Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

WN:

As I have said you are one of the most erudite and intelligent people on this forum.  No question about that.

But I think you and Bob and Paul are missing at least some of the points involved in this.

Unless something really big happens, the Dems simply do not have the votes to succeed in this.  I think Pelosi knows that, which is why she sat on the sidelines and waited it out.  She figures that even if she loses, she can extend this drama over to the election cycle and hurt the GOP and Trump that way.

But meanwhile, as this plays out its a great opportunity to see the inner workings of the Shadow Government, its players and its allies in the press. Having been through several of these things--the JFK case, Watergate, October Surprise, Iran/ Contra, 9-11, the Clinton impeachment, Florida 2000, Ohio 2004--if you avoid the smoke and mirrors of the MSM, and bypass the partisanship, you can get a sharp and indelible picture of the workings behind the scenes of a thoroughly corrupted system. Slowly,  I have learned how to do that.

To give you one example:  the guy who was played up as the whistleblower in Watergate, was actually the guy who helped set up the whole thing.

https://kennedysandking.com/obituaries/the-mysterious-life-and-death-of-james-w-mccord

But if you look at the other obits for McCord, the MSM still did not tell you any of this.  And its 45 years after the fact!   Know why?  Because the MSM was almost as bad on Watergate as they were on JFK.  So I have learned not to trust them on anything major, except maybe brushfires, hurricanes and earthquakes.

I don't agree with Mr Wheeler on everything, but I appreciate a different point of view with different sources.

 

PS . Is Mr. Wheeler from the same county that the Clintons live in?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

To further the analogy.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were not journalistic heroes in 1973-74, and Redford should never have glorified them as such in his film

Well, in this case, you have people like David Ignatius being puppets for people like Brennan.  The latter encouraged the former to "take the kill shot on Flynn".

Sydney  Powell is a good lawyer. The fact that no one knows who she is, tells you how bad the MSM is. And Mr. Wheeler should post the pdf of her latest filing.

As she illustrates with examples,  this is a battle between the White House and the Deep State people who hate Trump.  The latter do not want to see the IG report on how RG  started.  And they do not want to see Barr go after people like Brennan and Clapper who started it.

Again, to draw a parallel, the real winner behind Watergate was not Bradlee, Woodward, Ervin, or Sam Dash.

It was Dick Helms.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not Westchester.

East coast though, so I’m going to bed.

Mccabe had a house a few blocks away from the Clintons though. https://truepundit.com/inspector-general-mccabe-friendship-spans-decades-before-mccabe-cleared-hillary-in-email-probe/

That email server in her “bathroom” was not actually in her house, it was in the house Mccabe bought about a year before she ran for Senate.

Mccord got a Q clearance in 61 or 62. Another AEC groupy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim - I’m not buying it. The Deep State as you call it, fighting hard to prevent a demagogue from taking complete power are in this case doing the right thing. David Talbot has managed to parse this new reality. The Clinton’s, power brokers in the old system, are infinitely preferable to the Bush family. Yet notice that all the promoters of the hate Hillary camp never mention Bush. Why is that? Today’s FBI is not Hoover’s. Clapper and Brennan are not Dulles and Helms. Times change. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 8:59 PM, Robert Wheeler said:

Sydney Powell, General Flynn’s lawyer, file a 37 page brief yesterday. Note the CIA reference. 

2EA7849C-AA49-43AF-AAF0-9E9C84CB6299.jpeg

Question. What did Halper or any of this have to do with Flynn's guilty pleas to charges of lying to investigators and FARA violations? It's seems she's fishing for irrelevant information to boost his value to certain pardon capable denizens of the House of White. That is she wants dope about crap that isn't material to his case. Especially since when a person accepts a plea agreement they usually waive their constitutional and legal rights. The plea itself basically states "I did it! I understand the charges and I did it!" All other considerations are set aside including Brady claims.

