Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump

[Douglas Caddy]

Trump’s New Spy Chief Used to Work for a Foreign Politician the U.S. Accused of Corruption

Richard Grenell did not disclose payments for advocacy work on behalf of a Moldovan politician whom the U.S. later accused of corruption. His own office’s policy says that could leave him vulnerable to blackmail.

by Isaac Arnsdorf

Feb. 21, 4:34 p.m. EST

•  
•  

https://www.propublica.org/article/trumps-new-spy-chief-used-to-work-for-a-foreign-politician-the-us-accused-of-corruption?fbclid=IwAR38m7TihUgTponxr4tfYoKxIJiXrRuQSbhN7N2apt-7OFup4miNAMSWvvM

[Jim Hargrove]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

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.

Jim,

As you know, the Mueller Report clearly concluded that the Russians interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. From Wikipedia:

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States.

The Internet Research Agency, based in Saint Petersburg and described as a xxxxx farm, created thousands of social media accounts that purported to be Americans supporting radical political groups, and planned or promoted events in support of Trump and against Clinton; they reached millions of social media users between 2013 and 2017. Fabricated articles and disinformation were spread from Russian government-controlled media, and promoted on social media. Additionally, computer hackers affiliated with the Russian military intelligence service (GRU) infiltrated information systems of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and Clinton campaign officials, notably chairman John Podesta, and publicly released stolen files and emails through DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks during the election campaign. Finally, several individuals connected to Russia contacted various Trump campaign associates, offering business opportunities to the Trump Organization and damaging information on Clinton. Russian government officials have denied involvement in any of the hacks or leaks.

Russian interference activities triggered strong statements from American intelligence agencies, a direct warning by then-U.S. President Barack Obama to Russian President Vladimir Putin, renewed economic sanctions against Russia, closures of Russian diplomatic facilities and expulsion of their staff. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees conducted their own investigations into the matter. Trump denied the interference had occurred, contending that it was a "hoax" perpetrated by Democrats to explain Clinton's loss. He dismissed FBI Director James Comey in part over his investigation of Russian meddling.

Russian attempts to interfere in the election were first disclosed publicly by members of the United States Congress on September 22, 2016, confirmed by United States intelligence agencies on October 7, 2016, and further detailed by the Director of National Intelligence office in January 2017. According to U.S. intelligence agencies, the operation was ordered directly by Putin. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation of Russian interference on July 31, 2016, including a special focus on links between Trump associates and Russian officials and suspected coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The FBI's work was taken over in May 2017 by former FBI director Robert Mueller, who led a Special Counsel investigation until March 2019.^[1] Mueller concluded that Russian interference was "sweeping and systematic" and "violated U.S. criminal law", and he indicted twenty-six Russian citizens and three Russian organizations. The investigation also led to indictments and convictions of Trump campaign officials and associated Americans, for unrelated charges. The Special Counsel's report, made public on April 18, 2019, examined numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials but concluded that there was insufficient evidence to bring any conspiracy or coordination charges against Trump or his associates.

I looked into this briefly back in 2017, searching for confirmation from what at least appeared to be non-government sources.  Here are some links I sent to a friend of mine when we were discussing this in email.

If you don’t want to take the word of American Intel or outfits like the AP that the original spearphishing attack that John Podesta fell for (on stupid advice from a paid technical advisor)  came from Russians, there are many independent security firms that analyzed this in depth last summer, and virtually all came to the same conclusion.

For example, SecureWork, an Atlanta-based subsidiary of Dell Computers, wrote a report that can be read here:

https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign

CrowdStrike Company, a Sunnyvale, CA outfit founded by a former McAfee technical executive named George Kurtz came to the same conclusion.  Kurtz wrote the best-selling bible of Internet security called “Hacking Exposed: Network Security Secrets and Solutions.” CrowdStrike’s report can be read here:

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

A CrowdStrike associate named ThreatConnect took CrowdStrike’s original research and delved even deeper, showing the technical evidence linking the email theft to FANCY BEAR and COZY BEAR, both Russian-based intel groups.  Read ThreatConnect’s report here:

https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/tapping-into-democratic-national-committee/

We  both know the power of Amercian Intel and how its tentacles go everywhere, but what I’m sending you here is just the tip of the iceberg of evidence that Russians hacked Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.  There are many more studies.  The subject was of great interest to tech nerds everywhere, and because the Wikileaks releases were done electronically rather than on paper, all the smtp headers in the emails were preserved, making full analysis of this stuff by private techies quite straightforward.  As opposed to the crappy CIA/Homeland Security report more interested in preserving its secrets than giving compelling technical proof, the reports above, and many others, include real evidence!

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Dennis said: 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.

Oh yeah, And slowly join the Republican Party of Trump and Mitch Mac Connell? I see you're not a history major or maybe you forgot what party overwhelmingly gave us the New Deal, but that is what I always thought you're underlying sentiments were.

