Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[Dennis Berube]

17 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Here are some references on the subject.

Here is a direct quote from one of the historians that was used in the CNN article you cited.

 

"I want people to walk away from this book saying 'I understand now, why the United States intervenes around the world.'"

 

As most of us keep saying on this forum, MSM is not a credible reference in foreign policy matters. They, to a man/woman, consistently deny even the existence of 99% of all intelligence black operations and how they have changed the world. That same historian said something like "America is the enforcer of last resort" and she actually used Washington's words as a way to say we are simply extending what the founders essentially laid out for us. This is history gone mad, W and can only be said by ignoring covert operations almost entirely, at least the big ones in any event. I'm not saying you ignore that, but your references consistently do and should make them at least questionable to you. Consortium news is 1000x times better than CNN on literally anything other than celebrity fluff pieces, go with them instead.

 

Also, the website for citizens for ethics has a board that consists of Zephyr Teachout and members of Chatham House, former Homeland Security people. I'm not saying all of their work is complete propaganda, but its the consistent theme of the MSM. When all of the MSM agrees on something, look out.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by Dennis Berube

[Kirk Gallaway]

4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Seriously? This is unprecedented?

As an observational fellow North American, I hope I am not exceeding my lowly northern status by noting that America faces an inevitable reset in its global position due to the following policies instituted by previous administrations:

1. the “war on terror” with its $6 trillion and counting price tag

2) the Patriot Act, which gives the corrupt establishment the tools to identify and neutralize all opposition

3) weaponizing the US dollar, using extra-territorial sanctions as a blunt tool of statecraft. this has already led to the irreversible momentum to supplant the dollar as world’s reserve currency, a status on which America entirely depends

You guys are talking about 2 completely different things.  Jeff,Do you think anybody here disagrees with your points?. And on top of everything, Trump is no improvement.  1)Trump might be marginally better on the "war on terror", but he still has bragged about boosting Defense spending as high as it's ever been. 2)There's no question he'd use the Patriot Act ruthlessly if given the opportunity. He's already used the Government "Deep state" bureaucracy" to use a foreign power to interfere in our elections. 3) You're not aware he uses economic tools?, he slapped tariffs on your country and just about everybody else, and some of it, I think is good. He talked that one of his biggest regrets in the Iraq War was that we didn't "take the oil"!  He is the crudest representation of American power, but the one positive you can say is that rather than concealing them under the surface, he does get those issues right out front.

So Jeff, you've certainly got an idea about some of us on the forum's political persuasion. But we know nothing about yours. What do you think of Trudeau?

[Kirk Gallaway]

Whoa!    Alan Dershowitz:  Robert!!!!  Yeah I loved his defense at the O.J. trial! I can think of a few amigo candidates  on this thread who probably didn't believe the blood evidence as well!

[Bob Ness]

4 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Obstruction of Congress impeachment charge is dead in the water with today’s Supreme Court ruling.

Alan Dershowitz: Look, the most important development happened TODAY. The Supreme Court of the United States absolutely pulled the rug out of part two of the impeachment referral by granting certiorari, by granting review in a case where Trump challenged a congressional subpoena! And the Supreme Court said we’re going to hear this case!… 

I'm not certain why this pertains to impeachment referals. The Judiciary committee can refer anything to a Senate trial assuming the full house votes on it and it passes. Impeachment referals aren't subject to review by the Supremes. It may help Republicans justify their alibi's to Hannity but that's about it.

Even with a Conservative court there's a fair likelyhood they'll substantially agree with most of the lower courts opinions. I don't know how he conflates the two either way.

[Joe Bauer]

"Even with a Conservative court there's a fair likelyhood they'll substantially agree with most of the lower courts opinions. I don't know how he conflates the two either way."

First, I cringe when I hear the term "conservative" used to describe extreme right wing/wealthiest class representing anything. That word "conservative" is a deceptively benign sounding label cloak used to hide the true ideology and agenda of such groups like our own federal Supreme Court since it's membership majority became wealthiest class corporate representing over all other interests.

