Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


James DiEugenio
 Share

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Crickets.

None of the Trump Colluded with Russia "experts" here ever heard of the Bijian Kian trial.

The one trial, out of the two, where prosecutors could legitimately haul Flynn in to court, and threaten him with 30 years for not knowing that the CEO of his own company was bribing the Turkish government.

And yet the prosecutors have not hauled Flynn in to court, and they never will.

I would like to hear from the Trump Colluded with Russia "experts"; why?

The Bijian Trial is the "you-know-what" in the Flynn "Obstruction" prosecution punch bowl. 

Here is a simple JFK analogy for the experts.

It is 2019. You are 17 years old.

You just read the five paragraphs about the JFK Assassination in your Holt-Mifflin AP History textbook. 

Everything you know about the JFK Assassination is contained in those five paragraphs.

You now consider yourself an expert on the JFK Assassination.

Haha! We're getting to you, don't you fret hahaha! Looks interesting btw.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The hidden story of the 2016 election is the massive, multi-faceted voter suppression campaign conducted on behalf of Donald Trump...

The GOP’s Stealth War Against Voters

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/the-gops-stealth-war-against-voters-247905/

When Donald Trump claimed, “the election’s going to be rigged,” he wasn’t entirely wrong. But the threat was not, as Trump warned, from Americans committing the crime of “voting many, many times.” What’s far more likely to undermine democracy in November is the culmination of a decade-long Republican effort to disenfranchise voters under the guise of battling voter fraud. The latest tool: Election officials in more than two dozen states have compiled lists of citizens whom they allege could be registered in more than one state – thus potentially able to cast multiple ballots – and eligible to be purged from the voter rolls.

</q>

Report: More Than 30M Voters Purged From Rolls in Last 5 Years

https://www.governing.com/topics/politics/Report-More-Than-30M-Voters-Purged-in-Last-5-Years.html

In a 2013 case known as Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which required counties or states with histories of discrimination to submit any proposed changes to voting rules or procedures to the federal Justice Department or a federal court, a process known as "preclearance."

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, counties covered by Section 5 purged voters at about the same rate as counties that were not required to seek federal permission.

But once those areas were free to make changes without federal approval, the Brennan Center report found, counties once covered by Section 5 purged voters at a higher rate than counties that were not required to seek preclearance.

The counties with histories of discrimination now purge about 10 percent of voters on their roles, while counties that did not require preclearance canceled about 7 percent of registrations.

</q>

The Comey Letter Probably Cost Clinton The Election

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

Hillary Clinton would probably be president if FBI Director James Comey had not sent a letter to Congress on Oct. 28. The letter, which said the FBI had “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation” into the private email server that Clinton used as secretary of state, upended the news cycle and soon halved Clinton’s lead in the polls, imperiling her position in the Electoral College.

The letter isn’t the only reason that Clinton lost. It does not excuse every decision the Clinton campaign made. Other factors may have played a larger role in her defeat, and it’s up to Democrats to examine those as they choose their strategy for 2018 and 2020.

But the effect of those factors — say, Clinton’s decision to give paid speeches to investment banks, or her messaging on pocket-book issues, or the role that her gender played in the campaign — is hard to measure. The impact of Comey’s letter is comparatively easy to quantify, by contrast. At a maximum, it might have shifted the race by 3 or 4 percentage points toward Donald Trump, swinging Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida to him, perhaps along with North Carolina and Arizona. At a minimum, its impact might have been only a percentage point or so. Still, because Clinton lost Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by less than 1 point, the letter was probably enough to change the outcome of the Electoral College.

</q>

A GOP-led Senate intel committee report states the obvious: Russia favored Trump in 2016

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/8/20905160/senate-intelligence-russia-2016-election

On Tuesday, the Senate panel released its second set of conclusions focused on Russia’s use of social media during the last campaign season. What it discovered was what US intelligence agencies have long assessed: Trump was Russia’s favorite.

“The Committee found that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 US presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton’s chances of success and supporting Donald Trump at the direction of the Kremlin,” the report reads using an acronym for the Internet Research Agency, the name for the group of the Russian hackers.

