Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


James DiEugenio
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here's an interesting document. Nellie's Excel file of Trump contacts with Russians and Ukrainians. This was paid for apparently by Republicans. Makes interesting reading for further research.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/JW-v-DOJ-Ohr-comms-production-6-01854-pgs-300-312.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

WN: In a very real sense, this trial is about more than Trump's obvious crimes on behalf of Putin's oligarchic, fascist police state.

Can you explain to me what Trump holding up aid for an inquiry into Biden had to do with Putin's oligarchic police state?

BTW, Putin's whole policy once he took over was to go after the oligarchs who ransacked Russia under Yeltsin.

     I was referring to Ambassador William Taylor's Congressional testimony yesterday about the critical importance of U.S. diplomatic and military support for the Zelensky government in their current border war with the Russian Federation.

    Taylor and other Ukraine experts, including George Kent, Fiona Hill, and Vindman, were deeply concerned that Trump's conduct toward the Zelensky government -- withholding military aid and a White House meeting-- would be interpreted by the Kremlin as evidence of tepid U.S. support for Ukraine.

     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

     I was referring to Ambassador William Taylor's Congressional testimony yesterday about the critical importance of U.S. diplomatic and military support for the Zelensky government in their current border war with the Russian Federation.

    Taylor and other Ukraine experts, including George Kent, Fiona Hill, and Vindman, were deeply concerned that Trump's conduct toward the Zelensky government -- withholding military aid and a White House meeting-- would be interpreted by the Kremlin as evidence of tepid U.S. support for Ukraine.

     

It's also indication that Trump is curiously pliant to the goals of the RF. Putin plays him like a cheap fiddle. Ukelele maybe?

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concept that Russia is an aggressive revanchist state has been developed and promoted by xenophobic right wing fanatics in some of the former USSR satellites. Their viewpoints have been supported by the US and the EU/NATO because it served their interests to do so. The primary example of alleged Russian aggression has occurred in Ukraine, and the US/NATO description of what occurred has been devoid of all context and subject to key omissions. Most troubling, this flawed narrative has been used deliberately to stoke international tensions, with the terrible result of NATO/Russian arsenals in close proximity and a return to the Cold War possibility of a devastating nuclear conflict through accident or misunderstanding. I don’t understand how anyone could see this as positive or desirable.

A decade ago, Ukraine required an influx of money and investment and it was negotiating potential loans with the EU and with Russia. The negotiations led to the EU’s proposed Association agreement, which, once the details were released in September 2013, mandated separation from long-standing economic ties to Russia, which would have devastated Ukraine’s economy ($25 billion or so of activity would be halted with nothing immediate in its place). The attendant austerity program tied to the IMF loans would only have further impoverished the population with the attendant deep cuts in public spending, including energy subsidies (i.e. home heating). Russia, in turn, offered loans with no similar attached strings. Rather than acting as “Putin’s puppet”, the decision to accept the Russian deal rather than the EU’s, made sense from a variety of perspectives.

A minority faction in Ukraine desired an EU Association agreement for ideological reasons. They tacked their grievance onto the nascent Maidan protests, and promoted the false idea there was a binding legal requirement to accept the EU’s terms. Officials from the US and EU started to make appearances at the Maidan protests, encouraging support for the EU Association based on vague generalities such as “shared values”, which found some resonance in support particularly because the nasty details were rarely discussed. The Maidan protests were  ramped up with this foreign meddling, a murky false flag event occurred, and the resulting hysteria quickly led to a putsch by the ideological faction which was promptly recognized as “legitimate” by the US, UK and Canada - a decision which had no basis in international law or the Ukraine Constitution. It was a morally and intellectually bankrupt decision, which still apparently finds favour inside the US State Dept.

