Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Nice one. A superficial partisan rejection of one of the more interesting and insightful observations of this sordid affair.

So was it superficial partisanship which prevented you from making the full disclosure that John Dowd had been Trump's lawyer?

Why would you intentionally leave out that little detail?

Quote

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-trump-attorney-john-dowds-interview-abc-news/story?id=61008948

Your entire take on this topic has been superficial and partisan, to the extent that you simply don't know what you are talking about - as your above characterization of Manafort's business partner Kliminik as a "Russian operative" confirms.

Rick Gates testified that Kilimnick took possession of the internal polling data in order to pass it off to Oleg Deripaska.

Why Did Manafort Share Trump Polling? Mueller Leaves Clues

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-24/manafort-kilimnik-polling

What specifically are you denying here, Jeff -- that it was an operation designed to put polling data into the hands of a Russian oligarch?

What part of that do you challenge?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

37 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bob:

Do you really not understand how a plea bargain works? Or what deliberate overcharging is?

Haha! Been there baby! Been there! And that's why lawyers go in front of judges and they give the final ruling. It works Jim, it really does.

As I said to JC judges aren't going to let a prosecutor run rough shod over a defendant especially in a high profile case where their reputations are on the line. I've personally seen this happen and know exactly how it works. Many of the players, even in these larger cases, know each other and what is expected of them professionally. We of course hear of exceptional cases from time to time but that's what they are - exceptional.

Everything you and several others have been posting reads like I would expect a criminal or their lawyer to claim. To wit:

I was entrapped!
It was a set up!
He/she was working for the cops!
They can't prove it but they're running it up the flag pole anyway!
They're snowing us with paper so we can't respond!
The cops made me do it! I wouldn't have if it weren't for them!

Bad breaks and misunderstandings. Sure. But it still comes down to this:

Did they sign the little paper saying "Yep I did it!" or not?

Trust me on this one Jim, there are very few people who stand before a judge who are not guilty. It happens. Some jurisdictions are bad. Other circumstances enter in.

But almost all of the people standing before a judge are guilty of what they're charged with. The process is rigged as carefully as possible so they don't even charge or convict somebody of something they didn't do. As cynical as we are all at times the judges, agents, attorneys etc etc are mostly good people who are dedicated to doing what's right.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

The “detailed evidence of Russian hacking” is in dispute, mostly by Americans from across the political spectrum, many with intelligence backgrounds, challenging the veracity of the said evidence. The “35,000 Facebook ads” are not evidence of “Russian hacking”. It was an undisputed above board ad buy done by a commercial marketing firm from Russia. Mueller’s description of the firm as a front for Russian military intelligence is currently being challenged in a DC court. I don’t actually “deny” the evidence, I point out that the evidence has been reasonably challenged.

Fair enough it's being challenged. Who else would buy 35,000 Facebook Ads in Russia? I suspect evidence of the originator of the purchase won't be revealed in a courtroom because it has something to do with NSA intercepts or some other source. Perhaps the indicted Russian SVR members (alleged) would like to appear in court to clear that up?

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Flynn didn’t lie about phone calls to Kisylak, he just didn’t mention them. Whether his failure to mention them deserved legal sanction is currently being argued in DC courts. No connection to collusion is evident from those calls, and the US government has the full content of all these calls and concurrent email traffic.

This I believe was violating the Logan act.

 

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Why shouldn’t the Trump transition team have been concerned about Obama’s12/16 announcement? It initiated an unprecedented expression of hostility to the Russian Federation, based on unproven allegations, and would have the potential effect of damaging policy initiatives campaigned on by the President-elect.

Because the behavior of the Russians was an unprecedented attack on our country? Maybe that is what everyone was so concerned about? But Trump and his campaign and transition team were attempting to reward them? Jeez. Jeff I don't see why you defend this. It laughable - you sound like Putin et al are bunch school girls being treated so unfairly - it's an outrage!

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Whatever Trump’s reasons for concern over an FBI investigation of Flynn, that it might disclose a collusion conspiracy with the Russians wasn’t one of them because such conspiracy involving Flynn did not in fact ever happen, as the developed record clearly shows.

Flynn was floating olive branches to the adversary country he knew absolutely was trying to manipulate our election after having done so elsewhere. Fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, even though Mueller could not prove anything about collusion, what the Russians did was "an unprecedented attack" on the USA?