And ever since our corporate right wing majority U.S. Supreme Court stepped in and shut down the 2000 presidential vote counting in Florida to supercede a unanimous Florida State Supreme Court ruling to keep counting their votes ( unprecedented) , I wouldn't trust them ( as they are still of that political makeup ) to not do the same outrageously biased thing with any legal ruling regards Donald Trump today.

Trump so clearly represents a specific group and their interests in this country over all others by far.

And that is our true ruling class ... the top 1% wealthiest Americans.

And by the way, super billionaire Bloomberg isn't getting into the Democratic primary process to defeat Donald Trump.

He's getting in to dilute the support of the true boogieman/woman to the 1% oligarchy ( it's called "the corporate political party" of which Bloomberg is an icon and who he is more loyal to than the peon representative political parties - Democrat or Republican ) ... Elizabeth Warren.

IMO. 

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Joe Bauer

[W. Niederhut]

      Unreal.  Robert and Dennis continue to dodge the damning evidence of Trump's unprecedented Presidential misconduct -- including his habitual mendacity, numerous Emoluments Clause violations, and his Ukrainian extortion scam-- opting, again, to weakly attack the "messengers."

        My questions for Robert and Dennis.  (No ad hominem deflections this time!)

        Do you maintain that Trump did not attempt to bribe/extort personal political favors from Zelensky by withholding designated military aid?

        That he did not blatantly obstruct the Congressional inquiry?

[Kirk Gallaway]

Robert actually said:

Joe,

You've side tracked this already highly side-tracked and meandering thread with your mention of Warren and Bloomberg. I guess I can't help but head down that track.

Yeah Robert, This coming from the greatest spammer I've ever seen in all my years coming to this forum.  You sit at home throwing us crap through your hotlines. You send us stuff from Seymour Hersh, and yet you don't know who he is. Why are you even here at all? This is typical, half the people you quote, you don't you don't know at all,  half of whom I guess are spammers as well.

You've made hundreds of allegations here, Robert. Do you have even a 3% accuracy rate? You don't defend any of your accusations and go onto something else, with no other intention but to suck everybody's attention.

When asked any direct question, you retreat into gibberish and act like your throwing us such all knowing cryptic crumbs. ?

You don't see that  you're being indulged like a spoiled little child here? 

 

People have been booted out of here for much less and I don't why you're tolerated.

.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway

[James DiEugenio]

C'mon Kirk.

Robert is here for a simple reason.  He is drawing a parallel between previous presidential removals--JFK, RMN--and the attempt to remove Trump.

He uses different sources than most of us do e.g. Epoch Times, but to me that should not count against him.

Many, many people have now come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as a High Cabal, Shadow Government, Deep State, or whatever one wants to call it.  I think one can describe it in 2 ways:

1.) A form of government that does not get reported on in traditional newspapers, it is hidden but active.

2.) A body which has its own unelected agenda and is not responsive to any form of checks and balances. Therefore its power is immense in diverting elected offiicals.

 

I disagree with Wheeler, in that I think the main mechanism for the whole Steele Dossier/FISA abuse episode was through the FBI, not the CIA. That was clearly combined with outside forces, e.g. McCain's camp. Sanger, Perkins Coie and HRC. But I think it was concentrated within the higher rungs of the FBI and DOJ.

Now, was what Trump did with the phone call an impeachable offense? In my original article, which caused this very long thread, I leaned toward the judgment that it probably was.  But to my knowledge, there has been no verbatim, certified transcript.  And without that, I think Turley made a good argument that its really a genuinely debatable issue.