The alleged Putin/Russian aggression at the time of the coup amounted to proposing a better loan agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the late eighteenth century, Russia’s only warm water naval facility has been based in Crimea, which was fully part of Russia/USSR until 1991, when it became part of Ukraine due to Kruschev’s “gifting” the peninsula in the 1950s. The Crimean naval facilities have long been recognized as vital to Russia’s national self defence. Beginning in the late 1990s, when NATO reneged on its agreements not to expand eastward from Germany, the status of the Russian Federation’s “leasing” of these facilities from Ukraine has been discussed in security circles. For example, in 2004 NATO  sponsored an analysis of what might occur if such leases were discontinued. It was determined that Russia would seize the facilities, and it would take a shooting war to reverse that.

Ukraine’s coup government almost immediately let it be known that they would be seeking to annul the leases and they would apply for NATO membership. On national security grounds, there is zero possibility that Russia’s military would remove themselves from their naval facilities, let alone turn it over to NATO. What happened in 2014 was a swift bloodless resolution to this sticking issue. If the Russians did not do it as they did, then Crimea would inevitably have become at the very least a huge international crisis, on the level of Berlin 1961. Tellingly, NATO’s leadership pretended to be shocked when in fact they knew exactly what would occur, and NATO members had stoked the whole event in the first place. Seeking international conflict and stoking international crises is bad policy and another instance of intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Yet somehow a significant amount of people, including on this board, think the ones who resolved a crisis are the ones to blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you 3-5 that believe in the US state department propaganda seen Oliver Stone's series of interviews with Putin (yes William, that modern Hitler you believe in)??

I'm willing to bet not.

 

The VERY FIRST THING SCHIFF SAID was to repeat the complete lie that Russia invaded Ukraine. If you believe that, then this thread should basically die a confusing death. Read Ray McGovern's recent article. The title is perfect for some of the things that have been committed to the internet in this thread.

https://consortiumnews.com/2019/11/14/ray-mcgovern-ukraine-for-dummies/

 

14 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

I take it you're not going to blame the Ukrainians for shooting down the plane are you? Would have heard that by now I suppose.

Bob for someone who "researches... espionage related subjects" you seem to agree with official western storytales quite often. The story of the investigation of MH-17 has been completely political. Even yesterday, the "investigators" released phone calls between Russia and Donetsk and they are claiming that is evidence that Russia aided in the shootdown, that is not evidence at all Bob, and you should know that having studied espionage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Since the late eighteenth century, Russia’s only warm water naval facility has been based in Crimea, which was fully part of Russia/USSR until 1991, when it became part of Ukraine due to Kruschev’s “gifting” the peninsula in the 1950s.

This doesn't make sense. I'll respond in due time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just a picture (see below). The guy in the purple tie was Schiff's star witness yesterday. Link to full Facebook Post with more pictures.

This blog post starts to go down the "Trident" / Bill Taylor rabbit hole.  State Department guys like Bill Taylor (and the CIA, and US military contractors) have been using Ukraine for a few years now to run weapons to, or through. Weapons one way; drugs and humans the other. Russia used to be the preferred partner. That is another Rabbit Hole.

In any event, Trump is screwing up Taylor's business plans, as well as the plans of a few Ukranian and Russian Oligarchs. (Here is something to consider. The Russian compounds on Long Island and Maryland's Eastern Shore remained open for 65 and 45 years respectively. Why did Obama shut them down only a few weeks before he left office?) Hint: Russian interference in the 2016 election is the simpleton's answer. Don't be a simpleton.

Interestingly, further down in the post, one of the officers of Trident is noted to be associated with a Russian bank called Troika Dialog.

One of the founders of Troika Dialog was an American named Peter Derby who also went by his Russian name (Piotr Wladimirovich.) Derby married into one of those White Russian families (the house of Gargarin) and his sister-in-law ended up marrying a guy named James Booth.

Conspiracy Forum, Conspiracy Warning!

James Booth worked at the NRC (he may still) and his father Merson worked at the AEC from the early 50s to the early 70s. Although Merson Booth is kind of mysterious guy we do know he was on Admiral Rickover's team to build the first nuclear submarines. Another guy who worked under Rickover at the same time was Zalman Shapiro. Zalman is best known for the Apollo Affair, which involved the ex-filtration of HEU from Pittsburgh to the Israeli nuke weapons program.  

