Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 18.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Benjamin Cole

    2003

  • Douglas Caddy

    1990

  • W. Niederhut

    1700

  • Steve Thomas

    1562

 

User Clip: Senator Rubio speaks on shot down UAP | C-SPAN.org

 

He says NORAD has not shot down anything in 65 years but has shot down three in the last week.

I am glad he on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Edited by Douglas Caddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FpHxVEPXEAUIwba?format=jpg&name=4096x409

 

Yeah man!, I don't get it Glenn!!
 
 
Ok, maybe Glenn just wants his clothes ripped off. No big deal!
 
And who did I get this from? Glenn himself, using it to perform his hair on fire ritual to his devoted fans, who never get tired of the spectacle! That's why Ben finds Glenn so "spectacular!"
And Ben was one of the thumbs down!
 
Sounds pretty torrid , don't be too surprised,  it might be a hidden Valentine!
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The boldly brazen aggression face of the new Republican party.

Tribalism, personified.

 

30. Homo georgicus – The History of Our Tribe: Hominini

 

Maga Maj ... 

You go girl!

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

    The vapors appear to be mostly in your head.

     You need to do some remedial reading about Manafort, Kilimnik, the GRU, and Russian hacking of the 2016 U.S. election.  Here's another interesting reference for you. (Bold italics mine.)

TOP-SECRET NSA REPORT DETAILS RUSSIAN HACKING EFFORT DAYS BEFORE 2016 ELECTION

A top-secret National Security Agency report details a months-long Russian hacking effort against the U.S. election infrastructure.

NSA Report on Russian Hacking of U.S. Election (theintercept.com)

June 5, 2017

Excerpt

    The NSA analysis does not draw conclusions about whether the interference had any effect on the election’s outcome and concedes that much remains unknown about the extent of the hackers’ accomplishments. However, the report raises the possibility that Russian hacking may have breached at least some elements of the voting system, with disconcertingly uncertain results.

Did you read your own post?

"However, the report raises the possibility that Russian hacking may have breached at least some elements of the voting system, with disconcertingly uncertain results."

The "possibility" that "may" and "uncertain"....

I would say if US intel reaches such a weak conclusion, after an investigation...then there is no there, there.

The usual inclination of intel agencies to exaggerate every possible national security threat by a factor of about 10-to-one. You know this. "Get that funding. Get the headlines." 

But if voting machines can be hacked, they can be hacked by various parties for various ends. I would assume if voting machines can be hacked, people in the US would be better at it than Russians. 

Meaning, what? 

If we do not trust the 2016 outcome, then can we trust the 2020 outcome, if voting machines can be hacked? 

Add on---your statement that "Manafort knew Kilimnik was a GRU agent":  Was that conjecture on your part, or do you have a hard cite for that information? 

Edited by Benjamin Cole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Did you read your own post?

"However, the report raises the possibility that Russian hacking may have breached at least some elements of the voting system, with disconcertingly uncertain results."

The "possibility" that "may" and "uncertain"....

I would say if US intel reaches such a weak conclusion, after an investigation...then there is no there, there.

The usual inclination of intel agencies to exaggerate every possible national security threat by a factor of about 10-to-one. You know this. "Get that funding. Get the headlines." 

But if voting machines can be hacked, they can be hacked by various parties for various ends. I would assume if voting machines can be hacked, people in the US would be better at it than Russians. 

Meaning, what? 

If we do not trust the 2016 outcome, then can we trust the 2020 outcome, if voting machines can be hacked? 

Add on---your statement that "Manafort knew Kilimnik was a GRU agent":  Was that conjecture on your part, or do you have a hard cite for that information? 

Well, Ben, you could always ask our Kremlin expert, Jeff Carter.  🤓

Jeff assured us long ago that Manafort had a longstanding working relationship with Konstantin Kilimnik.

But why did Manafort go to such great lengths to lie to Mueller's investigators about his 2016 campaign contacts with GRU agent Kilimnik, which included collusion--sharing polling data about the impending election?

What was Manafort so desperate to hide from Mueller?

The judge vehemently denounced Manafort for lying, before sentencing him to years in prison.

(Of course, Manafort knew that Trump would pardon him for stonewalling Mueller's investigation.)

I can clearly see that you're currently stuck in the MAGA-verse Russiagate-denial echo chamber, and that no contrary evidence will burst your Gerth-ian bubble.

But posting redundant MAGA spam is no substitute for answering the hard questions about the damning evidence.