Stick to the interview. This has nothing to do with the MSM.  Assange made the allegation. The interviewer did what any interviewer would do. The burden of proof is on Assange and rather than substantiate his claim with hard evidence, he backpedaled on 3 occasions, as I pointed out. The interview wasn't "quashed" .  Assange knew he had nothing to back up it up with and wisely cut his losses and retreated. It was a voluntary retreat.

Sorry, I know, like Dawn "Killary" Meredith, you probably  got it through Sean Hannity, who harped on it for months before he agreed to back off at the behest of Rich's family.

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

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.

Jim,

     Are you familiar with the NSA document that Reality Winner leaked to The Intercept in 2017? *

      It was a rare case of classified intel on 2016 Russian hacking evading censorship by Trump's administration.

     Winner is currently in prison, after being prosecuted by the Trump administration under the Espionage Act.  She leaked this damning NSA document to Jeremy Scahill, Greenwald, and the editors of The Intercept after Trump and Putin publicly denied that Russia had hacked our 2016 elections.

     Her story has been largely suppressed by the mainstream media, including the fact that whistleblowers prosecuted under the Espionage Act are not permitted to defend themselves on the grounds that they acted in the public interest.

     It is truly disturbing that Miss Winner is still in prison while Trump continues to pardon crooks-- Blagojevic, Millken, Kerike, et.al.-- who undermined the public interest through fraudulence and bribe taking.

*   Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election

https://theintercept.com/2017/06/05/top-secret-nsa-report-details-russian-hacking-effort-days-before-2016-election/

[Dennis Berube]

24 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I see you're not a history major or maybe you forgot what party overwhelmingly gave us the New Deal, but that is what I always thought you're underlying sentiments were.

Hence my saying the "new deal" type of democrat faction. That was related to the Gabbard article which you apparently neglected, not the interview. Not sure how that confused you.

 

25 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

The burden of proof is on Assange and rather than substantiate his claim with hard evidence, he backpedaled on 3 occasions, as I pointed out.

Assange implying that Rich was a source is evidence in and of itself. Not to mention the unsolved nature and shoddy "burglar" cover story and supposed unreleased videos. Talk about a quashing!

 

51 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

I believe the correct word is "squashed".

Don't think so Robert.

 

squash / quash. You can squash a spider or a tomato; but when the meaning you intend is “to suppress,” as in rebellions or (especially) legal motions, the more sophisticated term is “quash.”

[Dennis Berube]

30 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

  It was a rare case of classified intel on 2016 Russian hacking evading censorship by Trump's administration.

But that leak did not connect "Russian hacking" to the Trump campaign in any way shape or form. Nor did that leak contain any raw intelligence that the claims were based on. I don't view that as particularly useful and its no surprise it has faded into obscurity.

[Bob Ness]

29 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Assange implying that Rich was a source is evidence in and of itself. Not to mention the unsolved nature and shoddy "burglar" cover story and supposed unreleased videos.

Evidence of what? Can we now take someone suggesting something as evidence?

What evidence do you have that it wasn't a "robbery"? I can hardly wait.

[Dennis Berube]

Just now, Bob Ness said:

Evidence of what? Can we now take someone suggesting something as evidence?

What evidence do you have that it wasn't a "robbery"? I can hardly wait.

Assange implying Rich is a source is certainly circumstantial evidence that a plausible motive is the leak and not a robbery (can't believe I had to type that out btw). Rich was shot in the back and his wallet wasn't "robbed". What evidence is there that this was a simple robbery? I would say nothing concrete at all. Why didn't they release any videos (that I'm aware of anyway) that they have admitted to having?

" The police told the family they had located a surveillance recording showing a glimpse of the legs of two people who could possibly be the killers"

I'm not 100% convinced of anything with Seth Rich, but it is very tough to believe the official story. I don't understand how the police can even say he wasn't robbed because his wallet was undisturbed. What if he had a usb drive on him that was taken?

 

13 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

I was quoting the Strzok memo literally. See above.

Gotcha, I misinterpreted that, my mistake.

[W. Niederhut]

31 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

But that leak did not connect "Russian hacking" to the Trump campaign in any way shape or form. Nor did that leak contain any raw intelligence that the claims were based on. I don't view that as particularly useful and its no surprise it has faded into obscurity.

Nice try, but no cigar, Dennis.

Reality Winner leaked that classified NSA document about Russian hacking in direct response to Trump and Putin publicly denying that Russia had interfered in our 2016 elections.

Are you suggesting that Trump didn't know about this NSA intelligence at the time?

If not, why did Trump lie about Russian hacking?

Explain.

[Bob Ness]

4 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Assange implying Rich is a source is certainly circumstantial evidence that a plausible motive is the leak and not a robbery (can't believe I had to type that out btw). Rich was shot in the back and his wallet wasn't "robbed". What evidence is there that this was a simple robbery? I would say nothing concrete at all. Why didn't they release any videos (that I'm aware of anyway) that they have admitted to having?

