Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


James DiEugenio
 Share

Recommended Posts

More on the Steele DOssier and its validity:

Mr. Steele also acknowledged that his final December memo, the only one that dealt with Mr. Gubarev, contained information he never vetted.

“The contents of the December memorandum did not represent (and did not purport to represent) verified facts, but were raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation given their potential national security implications,” he wrote.

He added, “Such intelligence was not actively sought; it was merely received.”

The unverified “raw intelligence” included Mr. Cohen reported trip to Prague.

BuzzFeed posted the complete dossier on Jan. 10 as Mr. Trump was about to assume the presidency. Mr. Gubarev is suing the online news site for libel in federal court in Florida and wants to know who supplied the document to BuzzFeed.

Mr. Steele’s libel defense is not truth. He argues that he warned Fusion and reporters against making his memos public and never authorized their disclosure.

Mr. Steele’s handiwork got only a qualified endorsement from the ex-head of MI6, the British intelligence service where Mr. Steele once worked before founding his private investigating firm.

 

BTW, we all know about Cohen in Prague plotting with the Russians right? 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

I get what you are trying to describe but when you use the words "amass", "Facebook", and "followers", in the same sentence, the post goes from dismissively hyperbolic to satirically enjoyable.

I quoted a source verbatim.

Doesn't change the numbers. My point is the ad buy was minuscule compared to the organic campaign. These numbers are only for Facebook. If you include Google, Reddit, Youtube, Twitter, Instagram, and all the rest they can wrangle numbers from "amass" isn't an exaggeration. The cumulative numbers would be "staggering".

Add on ghost domains, comment spamming, multiple proxy servers and so on whose traffic numbers aren't as accessible and the scope of the effort can't just be waved off with "the ad buy was 30k" and accomplished by a few Filipinos with a 486. That's my point.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 BN Although you may think Trump is being picked on by a cabal of neo-liberal thugs that are staging a "coup" the fact is he's reaping the fruits of what his own behavior has sown.

WN:  David Korn at Mother Jones published the only 2016 pre-election story in the entire U.S. media about the Steele Dossier, on October 31st.  

Can you guys be serious about the above?  As they say, everyone is entitled to an opinion.  But you cannot create your own facts in order to do so.

The accusations of Trump being a stooge of the Russians precede October 31st by a period of months. HIllary Clinton began it during the debates. And  the whole Guccifer thing began in July of 2016

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-suspects-russia-hacked-dnc-us-officials-say-it-was-to-elect-donald-trump

Is it only a coincidence that the sting on George P began around that time also?

As a person who studies history, i try to look for origins and patterns.  What is important to recall about those two events is this: the Steele Dossier was in the making at the time, but in the background. In other words, it was a triple header to push the Russia angle in the summer of 2016.

If you want to ignore this, then fine, that is your choice.  But in my opinion, it gravely weakens your argument that somehow Trump brought this on himself. Six months before he took office? 😲

The rigorous avoidance of these facts, and the obeisance to the MSM spin agains recalls what the MSM did on Watergate.  How can it not? 

I mean didn't you guys read Secret Agenda?  That is not a rhetorical question, and I would like an honest answer.

Jim,

      I bought a copy of Secret Agenda this summer, but I haven't read it yet-- it's in the stack of books on my reading list.  I understand the gist of the entrapment of Nixon.

     As for the MSM and the 2016 election, the data (from the Harvard studies and the Columbia Journalism Review) shows clearly that the MSM sabotaged Hillary-- newspapers, cable, and network news (see references above.)

      I observed it happening at the time, the weekly NYT headline stories -- based on anonymous FBI "leaks" about Hillary's Emails, etc. -- and found it quite puzzling. 

     Meanwhile, Dean Baquet deliberately blocked any pre-election NYT coverage of the Trump/Russia story and NOTHING was published about the Steele Dossier in the MSM prior to the election, other than the David Korn piece at Mother Jones.  This is the precise opposite of what we would have observed if the Deep State (and MSM) had conspired in 2016 to sabotage Donald Trump.

      

 

    

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

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 The accusations of Trump being a stooge of the Russians precede October 31st by a period of months. HIllary Clinton began it during the debates. And  the whole Guccifer thing began in July of 2016.

