Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Doug, thanks for posting. I think this may be the beginning of the end for fatboy.

 

Trump Was Not Indicted. But the Charges Still Threaten Him.

The criminal case against the former president’s business could deliver a blow to his finances, and he remains the focus of a broader investigation in New York.

The New York Times

July 1, 2021

From the article: While the charges unveiled on Thursday represent a climax of sorts, they may also mark another step in the district attorney’s broader, continuing investigation into the former president, in which he has been joined by the New York State attorney general, Letitia James. The inquiry is focused on whether Mr. Trump effectively kept two separate sets of books: one for his bankers, in which he overstated the value of his properties, and another for the tax authorities, in which he understated them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

      Alexander was, obviously, a key player in the insurrection, but I also wonder about the role of Donald Trump, himself, and associates like Roger Stone.

     We know that Stone was filmed with Oath Keepers in combat gear on January 6th, and that he was the mastermind of the "Brooks Brothers Riot" in Dade County, Florida in 2000 that aggressively disrupted the re-count in Bush v. Gore.

     We also know that Trump's favorite flying monkey at the Pentagon, Chris Miller, repeatedly stalled the deployment of National Guard troops to the Capitol on January 6th.  It's hard to believe that Miller wasn't acting on orders from Trump, himself.

That is something that all those people mentioned ignore--Johnstone, Greenwald, Michael Woolf.

Trump got rid of Esper just a few weeks before.  He put this Miller guy in, and its the Pentagon that has to OK National Guard troops in DC, its not up to the mayor.  She can only request them.  When she saw that Miller was giving her the run around, she went to other states like Maryland and Virginia. In the film, you see the difference that made since those troops were decked out with rifles, machine guns and riot gear.  They put it down pretty quickly since there were hundreds of them.

The other thing about the film that is scary is how arms were shipped in and stashed off site.  These guys were planning in advance.  And that is an important part of a conspiracy charge.

Also striking in the film is how completely unprepared the Capitol Police were. That was just a mismatch in every way.  It did no good to mace them, because they brought bear spray.

That Goodman guy saved the day.  If that mindless  mob had gotten into the senate with them still being there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
Dennis said:As far as Kirk's outburst is concerned, I do not watch corporate media, As for the rest of your assumptions of my views based on a zero hedge article link, thanks for the chuckle.
 
 
Sorry for the" outburst" Dennis.It probably just felt  like an outburst. I haven't been accused of an outburst since grade school. heh heh! But this is your assertion, and  if you out yourself as believing sources with no credibility, you will be taken to task.
 
Dennis said:  I do not watch corporate media, Tucker included, but from the little I have seen (clips etc) he at least will have some decent people on and not be afraid to make fun of the Warren Report for instance.
 
Oh yeah?, just as your heartfelt assertion that the FBI is behind the Jan 6th riots? Again, maybe you've seen so precious little about it, you shouldn't even comment, but that's your choice. But check out this real "decent" Tucker clip.   Tucker is a hard core "Oswald is a commie" and all attempts to make him a right wing figure is just the left trying to take the blame away from themselves.
 
 
 
 
 
A word to those who've been waiting for years for a 24 hour  cable conspiracy channel who have now gleefully settled for Tucker Carlson and have dream athletic aspirations to be considered to carry Carlson's weighty douche bag,
I should let you know that  years ago, when Tucker was young, his father, after months of carousing at exclusive tennis and  country clubs, picked up the heiress to the Swanson TV Dinner fortune, and despite Carlson's meanderings of populism, that every once in a while  can actually make him sound like AOC, Beware! It's all a plot to draw audience because as he's seen from Trump , he can pretty much say anything now and his mindless audience will never hold him to what he says or subject him  to any performance standard.
 
Fortunately he does have a long track record as he's shown here a few years back. He's scoffing at the idea that he could be any kind of spokesman for the everyday person.
 
"The one thing you learn when you grow up in a castle, and look across the moat every day at the hungry peasants out in the  village is that you don't want to stoke envy among the proletariat."
Tucker Carlson 2008, on tape below.
 
