Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


James DiEugenio
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

This is a truly historic day in the United States.

Is anyone watching the Congressional testimony of George Kent and William Taylor?

IMO, the damning allegations against Donald Trump are unanswerable.

Trump, obviously, abused his Presidential power in a protracted attempt this year to extort domestic political favors from the fledgling Zelensky regime.

More importantly, Trump directly betrayed the Ukraine and the United States in by-passing official U.S. State Department policies supporting Ukrainian democracy in its ongoing struggle against the encroachments of Putin's fascist police state.

(BTW, some people on this forum still don't seem to realize that the current Russian Federation is, essentially, a fascist police state.   Putin has openly bragged in recent weeks about the demise of liberal democracy in the West.)

I admire your fortitude (and Mr. Ness too) on this thread. I can’t believe Jim has fallen for the hollow Trump talking points. He thinks he can thread the needle I’m sure, being a progressive. But he has fallen for a covert operation designed to split the left by reinforcing the far left’s quite understandable  cynicism. I feel very close to this split, having been raised by Communist parents, having voted third party often, being well educated in the failures of the Democrats. But he and many others misread today’s political situation. The Democratic Establishment is not the Deep State which orchestrated the anthrax attacks of 2001 or the WTC disaster. Nor did they put Trump in office. And I would add that the demonization of Hillary Clinton began 25 years ago. 

There will be no resurgence of a better Democratic Party until the far left can tell who is a friend and who is a foe. The Clintons are not the problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jim said: But I will be damed if I will let my partisan biases make me a stooge twice.

Congratulations Jim, now you're nothing but partisan conspiracy biases and a two time stooge.

 

Dawn, I see you feel compelled to answer for Jim, since he was unable to answer for himself.

Dawn said,

As for Trump he may be involved in some Russian dealings, but the Russians did not hack the DNC.
 
Well! that's the first admission that Trump is dealing with the Russians! Jim has never gone that far. I don't think he'd answer either of your assertions.
Dawn, since you do stand behind your beliefs more than, say Jim then I would ask you.
 Did the POTUS withhold our taxpayer money to a foreign power in exchange for investigating his political rivals?
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KG: Congratulations Jim, now you're nothing but partisan conspiracy biases and a two time stooge.

Kirk  somehow thinks 19 year CIA agent Jim McCord made a "mistake" by taping something like 8 doors a the Watergate, and then retaping one of them after the guard found it.  McCord is the guy who worked security at Langley.  Let us spell  it out since Kirk has a hard time understanding things due to his political biases:

The security guard, Frank Wills, had found these doors and removed the tape. (Hougan, p. 196) When the burglars entered the building at about 1:10 AM, they found a previously taped door that was now stripped. McCord then conferred with higher-ups Hunt and Liddy. According to everyone but McCord, it was he who insisted on not aborting the mission. (Hougan, pp. 197-98) The door was retaped. But after McCord entered the building, he told his low-level cohorts that he himself had removed the tape on the doors. This was not true. (Probe, Vol. 3 No. 2, p. 14)

Now, if Kirk thinks its only a coincidence that:

1.  It was McCord who insisted on going forward with the operation after Wills discovered the tape.

2. That he told the low level cohorts he himself had removed the tape

3.  It was McCord who was the guy who ratted every one else out before Sirica, after he was the one who got them caught. 

If Kirk buys all of this  then he probably thinks that HRC should run again.  

Who is the stooge again?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

But he and many others misread today’s political situation. The Democratic Establishment is not the Deep State which orchestrated the anthrax attacks of 2001 or the WTC disaster.

Expand your thinking.

I would agree with you if you reversed the order of the second sentence to read, "The Deep State is not the Democratic Establishment...."

The Deep State is the Democratic Establishment and the Republican Establishment, but neither of the two Establishments have any meaning.

No matter what your label is, "R" or "D", you are either in the Club or out of the Club. If you are in the Club, you are in the Deep State.

The anthrax and WTC attacks of 2001 are just a continuum of multiple Deep State actions over many decades back to at least the JFK assassination (and earlier, but stopping at 1963 is easier to deal with.)

Before the WTC and 2001, there was the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Waco Massacre, the first WTC bombing, the first Iraq War, Iran/Contra, Watergate, RFK and hundreds of smaller false flags, political assassinations (and attempts), and contrived narratives, all intended to advance the interests of the members of the Club (or specific factions) that you and I do not belong to.