How so Jim? I suppose if you only include official investigations or Op research you can make this claim but anyone who had heard of Trump new that his son, VP of the Trump Org, had claimed most of their money came from Russia. There were several ties to Russian businesses and individuals as well as pushes to get into Moscow real estate and so on. Trump being a Russian stooge isn't exactly loony-toons is it? Since that time he apparently was extorting the Ukrainian government and withdrew from Syria much to the pleasure of you know who.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As a person who studies history, i try to look for origins and patterns.  What is important to recall about those two events is this: the Steele Dossier was in the making at the time, but in the background. In other words, it was a triple header to push the Russia angle in the summer of 2016.

If you want to ignore this, then fine, that is your choice.  But in my opinion, it gravely weakens your argument that somehow Trump brought this on himself. Six months before he took office? 😲

I was pretty clear on why I thought he brings it on himself. I intentionally left out his questionable mental fitness for the job. His history and behavior are disqualifying for a manager of Dairy Queen much less POTUS. Would you give your money to him to invest in charities? Would he be your choice to chaperone your kids at the Senior Ball? Would you buy a time share from this man? How about have him fly the airplane you're on? He has more relevant experience flying a 737 than he did for the job of POTUS prior to the election. Just to be clear: I wouldn't hire ME for any of those things either! I'm not a good choice to fly your 737 (I used to fly even) but at least I know that and aren't going to run for President. You can relax about that.

His past and current behavior virtually guaranteed what we're seeing now and it was so obvious even the republicans (who are now his best pals!) knew it at the time.

Re: Secret Agenda    No I haven't. Why do you think it's relevant (serious question)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Jim,

      I bought a copy of Secret Agenda this summer, but I haven't read it yet-- it's in the stack of books on my reading list.  I understand the gist of the entrapment of Nixon.

     As for the MSM and the 2016 election, the data (from the Harvard studies and the Columbia Journalism Review) shows clearly that the MSM sabotaged Hillary-- newspapers, cable, and network news (see references above.)

      I observed it happening at the time, the weekly NYT headline stories -- based on anonymous FBI "leaks" about Hillary's Emails, etc. -- and found it quite puzzling. 

     Meanwhile, Dean Baquet deliberately blocked any re-election NYT coverage of the Trump/Russia story and NOTHING was published about the Steele Dossier in the MSM prior to the election, other than the David Korn piece at Mother Jones.  This is the precise opposite of what we would have observed if the Deep State (and MSM) had conspired in 2016 to sabotage Donald Trump.

      

 

    

Harry Reid was running around screaming like a ninny to Comey et al to release the Steele information too. Comey refused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

   I know from 35 years of clinical psychiatric experience that it is extremely difficult to help delusional people recognize and overcome their systematized delusions, but here are two important historical references for the people here who still cling to the delusional belief that the "Deep State" and their associates in the U.S. mainstream media sabotaged Donald Trump in 2016.  The notion is simply absurd-- the precise opposite of what happened in 2016.

Yes it is difficult, especially when one belongs to an archaic organization of white russians that have an eternal hatred for everything russian after the revolution. I imagine that makes it very difficult to be objective in a subject that involves Russia and Putin.

 

8 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

As for the MSM and the 2016 election, the data (from the Harvard studies and the Columbia Journalism Review) shows clearly that the MSM sabotaged Hillary-- newspapers, cable, and network news (see references above.)

WN, your citations are almost always specious. The CJR piece was literally written with David Mayer de Rothschild. To put it mildly, this is not a good source for information regarding the "deep state".

14 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

Re: Secret Agenda    No I haven't. Why do you think it's relevant (serious question)?

Yes. A republican president being manipulated by the CIA (deep state if you will) is directly relevant and Jim Hougan did a fantastic job with it. Like WN, your analysis largely stems from animosity towards the personality of Trump, which I think all of us share, and MSM propaganda. Why hasn't the MSM done a thorough vetting of the Clinton/Wasserman scandal and attempted to destroy their careers? Instead, Scultz is now in Congress somehow.

 

Its the DNC...

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/04/its-the-dnc-stupid-democratic-party-not-russia-has-delegitimized-the-democratic-process/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

More on the Steele DOssier and its validity:

Mr. Steele also acknowledged that his final December memo, the only one that dealt with Mr. Gubarev, contained information he never vetted.

“The contents of the December memorandum did not represent (and did not purport to represent) verified facts, but were raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation given their potential national security implications,” he wrote.

He added, “Such intelligence was not actively sought; it was merely received.”

The unverified “raw intelligence” included Mr. Cohen reported trip to Prague.

