Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


James DiEugenio
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

What is the larger franchise the VIndmans are closer to?

Something similar to this. Detentions Ordered While Navy Officer's Role in Smuggling Case Probed (Nov. 1). [Inflatable boats and Evinrude engines to China.]

Except the goods went to Ukraine first (then Libya, Syria, Somalia, Burma, maybe one or two more) and the size of the operations looks like it was much larger than the Navy case above.

It's basically a reboot of Iran/Contra (actually probably more of a continuation.) 

Listen for any mentions of a condo in the Port of Tacoma.

Also, the $1.3 billion Unicredit fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guilt by association, guilt by ancestry, both worth examining but not proof. Now you ask us to read a story that might be similar to the one you are weaving about the Vindmans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Guilt by association, guilt by ancestry, both worth examining but not proof. Now you ask us to read a story that might be similar to the one you are weaving about the Vindmans. 

Exactly. They fine line every single ridiculous defense of Trump to the enth degree (even when he admits his own guilt and is testified against by numerous witnesses) and then use any kind of innuendo or speculation to condemn an apparently credible accuser. A completely irrelevant article used to smear someone because they're willing to defend any action of Trump's.

The $1.3 b fine to Unicredit relates to the eldest Vindman's employment there and yet the underlying behavior occurred when he wasn't associated with the company.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Guilt by association, guilt by ancestry, both worth examining but not proof. Now you ask us to read a story that might be similar to the one you are weaving about the Vindmans. 

Not necessarily guilt by association or ancestry, etc.

The idea of examining associations (familial, professional, club memberships, school affiliations, neighbors) is not really new but technology has made it somewhat easier.

It is now called Social Networking Analysis (SNA.) It is what Tech companies use to justify the payment of millions to "influencers" like Kylie Jenner for sending out Instagram photos of herself eating an Oscar Meyer hot dog (or whatever.) Simplified, SNA is supposed to identify the person or group that is most connected to other people and groups and the level of influence between the groups/individuals. My point is that it is a real thing, that is being used more and more. Technology has made it easier, and has lent some statistical or scientific credibility to its application (it must have because Kylie Jenner  is 24 years old and a billionaire and the bean counting executives at Oscar Meyer or Ford or some Movie Studio need some justification for writing big checks to a young woman with no apparent marketable talents.)

SNA has been around for much longer than the Internet. If you look at one of those old "Mafia" family trees, that is an example of an "analogue" SNA model. Again simplified, "Joe" is seen at the Wedding of "Fat Tony's" (a Capo) daughter, the funeral of "Jimmy Two-Times" great-aunt, and eating a Pork Roll Egg and Cheese Sandwich (a NJ thing) at the Hoboken Diner on Friday at 7:00 AM with the "Soprano" brothers. Fat Tony, Jimmy Two Times, and the Soprano Brothers are all known associates of the Capo di tutti capo who runs the Hudson River docks from Weehawken to Bayonne.

Joe's picture goes on the wall, with strings that attach to the other Gentlemen. 

Obviously, "Joe" is not guilty of anything. It is possible his associations were innocent or coincidental. Nevertheless, if his name keeps popping up in the company of known mobsters, the Feds will probably decide he is worth a closer look. In the 1960's (pre-computer era), the Feds might weight certain associations more than others based on past experience or a hunch. SNA tries to apply some science and statistics to those weights.

For example, Joe was at Fat Tony's daughter's wedding because he is: the 3rd cousin of the groom (weight of 2 out of 10) or a "weak" association.

Alternatively, Joe was at Fat Tony's daughter's wedding because he is: the father of the groom (weight of 9 out of 10) or a "strong" association. In other words, Joe likely has some level of importance if he is marrying the daughter of Fat Tony.

The 1960s Feds have a hypothesis that a Criminal Syndicate is skimming the union dues of NJ dockworkers. The Feds try to identify the members of the Syndicate through their analogue SNA model so they can later infiltrate the organization with informants, or track bank wire transfers, or piece together seemingly unrelated incidents (the body found face down in the Secaucus swamps.)

I am half Italian Paul. Your last name suggests you are at least half Italian. You should be able to appreciate that not all Criminal Family Syndicates are made up of Italians. I would argue that there are other Criminal Family Syndicates made up of mostly Eastern Establishment (non-Italian Families.)