But there are two other points that need to be raised.  First, impeachment is not simply a legal issue, it is a political issue. In the case of Nixon, you had such a solid case--especially when the smoking gun tape came out--that even Nixon's natural allies, like Scott and Goldwater, told him he could not win in the senate.  (Unlike in this case, the collateral issue of what caused the episode got nearly zero play.  Therefore, the roles of people like McCord and Hunt were ignored.)

Second, on a political/moral scale, even if Trump did what his detractors say he did, just how bad is it?  And this is where I have a real problem.  Pelosi actually said that any attempt to impeach W was "off the table".  Yet she finally, if reluctantly,  got on board with this one. To me, there is simply no comparison.  What W did with Iraq was not just impeachable, I think it was criminal.  And its judgments like this that makes many people wonder about the values and justice of our political system.  

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

31 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

      Unreal.  Robert and Dennis continue to dodge the damning evidence of Trump's unprecedented Presidential misconduct -- including his habitual mendacity, numerous Emoluments Clause violations, and his Ukrainian extortion scam-- opting, again, to weakly attack the "messengers."

        My questions for Robert and Dennis.  (No ad hominem deflections this time!)

        Do you maintain that Trump did not attempt to bribe/extort personal political favors from Zelensky by withholding designated military aid?

        That he did not blatantly obstruct the Congressional inquiry?

William, Even after I mention this to you ,  how come you don't direct this question to Jim Di Eugenio also?  What has he done to deserve special treatment?.
 

[James DiEugenio]

In my reply to you,  I just answered it.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jim says: Robert is here for a simple reason.  He is drawing a parallel between previous presidential removals--JFK, RMN--and the attempt to remove Trump.

Jim, Are we taking about the same guy here? You're isolating one post. We're talking about hundreds of posts here. I never have any luck asking you a direct question, but I'll try. We've both been here. Has there been a bigger spammer on this forum in the last 5 years, has there been somebody whose posted so much material and has stood beside this little of it? Often, he can't answer the most basic questions about what he posts.

Actually I think this forum has a very high rate of people standing behind the links they post. He's undisciplined, he doesn't know his sources. . Wrong Jim. He's all over the map.

You often ignore direct questions, but when Robert's asked a direct questions he often disassociates into some gibberish (and I think when I use the word gibberish, unlike you, it is literally gibberish), where he's actually acting out this idea that he's got some superior take on all the rest of us. I personally feel no offense at that, as Robert's saving grace is that he's so out there, he innocuous. Most of us sort of crib him, while I realize it's in your interest to mine him for nuggets, and some would call that feeding a trxxl..

***********************

This incident first came out on Sept. 27th, Jim you've been all over the map, opining about everything, (you've probably mentioned Obama or HC more than Kelensky.) You've mentioned everything except the elephant in the room. And that I had to taunt to get out of you.

And Jim's answer to your  question William!!!. Ta da!

Jim just doesn't know, he's kind of sitting on the fence. He's kind of like America's undecided voter.

Jim said: But to my knowledge, there has been no verbatim, certified transcript. 

Wrong! there has been a transcript. And there are differences to Trump's account. I'll predict that won't lodge you off your fence.But what the President already admitted at the git go wasn't enough?

https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/48529/white-house-official-trumps-exact-transcript-omitted-key-details

Jim said: First, impeachment is not simply a legal issue, it is a political issue.

Oh no sh-t Sherlock,  Spare us! That whole paragraph you wrote  is just subterfuge bs. We don't need an historical lecture from an aspiring paralegal. Jim. We know it's political. We know the outcome is political. Period. Which as I've said for a year, barring a bombshell, it means it will go down in the Senate. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be undertaken, but people can disagree about political strategizing.

Jim says: Even if Trump did what his detractors say he did, just how bad is it?

Even if Trump did what his detractors say, Jim????::---  I -I--I I'm just not sure.. Right Jim?. Ok , I completely believe you that you're not confident in your ability to determine how wrong that is. Now I'm going to completely confound you with William's second question. Did the President obstruct Congress???? Whoa!!! Please don't take 3 months to answer that..