BuzzFeed posted the complete dossier on Jan. 10 as Mr. Trump was about to assume the presidency. Mr. Gubarev is suing the online news site for libel in federal court in Florida and wants to know who supplied the document to BuzzFeed.

Mr. Steele’s libel defense is not truth. He argues that he warned Fusion and reporters against making his memos public and never authorized their disclosure.

Mr. Steele’s handiwork got only a qualified endorsement from the ex-head of MI6, the British intelligence service where Mr. Steele once worked before founding his private investigating firm.

 

BTW, we all know about Cohen in Prague plotting with the Russians right? 

Jim said: The accusations of Trump being a stooge of the Russians precede October 31st by a period of months. HIllary Clinton began it during the debates. And  the whole Guccifer thing began in July of 2016.

I agree with Bob, Total B.S You're referring to the debate moment when Hillary said "Well I'm sure Putin would like to have a puppet as President" and Trump says "I'm not a puppet!"The sons ties to Russia were well know, and I can give you the quote, if you want.

****************.

I don't think there's an argument we haven't heard before.. We know Cohen never went to Czechoslovakia. We know Steele didn't want it made public. It's like "who is the original whistle blower"? When now many public officials have corroborated under oath what he said, and the President DOESN'T DENY IT! CASE CLOSED!

I'm not a big" will of the framer's" guy. You can say the Constitution doesn't matter, but this precisely a case where you know the framer's would have absolutely none of Trump's actions! They were xenophobic as Hell from getting out from under George lll !!!. The kind of financial interminglings  that routinely go on in the present world economy would make the framer's head spin! Trump is the most compromised and the most corrupt President in U.S. history. Nixon isn't even close!  The amount of conflict of interest and grey area has increased 100 fold from Nixon's time!

Ok,but for our guys who think the real story is the "deep state" corruption on poor helpless Trump. Jim you do have a guy who you should be getting behind. And yet you never mention him. He is AG Bill Barr and he's investigating the FBI overstepping. You're  always so gloomy, but there is hope for you.

In these up coming hearings, you now have Jim Jordan coming over to the Intelligence committee as a strategy to discredit the Ukraine gate officials! What more do you want?. When I see Jordan in action, he reminds me a lot of you on this topic. He can't  say 50 words without referring to the "Steel Dossier" (refer to above)  or "Hillary" or the "Deep State" .  You should be following him. He is your guy!  Matt Gaetz is another star who believes like you.Devin Nunes. And that guy from Georgia in the Mueller hearings who said he wasn't going to talk too fast and then barraged old Mueller with fast, tricky questions. And maybe have Lindsey Graham successfully spin it to the public as he did in the Canvanaugh hearings. You might  remember after Blase Fords first testimony at the break Chris Wallace said on Fox that" The Republicans are going to have a hard time refuting Ford's testimony because Blase Ford is credible". But old Lindsey came on at the half and righteously said that this whole thing was a "sham", and somehow redeemed the Republicans to get their boy through.! This is the cast of characters that you're counting on.

You're a complete fool if you think you're going to get  a complete public recognition expose of the "Deep State". What you want is for the Republicans to so discredit these officials that the average Joe Q. Public throws up his hands and says. "I don't know who to believe anymore" and passes on impeachment.I'm not sure how damaging that would be to the Democrat presidential hopes in 2020, but of course, it can't be good. But it certainly works in with your total political dysfunctionality. Ultimately this is just going to be another unresolved mystery for you, but in this case, a very needless one.

Realize who your advocates are, and get behind them!

 
 

 

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Who was their customer then Jeff? What would factually establish anyone as the group who funded the effort? Just curious... You may also want to know that clients NEVER do ad buys. The agency ALWAYS does ad buys because that's how they make money. Your argument is essentially the same as saying "Marboro isn't responsible for those TV spots! Ogilvy is! Blame them for cancer!"

Who is the beneficiary of the ad buy?

 

Bob - you don't need to go into all of the details. I have the Symantec analysis which covers all of this territory.

The IRA's program can be described as "insignificant" not due to the numbers attached to its specific activity, but reviewing those numbers against all similar activity on the platforms. The numbers may seem large until they are considered against much much larger numbers. Drops in ocean. Tree/forest. That Congressional figures and reporters have so overstated the statistics in concert with frankly crazy rhetoric about "vast attacks" and "democracy imperilled" triggers the skepticism meter as well.

