Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

After Trumps latest NOT SO "perfect call", Michael Bromwich, former Department of Justice inspector general and former assistant U.S. attorney suggested one possible defense.

Unless there are portions of the tape that somehow negate criminal intent, "I just want to find 11,780 votes" and his threats against Raffensperger and his counsel violate 52 U.S. Code § 20511. His best defense would be insanity.

NYU law professor and former DOJ lawyer Andrew Weissmann also noted the similarity with Trump’s attempts to pressure Ukraine’s government to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden.

Trump's threats to Georgia Sec of State; Trump, to Ukraine President; Trump to US Senators who won't violate the Constitution for him - and on and on - are all examples of POTUS criminal extortion and election tampering. And those who knowingly assist him violate 18 USC 2 & 371.

It was also noted by these and others that what was on the recording could represent Election Fraud, Extortion and Sedition.

Now someone or some group need to prepare those charges for the moment he steps out of the White House and he needs to be immediately removed from office as "unfit & incapable of fulfilling his duty".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 1/2/2021 at 3:14 PM, Jeff Carter said:

The primary sources investigating this presumed “attack” have not as yet identified a responsible entity beyond a “nation-state” actor, presumed as such due to the stated “sophistication’ of the activity.

See:  https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/2020/12/21/december-21st-2020-solorigate-resource-center/.

(Last updated Dec 31)

Nation-states believed to possess the stated capabiities include the US, China, Russia, Israel, and the UK. Whether this was a state-directed operation or a “rogue” event directed by a factional interest, is simply, at the moment, unknown.

Therefore, the New York Times, yet again, is irresponsibly misinforming its readership by publishing claims of Russian responsibility which have no corresponding evidence and are contradicted by the published primary record. Why the NYTimes insists on doing this is unknown, but the more interesting question is why the Times is allowed any credibility on this or any issue related to attribution of Russian culpability when most of its publishing on the topic has been utterly wrong again and again for at least the past four years.

Wednesday marks the fourth anniversary of the infamous Intelligence Community Assessment which, it is now known, used the thoroughly discredited “Steele Dossier” to publicly accuse an incoming US administration of treasonous links to an official adversary. I would say much of the rancour and partisan division currently enveloping the USA can be tracked back to the publication and broad endorsement of that highly dubious document.

As the article shared by Kirk above clearly shows, Trump’s basic incompetence and lack of qualification could have and should have been dealt with by the simple application of politics, instead of a ridiculous evidence-free conspiracy theory amplified with hysterical coverage by the legacy media. America’s current troubles are in actuality an “own-goal”.

It’s interesting that the continuing attempts to reverse the election result base themselves on procedural regulations. It is one of the dark secrets of constitutional democracies that there is always a legal fail-safe to disavow the “will of the people”, although meant only to be deployed as a “nuclear option” in response to highly unlikely events such as a Black Panther Party candidate winning the presidency. Such a nuclear option was in fact deployed in Australia in 1975 with the removal of the Whitlam government by a form of royal consent. The full extent of this act, formally denied by the Australian government and media for decades, was only revealed this past summer by a very stubborn determined effort using Australia’s Freedom of Information laws. Regardless, there is almost no chance for success in overturning Biden’s inauguration later this month, so the congressional support for such can be read as really about posturing for future position. The sound argument against the damaging effect of these legal manoeuvres to the nation’s polity, would find consistency with criticizing the likewise rash publication of the ICA four years ago.

If we haven't gone through this ad nauseum. Every 2 months you bring this up again, Jeff. So it's still in your craw. But to me, It's a  complete lack of thoroughness and lack of reticence in your thinking that makes you unable to see how each of these subsequent events like yesterday's  event of Trump trying to pressure the Georgia Lt.Governor to illegally commit  election fraud, that diminishes your argument.
But it's not just this, it's been a series of incidents how the President  used the power of his presidency to withhold arms to the Ukraine in exchange for uncovering dirt on his political opponent and how according to Josh Bolton in his book, he  did the very same thing  offering  President Xi special favors to uncover some dirt on Biden, Even though Trump has been at the forefront of depicting the Chinese as an economic threat. Every one of these subsequent events diminishes your argument about Trump's innocence with Russia, and you can't even see it. I'm not even mentioning this massive computer hack, because they don't seem 100% per cent sure but I'm sure you think it's another Russian hoax.
 
It's obvious there's nothing he won't stoop to to pursue his own interest. What would be any different about Russia than in the case of  Zelensky, ? Or of Xi? What would be any different than in  yesterday's case of Raffensperger? Solely because he's dealing with Vladimir Putin who is so upstanding to be party to such corruption? You'll have a hard time convincing any of us of that.
 
