Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


James DiEugenio
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok, so William and Bob admit they have never read Secret Agenda. 

Let me explain the paradigm.

I took a back seat to no one in my antipathy for Nixon. And I still do. I thought he was one of the worst choices for president ever.  His economic policies were a disaster.  His foreign policy was despicable.  I had nothing but disdain for his Southern Strategy, the appeal to racist undertones to turn the south from a Democratic stronghold into a GOP bastion. He also had a prime role in covering up the Mylai Massacre, and the persecution of Daniel Ellsberg.

We now know, that even though he understood the Vietnam War was lost, he continued it for four years to try and get a Korea style settlement. He then invaded Cambodia and Laos.  The former move started the fall of Cambodia , which began the rise of Pol Pot and led to the death of about 1-2 million people.  He and Kissinger masterminded the fall of Allende in Chile which led that country into  military dictatorship and decades of brutality and murder.  No president was ever more overrated as a foreign policy maven than Nixon was.  And Kissinger was just as bad.

Any person would say that, in objective terms,  Richard Nixon was worse than Trump. And that is why I could not stand the guy and cheered on when the was going to be impeached but resigned instead. I thought that Bradlee, Kate Graham, Woodward and Bernstein and Sam Ervin and John Dean were heroes. Nixon had gotten what was coming to him.  There was justice in the world after all.

In other words, I felt like William N and Bob N feel about what is happening to Trump.

Many, many years later, in the nineties, when I was editing Probe Magazine, I picked up Jim Hougan's book Secret Agenda. The first chapter is entitled "Of Hunt and McCord."  As I read it, my eyebrows began to arch.  As I continued, they arched up higher. I then began to squint.  By the time I was done and had read about Woodward's deal with the CIA (from their own documents), by that time I was grinding my teeth.  Like almost everyone else--except maybe Fletcher Prouty--I realized I had been duped.  Played for a sucker by a very clever plot that the MSM had concealed from view. The CIA had infiltrated Nixon's White House and brought him down from the inside. McCord was not what he appeared to be: a Bible thumping technician. He was a deep cover operator inside CREEP. who owed his  allegiance to Helms and the CIA. The real winner in all this was Dick Helms.  And in a roundabout way, I had cheered him on.

None of this made Nixon any more appealing.  To this day I cannot stand the guy.  But if people like us, who oppose the Shadow Government in the Kennedy case, pick and choose the victims we favor, then how does that help in the long run?  What have we  done to make things better in a real and lasting way?  The forces we oppose will still be there, and still be doing the evil things they have since 1963.

Back then, when i wrote about this for Probe, when Stone's Nixon came out, I said that, if we have to ally ourselves with someone as despicable as  Richard Nixon in order to take a stand against a corrupted system, so be it.  That is the price one has to pay for the greater good. So I held my nose in that number and registered my protest.  That issue got a remarkable reaction, since so few people knew the real story behind Watergate. To this day, I think that was the best issue we ever published.

I don't like Trump.  I never have liked Trump. I did not vote for him and I would never vote for him, even if he was the only guy running. But I will be damed if I will let my partisan biases make me a stooge twice.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 11/3/2019 at 8:14 PM, Joe Bauer said:

In just the last few weeks Trump has created 4 majorly humiliating leadership gaffes that are worse than embarrassing, and that in total should be receiving much more media coverage as a reflection of his never ending presidential office incompetence.

The parents of the young British man killed by an American diplomat's wife driving on the wrong side of the road in England were furious at Trump's shameless attempt to have them meet their son's killer without prior notice when they were brought into the White House. They felt they were being used in a self-promoting photo-op ploy by Trump.

They went back to England feeling more depressed and angry over this than before they made the initial trip to the U.S.!  How embarrassing. How stupid.

The brazenly self-promoted Trump Mar-A-Lago scheme blew up as it should have and was headlined in the national media until it was quickly withdrawn. Another humiliating and embarrassing Trump gaffe.

The spontaneous withdrawal from Syria announcement by Trump was met with such outrage even by our own military that he and his team had to immediately create and initiate a damage control campaign that was just frantic. What a diplomatic disaster and mess that situation still is.