They did this in multiple ways, according to the report. The IRA targeted African Americans more than any other group through Facebook pages, Instagram accounts, Twitter trends, and more. “By far, race and related issues were the preferred target of the information warfare campaign designed to divide the country in 2016,” the committee wrote. The IRA also got unwitting targets to hand over personal information, sign petitions, attend rallies, and even teach self-defense classes.

It makes sense why Russia would choose to weaponize anger around race. As my colleague P.R. Lockhart noted last December, race issues in 2016 could be exploited due to already existing tensions in the US that were amplified by Trump as a candidate. Russia’s efforts later evolved into attempts to influence racial justice activism after the election, as Russian groups contacted black activists running legitimate organizations and attempted to set up real-world events.

</q>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez...when is this nauseating Trump/Fox Gaslight Theater series, now in its Third Season, finally going to end?

Today's T/F Gaslight Theater episode featured a decorated Iraq War veteran being smeared by the Trump/Fox Goon Squad for testifying that Trump did, in fact, attempt to extort political favors from Ukrainian President Zelensky, in exchange for designated military aid. 

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman also testified that Tricky Trump and his cabal of tricky attorneys edited the July 25th transcript to cover up references to Joe Biden and Burisma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Why is Jeff Carter reluctant to mention that John Dowd was Trump's lawyer from June 2017 to March 2018?

Absolutely hysterical segment on Maddow regarding Parnas' multitude of Investment Companies and the closure of them by regulators (something along the lines of 5?). Parnas is claiming to be on the staff of Rudy Guiliani (don't take a job like that! Parnas has to pay 500k to work for good ol Rudy) working for Trump and therefore his attorney, the sparklingly clean John Dowd, claims Parnas has some executive privilege complications or some such.  Maybe his other employer, Dmytro Furtash, reputed Russian mobster currently in Vienna but under indictment here, can help him out if the President doesn't.

I don't know why any one would think this is unseemly haha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please show me where HRC ever made a speech like this one.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-israel-palestinians_n_5db7a36fe4b02aee7d351cfd

This is the woman who had Gaddafi killed so Libya could turn into a rogue state full of Fundamentalists who could then raid Europe across the sea.

Sanders approach is much more like JFK's, which I outlined in the second issue of the Zine garrison.  And this shows how much the DLC, Henry Jackson Democrats took over after his death.  You know HRC and Bill schmoozing it up with Mr. Genocide, Henry Kissinger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Please show me where HRC ever made a speech like this one.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-israel-palestinians_n_5db7a36fe4b02aee7d351cfd

This is the woman who had Gaddafi killed so Libya could turn into a rogue state full of Fundamentalists who could then raid Europe across the sea.

Sanders approach is much more like JFK's, which I outlined in the second issue of the Zine garrison.  And this shows how much the DLC, Henry Jackson Democrats took over after his death.  You know HRC and Bill schmoozing it up with Mr. Genocide, Henry Kissinger.

Bernie is the only prominent American politician since Jimmy Carter who has had the cajones to publicly criticize Israel's Likud Party hardliners.

Obama (and Hillary) both acquiesced in the CIA/NATO/Neocon wars-- the one major policy area where I strongly disagreed with them.  (Leon Panetta allegedly told Obama early on his presidency, "Look, you can't just say, 'no' to these (MIC) guys.")

But, at least a Hillary presidency wouldn't have paralleled the basic plot line of Breaking Bad, like the current Trump/Fox Gaslight Theater series.

Trump keeps lurching from one crime, cover up, and policy fiasco to another.

We could call Sunday's episode, "Throw Baghdadi From a Plane."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let me add something else.

Bernie was not the only one there.  I think it is important to note who was  there.

It was Bernie, Buttigieg, Bennett, Klobuchar, and Castro.

Some sent messages, but Harris did neither.  

This J Street group is really part of the Democratic party that is trying to bring back the Dems from the Republican Lite DLC days.  As the poll quoted shows, that is where most of the party is on this issue.  Meanwhile the large part of the GOP is essentially in Likud's camp.  And Obama did nothing with the issue.

