James DiEugenio Posted February 22, 2020 Author Share Posted February 22, 2020 Take a look at this. I found it through Dawn Meredith on FB. Note the look of shock on the interviewer's face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 2 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: Like I said I'm lost in all this but was the statement "I hope you don't xxxx Up my efforts to get Assange a pardon" addressed in Stone's trial or being addressed in current events in any way? I think it shows pardons were being pedaled amongst the goons and toadies of Trump Inc. like donuts at police convention. These are from the Stone trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 14 minutes ago, Bob Ness said: I think it shows pardons were being pedaled amongst the goons and toadies of Trump Inc. like donuts at police convention. These are from the Stone trial. I think it shows the .1% doesn't use Vaseline when they tell the MSM to bend over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: This Grenell guy looks pretty bad. I would have thought he would have picked Haley, she has at least some degree of bipartisan support. I guess by picking this hack Trump is still doing his victory lap. Man, Pelosi's strategy and tactics look worse by the week. The Democrats had better win the election. If not, then I would move to retire the entire top leadership. I'm not sure whether you've been keeping up with this. This is one BIG reason I'm ticked off at the Dems leadership. If you look at the verbiage of the 4th Amendment they made it easy for the Republicans to try to disenfranchise the felons in Florida again. If they were following this it would have never happened, I believe. This is what the Times said today. I can only hope they're right. It's not a given. If so it could mean the Republicans would probably lose the State and Presidential elections for the forseeable future or be forced to swing back to the center where they belong. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/opinion/florida-felon-voting-rights.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: in my subsequent posts I referred to this part of the Reuters article: The pardon would come on the condition that Assange say the Russians were not involved in the email leak that damaged Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016 against Trump. </q> This is the Reuters parsing of whatever was said in court. The direct quote has an ellipsis right in the middle of the pertinent portion. Saying that a pardon has a “condition that Assange say the Russians were not involved” is entirely different than basing a condition on his sharing the proof he says he can provide, the same refused by the Mueller investigation. For the sake of the extradition process, Assange’s lawyers are demonstrating, in the interests of establishing the political character of Assange’s plight, that an elected US official met with him and spoke of a conditional pardon. British law prevents extradition based on politicized charges. For instance, if the information in the NY Times article you shared is on the level, then Assange should be set free next week since what it describes is clearly a politicized process. It should not be forgotten that Wikileaks has never published information that was untrue, and that Assange's current difficulties result from exposing rather serious crimes which have not been denied and whose perpetrators have never been held accountable. 6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: I've asked you repeatedly to cite Assange saying the Russians didn't hack the DNC. Wikileaks released a statement a few days ago, referring to the Rohrabacher meeting: “Chronology matters: The meeting and the offer were made ten months after Julian Assange had already independently stated Russia was not the source of the DNC publication.” Your inference that Assange has used weasel words to make non-denial denials is not consistent with the track record of integrity and truth-telling established by Assange, Wikileaks, and its associates. I am entirely satisfied with the statements of Assange and his supporters, and the burden of proof rests with you. So far you have offered rather hollow and unfounded accusations. 6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: RussiaGate Denial requires a true belief in the notion that Crowdstrike in 2016 conspired with elements of the DNC, the FBI, and the CIA to frame Vladimir Putin.... Actually, understanding the fictitious nature of the Russiagate story requires none of your convoluted notions. All one has to do is choose to believe a source with a proven track record of truth-telling and integrity over the say-so of compromised sources with track records of corruption and mendacity. 6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: All Assange had to do was let Russia off the hook for the hack -- but he didn't. Wikileaks policy maintains confidentiality for the whistle-blowers who utilize their service. Assange could have compromised that policy in a bid to save his skin, but he has so far not done so - to his credit. He has not “let Russia off the hook” because Russia wasn’t on a hook in the first place (as Wikileaks has consistently maintained). 