Are we supposed to forget about Pearl Harbor, or the British burning Washington, or Lee's attack at Gettysburg?

But I am sure Bob will say it was a cyber war. Some war, with xxxxx farms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob Ness. - I wouldn’t question your experiences in the legal realm, but I would ask how they are relevant. The indictments in question cite only minor / inconsequential inconsistencies (“lies”) which have no bearing on the larger question of alleged collusion. Technically, these inconsistencies could be construed as a misrepresentation and therefore technically violate the law against being less than truthful with government agents. Papadopoulos and Flynn both signed a document conceding exactly that, on the advice of their attorneys. Whether they did so because they truly felt remorse over their actions, or whether because they were convinced the least worst outcome was to follow the advice given - I do not know personally, but their behaviour afterwards suggests the latter.

 

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Who else would buy 35,000 Facebook Ads in Russia? 

A commercial marketing firm would purchase the ads. It’s officially conceded in the Mueller Report that the IRA is a commercial marketing firm. The GRU angle is an extra twist which is as yet an unproven allegation. The allegation is currently disputed in a DC courtroom. There is no indication of “secret evidence” that cannot be revealed, I.e. no classified references.

Quote

This I believe was violating the Logan act.

The Logan Act had been mothballed for about two centuries and was not an active guideline. No one has been indicted from the Trump team for contact with foreign persons. Flynn has not been indicted for violating the Logan Act. There is no law or precedent preventing contact between an elected transition team and foreign nationals.

Quote

Because the behavior of the Russians was an unprecedented attack on our country

How is this so? What attack? $100,000 in Facebook ads over a two year period is what sort of attack? Why are you so upset about it? It was likely a clickbait scheme which has been wildly misconstrued. The DNC email “hack” indictment is hotly contested, mostly by Americans themselves. Nothing about that yet rises to the level of verifiable fact. Why are you outraged?

 

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Flynn was floating olive branches to the adversary country he knew absolutely was trying to manipulate our election after having done so elsewhere. Fact.

It’s not a “fact”.  The “Russia manipulated our election” story remains entirely murky even years later, even after a very very thorough investigation. What’s the basis for your conclusions? How do you know what Flynn “knew absolutely”? Do you feel the Trump transition team was obliged to view Russia as an “adversary country”?

Edited by Jeff Carter
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I just posted a link about KT.  It says she was being sarcastic because at that time, the whole media was enthralled with Russia Gate.

The whole thing about lying to the FBI is being challenged by Sidney Powell on the basis that the FBI changed the 302.

Mueller could not prove anything about collusion in two years.  And he looked like a rather doddering old man before congress.

So now the Dems are going to the grand jury testimony to try and salvage something from Russiagate.

I thought this was now about Biden Gate?

IMO, McFarland's "sarcasm" defense never passed the sniff test in the case of that cached December 2016 transition team Email.  It's simply not plausible in the context of what she wrote.

As for Mueller's investigation, Trump stonewalled it from day one, after failing to obstruct it entirely.   Recall that Trump talked to both Dan Coates and James Comey about halting the Flynn investigation, prior to firing Comey-- the man who put him in the White House with his "October Surprise."

And when Trump was told that Rosenstein had appointed a Special "Russiagate" Prosecutor, he exclaimed, "I'm F*CKED!!"

Manafort lied about his "collusion" with Konstantin Kilimnik even AFTER his plea bargain agreement to cooperate with Mueller.

And Trump (and Don, Jr.) adamantly refused to talk to Mueller. 

Under the circumstances, Mueller's investigation, though highly productive, was still unfinished when Barr shut it down (and issued a bogus "summary" of the findings.)

Furthermore, Mueller made it clear that he was not permitted by DOJ guidelines to indict a sitting POTUS-- even on the ten counts of obstruction of justice-- but went out of his way to say that his investigation DID NOT EXONERATE Trump.
 

 

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

Bob Ness. - I wouldn’t question your experiences in the legal realm, but I would ask how they are relevant. The indictments in question cite only minor / inconsequential inconsistencies (“lies”) which have no bearing on the larger question of alleged collusion. Technically, these inconsistencies could be construed as a misrepresentation and therefore technically violate the law against being less than truthful with government agents. Papadopoulos and Flynn both signed a document conceding exactly that, on the advice of their attorneys. Whether they did so because they truly felt remorse over their actions, or whether because they were convinced the least worst outcome was to follow the advice given - I do not know personally, but their behaviour afterwards suggests the latter.