Look at the Clintons and Bushes. Sure, they are perceived as being at opposite political poles. The Clintons are center left and the Bushes are center right. They may publicly disagree about policy, but the policy disagreements are meaningless, or overly amplified my the MSM. 

On the important matters (to themselves, and the interests they really represented) they clearly cooperated. Barry Seal didn't fly cocaine into Mena Arkansas and guns to Nicaragua without the cooperation of both the Democratic Governor (Clinton) and the Republican President (Bush.) Jeffrey Epstein was able to traffic kids under three administrations (Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama) in a state where Republican Jeb Bush was the Governor for eight of those years.

Take a look at the works of Carroll Quigley if any of the above seems to improbable. Consider the possibility of a domestic Gladio program. Right now you're a pawn in a Hegelian school play.

Edited by Robert Wheeler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dawn Meredith said:

This impeachment is a waste of time and shows how little the Democrats have.  Except Tulsi Gabbard. You know that "Russian asset"  Who wants to end all the wars.

Tulsi Gabbard is a patriot.

She voted to move the Impeachment Inquiry forward because she knows a High Crime when she sees one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

I would agree with you if you reversed the order of the second sentence to read, "The Deep State is not the Democratic Establishment...."

The Deep State is the Democratic Establishment and the Republican Establishment, but neither of the two Establishments have any meaning.

Mr. Wheeler suffers under the impression "the Deep State" is a monolithic entity. 

Elements of the Deep State are loyal to their Wall St. masters; other elements feel an ultimate loyalty to the institution of which they are a cog; and yet other elements are loyal to the policies of theocratic fascism.

It was the theocratic fascists in the New York office of the FBI in cahoots with Director Comey who installed Trump in the White House.

Tell the DACA Dreamers there's no difference between the D's and the R's.

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

KG: Congratulations Jim, now you're nothing but partisan conspiracy biases and a two time stooge.

Kirk  somehow thinks 19 year CIA agent Jim McCord made a "mistake" by taping something like 8 doors a the Watergate, and then retaping one of them after the guard found it.  McCord is the guy who worked security at Langley.  Let us spell  it out since Kirk has a hard time understanding things due to his political biases:

The security guard, Frank Wills, had found these doors and removed the tape. (Hougan, p. 196) When the burglars entered the building at about 1:10 AM, they found a previously taped door that was now stripped. McCord then conferred with higher-ups Hunt and Liddy. According to everyone but McCord, it was he who insisted on not aborting the mission. (Hougan, pp. 197-98) The door was retaped. But after McCord entered the building, he told his low-level cohorts that he himself had removed the tape on the doors. This was not true. (Probe, Vol. 3 No. 2, p. 14)

Now, if Kirk thinks its only a coincidence that:

1.  It was McCord who insisted on going forward with the operation after Wills discovered the tape.

2. That he told the low level cohorts he himself had removed the tape

3.  It was McCord who was the guy who ratted every one else out before Sirica, after he was the one who got them caught. 

If Kirk buys all of this  then he probably thinks that HRC should run again.  

Who is the stooge again?

I don't think Mr. DiEugenio understands that Richard Nixon was trying to gain political control of the CIA.  Nixon tried to get his hands on the CIA Family Jewels in regard to the BOP, and the overthrows of Trujillo and Diem.

If he had succeeded, I doubt there would have been an improvement in the National Security State.

Yeah, the CIA cut Nixon down. 

And Edward Snowden -- CIA operative -- managed to clip the wings of the NSA and the DEA in a spasm of intel community internecine warfare.

Why be a stooge for either side?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William:

I can hardly believe you wrote the following:

by-passing official U.S. State Department policies supporting Ukrainian democracy in its ongoing struggle against the encroachments of Putin's fascist police state.

Are you serious? Why ignore the history?

When Ukraine broke away from the USSR in the early nineties, this unleashed the neo Nazi undercurrent that was already there.  That came from the leadership of the likes of Bandera and Lebed.  They had been Nazi collaborators during WW 2. And they helped the Nazis in systematic slaughters of both Jews and Poles on Soviet soil.  33,000 Jews at Babi Yar in 1941 and 36,000 Poles at Galicia in 1943.  In the latter the Bandera/Lebed corps outnumbered the Nazis by a significant factor.  I won't go into all the gory details, but let us just say that the Ukrainians used axes and saws to torture the victims before they died.