Donald Trump Jr. said,
“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia,” he added.

It would seem only the most financially illiterate people  would actually scoff at a narrative that after continually plunging himself further in debt, Trump would either 1) use his Presidency as money grubbing whore to pay off his debts, which he has or 2) seek loans in nefarious places with nefarious people such as Russian oligarchs.  Yet somehow that scenario is not the least plausible to you! And the fact that you could feel so much vindication at an investigation that refused to go into Trumps finances at all show you must  not be that  vigorous in your thinking,or you're just trying to fool yourself.

Jeff said: ,I would say much of the rancour and partisan division currently enveloping the USA can be tracked back to the publication and broad endorsement of that highly dubious document.

Certainly your rancor Jeff, I don't know what qualifies you to speculate at all about that. Of course first off, you're not an American but even so, that's sort of an argument is among those people who read. Which most people don't.

If the people who disparage "Russiagate" like yourself have lost their objectivity, and are stubborn and unable to  be convinced by the subsequent Trump actions, I have no patience or sympathy for them.  And if they take action  or are politicians who are party to subvert our Democracy, however much you have the luxury of seeing it as a merely political positioning ploy,they should accept the consequences.
 
It's like you're a lawyer defending a guy from charges of rape whose a 3 time rapist and you decided your best line of defense is to scoff at any inference your client could possibly be a rapist.
Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
If we haven't gone through this ad nauseum. Every 2 months you bring this up again, Jeff. So it's still in your craw. But to me, It's a  complete lack of thoroughness and lack of reticence in your thinking that makes you unable to see how each of these subsequent events like yesterday's  event of Trump trying to pressure the Georgia Lt.Governor to illegally commit  election fraud, that diminishes your argument.

Kirk - nothing in your loose and unfocussed reply contradicts the simple observation that the “Newspaper of Record” has been serially misinforming the public on matters of serious geopolitical consequence. The constant repetition of materially false (i.e. the ICA) or evidence-free allegations (Russian hacking) could have grave consequence, particularly as taking the country to war on false flag pretext has a long history in U.S.A.  Your apparent advocacy of an “ends justify the means” judicial posture contradicts the spirit of the Law described in your country’s own founding documents. And your dismissal of observation based on material sources - I.e. people who “read” - echoes none other than Allen Dulles, and seems ultimately cynical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, I'm sure if FDR was alive,(bless his soul) he would say  that the day the NYT released that article was "A day that will live in infamy".                                 heh heh!

Since the whole focus on your piece is that this was  the 4th anniversary of the dreaded  NYT article. We'll keep that date on our 2021 calendars for the end of this year, and expect to hear from you then. After all it will be the 5th anniversary!!

I love how you turned Dulles statement around on me. But it's you whose out of touch with the common guy.

If you interviewed 100 Americans. Do you think one person could site that that NYT times article was the start of the Trump Russia allegation?  The extent that most Trump supporters know about that is just a disparaging comment about "Russiagate" from Fox News, and that's pretty much good enough for them. They could tell you no details about that whatsoever!  Besides there's been an impeachment trial and world pandemic since.Why are you so obsessed with this?

Sorry you've chosen to ignore that you're really defending a chronic offender, and I assume you assert that somehow the Russia allegation is the one exception.

And sorry to upset your narrative. But let me tell you what I think is a much better example of how the country was polarized. It was  the massive demonstrations around the country  against Trump in the first days after the election. A lot of people who voted for Trump thought. "Gee these people are just not going to give Trump a chance." And to an extent, given that we didn't know that Trump the President might be different than Trump the campaigner. They had a point. 

However, I do have sympathy for the ones who demonstrated, because there will always be those sour grapes in a country that has a voting system where the candidate that wins the most votes doesn't win the election, and the Democrats have already been through that recently, and it resulted in the disastrous Bush Presidency.

As it turned out they were right and Trump was the same divisive character as a President that he was, as a campaigner. But if he had gone down the middle with both parties. If he had for example worked with the Democrats about strengthening the ACA,he would have been praised  as the "outsider who made Washington function again". Instead he opposed it for no other reason than to try to undue everything Obama had accomplished, and pretty much walked in lock step Mitch Mac Connell during his whole term. And now you see the results.