When Trump finally went to and presented himself in person at a large audience venue of non-screened citizens, he was greeted by the loudest booing and jeering response any President has ever received at such a major event like the World Series. Thousands even shouted "LOCK HIM UP!" to add to his humiliation.

He earned that negative response.

This "lock him up" chant was a reference to Trump's own "lock her up" sound bite (referring to Hillary Clinton ) and that he created and constantly encouraged his angry rally crowds to yell and repeat over and over for years by not ever telling them to stop.

All this craziness in just one month!?

Trump's presidency has been one after another of these humiliating and embarrassing leadership failures ... for years. Hundreds of them!

Obama never had "one" of these embarrassing incidents ... in 8 years!

However, Trump is still loved by his base, regardless of his constant incompetent leadership failures.

We are in a precarious state with half our country pretending nothing's wrong with this high anxiety causing President.

Kenneth Drew: Joe, you do know that those parents actually requested a meeting with that woman, and  when Trump actually arranged one for them they were so shocked they didn't know what to say.

Kenneth, this particular incompetent Trump blunder gets even worse:

 

 

 

5dc633781f00005000dedd7c.jpeg?cache=nK8z

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ok, so William and Bob admit they have never read Secret Agenda. 

Let me explain the paradigm.

I took a back seat to no one in my antipathy for Nixon. And I still do. I thought he was one of the worst choices for president ever.  His economic policies were a disaster.  His foreign policy was despicable.  I had nothing but disdain for his Southern Strategy, the appeal to racist undertones to turn the south from a Democratic stronghold into a GOP bastion. He also had a prime role in covering up the Mylai Massacre, and the persecution of Daniel Ellsberg.

We now know, that even though he understood the Vietnam War was lost, he continued it for four years to try and get a Korea style settlement. He then invaded Cambodia and Laos.  The former move started the fall of Cambodia , which began the rise of Pol Pot and led to the death of about 1-2 million people.  He and Kissinger masterminded the fall of Allende in Chile which led that country into  military dictatorship and decades of brutality and murder.  No president was ever more overrated as a foreign policy maven than Nixon was.  And Kissinger was just as bad.

Any person would say that, in objective terms,  Richard Nixon was worse than Trump. And that is why I could not stand the guy and cheered on when the was going to be impeached but resigned instead. I thought that Bradlee, Kate Graham, Woodward and Bernstein and Sam Ervin and John Dean were heroes. Nixon had gotten what was coming to him.  There was justice in the world after all.

In other words, I felt like William N and Bob N feel about what is happening to Trump.

Many, many years later, in the nineties, when I was editing Probe Magazine, I picked up Jim Hougan's book Secret Agenda. The first chapter is entitled "Of Hunt and McCord."  As I read it, my eyebrows began to arch.  As I continued, they arched up higher. I then began to squint.  By the time I was done and had read about Woodward's deal with the CIA (from their own documents), by that time I was grinding my teeth.  Like almost everyone else--except maybe Fletcher Prouty--I realized I had been duped.  Played for a sucker by a very clever plot that the MSM had concealed from view. The CIA had infiltrated Nixon's White House and brought him down from the inside. McCord was not what he appeared to be: a Bible thumping technician. He was a deep cover operator inside CREEP. who owed his  allegiance to Helms and the CIA. The real winner in all this was Dick Helms.  And in a roundabout way, I had cheered him on.

One would have come to the same conclusion reading Oglesby's The Yankee and the Cowboy War, or Haldeman's The Ends of Power.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

None of this made Nixon any more appealing.  To this day I cannot stand the guy.  But if people like us, who oppose the Shadow Government in the Kennedy case, pick and choose the victims we favor, then how does that help in the long run?

What Mr. DiEugenio refuses to acknowledge is the fact that the Trump-Russian-collusion story was suppressed by the FBI/MSM during the '16 campaign, while the Hillary E-Mail non-scandal was blown up beyond reason.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

  What have we  done to make things better in a real and lasting way?  The forces we oppose will still be there, and still be doing the evil things they have since 1963.