The circle is of course far from complete. Or maybe we can say, the time-line still has plenty of gaps. Either way, some might start to see a pattern emerging. (Bill Taylor's father was also with the AEC. He built some of the first portable nuclear power plants that were used by the Army in place like Alaska and Greenland.) 

The missing HEU from NUMEC's Pittsburgh plant should prompt some more questions for all of the conspiracy theorists here, which is presumably everyone here, since this is the JFK Assassination Forum. Questions like; 

Has any other nuclear material ever gone missing?

Does the Silkwood / Kerr Magee case deserve a closer look?

What about the 1966 Palomares (Spain) B-52 crash?

What was going on at Rocky Flats. Why did the FBI, under Mueller, raid the joint and permanently seal all of those documents?

When a remediation contractor comes in to a place like Rocky Flats, or a Nevada testing facility, or an off-limits Island in the South Pacific, are they there just to clean up a bunch of radioactive waste?

 

 

Edited by Robert Wheeler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Since the late eighteenth century, Russia’s only warm water naval facility has been based in Crimea, which was fully part of Russia/USSR until 1991, when it became part of Ukraine due to Kruschev’s “gifting” the peninsula in the 1950s. The Crimean naval facilities have long been recognized as vital to Russia’s national self defence. Beginning in the late 1990s, when NATO reneged on its agreements not to expand eastward from Germany, the status of the Russian Federation’s “leasing” of these facilities from Ukraine has been discussed in security circles. For example, in 2004 NATO  sponsored an analysis of what might occur if such leases were discontinued. It was determined that Russia would seize the facilities, and it would take a shooting war to reverse that.

Ukraine’s coup government almost immediately let it be known that they would be seeking to annul the leases and they would apply for NATO membership. On national security grounds, there is zero possibility that Russia’s military would remove themselves from their naval facilities, let alone turn it over to NATO. What happened in 2014 was a swift bloodless resolution to this sticking issue. If the Russians did not do it as they did, then Crimea would inevitably have become at the very least a huge international crisis, on the level of Berlin 1961. Tellingly, NATO’s leadership pretended to be shocked when in fact they knew exactly what would occur, and NATO members had stoked the whole event in the first place. Seeking international conflict and stoking international crises is bad policy and another instance of intellectual and moral bankruptcy. Yet somehow a significant amount of people, including on this board, think the ones who resolved a crisis are the ones to blame.

Crimea for Russia.

Donbass for Ukraine.

How many ethnic-Russian Ukrainians are descended from folks who relocated in the early 30's as lots of Russian soldiers seized the food supplies of Ukrainian peasants?

We  shouldn't ignore the long-time Russian identity in Crimea nor should we fail to recognize the ethnic cleansing (up to 10 million dead) in the early 30's that brought lots of Russians into Ukraine.

Russia out of Donbass!  To think Putin's adventure there is any kind of righteous "resolution" is gravely delusional.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump is targeting our most vulnerable allies.  The Kurds, the Ukrainians...and now the South Koreans.

Trump hikes price tag for US forces in Korea almost 500% as Seoul questions alliance

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/politics/trump-south-korea-troops-price-hike/index.html

Trump is a sociopath sadist who loves to make life miserable for the most vulnerable.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The concept that Russia is an aggressive revanchist state has been developed and promoted by xenophobic right wing fanatics in some of the former USSR satellites. Their viewpoints have been supported by the US and the EU/NATO because it served their interests to do so.

The right has always been used and/or motivated to curb Russian aggression whether deserved or not. The right has always been blamed by Russia for stoking tensions (they're Nazi's!!). This is a two way street. The narrative in this case isn't hard to see at all. Ukraine's motives for divesting itself of the influence of it's neighbor's "mafia-state" are pretty obvious. The motives for Russia resisting further decay of their access to their former satellites' resources and subservience is more obvious. All the rest is chaff thrown into the air to confuse these underlying themes.