In that article in garrison, I noted that Kennedy--through 1962 and 63--pressed David ben Gurion, for some kind of Palestinian resettlement agreement, which the UN would pay for, and secondly for inspections of Dimona.  Ben Gurion danced around the second issue.  When JFK sent him a second letter cutting through the BS, Ben Gurion resigned within 24 hours of receiving it. 

This was another policy that was reversed upon his death. First by Johnson, and then even more by Nixon.  The guys in the CIA from back then will tell you that Kennedy was the last president who was completely dedicated to nuclear non proliferation. Especially in the Middle East.  LBJ and RMN did not do jack about it.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

And yet the prosecutors have not hauled Flynn in to court, and they never will.

I would like to hear from the Trump Colluded with Russia "experts"; why?

The Bijian Trial is the "you-know-what" in the Flynn "Obstruction" prosecution punch bowl. 

 

Sure this is easy. The judge f*ed up and let it go to the jury with improper instructions apparently. Flynn dropped out of his agreement and left no witnesses to testify against the defendants. The judge reversed himself (and the jury) which is very rare (but takes balls) and now Flynn is quite possibly hanging in the breeze so to speak. Not good news for Flynn really. I believe in this case he'll get the worst of both worlds - having admitted to the charge but leaving the bride at the alter. She won't be happy. Maybe not though.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob:

If the Flynn case is so open and shut, then why are they still hiding evidence?

Which case? They declined charging him because of his agreement in the Turkey case and in the other he plead guilty. The prosecutors aren't obligated to share evidence after the plea unless it's explicitly exculpatory which they're obligated to share in any case. They don't have to create a defense for Flynn, that's his attorney's job. Specifically after the defendent pleads guilty it's a done deal.

Suppose you were given a ticket for reckless driving and part of the prosecutors claim was witness testimony from a little old lady who claims you drove onto a sidewalk. The prosecutor says we'll lower the charge if you plead guilty. You plead to the lesser charge and admit to being guilty. After the fact it turns out the little old lady is visually impaired. You may have been able to dispute her testimony but decided not to for the lesser charge. You're still guilty because you admitted you were. The LOLs testimony is rendered irrelevant by your signature. I'm pretty sure that's how it would go down. The judge isn't going to be interested in reviewing  your negotiations with the prosecutor. Maybe Cory or some other attorney here would disagree with me  (they could add Latin like post facto or something haha) but having been on both sides of the coin so to speak thats likely how it would go down IMO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

        How did this thread about Mark Zaid, NSC whistle blowers, and Trump's 2019 Ukraine-gate extortion scam turn into a series of deflective diatribes about the fact that the paid foreign agent/entrepreneur Michael Flynn lied about his December 2016 contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

1. The Bijian Case involves real crimes.

2. The Flynn Obstruction Case involves fake crimes.

The Bijian case lacked evidence, not crimes. That's how it goes when defendants are given every opportunity to prove their innocence. C'e la vie...

How did Flynn plead guilty to fake crimes? If they were fake, he should have gone to trial. Instead he agreed they were real. Which they were.

3 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

3. The 2nd case was cooked up to cover up the first; because,

4. The State Dept., the Turks and the CIA are complicit in the first, all under the eye of the previous two administrations, and using the same basic business plan that has been in use since at least 1963.

This is an opinion which may have some validity but does not enter into the Flynn case because he plead guilty. Apparently that was because he and his attorney didn't think he would prevail if it went to trial.

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

        How did this thread about Mark Zaid, NSC whistle blowers, and Trump's 2019 Ukraine-gate extortion scam turn into a series of deflective diatribes about the fact that the paid foreign agent/entrepreneur Michael Flynn lied about his December 2016 contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak?

It's all a part of the standard operating principles of the current occupants of the White House. If your hand gets caught in the cookie jar, well... scream about how you weren't stealing ice cream from the fridge!!

"It's like shearing a piglet - much squealing and squirming but not much wool."    (My favorite quote from Vladimir Putin)

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

The Bijian case lacked evidence, not crimes. That's how it goes when defendants are given every opportunity to prove their innocence. C'e la vie...

How did Flynn plead guilty to fake crimes? If they were fake, he should have gone to trial. Instead he agreed they were real. Which they were.