 

A commercial marketing firm would purchase the ads. It’s officially conceded in the Mueller Report that the IRA is a commercial marketing firm. The GRU angle is an extra twist which is as yet an unproven allegation. The allegation is currently disputed in a DC courtroom. There is no indication of “secret evidence” that cannot be revealed, I.e. no classified references.

The Logan Act had been mothballed for about two centuries and was not an active guideline. No one has been indicted from the Trump team for contact with foreign persons. Flynn has not been indicted for violating the Logan Act. There is no law or precedent preventing contact between an elected transition team and foreign nationals.

How is this so? What attack? $100,000 in Facebook ads over a two year period is what sort of attack? Why are you so upset about it? It was likely a clickbait scheme which has been wildly misconstrued. The DNC email “hack” indictment is hotly contested, mostly by Americans themselves. Nothing about that yet rises to the level of verifiable fact. Why are you outraged?

 

It’s not a “fact”.  The “Russia manipulated our election” story remains entirely murky even years later, even after a very very thorough investigation. What’s the basis for your conclusions? How do you know what Flynn “knew absolutely”? Do you feel the Trump transition team was obliged to view Russia as an “adversary country”?

Just stop. Read the Senate Intel report volumes 1 and 2. I don't care if it's in front of a court. If they win the dispute get back to me. Maybe you can tell me why a third of it is redacted. Just a guess - there's bunches and bunches of classified material under there! And that's why whomever is disputing it has tried to find out what it is! Viola!

http://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjKtcqo78DlAhUHuZ4KHdY6BsYQFjABegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw0Lk0TJbWjh0ea9JOMQUD4Y

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

In other words, even though Mueller could not prove anything about collusion, what the Russians did was "an unprecedented attack" on the USA?

Are we supposed to forget about Pearl Harbor, or the British burning Washington, or Lee's attack at Gettysburg?

But I am sure Bob will say it was a cyber war. Some war, with xxxxx farms.


Come on now Jim. I really like your posts mostly and you know better:

unprecedented

Adjective

without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled: an unprecedented event.

 

Yes read the Senate Intel report! You helped pay for it. And it's not collusion they have to prove it's conspiracy. Were they using Twitter bots during the Civil War? I didn't know that. But please read the report. This is a link to volume two which will have the information you so desire...

http://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjKtcqo78DlAhUHuZ4KHdY6BsYQFjABegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw0Lk0TJbWjh0ea9JOMQUD4Y

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites

Zaid is a straight shooter?

Really, ask John K or Jeff Sterling.

BN: We of course hear of exceptional cases from time to time but that's what they are - exceptional.

If this is not an exceptional case then what is?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to guess that few, if any here, are aware of Flynn's other criminal trial.

While everyone has been focused on the Flynn Russian Collusion trial, and the Special Counsel's efforts to bend over backwards to get some sort of conviction, another prosecution team in the Federal District Court of Eastern Virginia (Anthony Trenga presiding) has been bending over backwards to not convict the CEO of Flynn Intel Group (FIG)Bijan Kian Rafiekian.

Briefly, 

A jury found the former CEO of Flynn Intel Group, Bijan Kian Rafiekian, guilty of:

Trial Judge Anthony Trenga reversed the juries decision, and recommended a new trial.

  • Judge Trenga entered his final judgement on September 24, 2019.
  • The prosecutors have not filed a motion for a new trial.
  • The prosecutors appealed the final judgement by Trenga on October 24.

As brassballs.blog has been covering for over a year now, the judge and the prosecution have been trying to cover up the case all along. 

  • Meanwhile, Rafiekian is free on bond.
  • He faced up to 15-years in prison.
  • Prosecutors never filed a motion to jail him.
  • They never said Kian was a flight risk.

Some of you may ask;

  • Why is the judge and prosecution trying to cover up this case?
  • How come no one in the MSM is covering this trial?
  • How come General Flynn was never prosecuted?

The judge and prosecution need to cover up this case because it reveals the farce that is the Flynn Russia Gate Collusion Obstruction case.

More importantly, if Flynn was ever brought to trial, it would open up the proverbial can of worms, that the CIA, FBI, State Department would prefer to keep closed. This would include;

  • the disclosure of official US government complicity in the Turkish spy effort, in order to;
  • Get that pipeline built in Syria, and raise the question as to whether;
  • Bijian Kian (wittingly or unwittingly) was being used to pressure Flynn (wittingly or unwittingly) to;
  • accept the guilty charges related to the Russia Gate Collusion Obstruction case; which,
  • advances the Mueller and MSM narrative that Trump knowingly conspired with the Russians to steal the election and therefore should be removed from office.