No doubt, even like the classic idea of an Italian Family Syndicate (the MAFIA) the Eastern Establishment Syndicates also have legitimate businesses, and even though two brothers are shaking down Restaurants in Bergen County to have their daily produce deliveries show up before the evening rush, the third brother is a mild mannered dentist in Ocean County who wants nothing to do with the family business. The same would be true for an Eastern Family Crime Syndicate. 

The purpose of the analysis of the Ancestors and Associations is not to establish guilt. It is to determine who might be in the Establishment Syndicate. If we both agree that the Bush Family is part of that syndicate, then it is more productive to look for criminal acts by individuals in the Walker family, who are related to the Bush's, than the Wheeler family, who are not related (at least as far as I can tell.)

My final point is that SNA is likely to uncover a weak link(s) in any attempted obfuscation of discovering who might be a member of a criminal syndicate. That is, before the Internet and huge databases of ancestry data, old newspaper clippings and various other lists, establishing connections would have been almost impossible (or at least very expensive.) If Female Walker married a Male Bush, without access to modern data, it might never be apparent that the Female Walker's sister was married to a Male Rockefeller. Nobody is guilty of anything in that scenario, but as a data point it might be useful if we hypothesize the fertilizer shortage of 1940 was the result of corporate collusion, and then consider the largest and third largest fertilizer distributors were owned by the Bush's and Rockefellers (not true, just an example. RS Mueller, Dupont & WR Grace were a few of the largest and were investigated by a Grand Jury. Some interesting familial and social connections between those three, among others.)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert - I have no problem with looking deeply into Eastern Establishment crime families. It’s a factor to be considered. But consider how Joseph Kennedy’s supposed illegal activities was used to smear his progeny. Then we discover in the fullness of time it was all bs. RFK Jr’s book American Values is worth a read, especially on the legacy of the Patriarch. And even if Joe was a crook, his sons surely were not. Ron Reagan is nothing like his father. And so on. Where I certainly agree with you is on the Bush/Walker/Dulles connections. And surely there have been a lot of players who were Skull and Bones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Robert - I have no problem with looking deeply into Eastern Establishment crime families. It’s a factor to be considered. But consider how Joseph Kennedy’s supposed illegal activities was used to smear his progeny. Then we discover in the fullness of time it was all bs. RFK Jr’s book American Values is worth a read, especially on the legacy of the Patriarch. And even if Joe was a crook, his sons surely were not. Ron Reagan is nothing like his father. And so on. Where I certainly agree with you is on the Bush/Walker/Dulles connections. And surely there have been a lot of players who were Skull and Bones. 

Supposed is right.  The reports of Joe and the Mob now seem to be fabricated by Sam Halpern at the behest of Richard Helms.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/11/the-nasty-career-of-cia-director-richard-helms.html

"No contest in Federal Court"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Paul, there is one problem with that analysis.

The Kennedys were never part of the Eastern Establishment.

Because they were rather nouveau riche and Irish. 

This is one reason Joe Kennedy moved out of Boston to NYC.

Jack and Bobby never forgot that stuff and that is one reason they did what they did in office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

RFK Jr’s book American Values is worth a read, especially on the legacy of the Patriarch. And even if Joe was a crook,

I read that book Paul, but I don't remember the part where RFK Jr describes Joe as a crook. In fact, he takes a few pages to detail why he wasn't a crook. If I remember correctly, no one accused Joe Sr of bootlegging until about 30 years later during the Nixon/JFK campaign and it was a mobster who had dealings with RFK who said it. Bonnano maybe? My detailing may be a little off, but that was the general gist of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dennis Berube said:

I read that book Paul, but I don't remember the part where RFK Jr describes Joe as a crook. In fact, he takes a few pages to detail why he wasn't a crook. If I remember correctly, no one accused Joe Sr of bootlegging until about 30 years later during the Nixon/JFK campaign and it was a mobster who had dealings with RFK who said it. Bonnano maybe? My detailing may be a little off, but that was the general gist of it.