 

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Kirk - nothing in your loose and unfocussed reply contradicts the simple observation that the “Newspaper of Record” has been serially misinforming the public on matters of serious geopolitical consequence. The constant repetition of materially false (i.e. the ICA) or evidence-free allegations (Russian hacking) could have grave consequence, particularly as taking the country to war on false flag pretext has a long history in U.S.A.  Your apparent advocacy of an “ends justify the means” judicial posture contradicts the spirit of the Law described in your country’s own founding documents. And your dismissal of observation based on material sources - I.e. people who “read” - echoes none other than Allen Dulles, and seems ultimately cynical.

Since you're so interested in the "law" Jeff why don't the Russians under indictment come to prove their innocense? Let me get this straight. You think the IC should provide "proof" of their guilt regardless of the consequences to possible sources or methods but do not have to respond to an indictment or even accusations that have been leveled against them. Is that correct? 

What you claim to be "evidence free" is ridiculous and I suppose is based on the assertions of a former analyst that hasn't worked in the field since 2001. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Since you're so interested in the "law" Jeff why don't the Russians under indictment come to prove their innocense? Let me get this straight. You think the IC should provide "proof" of their guilt regardless of the consequences to possible sources or methods but do not have to respond to an indictment or even accusations that have been leveled against them. Is that correct? 

What you claim to be "evidence free" is ridiculous and I suppose is based on the assertions of a former analyst that hasn't worked in the field since 2001. 

In the world of the Anti-anti-Trump Left there are two perfect people who never do wrong or ever get it wrong — Vladimir Putin and Bill Binney.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Since you're so interested in the "law" Jeff why don't the Russians under indictment come to prove their innocense? Let me get this straight. You think the IC should provide "proof" of their guilt regardless of the consequences to possible sources or methods but do not have to respond to an indictment or even accusations that have been leveled against them. Is that correct? 

What you claim to be "evidence free" is ridiculous and I suppose is based on the assertions of a former analyst that hasn't worked in the field since 2001. 

Bob, you already know the answers to your questions - and present them again as some sort of lame “gotcha” reflex. No sane individual would voluntarily surrender themselves to the caprices of the US justice system. The foolishness of doing such was well-described by Julian Assange some years ago when similar questions were being posed to him:

It is not possible for a national security whistleblower now in the United States to have a fair trial. It’s not possible to have a fair trial because all the trials are held in Alexandria, Virginia, where the jury pool is comprised of the highest density of military and government employees in all of the United States. It’s not possible to have a fair trial, because the U.S. government has a precedent of applying state secret privilege to prevent the defense from using material that is classified in their favor. It’s not possible to have a fair trial, because as a defendant in a national security case, you are held under special administrative measures, which makes it very hard to look at any of the material in your case, to meet with your lawyers, to speak to people, etc. So, this is — it’s just simply not a fair system.”  (Democracy Now interview 2014)

And that’s leaving aside the sadistic SuperMax prisons where all the political prisoners are sent these days. I am baffled by the fealty to the vicious Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-National Security Complex on display for four full years in this Forum.

William Binney's service and contributions have long been acknowledged and celebrated - that is, until he voiced the wrong conclusions to a matter of controversy and suddenly began to be trashed. These sorts of rapid conversions from hero to heretic are purely political constructions, and generally try to obscure weak foundations to assertive positions. I strongly doubt Cliff has spent anytime at all researching Binney's work to develop a thesis that he has "done wrong" or "got it wrong" on anything. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

I strongly doubt Cliff has spent anytime at all researching Binney's work to develop a thesis that he has "done wrong" or "got it wrong" on anything. 

Stories Claiming DNC Hack Was 'Inside Job' Rely Heavily On A Stupid Conversion Error No 'Forensic Expert' Would Make

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170814/11490537992/stories-claiming-dnc-hack-was-inside-job-rely-heavily-stupid-conversion-error-no-forensic-expert-would-make.shtml

Marcy Wheeler:

https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/07/31/without-integrity-the-debunking-of-the-metadata-debunkers/

Did Crowdstrike conspire with elements of US intelligence to frame Russia for the DNC hack...and then keep it out of the news cycle for 70 days prior to the election?

I don’t think Jeff Carter has thought this thru.

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I don’t think Jeff Carter has thought this thru.

The story has developed quite a bit since 2017/18, not least the once classified admission by the Crowdstrike guy that there was no direct evidence of exfiltration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The story has developed quite a bit since 2017/18, not least the once classified admission by the Crowdstrike guy that there was no direct evidence of exfiltration.

Your misrepresentation of the Crowdstrike Guy’s testimony is egregious.