6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: An investigation that produced one minor charge. It surely has amounted to a bit more than that since, in assistance, both Sweden and Britain have damaged the integrity of their own justice systems, displayed a middle finger to international law and the United Nations, and rejected long-standing norms over political asylum. Assange’s bail-jumping charge in Britain was also normally considered rather minor, yet the British government kept a round-the-clock police presence at the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years at the cost of tens of millions of pounds, and have since incarcerated Assange for almost a year in maximum security isolation during which he has been daily drugged, all the while refusing him proper access to legal council. There is nothing at all minor about this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said: This is the Reuters parsing of whatever was said in court. The direct quote has an ellipsis right in the middle of the pertinent portion. Saying that a pardon has a “condition that Assange say the Russians were not involved” is entirely different than basing a condition on his sharing the proof he says he can provide, the same refused by the Mueller investigation. And yet Assange declaring the Russians innocent of the DNC hack would have satisfied Rohrabacher. But Assange has never made such a declaration. Quote For the sake of the extradition process, Assange’s lawyers are demonstrating, in the interests of establishing the political character of Assange’s plight, that an elected US official met with him and spoke of a conditional pardon. British law prevents extradition based on politicized charges. For instance, if the information in the NY Times article you shared is on the level, then Assange should be set free next week since what it describes is clearly a politicized process. Clearly. Quote It should not be forgotten that Wikileaks has never published information that was untrue, and that Assange's current difficulties result from exposing rather serious crimes which have not been denied and whose perpetrators have never been held accountable. Wikileaks released a statement a few days ago, referring to the Rohrabacher meeting: “Chronology matters: The meeting and the offer were made ten months after Julian Assange had already independently stated Russia was not the source of the DNC publication.” There it is again. Stating that Russia wasn't the source of the DNC material doesn't preclude the use of cut-outs. Quote Your inference that Assange has used weasel words to make non-denial denials is not consistent with the track record of integrity and truth-telling established by Assange, Wikileaks, and its associates. Like when Assange coolly dropped the name of Seth Rich? Would Assange ever reveal the name of a source? Of course not. But there he was dropping Seth Rich with a coy insinuation. That's like the operative definition of "weasel." Quote I am entirely satisfied with the statements of Assange and his supporters, and the burden of proof rests with you. So far you have offered rather hollow and unfounded accusations. And you offer nothing but weak tea rationalizations and a stubborn refusal to admit that Assange never named Seth Rich as a source and he never denied that Russia hacked the DNC. Quote Actually, understanding the fictitious nature of the Russiagate story requires none of your convoluted notions. All one has to do is choose to believe a source with a proven track record of truth-telling and integrity over the say-so of compromised sources with track records of corruption and mendacity. Since Assange never denied the Russia-DNC-hack and never named Seth Rich as a source, there are no conflicts with my argument. Quote Wikileaks policy maintains confidentiality for the whistle-blowers who utilize their service. Assange could have compromised that policy in a bid to save his skin, but he has so far not done so - to his credit. He has not “let Russia off the hook” because Russia wasn’t on a hook in the first place (as Wikileaks has consistently maintained). No, they have not consistently maintained any such thing. Are you pretending that cut-outs don't exist in intelligence operations? Quote It surely has amounted to a bit more than that since, in assistance, both Sweden and Britain have damaged the integrity of their own justice systems, displayed a middle finger to international law and the United Nations, and rejected long-standing norms over political asylum. And you blame this on Obama? Quote Assange’s bail-jumping charge in Britain was also normally considered rather minor, yet the British government kept a round-the-clock police presence at the Ecuadorian embassy for seven years at the cost of tens of millions of pounds, and have since incarcerated Assange for almost a year in maximum security isolation during which he has been daily drugged, all the while refusing him proper access to legal council. And you blame this on Obama? Quote There is nothing at all minor about this situation. I was referring to the actions of the Obama Administration. Nice pivot out of context, Jeff... Edited February 22, 2020 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Carter Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 The Wikileaks persecution is a world historic situation, Cliff, and you've chosen to take the reactionary position. Maybe time for a rethink? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 Cripple the Intelligence Agencies? Not Smart What happens when intelligence officials warn that Russia is meddling in American politics again? Donald Trump gets mad — at the intelligence officials. By The Editorial Board The New York Times The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom. Feb. 21, 2020 Joseph Maguire testifying before the House Intelligence Committee in September. On Wednesday, President Trump announced Maguire was being replaced.Credit...Damon Winter/The New York Times President Trump is intensifying his efforts to undermine the nation’s intelligence agencies. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump announced that he was replacing the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, with Richard Grenell, the ambassador to Germany. Mr. Maguire is a retired Navy admiral who previously served as the head of the National Counterterrorism Center. Mr. Trump tapped him to lead the Office of the Director of National Intelligence last August to replace the outgoing director, Dan Coats. Until recently, Mr. Maguire was thought to have a decent shot at becoming the permanent director of the office, overseeing the nation’s spy agencies. But that was before one of his aides gave a classified briefing on Feb. 13 to the House Intelligence Committee, in which she warned that Russia was attempting to meddle in the 2020 election with an eye toward aiding Mr. Trump — as it had in 2016. Mr. Trump doesn’t like to hear about election interference, much less about interference by Russia. He sees the entire topic as an effort to devalue his 2016 victory. Members of his administration, as well as congressional Republicans, know that this is a matter to be broached delicately, if at all. When the president learned of the briefing from a member of the committee, he was furious — not over the threat of foreign meddling, but that Congress had been told about it. According to a report in The Times, he was especially miffed that the meeting had included the committee’s Democratic chairman, Adam Schiff, who oversaw the recent impeachment proceedings. The president took Mr. Maguire to the woodshed over what he saw as an act of disloyalty. He was angry about not being alerted earlier about the briefing and fretted that such delicate information would be “weaponized” by his political enemies, The Times reported. Less than a week later, Mr. Maguire was out. Administration officials insisted that the timing was a coincidence. What is obviously not a coincidence is that Mr. Trump is once again turning for a critical appointment to someone who is short on relevant expertise but long on loyalty to him. The director of national intelligence, a position created after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, coordinates intelligence gathering and analysis across 17 federal agencies. The post has been held by former diplomats, senior military officers and, for more than six years, James Clapper, a seasoned intelligence professional. Mr. Trump’s replacement pick, Mr. Grenell, has little intelligence experience and has never run a large bureaucracy. Before he was dispatched to Berlin, he worked as a public affairs consultant and commentator for Fox News. Before that, he was a communications official in President George W. Bush’s administration. Although he is taking on a hugely important new job, Mr. Grenell will continue in his capacity as ambassador. As with so many of his appointments, Mr. Trump has installed Mr. Grenell in an “acting” capacity. This puts the president’s appointees on a short leash and avoids the inconvenience of Senate confirmation hearings. Mr. Grenell has been an aggressive public cheerleader for Mr. Trump, fiercely and frequently defending him on Fox News and on social media. That appears to be the qualification that truly matters to this president — especially when it comes to overseeing an intelligence community that Mr. Trump has always believed has been out to get him. Mr. Trump’s effort to pack the administration with political loyalists has gained momentum since the Senate acquitted him on impeachment charges earlier this month. In recent weeks, the president has removed multiple officials with connections to impeachment, including top National Security Council and Pentagon officials. The purge is expected to continue, with anyone suspected of insufficient loyalty at risk. Presidents have tended to shy away from politicizing national intelligence — or at least tried to avoid the perception of such politicization. But Mr. Trump has made clear that he will not tolerate any discussion of Russia’s meddling in American politics, no matter how compelling the evidence. He is sending a very public message: In this White House, protecting Donald Trump’s interests is what matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 22, 2020 Author Share Posted February 22, 2020 Here is the problematic part of the above editorial: But Mr. Trump has made clear that he will not tolerate any discussion of Russia’s meddling in American politics, no matter how compelling the evidence. What compelling evidence? There is no compelling evidence in the Russia Gate case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 5 hours ago, Jeff Carter said: The Wikileaks persecution is a world historic situation, Cliff, and you've chosen to take the reactionary position. Maybe time for a rethink? Trumpist fascism is a black cloud over humanity, Jeff, and you’ve chosen to faithfully regurgitate it’s talking points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 Jim said:I just quoted Dana R himself to prove that. Why ignore it? Assange has already said that he did not get the emails through Moscow. What Dana R asked him to do was to provide proof of that. He made it clear this was his idea and the trip was on his dime. Therefore it was not an offer