 
Over and over again I see people getting sucked in to this Fox douche illuminati or on alternative media. I keep trying to free you from your existence within the mouths of the all encompassing "government deep state" to direct your energy to the people who are really controlling you  as well as your government, the corporate elites, who are laughing  at your misdirection. Shut out your temptations to utter helplessness, stop getting sucked in to their  deliciously spooky rhetoric and free yourself from your current state of "corporate shill".
 
Similarly in this new Trump tax fraud investigation. I assume to the shills it will be.
President Trump and his tax cuts to the rich, a true revolutionary. When will they just leave him alone?----------1
The wicked "government deep state" who have sabotaged everything I've ever tried to accomplish in my life.---
 
 
Near the end , we can see what he ended up learning from another shill favorite, Bill O'Reilly and eventually incorporated it into his act.
 
 
 
"Well,.. we all know Trump isn't cool so, .....can we just not talk about it?
 
"Matt Taibbi  2016-21
 
 
 
Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Tucker Carlson opined that the January 6th attacks on Congress were an FBI "false flag."

My impression is that, if anything, there was a major failure by the FBI to properly inform the D.C. and Capitol Police about the impending January 6th attacks-- especially if the FBI had informants in the ranks of the Proud Boys and other attack groups.

Here's more evidence to support that theory.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-didnt-fbi-review-social-media-posts-announcing-plans-capitol-riot

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/2/2021 at 1:42 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Tucker Carlson opined that the January 6th attacks on Congress were an FBI "false flag."

My impression is that, if anything, there was a major failure by the FBI to properly inform the D.C. and Capitol Police about the impending January 6th attacks-- especially if the FBI had informants in the ranks of the Proud Boys and other attack groups.

Here's more evidence to support that theory.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/why-didnt-fbi-review-social-media-posts-announcing-plans-capitol-riot

Does Carlson know what  a False Flag operation even is?

Northwoods was an example.  That was completely sponsored by the JCS and run by them and then painted over.

That is not what happened on Jan 6th. That was recruited and organized and then fomented by Trump and his followers. 

If someone is going to argue that it was allowed to happen, that is not a False Flag operation. 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Does Carlson know what  False Flag operation even is?

Northwoods was an example.  That was completely sponsored by the JCS and run by them and then painted over.

That is not what happened on Jan 6th. That was recruited and organized and then fomented by Trump and his followers. 

If someone is going to argue that it was allowed to happen, that is not a False Flag operation. 

 

I dunno. I would not draw conclusions yet. In the wake of 9/11, the FBI entrapped some half-wits into making terrorist statements and plans, in which the FBI itself was the driving force.

I have seen films of the riot at the Capitol.

Believe me, I have a lot of sympathy for the marginalized, the outcasts, the misfits, the estranged, the lost, the embittered. With a bump or two in the wrong direction, there goes I. 

That's who invaded the Capitol that day. Unsympathetically put, the "rabble." The guy in buffalo-horns hat? That's who we fear? 

We have already been through the whole debunked Brian Sicknick story. 

Really, the national security state is about 1 million times better-financed and globally menacing than the lulus who occupied the Capitol on Jan. 6. 

The national-security state (and media allies) always want dangerous domestic subversives and foreign enemies. 

I refuse to be afraid of the guy in the buffalo-horned hat. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The guy in buffalo-horns hat? That's who we fear? 

 

We should fear the cult leader who sent him there. I believe the number of Americans who voted for this narcissistic would-be autocrat was 70 million, and they don't wear buffalo horns. At the state level they are presently busy passing laws to suppress the vote across the land for their leader. And he has turned one of our two major parties on Capitol Hill into a band of cowardly sycophants. We had better fear him and his "rabble."

 

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

We should fear the cult leader who sent him there. I believe the number of Americans who voted for this narcissistic would-be autocrat was 70 million, and they don't wear buffalo horns. At the state level they are presently busy passing laws to suppress the vote across the land for their leader. And he has turned one of our two major parties on Capitol Hill into a band of cowardly sycophants. We had better fear him and his "rabble."