MR. SCHIFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have a couple followup questions. Then l,m going to turn it over to Mr. Castro. Welcome, and thank you for coming to testify. My colleague asked you whether the damage that was done to the DNC through the hack might have been mitigated had the DNC employed your services earlier. Do you know the date in which the Russians exfiltrated the data from the DNC?

MR.HENRYI do. l have to just think about it. I do know.  I mean, it’s in our report that I think the committee has.

MR. SCHIFF: And, to the best of your recollection, when would that have been?

MR. HENRY:  Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.

MR. SCHIFF: And the indicators that it was exfiltrated, when does it indicate that would have taken place?

MR. HENRY: Again, it's in the report. I believe -- I believe it was April of 2016. l’m confused on the date. I think it was April, but it's in the report.

MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.

MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.  So that, again, staged for, sure which, I mean, there’s not -- the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don't have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was.

<quote off>

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

MR SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.

Who likely gave the data to “non-state actor“ Roger Stone who gave it to Assange.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Bob, you already know the answers to your questions - and present them again as some sort of lame “gotcha” reflex. No sane individual would voluntarily surrender themselves to the caprices of the US justice system. The foolishness of doing such was well-described by Julian Assange some years ago when similar questions were being posed to him:

It is not possible for a national security whistleblower now in the United States to have a fair trial. It’s not possible to have a fair trial because all the trials are held in Alexandria, Virginia, where the jury pool is comprised of the highest density of military and government employees in all of the United States. It’s not possible to have a fair trial, because the U.S. government has a precedent of applying state secret privilege to prevent the defense from using material that is classified in their favor. It’s not possible to have a fair trial, because as a defendant in a national security case, you are held under special administrative measures, which makes it very hard to look at any of the material in your case, to meet with your lawyers, to speak to people, etc. So, this is — it’s just simply not a fair system.”  (Democracy Now interview 2014)

Jeff I have my own experiences with this stuff but I'll give you some examples that I know can be shared and I have intimate knowledge of.

In a CI investigation the purpose of that investigation is not to develop a criminal case to prosecute. As an example, the Purple Japanese code was a closely guarded secret whose product was not allowed to be even public knowledge until the seventies. There were many potential prosecutions that weren't pursued because the cost of revealing that information was deemed too steep. It's just common sense. I realize that makes for an unfair argument and those claims should be looked at skeptically but I suspect you don't look at these things like a National Security official would.

Venona information was kept even longer, even though it was compromised by Philby, because the relevant agencies involved in the decryption effort knew that Russia had no idea what we were able to decrypt nor the extent. Keep in mind these were 40-50 year old decryptions (I think they revealed them in 1995).

Binney's revelation of the NSAs copying of domestic communications wasn't anything surprising to anyone who knows about their likely interests but I can safely assume it's dwarfed by the accumulated data regarding Russia, China, Iran and so on. There are huge data centers in several places world wide churning through that information I'm sure. And they will continue to do so as intel doesn't have an expiration date.

What you seemed to be asking for is proof in a legal sense that what the IC is asserting is true (they've provided plenty) that satisfies your strict requirements but have no interest or skepticism regarding Russia and their actions and motives. Like they're lilly-white roses which is why I have questioned whether you have a relationship with RT or somebody you haven't disclosed. In your world there is nobody more deserving of defending than Russia, Putin et al.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Your misrepresentation of the Crowdstrike Guy’s testimony is egregious.

MR. SCHIFF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have a couple followup questions. Then l,m going to turn it over to Mr. Castro. Welcome, and thank you for coming to testify. My colleague asked you whether the damage that was done to the DNC through the hack might have been mitigated had the DNC employed your services earlier. Do you know the date in which the Russians exfiltrated the data from the DNC?

MR.HENRYI do. l have to just think about it. I do know.  I mean, it’s in our report that I think the committee has.

MR. SCHIFF: And, to the best of your recollection, when would that have been?

MR. HENRY:  Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.

MR. SCHIFF: And the indicators that it was exfiltrated, when does it indicate that would have taken place?

MR. HENRY: Again, it's in the report. I believe -- I believe it was April of 2016. l’m confused on the date. I think it was April, but it's in the report.

MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor.

MR.HENRY: Yes, sir.  So that, again, staged for, sure which, I mean, there’s not -- the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don't have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was.

<quote off>

You have done this at least a half-dozen times now - with Crowdstrike and the Mueller Report conclusions - where you describe my position as “egregious” “misrepresentation” followed by a block quote which essentially corresponds to my representation.

I said “there was no direct evidence of exfiltration”.

Your quoted text confirms:  We did not have concrete evidence…it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually was.”

You are just trolling on these issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...