Not sure how you misunderstood what I wrote. I was trying to make the point you just did. Jim is right though - they weren’t Eastern Establishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Robert - I have no problem with looking deeply into Eastern Establishment crime families. It’s a factor to be considered. But consider how Joseph Kennedy’s supposed illegal activities was used to smear his progeny. Then we discover in the fullness of time it was all bs. RFK Jr’s book American Values is worth a read, especially on the legacy of the Patriarch. And even if Joe was a crook, his sons surely were not. Ron Reagan is nothing like his father. And so on. Where I certainly agree with you is on the Bush/Walker/Dulles connections. And surely there have been a lot of players who were Skull and Bones. 

You bring up some interesting points. If you look at the biographies and resumes of JFK and GHWB, they are both very similar and one might easily conclude they are from the same "caste" of "social class" or, are both part of the "Eastern Establishment". 

  • Both attended East Coast prep schools (JFK = Choate / GHWB = Phillips)
  • Ivy League diplomas (JFK = Harvard / GHWB = Yale)
  • Both had permanent family Summer residences in coastal towns known as enclaves for the wealthy (JFK = Hyannisport on Cape Cod / GHWB = Kennebunkport on the Maine coast.) Other enclaves would include Newport RI, Naushon, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, the Hamptons, Rumson and Spring Lake NJ, etc. (Not Coney Island or Asbury Park, and many more.)
  • Also Both had permanent Winter homes in Florida (Kennedys = Palm Beach / Bushes = Jupiter Island).

If you just look at JFK and GHWB they both appear to be equally "Eastern Establishment." The way that you can tell GHWB was "Eastern Establishment" and "JFK" was not is to look at their relatives. As mentioned, the Kennedy's are from Irish Immigrant stock and were considered noveau rich. The Bushes have lots of Mayflower and Boston Brahman blood; the Walker side originally made their money in the slave trade. The Bush family (and related branches) hitched their wagon to the Rockefellers (mostly via corporate cross ownership.)

That was just a quick look. A Social Analysis Networking model (using formulas, weights, and statistics) could spit out an Eastern Establishment rank. GHWB might score 90 out of 100, and JFK 30 out of 100. We know a lot about JFK and GHWB, we don't really need to use SNA.

However, if we think that some "Eastern Establishment" families are part of a Crime Syndicate, then SNA can point out potential syndicate members and eliminate others. The Bissell family would score very high as would the duPonts. Looking into both families, they were clearly involved in some questionable historical invents (false flags, commodity price collusion, violence and conspiracy to subvert the formation of Labor unions, Banana war supporters; or Robber Baron type activities in general.)

SNA can also give us "false positives", FDR is solidly East Coast Establishment (the Delanos were slave traders and opium runners), but no one accused FDR of doing the bidding of the duPonts or Rockefellers.

Apologies for the tangent. An understanding of an individual's ancestry (family connections), shared corporate interests, and social connections help establish whether an individual is potentially involved with a Syndicate that is not averse to committing crimes with global implications.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

You bring up some interesting points. If you look at the biographies and resumes of JFK and GHWB, they are both very similar and one might easily conclude they are from the same "caste" of "social class" or, are both part of the "Eastern Establishment". 

  • Both attended East Coast prep schools (JFK = Choate / GHWB = Phillips)
  • Ivy League diplomas (JFK = Harvard / GHWB = Yale)
  • Both had permanent family Summer residences in coastal towns known as enclaves for the wealthy (JFK = Hyannisport on Cape Cod / GHWB = Kennebunkport on the Maine coast.) Other enclaves would include Newport RI, Naushon, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, the Hamptons, Rumson and Spring Lake NJ, etc. (Not Coney Island or Asbury Park, and many more.)
  • Also Both had permanent Winter homes in Florida (Kennedys = Palm Beach / Bushes = Jupiter Island).

If you just look at JFK and GHWB they both appear to be equally "Eastern Establishment." The way that you can tell GHWB was "Eastern Establishment" and "JFK" was not is to look at their relatives. As mentioned, the Kennedy's are from Irish Immigrant stock and were considered noveau rich. The Bushes have lots of Mayflower and Boston Brahman blood; the Walker side originally made their money in the slave trade. The Bush family (and related branches) hitched their wagon to the Rockefellers (mostly via corporate cross ownership.)

That was just a quick look. A Social Analysis Networking model (using formulas, weights, and statistics) could spit out an Eastern Establishment rank. GHWB might score 90 out of 100, and JFK 30 out of 100. We know a lot about JFK and GHWB, we don't really need to use SNA.

