable as was made when JFK unilaterally opened relations with Russia in 1963 although JFK's patriotic loyalty to America was never in question but Trump's is? This is the dreadful question that must be causing fear and concern in the minds of thoughtful persons everywhere except for those who rule Russia who have the power to make such a decision about the fate its Useful Idiot that would tear the United States apart through civil war. Edited February 21, 2020 by Douglas Caddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 Trump accused of being ‘complicit’ with Russians in their latest ‘act of war’ against US elections https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/trump-accused-of-being-complicit-with-russians-in-their-latest-act-of-war-against-us-elections/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said: sdFormer congressman offered Trump pardon to Julian Assange in exchange for discrediting Russia probe 1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said: Trump accused of being ‘complicit’ with Russians in their latest ‘act of war’ against US elections Media Literacy 101: If multiple independent outlets, utilizing distinct individual writers. all use the exact same phrase - “widely debunked conspiracy theory” - then one’s BS detector should be alerted. Similarly, if multiple ostensibly independent media sources all run alarmist stories warning of “acts if war” relying entirely on unnamed sources and unable to cite any actual “act”, then one’s BS detector should be alerted. This should be obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: Media Literacy 101: If multiple independent outlets, utilizing distinct individual writers. all use the exact same phrase - “widely debunked conspiracy theory” - then one’s BS detector should be alerted. Similarly, if multiple ostensibly independent media sources all run alarmist stories warning of “acts if war” relying entirely on unnamed sources and unable to cite any actual “act”, then one’s BS detector should be alerted. This should be obvious. If Trump says he barely knows the man you can be sure he does. In fact if Trump's lips move you can be sure he's lying. THAT should be obvious. I agree the Jennifer Robinson quote needs to be fleshed out, which may happen on Wednesday. Rohrbacher acting as an emmisary for Trump dangles isn't exactly wild speculation. Anyone who doesn't understand the implications of his MDAs and outright public offers to many of the actors in this drama isn't looking at those issues clearly. Lawyers acting as bag men under cover of client confidentiality is like the third oldest profession. Edited February 22, 2020 by Bob Ness Jennifer Robinson not williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: That’s not exactly what was reported and what you brought to this thread. Here's what was reported. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-assange/trump-offered-to-pardon-assange-if-he-denied-russia-helped-leak-democrats-emails-lawyer-idUSKBN20D2A2 LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump offered to pardon WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange if he said that Russia had nothing to do with WikiLeaks’ publication of Democratic Party emails in 2016, a London court heard on Wednesday. Assange appeared by videolink from prison as lawyers discussed the management of his hearing next week to decide whether he should be extradited to the United States. At Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Assange’s barrister, Edward Fitzgerald, said that former Republican U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher had been sent by the president to visit Assange in 2017 to offer him a pardon. The pardon would come on the condition that Assange say the Russians were not involved in the email leak that damaged Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016 against Trump. </q, emphasis added> What part of the above do you have trouble understanding, Jeff? Quote They/you claimed the meeting was based on “covering up” a Russian hacking plot. Gibberish. Rohrabacher admitted he offered Assange a pardon -- the only discrepancy is that Barrister Fitzgerald indicated Trump sent Rohrabacher with the offer but Rohrabacher denies talking to Trump about it. Is this really all that difficult to comprehend? Quote That is a deliberate misrepresentation of what was said by Assange's lawyer, which doesn’t prevent a number of you from internalizing the fake news as settled fact. Reading comprehension: fail. So you're claiming the news reports of what Barrister Fitzgerald said are all wrong? Can you cite Fitzgerald's denial? Quote Glenn Greenwald, as anyone else, was analyzing the Wikileaks / Assange case utilizing fairly limited information in October 2013, when the quote you cite was written. Jeff, my man, you're so so close! :November 16, 2018. https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/ Quote If you knew anything of this story, you would understand the information has been greatly expanded in the six plus years since, and the role of all US institutions involved in this ongoing persecution have been revealed as operating with vindictive mendacity, bad faith, and abuse of process, and have done so in entirely bipartisan spirit. November 16, 2018 How the Trump Administration Stepped Up Pursuit of WikiLeaks’s Assange https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/politics/trump-administration-assange-wikileaks.html Edited February 21, 2020 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 21, 2020 Share Posted February 21, 2020 Richard Grenell Begins Overhauling Intelligence Office, Prompting Fears of Partisanship The