BTW They're extremely unlikely to turn over classified call records and random NSA material to some Fox lawyer to scan through. And they shouldn't.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

To further the analogy.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were not journalistic heroes in 1973-74, and Redford should never have glorified them as such in his film

Well, in this case, you have people like David Ignatius being puppets for people like Brennan.  The latter encouraged the former to "take the kill shot on Flynn".

Sydney  Powell is a good lawyer. The fact that no one knows who she is, tells you how bad the MSM is. And Mr. Wheeler should post the pdf of her latest filing.

As she illustrates with examples,  this is a battle between the White House and the Deep State people who hate Trump.  The latter do not want to see the IG report on how RG  started.  And they do not want to see Barr go after people like Brennan and Clapper who started it.

Again, to draw a parallel, the real winner behind Watergate was not Bradlee, Woodward, Ervin, or Sam Dash.

It was Dick Helms.

To me it appears like she is trying to get access to information for her client that is irrelevant to the interviews in which he gave false statements. Grist for the "Deep State" mill. He knowingly plead guilty knowing he lied. It's that simple. He hadn't registered as a foreign agent and then accepted 600k from Turkey. The US Government has proof. End of story.

I'm not saying it's bad lawyering but it appears to me like posing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

So, are you saying that the entrapment of George P is similar to Flynn's?

I just don't get it. What entrapment? They made Flynn lie to FBI agents? They made him plead guilty and admit to breaking the law? Where is the entrapment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

I just don't get it. What entrapment? They made Flynn lie to FBI agents? They made him plead guilty and admit to breaking the law? Where is the entrapment?

1. The Flynn Entrapment A court filing shows the ugly tactics employed by James Comey’s FBI. - WSJ Editorial Board 12/12/18

2. FBI's entrapment of Gen. Flynn was despicable - Washington Examiner 12/14/18

Note that the second link above and quote below is from someone who claims to be a defender of Mueller.

Quote

As this site’s resident defender of special counsel Robert Mueller, I am obligated to insist that the investigators themselves uphold the same standards they would apply to others. Without excusing Flynn’s lies to investigators, a fair-minded observer can call foul on an obviously unfair, and perhaps unlawful, perjury trap.

3. The Flynn Entrapment - Hot Air - 12/13/18

More importantly than the actual content at the links, which can answer your questions, are the dates the article were posted. I'm pointing out the dates to highlight that we moved past the entrapment question almost a year ago (yes Flynn was "entrapped"); and that we are now at a deeper level of trying to understand the reasons for the entrapment.

Overly simplified, our question is: What is so important that the FBI would attempt to entrap a Sr. Trump official in the Trump Admin. (General Flynn)? 

All in the context of:

  • the FBI's willingness to mislead the FISA court. (the IG report is supposed to be coming out soon [they have been saying this for a month so I'm not holding my breath.]) 
  • the conviction of George P. and the "outing" of other FBI informants and CIA assets (Mifsud, Downey, Halper etc.)
  • the arrest of Paul Manafort and his conviction on charges related to crimes committed prior to joining Team Trump, where those crimes also destroyed the Podesta brother's lobbying firm (Podesta Group).
  •  the necessity of bringing in one of the biggest and rarely used guns in the Deep State's arsenal, Robert Swan Mueller 3rd. 
    • Mueller was not called in to investigate Trump.
    • Mueller was not called in to preserve the integrity of the FBI.
    • Mueller was not called in to keep Hillary's name clean, or from being investigated.
    • Mueller was not called in to protect Obama.
    • Mueller is too big and important for any of the above bullets. 

In the FBI/Flynn question and the bullet points added for context, Trump must go. 

Trump has to "go", like JFK and his brother had to go. Also like MLK and Nixon had to go. (I would argue Nixon was probably more of a loose canon and potential threat to some lines of business, rather than as a history changing agent of change like the first three (JFK, RFK, MLK.)