from the White House, and Dana R has admitted in the above tweet he had no contact with Trump. Jim's thoughts: Yes I know it in my heart that Dana is decent because he loves Putin like I do, Have you even watched Oliver Stone Stones interview with Putin???? That's my "research". And then Jim says: This is a JFK forum for people who do research, which as far as I can tell, you and Joe B really do not do a lot of." ----Right Jim? Yeah, what a self righteous crock that is! This is often what we're asked to accept as research from Jim, that Dana or Julian just said so? He just knows it dammit! And that's crack research?? It's purely opinion. Jim said:Joe, I like you personally. Because you are not pretentious. But Jim, you are by far the most pretentious person here, outside of a few absolute wackos. I have my suspicions, I was always thought of Rohrbacher as sort of a low powered Devin Nunes but ultimately I don't know of Rohrbacher's ties to Trump. All Jim's "crack research" sees is that Rohrbach's pro Putin, and that's good enough for him. But to be more thorough, Dana Rohrbach is a Reaganite, Orange county conservative who tried to make a name for himself by trying to defund the NEA, because he thought some of it was indecent, immoral, or anti American. He's pro drilling on the SoCal coast. Voted against pre existing conditions. Voted for tax cuts for the rich. I'll give him that he's pro pot. But to Jim, he could have only lost because Bloomberg brought the force of his money against him. (Just like Soros!) In reality, it's all demographics, he went the way of another Orange county conservative, Darryl Isis. Yeah, they're just falling like flies around you Jim. Jim says: And if he wins again, it will be because of Pelosi/Schiff's misconceived, poorly timed and badly planned impeachment effort. "Misconceived?", now Jim's stepping back from only a week ago agreeing with some of us that Pelosi should have prosecuted the impeachment more aggressively. He's been flip flopping through out. You'd think Jim's running for office on this forum. My guess is that he lives in perpetual fear that Ollie Stone will monitor his comments on this forum. ******* But to give you an opposite spin. Yes there are some good things happening down in SoCal. Jamie Dimon is CEO of Chase Citibank, he's considered among Wall Street to be a "Rock star", the most popular figure to someday become President in their Wall Street dreams. They were besides themselves when he came out of the Senate Committee hearing about the 2008 crash without a bruise. Katie Porter is the newly elected representative from Orange County. Watch this confrontation! https://youtu.be/yh4nhkuvuFc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 22, 2020 Author Share Posted February 22, 2020 Jim Harwood reminded me of this: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-warns-trump-intel-officials-have-six-ways-from-sunday-at-getting-back-at-you Trump has used this I think to play the Gary Cooper character from High Noon. And, as Jim notes, this is what he uses to rile up his base. Thus it makes him appear anti-establishment. The Democrats made it even easier for him with that impeachment misfire. Grenell is Acting Director. So, I wonder, is this giving Trump time to get Haley to take the job? She would probably insist on doing it only if Trump wins the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Take a look at this. I found it through Dawn Meredith on FB. Note the look of shock on the interviewer's face. You'll never be a detective Jim. There's no real shock in the interviewer's face! I can tell you that's what all interviewer's do who are trying to make news. He did his research and fully anticipated Assange's answer, and forced Assange to backstep and hedge to the end of the segment. ("There's no finding" "Others have suggested" "There's no conclusion"). Whatever your politics are, you have to clearly be able to see what's going on. Edited February 22, 2020 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 What Mayor Pete is all about: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-is-macho-buttigieg-is-stoic-who-wins-the-contest-of-american-manliness/2020/02/20/8b8b290a-5411-11ea-b119-4faabac6674f_story.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Berube Posted February 22, 2020 Share Posted February 22, 2020 Tulsi Gabbard: How Democrats’ impeachment campaign helped Trump https://fortune.com/2020/02/21/tulsi-gabbard-democrats-trump-impeachment/ She is right. The key takeaway.. "After Trump’s acquittal in the Senate, his approval rating reached the highest levels since he took office. And the risk that he will win in November is much greater than before." The democratic party needs to split into the "new deal" types and the Clinton/Buttigeg/Obama/Wall street faction and let them slowly join the republican party. 10 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Whatever your politics are, you have to clearly be able to see what's going on. So naturally your suggesting that the unsolved Rich murder means nothing because you don't interpret shock in that interview even though the interviewer clearly treated Assange's statement like a typical MSM broadcaster attempting to discredit an "out of bounds" talking point? That investigation was quashed just as thoroughly as the Epstein one. Is it because if Rich had something to do with Wikileaks than the entire Russia gate narrative COMPLETELY falls apart even more than it has? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now