This is where things get good. Consider the following:

All in the context of the attempt to bury the Bijian case by the judge and prosecutors;

  • Why did Flynn drop his original legal team and hire Sydney Powell?
    • Answer part 1: Flynn and his original legal team had the Bijian case hanging over their heads.
    • Answer part 2: The Bijian case can no longer be used as leverage against Flynn.
Edited by Robert Wheeler
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask a rhetorical question:  Would Russia Gate have happened if HRC won the election?

Obviously not.  There would have been no controversy over the Steele Dossier, Comey would have never shoved it in Trump's face and in all probability Buzzfeed would have not published it. Which means that Trump would not have fired Comey and there would have been no Mueller.

How did this all really occur then?  Because the entire Establishment and MSM thought HRC was going to win. Recall, Huffpost said it was in the bag, a probability of over 90 per cent. Almost every pundit and every celebrity  said Trump was not going to win.

HRC had every material advantage in the race, in fact it was not close in that regard--more money, more workers, the Access Hollywood tape etc.  How did she lose then?  As Steve Bannon said, they outflanked her.  They spent their limited funds in holding onto the south, and making forays into the upper midwest and mideast.  That is the Rust Belt.  And they disguised Trump as the economic nationalist.  Since they knew no one would buy HRC in that role due to her husband's record on NAFTA and Glass Steagall.  No one bought her as a change agent.  When a Democrat loses Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, something is wrong someplace. Here it was both the candidate and the strategy.

No one likes to admit they ran a stupid ass campaign, even though they had all the advantages. So HRC blamed Comey and the Russians. 

And what is amazing is that she is still doing it with Stein and Gabbard.  Which shows you what a sore loser she is.  And also how she cannot take responsibilty for her own mistakes. She picked two bad managers in Penn and Mook. And she then blew the VP choice with the ultra safe pick of Kaine.  When in fact Sanders or Warren would have given her a real rocket boost. In fact, I think she would have won with either of them. These were all her mistakes, just as letting Trump make twice as many visits to the upper midwest was a bad error on her part while  actually trying to extend herself into states like Arizona and ignoring her base.

So, she decided to blame her defeat not on Mook, or herself but Comey and the Russians. Its called transference of  guilt.  And now she plays even more the demagogue with Stein and Gabbard.  This is not statesmanship and it is not being gracious in defeat.  And its not good for the Democratic Party. But mostly its not being candid about one's own failures. As Bannon said, her tactics played right into his gameplan.  He said economic nationalism beats identity politics every time. And it did.

And that is what happened.  And Michael Moore predicted it --with no Ruskie interference--and no one would listen.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me ask a rhetorical question:  Would Russia Gate have happened if HRC won the election?

Obviously not.

With due respect Mr. Di I disagree with your answer.  Russian meddling would surely be investigated.  Remember, Trump was warned that Russia was trying to make contact with his campaign.  All evidence of Russian meddling would have been thoroughly investigated.   And it would have turned up the same info.  The investigation wouldn't have been impeded by all the stonewalling and lying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bob Ness said:
11 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Why shouldn’t the Trump transition team have been concerned about Obama’s12/16 announcement? It initiated an unprecedented expression of hostility to the Russian Federation, based on unproven allegations, and would have the potential effect of damaging policy initiatives campaigned on by the President-elect.

Because the behavior of the Russians was an unprecedented attack on our country? Maybe that is what everyone was so concerned about? But Trump and his campaign and transition team were attempting to reward them? Jeez. Jeff I don't see why you defend this. It laughable - you sound like Putin et al are bunch school girls being treated so unfairly - it's an outrage!

Besides which, I don't remember Trump ever having any public policy initiatives toward Russia during the election.  At that time, he was denying he had any relationship to Russia.

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

In other words, even though Mueller could not prove anything about collusion, what the Russians did was "an unprecedented attack" on the USA?

Are we supposed to forget about Pearl Harbor, or the British burning Washington, or Lee's attack at Gettysburg?

But I am sure Bob will say it was a cyber war. Some war, with xxxxx farms.

It says in the report he couldn't prove it because of all the lying. 

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...