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

A decade ago, Ukraine required an influx of money and investment and it was negotiating potential loans with the EU and with Russia. The negotiations led to the EU’s proposed Association agreement, which, once the details were released in September 2013, mandated separation from long-standing economic ties to Russia, which would have devastated Ukraine’s economy ($25 billion or so of activity would be halted with nothing immediate in its place). The attendant austerity program tied to the IMF loans would only have further impoverished the population with the attendant deep cuts in public spending, including energy subsidies (i.e. home heating). Russia, in turn, offered loans with no similar attached strings. Rather than acting as “Putin’s puppet”, the decision to accept the Russian deal rather than the EU’s, made sense from a variety of perspectives.

Are you kidding? The big win behind door number three is Ukraine gets to benefit from the benevolence of that economic super power Russia? Huh? As opposed to the EU and United States? I'm just guessing they've seen that movie before!  Give me all the examples of the miracle economic expansion that Russia has wrought on their former satellites. The USSR refused to let their satellites enter into the Marshall Plan when their populations were starving! How'd that work out?

How do you know "a minority faction" wanted inclusion in the EU? For ideological reasons? Why wouldn't they want to exit out from under the thumb of Russia and join the EU for economic reasons?

The EU and US were trying to invite the Ukraine into the western sphere and Russia, for a variety of reasons, wasn't going to have it. Many Ukrainians wanted just that. Not just the fanatics but also those people who preferred that to what they had already experienced through generations! The last thing Russia wants is that kind of example and all they have to do is create discord, by any means necessary.

As I said yesterday, Kent was exactly right on the stand during the impeachment hearings. Without a fair Justice system in place, the Ukraine will not have the capacity to encourage investment and civil unrest will be the norm, or authoritarian rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

It's also indication that Trump is curiously pliant to the goals of the RF. Putin plays him like a cheap fiddle. Ukelele maybe?

Apropos of Jim DiEugenio's question about Putin and his billionaire Russian oligarchs-- Deripaska, Agalarov, et.al.-- I assume this is common knowledge.

Since 2000, the oligarchs in the Russian Federation work for Putin.

How Putin's Oligarchs Got Inside the Trump Team

https://time.com/5401645/putins-oligarchs/

September 20, 2018

 

Putin has, obviously, used them to put Trump in the White House, while maintaining a veneer of plausible deniability about Russian government meddling in our elections on behalf of Trump and the GOP Congress.

Mueller uncovered a great deal of evidence about this Trump/Russia nexus-- and never claimed that there was "no collusion" between Trump and Putin's minions.   In fact, what Mueller said was that he had insufficient evidence to establish-- in the investigation stonewalled by Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, et.al.-- that Trump's campaign had conspired with members of the Russian government to hack the 2016 election.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Putin has, obviously, used them to put Trump in the White House, while maintaining a veneer of plausible deniability about Russian government meddling in our elections on behalf of Trump and the GOP Congress.

I'm not ready to go that far but agree that the goal of the Russian active measures was to help Trump, if for no other reason than to get back at Clinton. I'm sure the US has engaged in this sort of nonsense all over (Russia, Arab Spring etc) as well.

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Mueller uncovered a great deal of evidence about this Trump/Russia nexus-- and never claimed that there was "no collusion" between Trump and Putin's minions.   In fact, what Mueller said was that he had insufficient evidence to establish-- in the investigation stonewalled by Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, et.al.-- that Trump's campaign had conspired with members of the Russian government to hack the 2016 election.

 

Mueller's investigation would not conclude anything about collusion but only prosecutions and declinations. He and his minions did collude (which isn't technically a crime) actually but Mueller declined to prosecute "conspiracy" which he apparently felt he didn't have enough evidence for a conviction. Much of the conspiracy elements of Mueller's case was obstructed by dangling pardons and agreements through Trump's 37 mutual defense agreements with other subjects/targets of the probe. These agreements, allowed under law, were never anticipated to be used by a President who the DOJ claims is unindictable while in office and capable of undoing any court action taken against him or his co-defendants through pardons.

Edited by Bob Ness
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...