Installing Trump in the White House is one of those "evil things."

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Back then, when i wrote about this for Probe, when Stone's Nixon came out, I said that, if we have to ally ourselves with someone as despicable as  Richard Nixon in order to take a stand against a corrupted system, so be it. 

So now DiEugenio is an ally of Trump.

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

That is the price one has to pay for the greater good. So I held my nose in that number and registered my protest.  That issue got a remarkable reaction, since so few people knew the real story behind Watergate. To this day, I think that was the best issue we ever published.

I don't like Trump.  I never have liked Trump. I did not vote for him and I would never vote for him, even if he was the only guy running. But I will be damed if I will let my partisan biases make me a stooge twice.

 

DiEugenio's partisan biases against Hillary and Bill Clinton have turned him into a Trumpenlinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ok, so William and Bob admit they have never read Secret Agenda. 

Let me explain the paradigm.

I took a back seat to no one in my antipathy for Nixon. And I still do. I thought he was one of the worst choices for president ever.  His economic policies were a disaster.  His foreign policy was despicable.  I had nothing but disdain for his Southern Strategy, the appeal to racist undertones to turn the south from a Democratic stronghold into a GOP bastion. He also had a prime role in covering up the Mylai Massacre, and the persecution of Daniel Ellsberg.

We now know, that even though he understood the Vietnam War was lost, he continued it for four years to try and get a Korea style settlement. He then invaded Cambodia and Laos.  The former move started the fall of Cambodia , which began the rise of Pol Pot and led to the death of about 1-2 million people.  He and Kissinger masterminded the fall of Allende in Chile which led that country into  military dictatorship and decades of brutality and murder.  No president was ever more overrated as a foreign policy maven than Nixon was.  And Kissinger was just as bad.

Any person would say that, in objective terms,  Richard Nixon was worse than Trump. And that is why I could not stand the guy and cheered on when the was going to be impeached but resigned instead. I thought that Bradlee, Kate Graham, Woodward and Bernstein and Sam Ervin and John Dean were heroes. Nixon had gotten what was coming to him.  There was justice in the world after all.

In other words, I felt like William N and Bob N feel about what is happening to Trump.

Many, many years later, in the nineties, when I was editing Probe Magazine, I picked up Jim Hougan's book Secret Agenda. The first chapter is entitled "Of Hunt and McCord."  As I read it, my eyebrows began to arch.  As I continued, they arched up higher. I then began to squint.  By the time I was done and had read about Woodward's deal with the CIA (from their own documents), by that time I was grinding my teeth.  Like almost everyone else--except maybe Fletcher Prouty--I realized I had been duped.  Played for a sucker by a very clever plot that the MSM had concealed from view. The CIA had infiltrated Nixon's White House and brought him down from the inside. McCord was not what he appeared to be: a Bible thumping technician. He was a deep cover operator inside CREEP. who owed his  allegiance to Helms and the CIA. The real winner in all this was Dick Helms.  And in a roundabout way, I had cheered him on.

None of this made Nixon any more appealing.  To this day I cannot stand the guy.  But if people like us, who oppose the Shadow Government in the Kennedy case, pick and choose the victims we favor, then how does that help in the long run?  What have we  done to make things better in a real and lasting way?  The forces we oppose will still be there, and still be doing the evil things they have since 1963.

Back then, when i wrote about this for Probe, when Stone's Nixon came out, I said that, if we have to ally ourselves with someone as despicable as  Richard Nixon in order to take a stand against a corrupted system, so be it.  That is the price one has to pay for the greater good. So I held my nose in that number and registered my protest.  That issue got a remarkable reaction, since so few people knew the real story behind Watergate. To this day, I think that was the best issue we ever published.

I don't like Trump.  I never have liked Trump. I did not vote for him and I would never vote for him, even if he was the only guy running. But I will be damed if I will let my partisan biases make me a stooge twice.

 

Jim,

       I understand your point about the CIA's role in sabotaging Nixon, but I don't see the parallels with Trump and his Russia-gate and Ukraine-gate scandals.