You don't assassinate a President because of a proposed change in the oil depletion allowance, and you don't peddle fake dossiers and expose the upper echelons of the CIA and FBI to indictments because you disagree with a Boarder Wall. 

You assassinate a President or plot a coup d'etat because the President is a threat to the entire Deep State franchise. The Deep State is at risk of losing control of entire legitimate industries (weapons, energy (especially nuclear), the media, mineral extraction, re-Insurance) and illegitimate industries (drugs & trafficking.) 

In turn, the Deep State franchise (the money making arm) finances the subversion of institutions, which in turn provide the protection of the franchise from Democratic processes, outright military insurrection or even Hong Kong/Chile/Yellow Jacket demonstrations and civil disruptions.

Those institutions include government agencies, certain courts, parts of academia, parts of the culture, and the keepers of the official historical record.

Trump threatens the Deep State. If they could kill him, they would.

No one has to like him.

No one has to agree with his policies.

Feel free to debate whether the ideal marginal tax rate is 35% or 55%. 

Just recognize that he is not a Deep State President, if he was, they would not have so blatantly exposed themselves trying to take him out.

If you know where to look, and who to listen to you can get a clearer look at the Deep State every day, things are being exposed, breadcrumbs are being dropped. You'll probably have enough information to know who was behind the JFK Assassination over the next year.

Some interesting info. about the CIA's involvement a Child Trafficking ring dropped Friday.  https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders/the-finders-part-01-of-01/view

 

 

 

Edited by Robert Wheeler
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

To further the analogy.

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were not journalistic heroes in 1973-74, and Redford should never have glorified them as such in his film

Well, in this case, you have people like David Ignatius being puppets for people like Brennan.  The latter encouraged the former to "take the kill shot on Flynn".

Sydney  Powell is a good lawyer. The fact that no one knows who she is, tells you how bad the MSM is. And Mr. Wheeler should post the pdf of her latest filing.

As she illustrates with examples,  this is a battle between the White House and the Deep State people who hate Trump.  The latter do not want to see the IG report on how RG  started.  And they do not want to see Barr go after people like Brennan and Clapper who started it.

Again, to draw a parallel, the real winner behind Watergate was not Bradlee, Woodward, Ervin, or Sam Dash.

It was Dick Helms.

Understood.  But I agree with Paul Brancato's point about the current dubious theories blaming the "Deep State" for Donald Trump's Ukrainian extortion scam.

For one thing, we have the July 25th Trump-Zelensky phone call transcript.

Two relevant, interesting MSM articles this morning...

1)  A history professor from UW published an NYT piece about the origins of the career Civil Service cadre/Deep State in the Progressive Era. (Although, she doesn't delve into the post-WWII corruption of the U.S. government by Dulles' "Secret Team.")

2)  WaPo has an interesting article about the latest PRRI survey showing that the delusional 26 percent of Americans who get their "news" from Fox will stand by Trump regardless of the evidence.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To finish off my McCord analogy to illustrate the point about Helms vs Nixon:

By the summer of 1973, Nixon seemed to realize what had really happened. He called up H. R. Haldeman at four in the morning, and asked him some pointed questions:

  • “Do you know anything about the Bennett PR firm, the Mullen Company?”
  • “Did you ever employ them at the White House? Were they ever retained by us for any purpose?”
  • “Did you know they were a CIA front?”
  • “Did you know that Helms ordered Bennett to hire Howard Hunt?”
  • “Did you know that Hunt was on the payroll at the Bennett firm at the same time that he was on the White House payroll?” (Probe, Vol. 3 No. 2, p. 32)

It was too late.

Shouldn't we learn from that?