" The police told the family they had located a surveillance recording showing a glimpse of the legs of two people who could possibly be the killers"

I'm not 100% convinced of anything with Seth Rich, but it is very tough to believe the official story. I don't understand how the police can even say he wasn't robbed because his wallet was undisturbed. What if he had a usb drive on him that was taken?

 

Gotcha, I misinterpreted that, my mistake.

He was shot in the back and not the head. People who are assassinated don't get shot in the back as this leaves too much opportunity to survive (see JFKA), which he did.  A side shot through multiple organs or less frequently but much cleaner is a .22 downward through the collar into the heart. Rich apparently fought his attackers also. I get tired of this pizzagate BS. These are real people after all and propagating Faux News stories is perpetuating the families pain.

[Dennis Berube]

2 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

If not, why did Trump lie about Russian hacking?

Explain.

Basically, you believe adequate proof has been provided that Trump and Putin conspired to sway an American election and I do not. Instead I believe a propaganda ploy that became politically and culturally ubiquitous after the election has spiraled out of control that currently resides in a vague McCarthy-ian level of paranoia and non realities. Please don't quote the same things we have already gone through multiple times in this thread, we simply disagree on the value of the evidence and thus the conclusions.

 

2 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

He was shot in the back and not the head. People who are assassinated don't get shot in the back as this leaves too much opportunity to survive (see JFKA), which he did.  A side shot through multiple organs or less frequently but much cleaner is a .22 downward through the collar into the heart. Rich apparently fought his attackers also.

 

Yes so it is plausible that the "attackers" were attempting to rob some form of information ala a usb drive and shot him in the process of stealing it. Of course that scenario is just speculation, but the point is that seeing this is an unsolved murder, no one can say for sure what happened. A plausible motive besides Wikileaks does not really exist. A random robbery gone wrong where nothing was actually taken as far as we know, completely fails to describe the circumstances. And considering the odd way the case has been handled and Rod Wheeler altogether (whether you believe him or not, its odd), to me, it is completely legitimate to question it, much like the Epstein case.

 

6 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

These are real people after all and propagating Faux News stories is perpetuating the families pain.

Bob, please. It's a good thing RFK Jr. doesn't believe that mantra. The truth is what matters and the truth can hurt just as much as the lies.

[Joe Bauer]

I'm curious.

Do any of our thread contributing members feel Seth Rich was murdered by someone other than one or two desperate hold up persons?

That his murder was motivated by his political activity?

Yes, again, I am not well researched in the matter but I know enough to know that the idea of Rich's murder "not" being tied to his political activity is still strongly questioned by many.

Was it ever explained why Seth Rich was still on the street "walking around" for more than 2 1/2 hours in a known crime ridden area at 4:15 in the morning after leaving his favorite pub at 1:45 AM? 

Was this a typical thing with Rich?

Even in my most drunken state as a weekend night club frequenting 20 something old in our California town ( way back in the 1970's ) did I ever just leave these closing establishments and walk the streets at those hours. And our town was a fairly crime safe one.

Rich apparently struggled with his assailants who supposedly then shot him in the back twice before running off just one minute before the police arrived?

Between $125,000 and $280,00 was eventually offered as a reward for information in Rich's murder.

Usually, someone in low income areas who knows anything about the perps will try to get such massive reward monies. Instant riches very often trumps loyalty to robber friends in such environs.

But no one has ever come forward?

Reminds one of the Mary Pinchot Meyer's canal walk path murder. At least that one was in broad daylight. Meyer's presence there made sense, unlike Rich's street walking in a dangerous area at 4:15 in the morning.

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[W. Niederhut]

20 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Basically, you believe adequate proof has been provided that Trump and Putin conspired to sway an American election and I do not. Instead I believe a propaganda ploy that became politically and culturally ubiquitous after the election has spiraled out of control that currently resides in a vague McCarthy-ian level of paranoia and non realities. Please don't quote the same things we have already gone through multiple times in this thread, we simply disagree on the value of the evidence and thus the conclusions.

 

Dennis,

     Please be so kind as to answer my question.

     Why did Trump lie about the NSA evidence (including the document leaked by the imprisoned whistle blower Reality Winner) indicating that Russia hacked our 2016 elections?

[Bob Ness]

21 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Bob, please. It's a good thing RFK Jr. doesn't believe that mantra. The truth is what matters and the truth can hurt just as much as the lies.

I've got to believe that if there were contradicting claims with convincing indications of foul play the family or associates of Rich would know and say so, like in the Kennedy case. That isn't so here.

Part of the reason I'm skeptical of much of the "fake Russiagate" claims is the fact that 15-20 IC agencies plus several private entities have maintained it wasn't fake. Several people here use the claims of a former NSA employee who hasn't worked there in 20 years to refute those claims, which is ridiculous. It's an interesting argument I'll grant but not enough to overturn the IC opinion.

[Douglas Caddy]

Roger Stone’s dream of booting judge for sentencing comments brutally crushed by ex-US Attorney: ‘He’s met his match’

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/02/roger-stones-dream-of-booting-judge-for-sentencing-comments-brutally-crushed-by-ex-us-attorney-hes-met-his-match/