      My belief is that Trump has long been ensnared by Putin and his oligarchs, through a skillful combination of old-fashioned KGB-style blackmail/kompromat and lucrative Russian business deals.  The evidence is overwhelming, despite Trump's aggressive obstruction of Russia-gate investigations and his massive disinformation campaigns (aided and abetted by the GOP and the right wing corporate media.)

    Also, the data (from Harvard and Columbia) is clear regarding the FBI and corporate mainstream U.S. media sabotage of Hillary Clinton in 2016.  Clinton was, obviously, sabotaged in 2016 by Putin and the Russian military (GRU) and she was also sabotaged by the FBI and the Robber Baron mass media.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William and Joe.

One cannot argue with your above two posts, or in Joe's case, reposts, because they are not written to be replied too. 

They are written to express a pre existing attitude  that reflects the priorities of the alleged liberal blogosphere. But man to somehow hold up Obama as a kind of model? After he allowed HRC to run wild with the likes of Libya and Honduras. (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/2019-02-18/obamas-libya-debacle)

And then Barack says that not going into Syria was supposed to be some kind of jewel in the crown for him?  Please. When one stacks that up with the whole "Too Big to Fail" and let's not prosecute anyone  over the crash and his: Well, you know, its not the same as 1932, so there is no basic restructuring needed, lets keep the criminals in charge on Wall Street and give them tons of money on top of that. Joe, excuse me, but I think that is as unjustifiable as giving him the Nobel Prize for just getting elected.

As per William seeing no parallel with Watergate, well, if you don't read the book then I can see how you would think so.  But in your post, I detect an attitude which says it would not make any difference anyway. 

The sting on George P, doesn't matter.  

The entrapment of Flynn, doesn't matter.

Leak vs Hack, doesn't matter.

The machinations taking place in the summer of 2016, way before Trump was in power, doesn't matter.

Mueller's failure to come up with anything of substance for collusion, doesn't matter. There's those xxxxx farms and MDA anyway (which are common in criminal prosecutions).  Hey and look at Roger Stone and Wikileaks. Stone wanted to get the HRC emails from Wikileaks. Which Wikileaks released to the public anyway.

When you cannot prove the central thesis of what you were supposed to prove, but you insist on going after the likes of Randy Credico, then something is wrong someplace. I mean if going after Randy C, Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone is what Russia Gate ended up as, then no wonder Mueller left town early.

Excuse me, but I don't think Randy C. compares with blowing out the president's skull in broad daylight, among 200 witnesses, and then covering up the crime through a phony autopsy that night and then reversing policy in Indochina and killing 4-6 million people as a result. Which is what this forum is supposed to be about.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I mean, Jim says if you only read this new gospel. This book  will transform your thinking as it has transformed mine.

 My problem Jim is I can never get a direct answer to a direct question from you.

I assume, with this  you're making a more earnest attempt to explain your beliefs.

So you're 100$% sure that Mc Cord deliberately brought down Nixon?

And you're 100% sure that Trump is not compromised by Russian oligarchs despite Trump's financial history, his family's past statements to that effect, as well as his lies to that effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG, KG really thinks Secret Agenda is the only book I have read on Watergate. In that issue of Probe, I recommended ten books on Nixon and  Watergate, and I read them all.

Hougan's book was not even the first to posit what had really happened.  This was done in Fred Thompson's book, At that Point in Time. But it was also explored with the Lucien Nedzi report by the House Intelligence Committee after Nixon left office. Haldeman's The Ends of Power also outlines this kind of infiltration. Therefore, it was not like Hougan was out there on his own. He acknowledges his debts to prior sources in his book.  But the point of his volume is that those voices had been drowned out in the orchestrated symphony of the MSM, led by the W Post, the Ervin Committee and Robert Redford's hit film. Plus, he had managed to attain out of the FBI research library certain documents that should have remained classified.

I mean did anyone miss this article:

https://kennedysandking.com/obituaries/the-mysterious-life-and-death-of-james-w-mccord

It actually made waves in the MSM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CIA/Joint Chiefs coup d'etat on 11/22/63 fits into a comprehensive framework of evidence and motives.