Russiagate was no hoax.

Are you aware that Trump's longstanding Russian mafia business associate, Felix Sater, bragged in 2015 that Putin was going to put Trump in the White House?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Well, Ben, you could always ask our Kremlin expert, Jeff Carter.  🤓

Jeff assured us long ago that Manafort had a longstanding working relationship with Konstantin Kilimnik.

But why did Manafort go to such great lengths to lie to Mueller's investigators about his 2016 campaign contacts with GRU agent Kilimnik, which included collusion--sharing polling data about the impending election?

What was Manafort so desperate to hide from Mueller?

The judge vehemently denounced Manafort for lying, before sentencing him to years in prison.

(Of course, Manafort knew that Trump would pardon him for stonewalling Mueller's investigation.)

I can clearly see that you're currently stuck in the MAGA-verse Russiagate-denial echo chamber, and that no contrary evidence will burst your Gerth-ian bubble.

But posting redundant MAGA spam is no substitute for answering the hard questions about the damning evidence.

Russiagate was no hoax.

Are you aware that Trump's longstanding Russian mafia business associate, Felix Sater, bragged in 2015 that Putin was going to put Trump in the White House?

 

OK, you conjecture that Manafort "knew" Kilimnik was a Russian intel asset.

Even though Kilimnik might not have been a Russian intel asset at all, or might have been sleeper asset (that is, an informant operating under cover).

Did Clay Shaw, longtime CIA "sleeper" asset or informant, go around telling people "I am a CIA asset"? 

Shaw was able to testify in court, without contradiction, that he was not a CIA asset. 

How did Shaw get away with that? Because Shaw did not tell people, "I am a CIA asset." Shaw kept it a secret. That is the value of sleeper agents, to garner information under cover. 

Did Kilimink, if he was a GRU asset (an assumption or conjecture) go around telling people, "I am a GRU asset." Seems unlikely.  That is called, "Blowing your cover." 

You are making a conjecture that Manafort knew Kilimnik was a GRU asset. There is zero evidence to support your conjecture. 

Manafort in fact worked with Kilimnik for many years, and then Kilimnik moved on to working for Deripaska, the billionaire who bribed FBI agent McGonigal. Reportedly, Deripaska thinks Manafort bilked him out of $13 million.

This leads nowhere.

As FBI led investigator Peter Strzok said re Russiagate, "There is no there, there."

Was Russiagate a hoax? Many intelligent observers have concluded as much. 

People can disagree. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

OK, you conjecture that Manafort "knew" Kilimnik was a Russian intel asset.

Ben,

     You, obviously, never read the Mueller Report or the U.S. Senate Intel Report on Russiagate.

     In fact, you didn't even read the Mueller Report summary that I posted for Mathew Koch!

     If you had done so, you would know that Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence agent.

     And Kilimnik worked closely with Manafort in Ukraine, beginning in 2005, to install Putin's Kremlin puppet, Yanukovych, in the Ukrainian presidency.

     To quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you're entitled to your own opinions about Russiagate, but not your own "facts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

     You, obviously, never read the Mueller Report or the U.S. Senate Intel Report on Russiagate.

     In fact, you didn't even read the Mueller Report summary that I posted for Mathew Koch!

     If you had done so, you would know that Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence agent.

     And Kilimnik worked closely with Manafort in Ukraine, beginning in 2005, to install Putin's Kremlin puppet, Yanukovych, in the Ukrainian presidency.

     To quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you're entitled to your own opinions about Russiagate, but not your own "facts."

W, I know with Ben and others we should fight the good fight.  But sometimes it gets like . . . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

     You, obviously, never read the Mueller Report or the U.S. Senate Intel Report on Russiagate.

     In fact, you didn't even read the Mueller Report summary that I posted for Mathew Koch!

     If you had done so, you would know that Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence agent.

     And Kilimnik worked closely with Manafort in Ukraine, beginning in 2005, to install Putin's Kremlin puppet, Yanukovych, in the Ukrainian presidency.

     To quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you're entitled to your own opinions about Russiagate, but not your own "facts."

Where is the "fact" that Manafort "knew" that Kilimnik was a GRU asset, or informant? 

Is not the whole point of intel informants that they cloak their work for an intel agency? That they have "cover" in civilian work? 

Why would Kilimnik, any more than the FBI assets embedded in the Proud Boys or Oath Keppers, or Clay Shaw, reveal he was an intel asset? 

You are making a supposition, a conjecture, an assumption. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...