Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

James DiEugenio

Recommended Posts

Now that it looks like Flynn prosecution/sentencing is done with, we may be getting closer to some indication on what it was exactly about him that the Obama people were so determined to prevent. Unless there is something still in the shadows, it appears to boil down to a desire to prevent cooperation with the Russians in finally flushing all the UN-designated terrorist jihadist types out of Syria and allowing that country to rebuild. As it stands, the Americans running Syria policy have maintained continuity with Obama era and have succeeded in preventing any cooperation, succeeded in a rough partition of the country, and are on record as boasting of their intentions of keeping Syria a shattered basket-case (with sanctions) and providing a "quagmire" for the Russians. Real humanitarians. It actually is a criminal foreign policy.

The MSM commentariat continues to posit that the dismissal of the charges is outrageous, and continue a steadfast refusal to consider the scope of the exculpatory evidence which has been unearthed since a prosecutor was assigned to look into the case. They have never acknowledged that Flynn's troubles began with an entirely bogus story promoted by Stefan Halper - who also played an undercover, if not sinister, role with Carter Page and Papadopoulos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

More on Halper - who may have been the source of the illegal Flynn leak to Ignatius of The Washington Post in January 2017. The Durham investigation has, apparently, looked closely at Halper and the so-called "Cambridge Four" as described in this article. 


The machinations in court, which have been continuing after the Flynn judge balked rather than follow the DOJ instructions, may climax tomorrow. Either way, the story of the deliberate take-down of Flynn to disrupt a newly elected administration will eventually be understood to a wider audience.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Volume Five of the Senate Subcommittee on Intelligence's investigation of alleged malign "Russian activity" to tip the 2016 election in Trump's favour has been released to a predictable chorus of "hosannas" from the mainstream media, whose journalists prove yet again they don't know what they are talking about and don't read primary sources. Here's a quick look at how three Russiagate personalities are dealt with in the Report:

Stefan Halper

The name Stefan Halper appears nowhere in the almost 1000 page report, despite his being ubiquitous in the Flynn, Carter Page, and Papadopoulos “Russian links” narratives. This is particularly curious by way of the Report’s discussion of Flynn’s “Connections To Russia” (p753), as it was Halper’s false accusation asserting Flynn had conducted an affair with a Russian intelligence officer in August 2016 which led directly to the opening of the Crossfire Razor (Flynn) component of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence operation. 



Joseph Mifsud

“Mifsud played a central role in Papadopoulos’ attempts to engage the Russian government on behalf of the Trump campaign.” However,the Committee's awareness of Mifsud's activities is limited to document production and testimony from other witnesses, information from the Executive Branch, and open source research.” (P468)  This is remarkable, as the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation was said to be predicated on Papadopoulos’ prescient knowledge of Clinton emails - information generally agreed he received from Mifsud.  That is, Mifsud was a “central figure” in the entire imbroglio yet the Senate Subcommittee on Intelligence cannot, apparently, locate let alone interview the man. It has been averred that the FBI did in fact interview him in February 2017, but this transcript apparently was not shared (or was not sought) by the Subcommittee. Independent researchers have demonstrated that Mifsud appears far more associated with western intelligence operations than a possible Russian agent, but the Subcommittee Report chooses to portray him as “highly suspicious” and his activity consistent with “intelligence tradecraft” that matched “GRU information disclosure operations.” (P466) In other words, Mifsud’s alleged ties to Russian intelligence networks is admittedly entirely circumstantial and unverified, while Mifsud’s motivations - crucial to the entire “Russian collusion” narrative - remain entirely undisclosed.



Konstantin Kilimnik

The supposed proof that Kilimnik is a “Russian intelligence officer” initially appeared as an opaque footnote in the Mueller Report, referring to FBI testimony from an inaccessible court proceeding. The Subcommittee Report does not follow this up, but instead flatly asserts such tag because it claims to have found “reliable evidence suggesting that Kilimnik…is part of a cadre of individuals…who implement Kremlin-directed influence operations.” (emphasis added) The Report then refers to its "intelligence officer" ID as in fact merely an “assessment” based on a “body of information”, most of which is redacted except for a brief reference to an SCO report which in turn asserted Kilimnik had “ties” to Russian intelligence services. Further unredacted “proof” consists of Kilimnik’s expressed opinions on matters which were “similar in nature to Russian counter-narratives”, and hearsay dating back to his employ at IRI.     (P. 158-164) Elsewhere, the Report highlights information it claims is “consistent with Kilimnik's affiliation with the Russian intelligence services because they closely align with Russian intelligence tradecraft.” That is incredibly weak, yet the assertion is now presented as "established fact".

This has predictably generated a new round of feverish assumption centered on the Mueller probe's theory that the Russian collusion effort was directed out of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort's Ukraine office, where Kilimnik served as business partner since about 2005. The Report promotes this thinking by noting that discussions between Manafort and Kilimnik regarding Manafort’s work as Trump campaign manager centered on rather obvious strategies such as emphasizing Clinton's negatives and a concentration on identified battleground states (p80), plus the often referred sharing of campaign polling data (which supposedly informed the inane Facebook ads). The Report concedes that the investigators have no idea what, if anything, Kilimnik might have done with the such data (“The Committee was unable to determine Kilimnik's actions after receiving the data") (p82).  


In a minor aside during discussion of Wikileaks, the Report acknowledges the Trump Campaign “treated the (Wikileaks) releases as just another form of opposition research.” This seems to be the case for all instances of alleged "collusion". The willful mischaracterization of this essentially reactive posture has been the signature position all along.



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

  • Create New...