Further, the IRA's program, i.e. the content of its materials, makes no sense as something specifically designed to put Trump in WH. That's why it had to be described as an attempt to "sow division" in the population.

The IRA is a commercial marketing firm. Marketing/clickbait schemes very similar in content to that run by the IRA have been acknowledged and discussed (i.e. the Macedonian teenagers) and understood as an odd but viable way to make a buck.  Claims the Russian government hired the IRA to run a GRU program to sow division, or whatever, are to this date unproven assertions and allegations. They are not "fact", despite constant iteration that it is so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Realize who your advocates are, and get behind them!

Ok. Yours appear to be the DNC, the Clintons, the New York Times/WAPO, Obama/Biden, and the MSM.

 

Hillary's flatulence regarding Russian "asset" Gabbard should have been a wake up call to some of you people. It should have made you realize you now faced a political crossroads. Either Hillary is honest and trying to safeguard the country against further Russian interference, or she is a completely vindictive and hopeless shill for the corporate wing of the Democratic party and a figurehead of the "deep state". Considering she brags about getting instructions from the CFR, id say its the latter.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-clinton-brags-about-getting-her-marching-orders-from-the-council-on-foreign-relations-cfr/5504999

 

In case you don't manage to read it, here is a direct quote from your "advocate".

I am delighted to be here in these new headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department.

We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.[5]

 

But Russia must have made her say that...

And Russia must have made her pay Fusion to concoct a story. If she was a New Frontier or New Deal democrat, she would've never needed any of this crap.

Again, you Clinton people are reduced to basically saying "Trump is an animal and is unfit for the office". Clear that away and deal with the reality here. You can't just soak up the propaganda that you agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 BN Although you may think Trump is being picked on by a cabal of neo-liberal thugs that are staging a "coup" the fact is he's reaping the fruits of what his own behavior has sown.

WN:  David Korn at Mother Jones published the only 2016 pre-election story in the entire U.S. media about the Steele Dossier, on October 31st.  

Can you guys be serious about the above?  As they say, everyone is entitled to an opinion.  But you cannot create your own facts in order to do so.

Do tell?

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The accusations of Trump being a stooge of the Russians precede October 31st by a period of months. HIllary Clinton began it during the debates. And  the whole Guccifer thing began in July of 2016

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-suspects-russia-hacked-dnc-us-officials-say-it-was-to-elect-donald-trump

The Russia-hacked-the-DNC story occupied a grand total of two 24-hour cable news cycles during the 2016 campaign: June 14/15 and July 24/25.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=russia+hack+dnc+msnbc+2016

The Daily Beast article linked above was from July 25.

What was the impact of those two news cycles?

image.png.2a8d8ac38aa32b4e81ffb549d2625af6.png
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Is it only a coincidence that the sting on George P began around that time also?

No one knew about George P.  What everyone was hearing over and over was Hillary E-Mails.

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As a person who studies history, i try to look for origins and patterns.  What is important to recall about those two events is this: the Steele Dossier was in the making at the time, but in the background. In other words, it was a triple header to push the Russia angle in the summer of 2016.

But there was no push. 2 news cycles over the last 5 months don't make a push.

Why is Jim DiEugenio trying to make up facts?

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you want to ignore this, then fine, that is your choice.  But in my opinion, it gravely weakens your argument that somehow Trump brought this on himself. Six months before he took office? 😲

The rigorous avoidance of these facts, and the obeisance to the MSM spin agains recalls what the MSM did on Watergate.  How can it not? 

Because during Watergate the Washington Post and the New York Times drove the news day.  There wasn't a 24 hour cable news cycle or internet social media.   Two news cycles over the last 5 months of the 2016 campaign doesn't compare to the 12 hour news cycles of the early 70's when newspapers ruled the coverage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Bob - you don't need to go into all of the details. I have the Symantec analysis which covers all of this territory.

Jeff - you apparently refused to go into the details because it doesn't fit the theme of what you're trying to claim. I asked you days ago whether you had any idea of the effect of the "organic campaign" and you didn't answer. I do need to go into details because you're not supporting what you say. Lo and behold your 30k ad buy claim which pinned my BS meter to the right was exactly that.

11 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The IRA's program can be described as "insignificant" not due to the numbers attached to its specific activity, but reviewing those numbers against all similar activity on the platforms. The numbers may seem large until they are considered against much much larger numbers. Drops in ocean. Tree/forest. That Congressional figures and reporters have so overstated the statistics in concert with frankly crazy rhetoric about "vast attacks" and "democracy imperilled" triggers the skepticism meter as well.