When Paul says that he prefers the Clintons to the Bushes, again, this misses the point. One has to get past the partisanship, and into the process of how and why these things occur. I believe that there was a problem with Trump with certain elements of the Power Elite.  He ran as an outsider, and he had certain ideas about foreign policy that were not aligned with the Neocons.  And let us please acknowledge the fact that the Neocons know no political boundary.  Hillary Clinton is a neocon in foreign policy e.g. her association with Kagan, and Nuland.  Which is why Obama was an idiot to appoint her Secretary of State and let her run wild. This  is why she was attacking Trump as being a Putin groupie during the campaign.  Don't you guys understand that this was the whole point of the Steele Dossier, what with its idiotic Golden Showers BS? That is why Steele wanted it circulated throughout the State Department.

Comey and McCabe and others in the FBI bought into the Steele Dossier. After Trump was elected, the Democrats wanted to use this against Trump for purely political purposes. Adam Schiff did all he could to keep the provenance of it hidden.  Which tells you a lot about what he was up to.  McCabe and Comey and Rosenstein wanted to remove Trump from office because of it.  Which is nutty.  And they then used it for FISA purposes, which may be even nuttier.

Sidney Powell is exposing the whole Flynn matter as politically motivated. 

The interview was set up directly via a phone call to Flynn from Andrew McCabe, who then was deputy director of the FBI. McCabe, by his own account, made it sound like an ordinary national-security-related briefing of the sort Flynn was accustomed to giving the FBI. Even though McCabe clearly knew that Flynn was a potential subject of investigation, he deliberately dissuaded Flynn from having attorneys present.

Moreover, when the agents arrived, they and Flynn both treated the meeting as rather informal, even “jocular,” and “the agents did not provide General Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement … before, during, or after the interview.” The agents’ decision not to so inform Flynn was made at the direct behest of McCabe because “they wanted Flynn to be relaxed.”

In legal lingo, this is called a perjury trap.  The late, great Bob Parry diagnosed it as that when it happened. We are all catching up to him three years later.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

1. The Flynn Entrapment A court filing shows the ugly tactics employed by James Comey’s FBI. - WSJ Editorial Board 12/12/18

2. FBI's entrapment of Gen. Flynn was despicable - Washington Examiner 12/14/18

Note that the second link above and quote below is from someone who claims to be a defender of Mueller.

3. The Flynn Entrapment - Hot Air - 12/13/18

More importantly than the actual content at the links, which can answer your questions, are the dates the article were posted. I'm pointing out the dates to highlight that we moved past the entrapment question almost a year ago (yes Flynn was "entrapped"); and that we are now at a deeper level of trying to understand the reasons for the entrapment.

Overly simplified, our question is: What is so important that the FBI would attempt to entrap a Sr. Trump official in the Trump Admin. (General Flynn)? 

All in the context of:

  • the FBI's willingness to mislead the FISA court. (the IG report is supposed to be coming out soon [they have been saying this for a month so I'm not holding my breath.]) 
  • the conviction of George P. and the "outing" of other FBI informants and CIA assets (Mifsud, Downey, Halper etc.)
  • the arrest of Paul Manafort and his conviction on charges related to crimes committed prior to joining Team Trump, where those crimes also destroyed the Podesta brother's lobbying firm (Podesta Group).
  •  the necessity of bringing in one of the biggest and rarely used guns in the Deep State's arsenal, Robert Swan Mueller 3rd. 
    • Mueller was not called in to investigate Trump.
    • Mueller was not called in to preserve the integrity of the FBI.
    • Mueller was not called in to keep Hillary's name clean, or from being investigated.
    • Mueller was not called in to protect Obama.
    • Mueller is too big and important for any of the above bullets. 

In the FBI/Flynn question and the bullet points added for context, Trump must go. 

Trump has to "go", like JFK and his brother had to go. Also like MLK and Nixon had to go. (I would argue Nixon was probably more of a loose canon and potential threat to some lines of business, rather than as a history changing agent of change like the first three (JFK, RFK, MLK.)

You don't assassinate a President because of a proposed change in the oil depletion allowance, and you don't peddle fake dossiers and expose the upper echelons of the CIA and FBI to indictments because you disagree with a Boarder Wall. 

