Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2019 at 12:30 AM, James DiEugenio said:

  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.

The Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed in August 1963 and went effective in that October. As you have written about previously, JFK did not want the Israelis to have nukes but the Mossad managed to smuggle enough HEU out of the NUMEC plant in Apollo PA to eventually build a few bombs.

A number of researchers on another forum are working under the theory that JFK's commitment to non-proliferation was a much greater threat to The-Powers-That-Be (TPTB) than is commonly given credit for and that their was considerably more proliferation going on than just the pilfering of the HEU from NUMEC, and that it started way before JFK's Presidency. (There is some speculation that some of the U-235, that was surrendered by the Nazi submarine U-234 in 1945 was diverted. There is a book that alleges U-234 made one or two stops in Maine after it was captured by the US Navy even though the original accounts do not show those stops.)

What is often over looked is the "hype" of the promise of an atomic age, the investment dollars it attracted, and the huge asset bubble it created (see Orange Arrow.)

 

JFK may have spoken broadly about ending nuclear proliferation, from the standpoint of getting countries to sign non-proliferation and related treaties (test ban), but a very big challenge would be to stop the illegal sale of Uranium and other nuclear metals and equipment. It certainly looks like the AEC was looking the other way when the HEU left Apollo PA and there are plenty of other incidents (missing U, missing nukes, "accidents".) 

JFK concerns regarding nuclear proliferation were real. It was not just about stopping a foreign government from buying nuclear material and equipment, it was about ending the illicit sale of material and equipment by parts of the US Gov. and companies.

Nothing has changed in 55 years.  

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

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.

 

1. The Bijian Case involves real crimes.

2. The Flynn Obstruction Case involves fake crimes.

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.

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

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.

Besides JFK's foreign policy, I feel that the Israeli connection to this case is the most overlooked subject in the community and the scant public discussions that took place (echoing Penn Jones). In my opinion, as far as motives go, between Cuba, Congo, Indonesia, and the Steel crisis, JFK's stance on Israeli nuclear weapons is at least as powerful as those others. When you factor in the close networks between the CIA and Mossad through Angleton, Permindex, CMC, etc... There is some smoke there.

It's also interesting to note that according to Avner Cohen, De Gaulle went through a similar episode in regards to Israeli nuclear proliferation. I don't think he was demanding inspections, but he supposedly withdrew official French support of Israeli nukes.  I haven't dug into it, but I'd be curious if the OAS assassination attempts started after De Gaulle moved against Israeli interests or not. Obviously Algeria is the main motive normally attributed to the OAS, but wasn't Permindex linked with the OAS as well?

 

Also, I wonder if Robert has any info on the uranium connection through the Dal Tex building? According to Piper, the owner of the Dal-Tex building was a major ADL financier and that multiple firms in the building are linked to Morty Freedman who is linked to the Dallas Uranium and Oil Company.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

    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.

 

Agreed. Kinda makes me wonder how many rats will make it to shore.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Also, I wonder if Robert has any info on the uranium connection through the Dal Tex building? According to Piper, the owner of the Dal-Tex building was a major ADL financier and that multiple firms in the building are linked to Morty Freedman who is linked to the Dallas Uranium and Oil Company.

This blog has some information. It has been around for years and is not updated frequently. Nonetheless, their is some interesting information. Just search for Uranium.

https://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/

http://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2011/06/other-uranium-explorers-in-texas-in.html

These links may be of interest.

https://dstate-analytics.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-gibson-island-atomic-lighthouse-and.html

https://dstate-analytics.blogspot.com/2019/09/we-found-russian-princess-while-looking.html

https://dstate-analytics.blogspot.com/2019/09/wash-rinse-repeat-at-troika-laundromat.html

https://dstate-analytics.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-apollo-affair-missing-uranium-and.html

In more current news, it looks like Leonid Vindman, the brother of Alexander "the Whistleblower" Vindman was in the nuclear metals business via Tungsten Capital.

Leonid was also working for the Russian/German arm of Unicredit. Unicredit was fined $1.3 billion for violating US sanctions in the trade of weapons of mass destruction to Cuba, Burma, Libya, Sudan, and Syria. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20190415.aspx

The press release does not give any names, but I'll give you one guess who the bag man was.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

So whats your guess?

 

I don’t have to guess. I know.

The guess is yours. 

That’s how the “guessing game” is played.

We’ll try something simple.

Hey Paul, “what’s in my pocket?”

Now you guess what is in my pocket. Think of things that might fit in a pocket. Don’t waste your guess on something that is too big, like a VW Microbus, or something that might make a mess, like Jello.

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...