However, if we think that some "Eastern Establishment" families are part of a Crime Syndicate, then SNA can point out potential syndicate members and eliminate others. The Bissell family would score very high as would the duPonts. Looking into both families, they were clearly involved in some questionable historical invents (false flags, commodity price collusion, violence and conspiracy to subvert the formation of Labor unions, Banana war supporters; or Robber Baron type activities in general.)

SNA can also give us "false positives", FDR is solidly East Coast Establishment (the Delanos were slave traders and opium runners), but no one accused FDR of doing the bidding of the duPonts or Rockefellers.

Apologies for the tangent. An understanding of an individual's ancestry (family connections), shared corporate interests, and social connections help establish whether an individual is potentially involved with a Syndicate that is not averse to committing crimes with global implications.

 

 

 

     Indeed, the Bush clan are Connecticut Yankee blue bloods with deep roots in the New England W.A.S.P. establishment, Wall Street, and, of course, the CIA.

    I just finished reading Roy Nichol's biography of President Franklin Pierce, a relative of Barbara Bush (nee Pierce.)  Franklin Pierce was the son of Revolutionary War hero, General Benjamin Pierce, who rose to national prominence (and the Presidency) as an advocate of Southern slave owner's rights (including strict enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.)  Pierce died in ignominy after the Civil War, despised by Abolitionists in his native New England.

    So, wealth aside, there was a huge ethnic, cultural (and religious) chasm between JFK and his CIA adversaries-- something that I observed directly during my eight year sojourn in the Ivy League.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

Some dude just suffered a seizure during Roger Stone's trial. That sounds familiar.

While the Roger Stone circus trial starts ramping up, another more important trial has started to get going.

United States of America vs. Mark T. Lambert (Defendant) in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division

The trial is referred to as “The Uranium One Trial” in some circles.

If you want to know how the CIA can get away with so many crimes for so many years, and see a compromised Judge in action, this is a good trial to follow.

At the risk of being called a “Conspiracy Theorist”, the Uranium One trial concerns the exfiltration and sales of various grades of processed Uranium to countries with overly ambitious nuclear weapons programs. If your familiar with the Apollo Affair from the 1960s, it is like that, except that the Uranium did not end up in the relatively friendly hands of the Israelis, but rather in the hands of Pakistani’s, Iranians and North Koreans.

Briefly, Mark Lambert ran a trucking firm that moved the Uranium (usually Piketon, Ohio) to the Port of Charleston. The Uranium was loaded on ships destined for places like the UAE or Bahrain, and then on to another country for a second "wash", or straight to its final destination.

Mark Lambert was a small link in the chain of the whole process. He did not broker the transactions, or arrange for financing, or pay-off the local authorities to not look in the crates of “farm equipment.” Nevertheless, he has been in the business for years and knows some of the other links in the chain.

Mark Lambert is looking at 30+ years in jail, but if he plays his cards right, he can that down to a few months.

The actual purpose of the trial is to bury as much evidence as possible, so those higher up in the “Chain” of Command do not get “kinked.”

It is called a slap and seal. You “Slap” an indictment on someone like Lambert, and ask the Judge to “Seal” the evidence.  As long as Lambert goes along with the plan, he'll be fine.

     

 The Following was posted yesterday on Brassballs.blog - Link to Full Post with links to Court Documents and additional background. 

Quote

 

Chuang's Kangaroo court hides CIA's role in Uranium One

Nov 4

David Ira Salem works as an attorney for the CIA.

Office of General Counsel.

Someone has to represent the CIA in a criminal trial.

It is Salem.

His picture and resume is posted at the top of this story.

He represents the best interests of the CIA.

 

Over the best interests of the:

             American people

             FBI

             Justice Department

 

Salem is also the prosecutor in the Uranium One case.

It reopened this morning at 9 a.m.

In Federal District Court of Greenbelt, Maryland.

A suburb of Washington, D.C.

It is a conflict of interest.

Salem filed motions to suppress evidence.

Judge Theodore Chuang approved (emphasis mine) Salem’s motions to suppress:

             two million documents

             the expert witness for the defense from testifying

             testimony and references to FBI informant William Douglas Campell

             evidence favorable to the defendant

             the CIA’s role in Uranium One before 2011 going back to 1993

             limiting the defense to one witness, Carol Condrey, an adverse witness

 

 

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...