The recent Trumpaganda about a Deep State coup as an explanation for Trump's Russia-gate (and Ukraine-gate) scandal lacks any meaningful explanatory framework. 

First of all, James Comey, the FBI, and the mainstream U.S. media definitely sabotaged Hillary Clinton and put Trump in the White House in 2016.

Where's the coup?  If the Deep State (and their MSM associates) wanted to sabotage Trump, why did they sabotage Hillary Clinton and put Trump in the White House in 2016?  The "theory" makes no sense at all.

Secondly, Trump has been deeply enmeshed with the Russian mafia for decades-- as Russ Baker documented two years ago-- and has been heavily involved with Putin's oligarchs in recent years.   Felix Sater boasted back in 2015 that Putin was going to put Trump in the White House.

Thirdly, why have Trump and his Goon Squad (Manafort, Stone, Barr, McConnell, Graham, Giuliani, et.al.) repeatedly obstructed investigations of Trump's many contacts with Kremlin officials and cut outs?

Mueller NEVER said that Trump did not "collude" with Russia.  The outright lies and stonewalling by Manafort and Trump, himself, made it difficult to reach a definitive conclusion.  But Mueller specifically indicated that his Barr-aborted investigation DID NOT EXONERATE Trump, citing at least ten counts of obstruction of justice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I read Tales of Power as well. I know the setup. But you're running off on another diversion now.

I'll take it your answer to question number 1 is Yes. You're 100% certain.

Question 2: And you're 100% sure that Trump is not compromised by Russian oligarchs despite Trump's financial history, his family's past statements to that effect, as well as his lies to that effect?

If you don't have the courage to stand by your beliefs. Why should any of us believe you, or take a lot of stock in what you say?

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William:

To blame Comey for how HRC lost an election in which she had every single possible advantage any candidate could have is so perverse as to be nonsense.

Twice as much money, thousands more employees, the Access Hollywood tape, Obama and his wife campaigning for her.  I mean give me a break.  Take a look at the book Shattered. See how much space they devote to Comey.  They point out that HRC ran a dumb campaign, would not listen to her husband's advice and should have fired Robbie Mook.

Also, you leave out the fact that Podesta started blaming Russia before Comey's announcement.

Uh, William, you are leaving out an important piece of evidence about Sater:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-associate-felix-sater-proved-invaluable-fbi-source-records-show-n1045896

The whole thing about Mueller's obstruction of justice is couched in such qualified terms that to claim it is the reason for his failure reveals that maybe you did not read it.  Suffice it to say that three of the areas mentioned were Wikileaks, Trump Tower and Flynn.

I mean please.  

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

William:

To blame Comey for how HRC lost an election in which she had every single possible advantage any candidate could have is so perverse as to be nonsense.

To ignore the impact of Comey re-opening the bogus Clinton e-mail investigation 11 days before the election is pure partisan hackery.

Cable news during the last 11 days was devoted almost entirely to discussions of Hillary's e-mails.  It changed both campaigns -- put Trump on offense and Clinton on defense.

To deny this occurred is the height of Trumpenlinks dishonesty.

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Twice as much money, thousands more employees, the Access Hollywood tape, Obama and his wife campaigning for her.  I mean give me a break.  Take a look at the book Shattered. See how much space they devote to Comey. 

Look at cable news over the last 11 days of the campaign -- it was a well orchestrated Hillary bashing.

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

They point out that HRC ran a dumb campaign, would not listen to her husband's advice and should have fired Robbie Mook.

Also, you leave out the fact that Podesta started blaming Russia before Comey's announcement.

Which got zero coverage.

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Uh, William, you are leaving out an important piece of evidence about Sater:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-associate-felix-sater-proved-invaluable-fbi-source-records-show-n1045896

The whole thing about Mueller's obstruction of justice is couched in such qualified terms that to claim it is the reason for his failure reveals that maybe you did not read it.  Suffice it to say that three of the areas mentioned were Wikileaks, Trump Tower and Flynn.

No, the core of the obstruction case is Trump's firing of James Comey in order to end the investigation into Michael Flynn, and the order Trump gave to White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller.

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I mean please.  