 

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Kirk Gallaway

[Joe Bauer]

This thread is mostly all about Trump.

And since his future may well be determined by whoever the Democrats choose as the final presidential candidate, I can't help but express what I feel is important about who that candidate may be, should be and how we are seeing a very manipulated game of power plays behind the choosing or elimination of each potential Democratic candidate.

Warren is being broadsided beyond reason by other Democrats and the big money behind them.

She's running as much against her own party and their attacks as she is against Trump's!

This reality exposes in my mind that the real agenda ( the real power ) in both parties is basically the same and that is the wealthiest 1% and the protection of their interests and their control over the most major political, financial ( tax system ) and even social policies that they promote.

And as important, their continuing gains and control over our judicial system and especially the federal Supreme Court.

Obama was never a Mayor of a city, especially a hugely populated one like New York, Chicago, L.A. etc. Not even little ole Wasilla.

Still, he did a really good job of managing the federal government, especially after inheriting G.W's train wreck recession collapse, and after 8 years handed off a hugely improved economy to Trump.

Just the fact that one has been a big city mayor is a false promotion of one's better or worse ability to head the executive wing of the federal government. 

Trump never ran anything but his up and down, fishy deal character, tax and loans schemes private company, and sure enough, with no experience, understanding and appreciation of the constitutional common good philosophy and structure of our government framework, he's turned everything into his own personal constant, daily, insult laden conflict feeding battle that has the entire nation angry, divided and anxiety ridden like never before!

On top of that fiasco, Trump has also tried to destroy the credibility of our 4th estate press and been scarily very successful in doing so with tens of millions of Americans now saying they don't believe most of what the press reports. That accomplishment alone is one of the most damaging and dangerous actions of his term.

Trump's three years in office have been simply disastrous.

And another point about Trump.

I think his violation of campaign finance laws should be a major charge point of impeachment.

Look, everyone...and I mean "everyone" knows he has lied and is still lying about having extra-marital sexual encounters with both porn star Stormy Daniels and Playmate Karen McDougal.

Both of those women would never have been offered and paid over $100,000 each, if their Trump tryst stories were made up. We all know this. It's a reality.

Yet, Trump to this day is still willing to shamelessly lie to the American people over and over and over again in saying he never had sex with these two women nor okayed them being paid off for their silence about it...for one main reason over all others at the time they were made...to help his 2015/2016 presidential run campaign.

And those payoffs so clearly violated campaign finance laws (and are so proven if the SDNY can ever gain access to the financial records proving them along with Trump's attorney Michael Cohen's testimony under oath and National Enquirer publisher David Pecker's)  that it just seems totally illogical to keep such an obvious high crime and misdemeanor action out of the impeachment charge package, imo.

To me, Trump's presidential term is truly a disturbing thing.  A perverse and damaging reality show worse than almost anything anyone ever imagined could be.

Full of daily anger, insulting, and demeaning personal attacks and the tension those emotional outbursts bring about.

Something that you actually have upsetting and anxiety causing dreams about.

When have you ever seen over 500 former federal prosecutors willingly decide to put their names on a publicly displayed document calling for a President to be criminally charged with "obstruction of justice" while in office before in our presidential history?

Or 350 licensed psychiatrists doing the same thing warning their fellow Americans about this President's mental health.

Or over 100 former national security officials ( as many Republican administration ones as Democrat ones ) doing the same thing in declaring Trump as unqualified and even dangerous in this area of governance?  !!!

The list of high achieving Americans willing to place their names on such damning petitions regards the presidency of Donald Trump for the entire nation to see is unprecedented to a mind boggling degree.

How many canary in the coal mine warnings do the American people need to hear before facing the damaging reality of the Trump presidency?

Trump was asked about the former 566 number federal prosecutor's petition calling for criminal charges against him and flippantly dismissed it by saying he could get another 500 former federal prosecutors to say the opposite.