After the war, Bandera and Lebed escaped justice and became sources for the CIA.  (Remember Mr. Gehlen?) . In other words, forget all those innocent people you killed, the Cold war was on.  It was the KGB that hunted Bandera down and assassinated him. Lebed's group OUN became potent in the US with the rise of the neocons after Reagan' s  election.

This is all really important to understand.  And if you do not, you have no idea what is happening in Ukraine or how it became a cesspool. When  Ukraine became independent these neo Nazi forces were now once again slowly but surely unleashed.  The idea was to back an American type even if that person liked Bandera and Lebed.  Which is what the US did. Therefore the Russian oriented candidates like Kravchuk, Kuchma and Yanukovych were now opposed by Yushchenko.  Advised by and supported by people like Soros and Dickie Morris and the NED, Yushchenko won the presidency.  There was a big problem though.  He was a bad leader; except in one area: putting up statues to people like Lebed and making Bandera a national hero.  He could not even make it out of the first round in the next election.  So Yanukovych won. 

But there were two problems with the neo Nazi thugs.  First, Yanukovych displaced the ethnic cleanser Bandera as a national hero. Second, Yushchenko had made such a mess of the economy, Ukraine needed a loan.  The EU made an offer. But they wanted associated state status. Bringing NATO to the Russian frontier. Putin made a better offer.  But now people like John McCain and Democrats like Chris Murphy and Biden began to stoke the opposition.  And the Obama neocons in the embassy, like Nuland and Pyatt, went into high gear. The Bandera followers now started shooting people and a mini civil war started. The thugs threatened to kill Yanukovych.  So he left. Crimea wanted no part of the Bandera/Lebed gang so they declared a referendum and reunited with Russia by a huge margin.

The country has been a basket case ever since.  Same thing just happened in Bolivia, due to the neocon express.

What William wrote  reminded me of the drivel I used to read about President Thieu being a  democratic leader in Vietnam.

 

 

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Crimea wanted no part of the Bandera/Lebed gang so they declared a referendum and reunited with Russia by a huge margin.

I'm sure WM is about to tell us how Putin rigged the referendum and invaded Crimea. He is a white Russian and is unable to view history through any other lens apparently. Even though fascists have taken control of the Ukraine once the western sponsored coup succeeded, somehow our media is unable to present those facts/images to Americans. I have a feeling if Putin was backing these fascists, we would never hear the end of it. Well we didn't hear the end of the "Russian invasion" of Crimea anyway.

 

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Well! that's the first admission that Trump is dealing with the Russians!

That is totally different than having the Russians rig the 2016 American elections, which never happened. Your hyperbole was noticed however. Hillary and the CFR appreciates your support.

 

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

The Democratic Establishment is not the Deep State which orchestrated the anthrax attacks of 2001 or the WTC disaster.

The point though, would be that the "democratic establishment" is subservient to the deep state just the same as the republicans because of the top down methods of control emanating from the DNC, which has been dominated by the Clinton circles for years. Their networks would never allow someone in that establishment to question the big events, so effectively, they are the deep state. Once your compromised, the rest is just semantics. 

 

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

There will be no resurgence of a better Democratic Party until the far left can tell who is a friend and who is a foe. The Clintons are not the problem. 

I couldn't agree any more with the first sentence and disagree any more with the second. Anyone who takes orders from the CFR is not a friend. The Clinton's crime circle clearly has major influence in the DNC. The current chair of the DNC was almost Hillary's running mate, so yeah I think their cadre is definitely a major part of the problem as to why the Democratic party consistently runs from truth and their best candidates (Gabbard, Sanders). I think it should tell us all something when Gabbard gets a polling boost after Hillary spreads false propaganda all over the place, namely, Clinton is an embarrassment and the country wants nothing to do with her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Mr. Wheeler suffers under the impression "the Deep State" is a monolithic entity. 

Elements of the Deep State are loyal to their Wall St. masters; other elements feel an ultimate loyalty to the institution of which they are a cog; and yet other elements are loyal to the policies of theocratic fascism.

It was the theocratic fascists in the New York office of the FBI in cahoots with Director Comey who installed Trump in the White House.

Tell the DACA Dreamers there's no difference between the D's and the R's.

 

 

Jim,

      I know a great deal about Russia, from my direct experiences within the Russian (ROCOR) community, study, and travel in Russia, during the past quarter century.  (My eldest sister was one of the first American college students permitted to visit the USSR as an exchange student in the early 70s.) And I'm continually amazed by how little most Americans know about the true history of Russia during the past century.  The Soviet Union was, obviously, a closed society, and it was also a society entirely predicated on propaganda and disinformazia -- internal and external.