 

Has DiEugenio ever met a Trump talking point he can't repeat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RW: The detriment to the coup plotters (Deep State, Power Elite, etc.) arises in any number of forms, but at the highest level, blurs the distinctions and disagreements between "R"s and "D"s, which would then initiate a more critical look at the Deep State. In other words, as long as partisan and MSM enabled disagreements distract both "R"s and "D"s (liberal & conservative; left & right) few are actually looking for the real criminals.

 

How could anyone not agree with this.  

This country probably has the worst media in the entire Western World.  

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The sting on George P, doesn't matter.  

The entrapment of Flynn, doesn't matter.

The "sting" on Papadopolous is what law enforcement uses to catch criminals who are suspected of committing "crimes", otherwise known as an action or omissions that are in conflict with laws. It is legal for law enforcement officers or informants to NOT disclose they are investigating a subject of an investigation. They do not have to disclose their relationship with any agency and can in fact disguise their identity from the subject and act or pose as a person who also commits crimes. There are few investigations of suspected conspiracies or ongoing criminal activities that DON"T use informants, agents, undercover operatives or other unidentified witnesses for the purpose of determining if an illegal activity is or is not occurring. Trust me on this, law enforcement agents don't run around giving out business cards and flashing badges during the course of an investigation of suspected criminal activities nor are they required to. Not doing so isn't an infringement on the rights of a suspect. It is not pejorative or unusual.

The "entrapment" of Flynn suggests that the agency who supposedly "entrapped" Flynn convinced him to commit a crime that he otherwise wouldn't have committed. That is, the FBI agents interviewing Flynn said to him "Hey, we'd really like you to say something that isn't truthful! Could ya do that for us?" Then Flynn turned around and said something to the FBI which was a lie and they arrested and charged him for it. That is entrapment. During the course of Flynn's entrapment case, the FBI would have conspired to do such a thing, Flynn wouldn't bring it up to his defense attorneys and his defense attorneys would have ignored it as a defense. If his attorney tried to use it as a defense, a Judge and/or Jury would have to consider and rule on that which if it were found to be true the case would be thrown out.

These claims, heard in every prison and every cell in the entire country, are good fodder for the parents and grandparents who have to foot the bill to the defense lawyers and for talking points on (in this case) right wing media outlets. The arguments themselves depend on the ignorance of the audience they are intended to influence.

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

There's those xxxxx farms and MDA anyway (which are common in criminal prosecutions). 

The MDAs are why I really can't understand the position you're taking on this. If anything would get your hackles up I would think that would.

Criminal prosecutions of Presidents are not common. If you were to say that MDAs are common in ordinary prosecutions I would say you're correct but in this case the investigation is of our Monarch, Trump. By his estimation, it is forbidden to investigate, charge, indict or put to trial his highness for any behavior of his under any circumstance or for any reason under the sun. There isn't one other single person in the United States this applies to nor has there been a single person in the history of the US who has made this claim. His theory is that he can shoot the entire Supreme Court in an afternoon and have dinner that night. Any congressional action isn't of concern to him, he'd ignore it like he is now and wait for the Courts to decide whatever (remember - they're dead now). Which brings us to MDAs.

Cohen told the intelligence committee that he was discussing the possibility of a pardon with Sekulow, up until Cohen abandoned their joint-defense agreement and publicly broke from the president in mid-2018. He said Sekulow was representing him, not the president, when he brought up the idea of a pardon during a May 2017 Oval Office meeting with Trump. The discussions continued after Sekulow became Trump’s lawyer and Cohen retained other counsel, Cohen said.

Sekulow was “dangling the concept of pardons” to keep people in Trump’s inner circle in line, Cohen testified.

This is why the Mueller probe into "conspiracy", (not "collusion") was going to be difficult to charge. There is no way for any testimony to be taken from witnesses without those witnesses being subjected bribes or intimidated into fealty. The harmonizing of testimony between witnesses is relatively easy to accomplish with both a carrot and a stick PLUS Mueller had no informants, bugs, spies or other nasty tools of the "Deep State" to "entrap" or "sting" him! 

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...