You assassinate a President or plot a coup d'etat because the President is a threat to the entire Deep State franchise. The Deep State is at risk of losing control of entire legitimate industries (weapons, energy (especially nuclear), the media, mineral extraction, re-Insurance) and illegitimate industries (drugs & trafficking.) 

In turn, the Deep State franchise (the money making arm) finances the subversion of institutions, which in turn provide the protection of the franchise from Democratic processes, outright military insurrection or even Hong Kong/Chile/Yellow Jacket demonstrations and civil disruptions.

Those institutions include government agencies, certain courts, parts of academia, parts of the culture, and the keepers of the official historical record.

Trump threatens the Deep State. If they could kill him, they would.

No one has to like him.

No one has to agree with his policies.

Feel free to debate whether the ideal marginal tax rate is 35% or 55%. 

Just recognize that he is not a Deep State President, if he was, they would not have so blatantly exposed themselves trying to take him out.

If you know where to look, and who to listen to you can get a clearer look at the Deep State every day, things are being exposed, breadcrumbs are being dropped. You'll probably have enough information to know who was behind the JFK Assassination over the next year.

Some interesting info. about the CIA's involvement a Child Trafficking ring dropped Friday.  https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders/the-finders-part-01-of-01/view

 

 

 

Your WSJ link is behind a paywall.

Let me clarify this.

If Flynn lies to a federal investigator or employee that is against the law. The Vice President claimed he lied to him. You don't believe that? It has nothing to do with anything pertaining to Halper, HRC, Mueller, Mifsud or anything. It has everything to do with sitting in a room with a federal agent and saying something he knows to be untrue. That's it. There's nothing more to say about it. Flynn has participated in probably thousands of these interviews, on both sides, while serving in his many positions as the DIA, his Army career , JSOC and on and on. He knows very well what the laws are about this as did his attorneys which is why he plead guilty. He was and so stated in clear and uncertain terms. These facts and the proof he lied is all we need to know. You can claim other things. But that is over.

Regarding the FBI's conduct while interviewing Flynn being "entrapment" or a "perjury trap" let me say this. There has never been a time in the history of legal proceedings and conspiracy investigations where the guilty party hasn't been "entrapped". Felons throughout the US will tell you they were "entrapped" because that's what they say and that's what the investigators do. They don't go handing out business cards saying "Hi, I'm a federal agent trying to see if you're a criminal. You'd better get that attorney of yours over here while we chit-chat about drug running." Believe it or not, the subjects often times don't know the person they are talking to are police/informers/agents! If they do, as in the case of Flynn, they'd be pretty stupid to try and BS them.

As I said, Flynn has been through and likely conducted THOUSANDS of these interviews and for him to claim entrapment is so laughable it's ridiculous. That's what they all say when there is no other defense. But it appeals to a certain victimization mind set which is easy to stoke in people predisposed to the idea.

He may be able to convince his mom he was entrapped - she'll feel better about her son - but the court is likely to throw it out.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob,

Flynn was not charged with any conversation with Pence.  If prosecutors charged every administration official with lying to another one, there would be no administrations.

Now, if you cannot see the unethical practice of planning to indict someone over an interview but not telling him to bring a lawyer, then this is what I am talking about.  Namely the process, the ends justifying the means.  

And that is not all in this case.  If you read the Powell filing, she argues that documents were altered. Even Sally Yates, who ended up going along with it, had problems with what McCabe had done.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2019 at 10:30 AM, W. Niederhut said:

FATAL FLAWS IN THE DEEP STATE-IS-OUT-TO-GET-TRUMP THEORY

 

1)  The FBI played a crucial role in defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016

       Remember all of those weekly front page stories in the mainstream U.S. media (including the NYT) in 2016 about the Hillary Email-gate nothing burger?  Most of these weekly headlines were based on leaks by anonymous FBI "sources"-- culminating in James Comey's "October Surprise" letter shortly before the election about re-opening the "investigation" of Hillary's Emails.  Recall also that Rudy Giuliani (PNAC's 9/11 man in NYC) had announced the Comey/FBI "October Surprise" in advance.  Meanwhile, Dean Baquet and the NYT had put the kibosh on any 2016 stories about the Trump campaign's collusion with the Kremlin.

