Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


James DiEugenio
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

On 11/7/2019 at 7:26 PM, Pamela Brown said:

Robert Wheeler said: 

"If I understand what you are saying, the Blue Blooded Bush's considered the Kennedys "vulgar" because they were new money, and recent immigrants, and Catholic.

The Blue Blooded Bush's are now horrified by the exponentially outrageous vulgarity of the Trump family because their money is also new, they are also recent immigrants (none of Trumps grandparents were born in the USA), and at a total disregard for proper "breeding", even allow family members to marry Jews and Slavs. "

Exactly, Robert. 

 

This premise is the keystone of Robert's research. This concept itself is a tool of diversion and enslavement. It's true, the true nature of the opposition is financial, but it's  not deep. It's going on right in front to you.  Given the conspiratorial mindset of helplessness and ineffectualness, This is going to be demystifying and will not be fun to hear because there's no obscure enemy you can't do anything about and it puts the responsibility squarely on all of us.
 
 I see 2 deep states proposed here. Both are lost in time.
Yes it's true  there was a big divide between new money and old money 50 years ago. But that doesn't really exist so much anymore. There's billionaires being made every day now. Look at the 3 richest people in the world that are American. Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, they all made it on their own. Bloomberg's father was an accountant for a dairy company. Ask them who they think the "powers that be" are and  those guys would laugh in your face. And don't you think they'd know? They are the "powers that be".  They're right in front of you. You have to decide if income equality is an important enough issue to you that you want to go after the lot of them.  But that's another issue.
 
The blue bloods with 200 year lineage that Robert is obsessed with, Their most productive activity of their 10th generation is probably playing polo. Do you think they  care enough that they're completely controlling this overthrow of Trump? 100 years have gone by, the Kennedy's themselves are blue bloods now!
Sure most of them  love the Trump tax cuts. But they don't need them. They're set for generations no matter what happens. But even apart from his vulgarity, there's not much that Trump can do for them anymore especially since he lost the House.
 
Then there is the governmental deep state.
The deep state in the post WW2 era years ago was real and  the product of a heyday where the U.S. was left completely standing after WW2,and came to control half the world's resources and a resultant burgeoning government bureaucracy fused with the enormous cash emerged. These were heady times, and great bureaucratic monarchs  arose. You really think Clapper, and Brennan can compete with Hoover, Dulles and Helms?
 
It's true we wouldn't agree with a lot of what these present guys think either. They are "spooks" They got where they are by being among  the most vigilant people. But these guys are bureaucrats, There's an entire painstaking process that goes through 15 people in  on everything that is done. Still, yes they can be corrupted. You see the results of the Executive poisoning the "Deep State" in Ukraine Gate. What fool could believe now that Trump has come to Washington to "drain the swamp". He held the "Deep State" in utter silence before a Deep State whistle blower finally exposed him. Now Trump's still trying to expose him. Whose held the power here? Trump's corrupted  the Deep State for his own ends  more than anybody. This is the story of an attempted Executive corruption of a subservient Deep State, that couldn't make a peep before an anonymous whistle blower!
 
The reason why both the "blue blood deep state" and the "MIC bureaucratic deep state" have turned against Trump is the same. Because he's an as-hole! He uses people and treats them like sh-t. One thing I  find  common in any of Di Eugenio's,Jeff Carter or Roberts deep state theories are that they are devoid of any kind of human understanding of the Trump Presidency. Why would this be the result of any real conspiracy? Eventually it could be simply that the rest of us are fed up with him. Call it the hundred and first conspiracy, if you want.  But it is that simple, it is that intrinsic. He doesn't inspire loyalty in anyone. Now hes admitted to impeachable offenses. He may gotten a pass before. But now, nobody feels that generous toward him. But it is the results of his own actions.
 
FALLACY- that everybody was trying to get rid of Trump from day one. Yes, there are some, but the vast majority wanted to get behind their President. Because if things go well for him, they go well for all of us, and Trump was such a little known quantity, people weren't sure if we wouldn't see a Presidential Trump that was much different than the campaigner Trump. He could have almost been seen as a genius for successfully lowering the public expectation so low, people would  be overjoyed at the most minimal amounts of human sincerity and some evidence, even the slightest clue that he cared  about anything other than himself, his poll would have skyrocketed from people who wanted to believe that he was growing into the job,  but he was unable to even deliver that.
 
Here's a revolutionary idea. He actually could have stumbled into being an extremely popular President. If he worked with the Democrats about expanding the AC act, and an infrastructure bill. He could have also given the Republicans their massive tax cut, and Supreme Court justices(both which I completely disagree with)and he would have been seen as the outsider who broke the decade long Washington gridlock. He'd be a hero, and maybe would be facing an easy re election. But that isn't who Trump is. He was out to destroy everything Obama accomplished for no other reason than Obama accomplished it. He abandoned the Paris accord and the Iran Peace Treaty. And of course, to briefly reiterate what has already been said in one way or another many times. He wasn't an executive, but had tyrannical tendencies and wasn't fit for office.
 
'Peach Dat!
 
Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dems and Republican parties - and, as long as it clings to official narratives, the Greens - are barely concealed Pentagon contractors perenially vying for 2 and 4 year service contracts.

The media, and, the local Pentagon players theatre troupes sprinkled in heavy numbers across every square hectare of this great land, provide to the gullible plausible reasons why this one, or, that one, or, a combination of this one, that one, or, the other one (the Greens), will win in imminently corruptible electronically-tallied elections - where the DOD takes all.

As an aside, U.S. Captain Chuck Hagel went fresh from the military to heading a holding company with majority ownership in a computerized voting machine corporation - the type that keeps cheating into 'power' a steady stream of cheats, dumbasses and thieves - and, in all probability, himself into a Senate seat.

Edited by Jon Pickering
Link to comment
Share on other sites

News flash for Trump defenders and how he's getting such a raw deal:

Ellen Weintraub, Chair of the FEC:

Well, we have over 30 complaints that are sitting in the House right now that allege foreign national money being spent in our elections.

That is flatly illegal. And they are important allegations that the commission has previously said they would prioritize. But we can't address them right now. And we don't know. Some of them may be completely unsubstantiated, but some of them may be serious allegations that require investigation or sanction.

The reason you may ask? Guess who (along with Senate Republicans) isn't appointing anyone to the FEC (a minimum of four are required for a quorum and there are 3) and currently has an MDA with subjects of some of the complaints? Common. You can say it now. Out with it!

Several of the cases on which the FEC hasn’t acted involve America First Action, a pro-Trump super PAC mired in the Ukraine scandal congressional Democrats are investigating as part of their Trump impeachment inquiry. 

https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/fec-quorum-congress-trump-elections/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

The reason you may ask? Guess who

Nobody is asking.

Nobody is guessing.

Nobody cares.

Now where is Doug Caddy and his aliens?

Dark Journalist replayed clips last night of the episode where Doug says E. Howard Hunt told him that JFK was killed because of the Alien Presence.

Not only was the attempted "throw" so obvious that he damaged his credibility, he damaged the credibility of any number of Deep State deniers here on this forum.

Maybe even you Bob.

 

Edited by Robert Wheeler
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...