What similar activity are you referring to? I wasn't comparing anything only stating the objective facts regarding the organic campaign and it's influence. Your suggestion that tens (hundreds?) of millions of impressions, interactions and engagements is inconsequential speaks more to your bias than anyone else's. That's including reporters and law enforcement and intelligence agencies, who are after all the people who are making the claim. I doubt most members of congress can turn a computer on without assistance.

24 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Further, the IRA's program, i.e. the content of its materials, makes no sense as something specifically designed to put Trump in WH. That's why it had to be described as an attempt to "sow division" in the population.

This (not you personally) is wrong. Competing versions of the same story aren't used to sow divisions as such they're used to "segment the market" and refine messages. For instance, if I publish and track reaction to a story explaining how "Hillary is up to her knickers in Uranium One" I can tell your political leaning by your engagement with that story and segment your user name, FB profile, IP address, Google Map location (don't laugh I've done it), Twitter account, Youtube Channel and everything else that is referred to accounts I have control of or get notified of because of the engagement (Jeff shared your post! Yay!). That data can be used for the purpose of refining the message, place a call to action, identify demographic groups and any number of other purposes. The experts who comb this data can put it to this test: Who benefits from this?

I know for a fact the various intelligence agencies looking into these things have far more capabilities than anyone else to identify traffic and analyze the data and can come up with conclusions with very high confidence. It's probably very simple for them due to the fact a huge percentage of the infrastructure resides in the US and whatever doesn't has most likely been compromised at least to some extent. That's why Russia is unplugging from the net no doubt.

So... who was the beneficiary of the ad buy/organic search program?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another one topic post :Hillary, of course . Dennis get over your Hillary obsession.  I mentioned her in  connection about Jim Jordan and Jim Di's obsession with mentioning her, along with "Steele Dossier" and "Deep State'..That was my precise point, and you fell right into it. You've revealed nothing new here to me . About Hillary and Gabbard, (yawn) I've already said that HC shouldn't have said that  and I wish "the Clinton's would go away for a long while." Isn't one thread on that enough?

You guys seem to know so little about how your government works and I'm telling you guys precisely how you're going to win. Do you want to advance your cause or just continue with whiny posts on an online forum? That's what I''ve concluded about Jim. He's never interested in winning. That would upset his whole dynamic.

This is your shot. As I wrote and why it is in my last post1)Your players are William Barr,Jim Jordan, Matt Gaetz and Lindsey Graham.  FACT!     There might be 1 or 2 others.

2) You're hope of a major reveal about the "Deep State" is a fool's game, some improprieties may be revealed, but in the public's mind, it will be short lived. You're best hope is to muddy the waters enough so the average Joe throws up his hands and says," I can't figure this out" and the the attempt fizzles. Unless the equation changes, with Republicans controlling the Senate that's likely to happen. The worst possible thing for the country (which no seems to care about) is if the  public comes out of the trial 60% believing that the Trump should be removed from office and the Repubs hold their ranks. If that were to happen, ultimately that will work against the Repubs for the election of 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

This Bush/Trump/JFK  reminded me of the Envelope incident at last years GHW Bush funeral.

Once again, if you mostly get your news from the MSM, you probably never saw it. It was certainly the talk of of the conspiracy realm for about two solid weeks last year.

The version at the link has some commentary. If you have never seen it, watch it with the volume off the first time so as to not bias your idea of what was going on.

 

Haha the note probably says something like "I think Jeb sat on a chocolate eclaire."

Interesting though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Jeff - you apparently refused to go into the details because it doesn't fit the theme of what you're trying to claim. I asked you days ago whether you had any idea of the effect of the "organic campaign" and you didn't answer. I do need to go into details because you're not supporting what you say. Lo and behold your 30k ad buy claim which pinned my BS meter to the right was exactly that.

What similar activity are you referring to? I wasn't comparing anything only stating the objective facts regarding the organic campaign and it's influence. Your suggestion that tens (hundreds?) of millions of impressions, interactions and engagements is inconsequential speaks more to your bias than anyone else's. That's including reporters and law enforcement and intelligence agencies, who are after all the people who are making the claim. I doubt most members of congress can turn a computer on without assistance.