   You speak of Ukrainian "Neo-Nazis," but what have you ever read about the worst genocide in world history -- the Stalinist gulags, purges, and the mass genocide of untold millions of Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox Christians by the atheistic Soviet state after 1917?  The history of this truly horrific 20th century mass Soviet genocide has remained largely hidden from humanity.  There are historical documents of this  Soviet genocide but, aside from the work of Solzhenitsyn, few Americans know anything about them.

Have you read anything about the horrific history of the pre-WWII Soviet concentration camps at Solovki? The Stalinist purges of the 1930s?  How about the Ukrainian Holodomor?  

As for Putin, do you know anything about his subversion of democracy, his history of murdering journalists who criticize his police state (and witnesses in trials against his corrupt oligarchs?) He's a despot, and Yanukovych was absurdly corrupt.

More to the point, Donald Trump has been effectively bribed and blackmailed by Putin to betray the United States and our democratic allies in Europe, including the struggling Ukraine.  And Trump has, clearly, abused his public office to betray the Ukraine for purely partisan political ends.

I agree with George Conway, who said today on MSNBC that he is "horrified and appalled" by the blatantly dishonest Republican efforts to deny Trump's Ukrainian extortion scam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addendum:  Just to clarify, I consider myself a Democratic Socialist, and I, certainly, abhor the Cold War antics and international crimes of NATO and our CIA and MIC after WWII, (including their assassination of JFK.)

     But, I also believe that Putin's Russian Federation is a fascist police state.

     I view liberal democracy as the best alternative to fascism and totalitarian Marxist-Leninist states.

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

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

3.  It was McCord who was the guy who ratted every one else out before Sirica, after he was the one who got them caught. 

Who is the stooge again?

James W. McCord - Army Air Forces (must have been near the point the Air Corps became the Air Force).

Made 2nd Lieutenant in WW2 as a bombardier.

Made Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Air Force Reserve in _____ and served in this capacity from _____ to _____. Can anyone fill in the blanks on yet one more Colonel lurking in the shadows of U.S. power during its coups and the orchestrated removals of its civilian Chief Executives.

 

63e328601a1265cd10e097139ca4735c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the hearing today the time line of when the military aid funds to Ukraine were reinstated was discussed.

The Republican questioner was trying to establish the Trump defense that the aid was reinstated before Zelensky actually did anything that Trump had supposedly asked him to do earlier before Zelensky could get these funds.

So, in this time frame scenario, there was no extortion/bribery because Zelensky didn't start a Hunter Biden corruption investigation and publicly announce this on CNN before the funds flowed.

AH HA !

But it was established that Trump's team reinstated the funds soon and only after the whistleblower outed the scheme and just two days after Congress had actually begun the Ukraine investigation. These two facts explain the true reason Trump's people finally ( after a 55 day hold ) released the funds.

The extortion intent of this shadow diplomacy scheme was not excused because Zelensky didn't get to doing what Trump wanted.

However, Zelensky "had agreed" to do this.

The circle of the extortion action was legally complete once Zelensky simply "agreed" to his extortionist's demands.

A democratic Congressman asked Taylor and Kent if "attempted extortion" and "attempted bribery" were crimes.

They both deferred not saying either way.

However, if you look up the legal definition of attempted crimes versus fully enacted ones ( regards extortion and bribery )  there are interpretations of both beings crimes with some exceptions regarding attempted actions.

The Repub defense of saying since Zelensky didn't actually go through with the Biden corruption investigation quid pro quo demand before he got the military aid funds there was no crime, is ridiculous.

This shadow diplomacy action by Trump/Guiliani of by passing our constitutional bound state department protocols is so dangerous on it's face in undermining established American diplomatic authority and credibility and is a clear and dangerous abuse of power.

The best questioning with the best presentation was from Washington State Representative Denny Heck imo.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe,

     Another factoid is that Trump's associates finally released the military aid to Ukraine on September 11th IMMEDIATELY after Schiff demanded to see a copy of the suppressed whistleblower report about Trump's extortion scam.

    As for the fact that Trump deliberately withheld the military aid (and a meeting with Zelensky) in an attempt to extort Zelensky's participation in a smear campaign against Joe Biden, today's testimony established it beyond any reasonable doubt.

    The only big question now is whether Trump, Fox News, and the Trump/GOP Congressional Goon Squad will succeed in distracting and gaslighting their delusional base about Trump's criminal conduct.

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...