2)  Russia definitely hacked the 2016 U.S. elections to put Trump and Congressional Republicans in office

       The evidence that Russia hacked our 2016 elections to put Trump and Congressional Republicans in office is overwhelming.  It was a multi-faceted Kremlin op based on Gerasimov Doctrine strategies of creating social divisions in the U.S. (ethnic, religious, cultural) in close parallel with the campaign strategies that helped Trump win the GOP nomination and Electoral College -- e.g., fear-mongering about Mexican immigrants, Muslims, blacks, etc.

3)  Trump and Congressional Republicans have repeatedly obstructed investigations of their close ties to the Kremlin, and have also blocked efforts to prevent ongoing Russian interference in our U.S. elections

4)  Trump has betrayed the research communities investigating Deep State crimes-- both the JFK assassination and 9/11

       After vowing to release the classified JFKA records in October of 2017--- as required by a unanimous act of Congress-- Trump abruptly declined to release the JFK records.

       After saying during his Republican primary debates that, "When (he is) President, Americans will find out who really destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11," Trump never said a word about what really happened on 9/11 subsequently.  In fact, his first trips abroad after his Inauguration were visits to PNAC's 9/11 co-conspirators in Saudi Arabia and Israel.

5)   Trump's main accomplices in obstructing investigations and suppressing the evidence of Republican collusion with the Kremlin have been Deep State insiders-- especially William Barr, the former CIA lawyer who was recruited to the DOJ from the Company by GHWB to manage the Iran-Contra pardons.  Another Deep State insider working for Trump has been Rudy Giuliani-- Dick Cheney and PNAC's crucial resource in NYC during the 9/11 op.  (Giuliani managed the sequestration and destruction of the WTC forensic evidence after 9/11, while telling everyone that Ground Zero was non-toxic.  He also told Peter Jennings on 9/11 that he had been forewarned by the OEM about the impending collapse of the WTC Twin Towers-- a claim which he later denied to Phillip Zelikow's 9/11 Commission.)

The theory that the "Deep State" conspired to "entrap" and sabotage Donald Trump's crooked 2016 campaign associates continues to make no sense, despite the machinations of Rupert Murdoch Trumpaganda rags like the WSJ.

It's like a systematized paranoid delusion from a Thomas Pynchon novel, seeking putative sinister connections where none exist.

For one thing, if the Deep State wanted to sabotage Trump, why did the FBI and the mainstream U.S. media (including the NYT) collude in sabotaging Hillary Clinton's 2016 candidacy, while suppressing Steele's Dossier-- even after Steele shared his findings with John McCain?

And, if Trump is at odds with the Deep State, why didn't he release the JFKA records and tell the American people "who really destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11," as he promised?

On the contrary, one of Trump's closest associates, Rudy Giuliani, was intimately involved in the Bush-Cheney/PNAC 9/11 op.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Flynn's new lawyer is arguing that his plea deal was undertaken even as the prosecution knew that the charge (lying to FBI officials) was not tenable. DOJ response to filings requesting information included this:

"the government informed defense counsel that DAD Strzok said that the defendant had a sure demeanor and did not give any indicators of deception during the January 24 interview, and that both of the interviewing agents had the impression at the time that the defendant was not lying or did not think he was lying."

Flynn's position is that he accepted the plea deal to avoid a piling on of further charges, including directed against members of his family, which his lawyers at the time indicated would be the consequence for not accepting.

The wide net being cast is meant to establish patterns of entrapment and/or deliberate malfeasance directed towards the Trump campaign and individuals associated with it. It's not a "conspiracy theory" if it can be established as actually having happened.

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...