new acting director of national intelligence also asked to see the facts underlying the finding that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election and favors President Trump’s re-election. Richard Grenell, the acting director of national intelligence, has begun bringing in his own aides.Credit...Odd Andersen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images By Julian E. Barnes, Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos Feb. 21, 2020, 4:26 p.m. ET The New York Times WASHINGTON — Richard Grenell’s tenure as the nation’s top intelligence official may be short-lived, but he wasted no time this week starting to shape his team of advisers, ousting his office’s No. 2 official — a longtime intelligence officer — and bringing in an expert on Trump conspiracy theories to help lead the agency, according to officials. Mr. Grenell has also requested the intelligence behind the classified briefing last week before the House Intelligence Committee where officials told lawmakers that Russia was interfering in November’s presidential election and that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia favored President Trump’s re-election. The briefing later prompted Mr. Trump’s anger as he complained that Democrats would use it against him. Joseph Maguire, the former acting director of national intelligence, and his deputy, Andrew P. Hallman, resigned on Friday. Mr. Grenell told Mr. Hallman, popular in the office’s Liberty Crossing headquarters, that his service was no longer needed, according to two officials. Mr. Hallman, who has worked in the office or at the C.I.A. for three decades, expressed confidence in his colleagues in a statement but also referred to the “uncertainties that come with change.” The ouster of Mr. Hallman and exit of Mr. Maguire, who also oversaw the National Counterterrorism Center, allowed Mr. Grenell to install his own leadership team. One of his first hires was Kashyap Patel, a senior National Security Council staff member and former key aide to Representative Devin Nunes, Republican of California and the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Mr. Patel will have a mandate to “clean house,” CBS News reported, citing a person close to the matter. Mr. Patel was best known as the lead author of a politically charged memo two years ago that accused F.B.I. and Justice Department leaders of abusing their surveillance powers to spy on a former Trump campaign adviser. The memo was widely criticized as misleading, though an inspector general later found other problems with aspects of the surveillance. Working with Mr. Nunes, Mr. Patel began what they called Objective Medusa to examine the F.B.I.’s investigation into whether anyone associated with the Trump campaign conspired with Russia’s election interference in 2016. “I hired him to bust doors down,” Mr. Nunes told the author Lee Smith for his book “The Plot Against the President,” which chronicles Mr. Patel’s investigations on behalf of the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee. Mr. Patel was interviewed extensively in the book, which claims without proof that journalists, diplomats, law enforcement and intelligence officials engaged in a vast plot to undermine Mr. Trump’s campaign and then bring him down as president. As acting director of national intelligence, Mr. Grenell has access to any secrets he may want to review. And he has requested access to information from the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies, according to two people familiar with the matter. The revelations about last week’s briefing reignited fears about Russia’s continuing efforts to interfere in the American election, including in the Democratic primary races. During the briefing, which was supposed to focus on coordination between government agencies to fight election interference, not the acts themselves, Republicans challenged the intelligence agencies’ conclusion that the Russians continue to favor Mr. Trump. Some officials said the briefing was not meant to be controversial and that intelligence officials intended to simply reiterate what they have been telling Congress for months. Intelligence officials have already documented instances of the Kremlin trying to influence American politics, namely attempts by Russian military intelligence officers to hack into the Ukrainian energy company that once employed the son of former Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. Officials want to know whether the breach was an effort to help Mr. Trump, whose efforts to persuade Ukraine to announce investigations into Mr. Biden helped prompt his impeachment. And during the congressional impeachment hearings, Fiona Hill, a former senior White House official who worked on Russia issues, warned about Moscow’s continued efforts to spread disinformation. Mr. Trump himself wrote in a January letter accompanying the administration’s national counterintelligence strategy that “Russia remains a significant intelligence threat to United States interests — employing aggressive acts to instigate and exacerbate tensions and instability in the United States, including interfering with the security of our elections.” Intelligence officials were scheduled to brief the full House and Senate on election security on March 10, arrangements that were made weeks ago, accounting to congressional aides. How long Mr. Grenell will be able to stay as the acting director is an open question. For him to remain past March 11 — a limit imposed by federal law — Mr. Trump must formally nominate someone else for the director of national intelligence post. Mr. Trump told reporters late Thursday that he was