Well, so far not "one" has been willing to put his or her name on such a public document disputing the 566 prosecutors petition and instead promoting Trump's perverse high ethical standard view of himself.

Same with other psychiatrists, national security officials, etc.

Sorry if I am too sidetracked here. Hard to not get worked up about a President who has publicly stated he likes conflict and works daily to create it... in spades.

Trump is the most visibly angry President ( publicly and daily ) America has ever seen.

And that powerful negative emotional energy is effecting, even contagious.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Repeat:  there is no certified, verbatim transcript of the call that I know of.

This is from Kirk's own source:

A New York Times report added that there is no audio recording of the Trump/Zelensky call, but White House notetakers and voice recognition software created a rough transcript. At that point, the document went to Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the White House National Security Council, to help fill in gaps, especially as they relate to proper nouns and technical terms that would be unfamiliar to notetakers and the software.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Just recall in reading the above, Scott Ritter made the case that VIndman was the whistleblower.

Just who is Sherlock?

One last point on my political angle.  As James Neal, the Watergate prosecutor noted, you do not take aim at a president unless you know you can bring him down.

 

[Douglas Caddy]

Is President Trump sending the world a signal about control of the universe as described by President Nixon to Robert Merritt?

 

From Robert Merritt’s third and final meeting with President Nixon about the second week of July 1972, as recounted in "Watergate, Trump's Space Force and 2020" in the Watergate Topic::

“Nixon then produced a letter-size briefcase and withdrew a handwritten letter of three pages. He told Merritt that this was the most important document he had ever prepared. He stated that he alone had written with assistance from no one.

“He said it was addressed to Henry Kissinger. He told Merritt that he was going to give the letter to Merritt to deliver to Kissinger in person or by mail. He told Merritt to remain quiet and not say a word as he read the letter out loud. Merritt wondered if Nixon was secretly taping what he was reading out loud.

“In essence, Nixon talked about “life as we do not know it.” He said that during the previous twenty years Knowledge had been obtained that could make the human race on Earth “the supreme beings in the universe.” This Knowledge came in part from helpful information provided from an extra-terrestrial being from Planet X, Nibiro, who was in a secure location in a building in the U.S.  Nixon said the Knowledge came as the result of discovery made by scientists working at the Los Alamos Laboratories in New Mexico who studied the extraterrestrial being’s information.  Nixon said, “This all important Knowledge that we possess came from our discovery.”

“Nixon declared whoever possessed this Knowledge could be the most important person in the world. All would bow down to whoever possessed this Knowledge. The Knowledge was “astronomical, nefarious and devastating.”

“Nixon said that possession of the Knowledge had to be structured so that it was used only for the good of mankind.  His fear was that a small group seeking power would get hold of it and utilize it to the group’s evil benefit only.

“Nixon said this ultimate Knowledge was contained in two lines in the letter.

 

From the Business Insider article of December 10, 2019 titled, “Trump's team released a video of him as Thanos, the villain who commits genocide in the 'Avengers' movies, and people are puzzled”:

A screenshot of a video tweeted by the Trump War Room Twitter account on December 10:

One of the Trump team's Twitter accounts — called Trump War Room — posted a video that superimposes the president's face onto the Marvel supervillain Thanos from the "Avengers" movie franchise.

Thanos' goal in life is to wipe out half of all life in the universe. In the Twitter video, the Trump-Thanos character snaps his fingers to make Pelosi, Rep. Adam Schiff, and Rep. Jerry Nadler disappear.

--------------------

In the "Avengers" franchise, superheroes struggle to prevent a supervillain from wiping out half of all life in the universe.

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump's team released a video depicting the president as that bad guy: Thanos.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-video-shows-him-as-avengers-villain-thanos-2019-12?fbclid=IwAR2v5oh5EcitAq9Xf9Kl9byANZisiCABHOT2XtuKqM0OeuQFSns8m0_hHaI