This (not you personally) is wrong. Competing versions of the same story aren't used to sow divisions as such they're used to "segment the market" and refine messages. For instance, if I publish and track reaction to a story explaining how "Hillary is up to her knickers in Uranium One" I can tell your political leaning by your engagement with that story and segment your user name, FB profile, IP address, Google Map location (don't laugh I've done it), Twitter account, Youtube Channel and everything else that is referred to accounts I have control of or get notified of because of the engagement (Jeff shared your post! Yay!). That data can be used for the purpose of refining the message, place a call to action, identify demographic groups and any number of other purposes. The experts who comb this data can put it to this test: Who benefits from this?

I know for a fact the various intelligence agencies looking into these things have far more capabilities than anyone else to identify traffic and analyze the data and can come up with conclusions with very high confidence. It's probably very simple for them due to the fact a huge percentage of the infrastructure resides in the US and whatever doesn't has most likely been compromised at least to some extent. That's why Russia is unplugging from the net no doubt.

So... who was the beneficiary of the ad buy/organic search program?

That's ridiculous. Have you actually looked at the ads/graphics in question? You're welcome to imagine some super-secret intelligence agents used puppy photos to swing the vote in Wisconsin, but there is no evidence such motivated the IRA campaign or that said campaign was a project of Russian intelligence agents. Gareth Porter and others have convincingly skewered the idea that any of this stuff had the effect of "tens (hundreds?)" of millions of views, organic campaigns or not. As you state, such "organic" campaigns are a standard feature of marketing/advertising - so how does your logic work? Should "organic campaigns" be automatically assumed as in fact brainwashing intelligence projects? The vast majority of the posts in question had nothing to do with either Clinton or Trump,  so how can you determine that any of this had any effect whatsoever beyond reinforcing already set attitudes about BLM or the NRA?  Where are the linkages which establish this campaign worked a sophisticated multi-platform multiplying effort, refining messages and placing calls to action, that was effective in any conceivable way? It's known, for example, several rallies were half-heartedly organized which attracted, like, eight people.  Why do you accept the say-so of congressional figures and the MSM when hyperbole, statistics bending and emotive appeals are so obviously being employed? In 2016, Trump's election was entirely conceivable based on already existing trends  that were generally observable across the western democracies.Clinton was a terrible candidate with high negatives. You don't need some hare-brained conspiracy theory featuring super-secret scary Russian manipulators to explain what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Yes it is difficult, especially when one belongs to an archaic organization of white russians that have an eternal hatred for everything russian after the revolution. I imagine that makes it very difficult to be objective in a subject that involves Russia and Putin.

Berube-- This truly idiotic comment about the Stalinist desecration of traditional Russian society and culture is so bizarre that I scarcely know where to begin in responding to it.  You, obviously, know nothing about Russian history during the past tumultuous century. Try studying the works of Bulgakov, Solzhenitsyn and I.M. Andreyevsky, for starters.  I have known Soviet emigres who have been truly shocked to discover their own lost Russian Orthodox cultural heritage-- for the first time-- in the 20th century ROCOR parishes of the United States.

WN, your citations are almost always specious. The CJR piece was literally written with David Mayer de Rothschild. To put it mildly, this is not a good source for information regarding the "deep state".

Specious, Berube? The Columbia School of Journalism is the pre-eminent journalism program in the United States.  Additionally, study the references I posted about the Harvard University (Berkman) media analyses documenting the sabotage of Hillary Clinton's candidacy by the mainstream U.S. media in 2016.

Yes. A republican president being manipulated by the CIA (deep state if you will) is directly relevant and Jim Hougan did a fantastic job with it. Like WN, your analysis largely stems from animosity towards the personality of Trump, which I think all of us share, and MSM propaganda. Why hasn't the MSM done a thorough vetting of the Clinton/Wasserman scandal and attempted to destroy their careers? Instead, Scultz is now in Congress somehow.

Manipulated by the CIA?   Bunk.  Trump has been deeply involved, financially, with the Russian mafia since the 1980s, and with Putin's oligarchs in recent years.  No one else would lend him any money!  Paul Manafort, Trump's 2016 Campaign Manager, worked for the Kremlin for years-- and was paid big bucks for his political work for Yanukovych.  

Why did Trump lie, repeatedly, about his 2016 Moscow Trump Tower negotiations and plans?  Why did Trump's close business associate, Felix Sater, boast in 2015 that Putin was going to put Trump in the White House?  And why did Trump fire James Comey, then declare, "I'm F*CKED!" when he found out that Rod Rosenstein had appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate Russia's hacking of the 2016 election?

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
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...