considering Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the intelligence committee, but Mr. Collins took himself out of the running the next morning. Mr. Collins, who helped lead the president’s impeachment defense, had received no advance notice that he was under consideration for the top intelligence post. He saw no reason to entertain a job he did not want, especially as he wages a special election battle for a Senate seat in his home state of Georgia. “I know the problems in our intelligence community, but this is not a job that interests me at this time,” Mr. Collins said on Fox Business. ‘It’s not one that I would accept because I’m running a Senate race.” People close to Mr. Collins have speculated that the president might have been trying to entice Mr. Collins out of that election to tamp down a messy intraparty fight that could cost Republicans control of the seat. Party leaders have converged around Senator Kelly Loeffler since Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia appointed her to fill the state’s vacant Senate seat late last year and have made no secret of their disdain for Mr. Collins’s refusal to exit the race. A nomination to a cabinet-level position would have required Mr. Collins to drop out of the race. But given his lack of intelligence experience and political track record, there was little likelihood the Senate would have confirmed him to the post. With Mr. Collins off the table, Mr. Trump will need another potential nominee. The White House is considering Pete Hoekstra, the former Republican congressman who is now the American ambassador to the Netherlands, according to three officials. Whether the Senate would be willing to formally consider Mr. Hoekstra is unclear. But if Mr. Trump were to send a nomination to the Senate it would, under federal law, allow Mr. Grenell to serve for at least another six months. David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 21, 2020 Author Share Posted February 21, 2020 (edited) Bob, that was really bad, I mean really. This is a JFK forum for people who do research, which as far as I can tell, you and Joe B really do not do a lot of. If you have, please show me there the essays are housed or if you wrote a book that I missed. Jeff has done research in the past and has a lot of work to show for it. I have written or co-edited three books and literally scores of essays. The point is, we know the difference between a primary source and a secondary source. We also can detect bias and spin. Now, I am really surprised that no one here has tried to go to the primary source, which Is the congressman. I am the only one who has given any background on him. Or described his many years in trying to better relations between Moscow and Washington. Which I think is relevant. Why do you and Joe leave that out? Second, the congressman has posted on twitter about this. Why do you leave that out? It does not get any more primary sourced than that. Here it is: There is a lot of misinformation floating out there regarding my meeting with Julian Assange so let me provide some clarity on the matter: At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange. Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country. I was shocked to find out that no other member of Congress had taken the time in their official or unofficial capacity to interview Julian Assange. At no time did I offer Julian Assange anything from the President because I had not spoken with the President about this issue at all. However, when speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him. At no time did I offer a deal made by the President, nor did I say I was representing the President. Upon my return, I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly. I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. No one followed up with me including Gen. Kelly and that was the last discussion I had on this subject with anyone representing Trump or in his Administration. Even though I wasn't successful in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to pardon Julian Assange, who is the true whistleblower of our time. Finally, we are all holding our breath waiting for an honest investigation into the murder of Seth Rich. I think I know why you would not view this or post it. Because it completely undermines what you and the MSM are trying to say about it. Trump had nothing to do with the visit. And it is pretty clear that Kelly and Trump ignored it all after the fact. It also completely contradicts the idea that there was anything to Russiagate. Especially note the last sentence in that aspect. 18 Comments Edited February 21, 2020 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 47 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Bob, that was really bad, I mean really. This is a JFK forum for people who do research, which as far as I can tell, you and Joe B really do not do a lot of. If you have, please show me there the essays are housed or if you wrote a book that I missed. Jeff has done research in the past and has a lot of work to show for it. I have written or co-edited three books and literally scores of essays. The point is, we know the difference between a primary source and a secondary source. We also can detect bias and spin. Unintentionally hilarious! Jim DiEugenio and Jeff Carter can't figure out the location of JFK's back wound. They sure can push the bias and spin tho! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: Here's what was reported... What part of the above do you have trouble understanding, Jeff? The link you introduced to this thread was from The Daily Beast reiterating a Reuters article, and it clearly misrepresented a statement by Assange’s lawyer. The headline of the article, if you can’t remember, was: “Trump Offered Assange Pardon If He Covered Up Russian Hack, Wikileaks Founder’s Lawyer Claims”. (see page 100 of this thread). Several fellow posters then repeated this phoney premise (based on the phoney headline initially introduced by yourself. leak vs hack. Wikileaks says it was a leak. Wikileaks’ position, when it is finally established, obliterates the entire Russiagate fiction. The Rohrabacher meeting is an extremely minor footnote to all of this. The only reason persons are suddenly fixating on this is because it was deliberately misreported as something potentially sinister. Rohrabacher’s visit was noted in the press at the time, and he spoke to The Intercept about it in 2018. Wikileaks contacted the Mueller people several times offering to clarify the nature of the leaks but were rebuffed. The only attribution of the Greenwald quote you provided dated to 2013. Correcting that is hardly the “gotcha” moment you think it is, as you used the quote to imply Assange was not in any serious jeopardy from US authorities until the charges were unsealed last year after he came into British custody. It appears now that you relied on a NYTimes article for such assertion. The article suggests the expedited pressure was initiated by Pompeo, not Trump. The article’s assertion that the Obama administration was “hands off” is belied by the determined incarceration of Assange in Britain, including the refusal to respect the asylum granted by Ecuador. The Swedish “sex” charges, justifying British actions, were entirely bogus, as recently confirmed by a senior UN official,. The intent to render Assange into US custody dates back at least to Obama’s second term with the initiation of the Swedish charges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 On 2/20/2020 at 1:05 PM, Joe Bauer said: This "Pardon Offer" to Assange has now been officially acknowledged by Rohrbacher himself. Here we have another "Rudy Guliani" type "official but not official?" mission of a single point man sent to "work a deal" with Assange to apparently protect the interests of Russia/Putin and Trump's defense of them. And done with the same "mafia type" MO. Never a direct link to Trump. Keep the Godfather insulated. Yet Rohrbacher has a "direct line" to speak with Trump's chief of staff ( chief Capo ) John Kelly about this mission? Kelly took the call and listened to Rohrbacher's message but didn't respond directly regards any further action or "non-action?" Look, when someone in Rohrbacher's postion can call and get directly connected to Trump's chief of staff about "anything" that says a lot about Rohrbacher's high standing within the highest levels of Trump's staff. And Kelly never mentioned Rohrbacher and this call or the Assange/Russia problem to Trump? Please. If this 3 hour long meet-up mission to the Ecuadorian Embassy in London by Rohrbacher was just to see what Assange knew about the Russian's as a source, John Kelly would probably have been more open to discussing it with Rohrbacher versus this typical ( I can't talk about it on these secure lines ) silence and non-response. And here we go again with desperate damage control word and semantic games by Rohrbacher. Assange has made a clear and specific charge. He was offered a pardon to "deny Russian hacking" in the 2016 election. Not that he was asked to help dispel the conspiracy theories surrounding them. Just from the Guliani Ukraine scheme alone, we all know the Trump way. His credibility is shot. Most know this now and you just can't trust anything he and his enablers say anymore. And here just today, we have another Trump crony ( Roger Stone ) being sent to prison for his lying about Assange and these Russia involvement matters. Wake up people! Thank you, Joe, for this. I always find your postings to be informative and grounded in common sense. Our forum is a better place for you participation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said: The link you introduced to this thread was from The Daily Beast reiterating a Reuters article, and it clearly misrepresented a statement by Assange’s lawyer. The headline of the article, if you can’t remember, was: “Trump Offered Assange Pardon If He Covered Up Russian Hack, Wikileaks Founder’s Lawyer Claims”. (see page 100 of this thread). Several fellow posters then repeated this phoney premise (based on the phoney headline initially introduced by yourself. I stand corrected! You're right, we have one inaccurate headline. But in my subsequent posts I referred to this part of the Reuters article: At Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Assange’s barrister, Edward Fitzgerald, said that former Republican U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher had been sent by the president to visit Assange in 2017 to offer him a pardon. The pardon would come on the condition that Assange say the Russians were not involved in the email leak that damaged Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016 against Trump. </q> If you want to cling to a "gotcha" over a headline, knock yourself out. Quote leak vs hack. Wikileaks says it was a leak. I've asked you repeatedly to cite Assange saying the Russians didn't hack the DNC. Quote Wikileaks’ position, when it is finally established, obliterates the entire Russiagate fiction. RussiaGate Denial requires a true belief in the notion that Crowdstrike in 2016 conspired with elements of the DNC, the FBI, and the CIA to frame Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump with a false flag attack on the DNC server. A man was murdered in connection to this. Over the