This is an opinion which may have some validity but does not enter into the Flynn case because he plead guilty. Apparently that was because he and his attorney didn't think he would prevail if it went to trial.

It's all a part of the standard operating principles of the current occupants of the White House. If your hand gets caught in the cookie jar, well... scream about how you weren't stealing ice cream from the fridge!!

"It's like shearing a piglet - much squealing and squirming but not much wool."    (My favorite quote from Vladimir Putin)

    How many times do people have to observe Trump's pattern -- obstruction of justice, altering, selectively leaking, and withholding evidence, attacking the messenger(s), broadcasting false counter narratives, and creating distractions, etc. -- before they admit that he's a "racist, a con man, and a cheat?"

    Wheeler is a smart guy, but he's wasting his intellectual gifts trying to defend a self-serving con man and his crooked colleagues, most of whom are paid foreign agents like Trump, himself-- Kushner, Giuliani, Manafort, Flynn, McConnell, Graham, et. al.

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Suppose you were given a ticket for reckless driving and part of the prosecutors claim was witness testimony from a little old lady who claims you drove onto a sidewalk. The prosecutor says we'll lower the charge if you plead guilty. You plead to the lesser charge and admit to being guilty. After the fact it turns out the little old lady is visually impaired. You may have been able to dispute her testimony but decided not to for the lesser charge. You're still guilty because you admitted you were. The LOLs testimony is rendered irrelevant by your signature. I'm pretty sure that's how it would go down. The judge isn't going to be interested in reviewing  your negotiations with the prosecutor. Maybe Cory or some other attorney here would disagree with me  (they could add Latin like post facto or something haha) but having been on both sides of the coin so to speak thats likely how it would go down IMO.

 

Your analogy is inexact. More aptly, based on the little old lady, the prosecutor charges you with attempted vehicular manslaughter, reckless endangerment, fleeing the scene of a felony, and lying to a police officer. You face 10-15 years in prison. A plea deal is negotiated, whereby you are offered a guilty plea over a charge of reckless driving and face two weeks in jail and a fine. Your lawyer advises you to accept as he cannot guarantee a win at trial. You agree to the plea deal even while knowing you never actually drove up on the sidewalk. Attempts to use the old lady’s visual impairment during the sentencing phase is met with sneers and reminders that you pled guilty.You are forever after associated with being a “convicted criminal”.

By the way, the Senate intelligence Report never is able to directly link the IRA with a Russian government program or operation. Its claim that Russia officially “attacked” democracy or actively manipulated the 2016 election is therefore not a statement of “fact”, regardless of what the New York Times says. As well, by its own published numbers and statistics, the Senate Report confirms the IRA’s acknowledged programs were contextually minuscule and statistically insignificant, and therefore can in no way be considered “massive” or “brazen”. The lack of reading comprehension skills - particularly amongst professional journalists - is quite astonishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Your analogy is inexact. More aptly, based on the little old lady, the prosecutor charges you with attempted vehicular manslaughter, reckless endangerment, fleeing the scene of a felony, and lying to a police officer. You face 10-15 years in prison. A plea deal is negotiated, whereby you are offered a guilty plea over a charge of reckless driving and face two weeks in jail and a fine. Your lawyer advises you to accept as he cannot guarantee a win at trial. You agree to the plea deal even while knowing you never actually drove up on the sidewalk. Attempts to use the old lady’s visual impairment during the sentencing phase is met with sneers and reminders that you pled guilty.You are forever after associated with being a “convicted criminal”.

The example was to illustrate a point, plus I never said he didn't drive up on the sidewalk. What I said was her testimony could be disputed. In this case, if you read the agreement, he admitted to the assertions the prosecutors made.

Also, in this case, the prosecutor suggested a very lenient sentence in lieu of his cooperation and the judge wasn't keen on the agreement. He even warned Flynn not to go through with sentencing at that time because based on his understanding of the available evidence (which presumably includes a lot of stuff we don't know about) he thought Flynn had egregiously betrayed the country or some such and he WAS going to give him the guillotine. He delayed it to see how cooperative Flynn would be and now we'll see how that goes. He left the bride at the alter and I can't think they'll be real pleased about that.

Edited by Bob Ness
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...