last 5 months of the 2016 campaign the Russia-hacked-the-DNC story made two (2!) cable news 24 hour cycles -- June 14/15 and July 24/25. Over the last 70 days of campaign there was a total news blackout. On Oct. 7 the Obama Administration officially accused the Russian government of meddling in the election and that didn't make the news cycle, drowned out by Access Hollywood and Podesta e-mails, On Halloween David Corn wrote up the Steele Dossier in Mother Jones, but that didn't get covered either -- drowned out by Hillary's e-mail non-scandal. Apparently the whole Mighty Wurlitzer thang kept a tight lid on the event a man died to stage. Quote The Rohrabacher meeting is an extremely minor footnote to all of this. The only reason persons are suddenly fixating on this is because it was deliberately misreported as something potentially sinister. August 2017-- Rohrabacher dangles a pardon. November 2018-- the State Dept. and the DOJ go after Assange. March 2019-- Eastern District of Virginia returns one relatively minor charge against Assange. May 2019-- 17 more counts on Assange, all of which the Obama DOJ expressly refused to charge. If Trump believed Assange could help him why did he go after him? All Assange had to do was let Russia off the hook for the hack -- but he didn't. Quote Rohrabacher’s visit was noted in the press at the time, and he spoke to The Intercept about it in 2018. Wikileaks contacted the Mueller people several times offering to clarify the nature of the leaks but were rebuffed. The only attribution of the Greenwald quote you provided dated to 2013. Correcting that is hardly the “gotcha” moment you think it is, as you used the quote to imply Assange was not in any serious jeopardy from US authorities until the charges were unsealed last year after he came into British custody. He was facing one charge from the Eastern District of Virginia. The other charges were conjured by the Trump DOJ in a massive attack on press freedom. Quote It appears now that you relied on a NYTimes article for such assertion. The article suggests the expedited pressure was initiated by Pompeo, not Trump. Are you serious? You seem to think everyone Trump employs acts independently of the man. Where do you get such notions? Quote The article’s assertion that the Obama administration was “hands off” is belied by the determined incarceration of Assange in Britain, including the refusal to respect the asylum granted by Ecuador. One minor count was the product of the Obama DOJ. They recognized that charging under the Espionage Act would attack the free press. Quote The Swedish “sex” charges, justifying British actions, were entirely bogus, as recently confirmed by a senior UN official,. The intent to render Assange into US custody dates back at least to Obama’s second term with the initiation of the Swedish charges. An investigation that produced one minor charge. Edited February 22, 2020 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 22, 2020 Author Share Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) DC: Thank you, Joe, for this. I always find your postings to be informative and grounded in common sense Even when he is wrong Doug? I just quoted Dana R himself to prove that. Why ignore it? Assange has already said that he did not get the emails through Moscow. What Dana R asked him to do was to provide proof of that. He made it clear this was his idea and the trip was on his dime. Therefore it was not an offer from the White House, and Dana R has admitted in the above tweet he had no contact with Trump either before or after the trip.What don't you comprehend about that? And it does not in any way certify any kind of validity to Russiagate. Dana R clearly thinks the Russians had nothing to do with it. He thinks Assange got them from a leak inside the DNC, probably Seth Rich, who was trying to expose the corruption inside that body toward HRC and against Sanders. Which we now know through that source, and also through the Brazile book, existed in abundance. Edited February 22, 2020 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Bob, that was really bad, I mean really. This is a JFK forum for people who do research, which as far as I can tell, you and Joe B really do not do a lot of. If you have, please show me there the essays are housed or if you wrote a book that I missed. Uh... what are you talking about? I specifically said the Jennifer Robinson story is thin. She is A PRIMARY SOURCE. She is one of Assange's lawyers. She disagrees with Rohrbacher apparently and I don't believe Rohrbacher would admit to it if it were true. The reporting isn't very substantial (as Jeff pointed out re ellipses) re what she said but apparently we'll know next week. I do know the CIA likely knows as they appear to have video and audio recordings from inside the embassy during the time he was there. The jury is out as far as I'm concerned and so stated. Regarding research I certainly respect many of the posters here and especially your credentials but that doesn't mean I bleet everything in repetition. You failed to verify a post here that you insinuated was credible but was quite obviously a lie, in fact I said as such, and the effort would have taken literally reading one line of the source's own "proof". Everyone makes mistakes of course but some people I literally have to check everything they say and it gets tiresome. You're not one of them FWIW. On some subjects I chime in because I do have knowledge and or experience that I feel confident in sharing although I don't expect everyone to agree. Edited February 22, 2020 by Bob Ness Jennifer Robinson not williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now