 

Ron E.--

Obviously, we have different points of view, and that's fine. 

I will say this: Someday Trump will be gone (I hope sooner rather than later), but the globalist-national security state and its allies in an increasingly concentrated, pervasive and censored media, will be here and stronger than ever. 

We might even agree what are the root causes behind the BLM movement, and the Trump movement. I think it is declining living standards for people who work for a living.

There is some culture-war stuff, and some race stuff, but at bottom is the globalists crapping on the employee class for 50 years running. And then playing ID politics to the hilt. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I dunno. I would not draw conclusions yet. In the wake of 9/11, the FBI entrapped some half-wits into making terrorist statements and plans, in which the FBI itself was the driving force.

I have seen films of the riot at the Capitol.

Believe me, I have a lot of sympathy for the marginalized, the outcasts, the misfits, the estranged, the lost, the embittered. With a bump or two in the wrong direction, there goes I. 

That's who invaded the Capitol that day. Unsympathetically put, the "rabble." The guy in buffalo-horns hat? That's who we fear? 

We have already been through the whole debunked Brian Sicknick story. 

Really, the national security state is about 1 million times better-financed and globally menacing than the lulus who occupied the Capitol on Jan. 6. 

The national-security state (and media allies) always want dangerous domestic subversives and foreign enemies. 

I refuse to be afraid of the guy in the buffalo-horned hat. 

 

 

Benjamin,

       To clarify.

       The only FBI arrests of potential terrorist suspects on 9/11 were the "Five Dancing Israeli" Mossad agents arrested by the George Washington bridge, after witnesses saw them filming and celebrating the WTC demolitions from Liberty State Park.  They were quietly detained by the FBI for 70 days before being released to Israel.

       The list of 19 alleged Muslim "hijackers" which Robert Mueller referenced on national television on 9/12/01 (Mueller's first day on the job as the new FBI Director) was obtained from documents conveniently planted in a rental car at Logan Airport.  Yet, many of these alleged Muslim "hijackers" were known to be alive after 9/11, and none of them were ever filmed at airports, or boarding airplanes on 9/11.  Nor were they listed on any of the 9/11 flight manifests.

       Additionally, the alleged AA #77 phone calls on 9/11 from Fox News commentator Barbara Olson to Bush's Solicitor General Ted Olson describing Muslim hijackers with box cutters never happened-- according to the FBI's own expert testimony in the Moussaiou trial.

       Robert Mueller later testified to Congress that, "the FBI never found a single scrap of paper" linking Osama Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks.  Dick Cheney, similarly, told Zelikow's 9/11 Commission that evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 was not "forthcoming."   And Bin Laden, himself, told journalists at Al Jazeera and in Pakistan shortly after 9/11 that he had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

       As for Brian Sicknick's death, it's causal linkage to the January 6th riots has not been "debunked," in my opinion-- as I explained in two of your previous threads on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Benjamin,

       To clarify.

       The only FBI arrests of potential terrorist suspects on 9/11 were the "Five Dancing Israeli" Mossad agents arrested by the George Washington bridge, after witnesses saw them filming and celebrating the WTC demolitions from Liberty State Park.  They were quietly detained by the FBI for 70 days before being released to Israel.

       The list of 19 alleged Muslim "hijackers" which Robert Mueller referenced on national television on 9/12/01 (Mueller's first day on the job as the new FBI Director) was obtained from documents conveniently planted in a rental car at Logan Airport.  Yet, many of these alleged Muslim "hijackers" were known to be alive after 9/11, and none of them were ever filmed at airports, or boarding airplanes on 9/11.  Nor were they listed on any of the 9/11 flight manifests.

       Additionally, the alleged AA #77 phone calls on 9/11 from Fox News commentator Barbara Olson to Bush's Solicitor General Ted Olson describing Muslim hijackers with box cutters never happened-- according to the FBI's own expert testimony in the Moussaiou trial.

       Robert Mueller later testified to Congress that, "the FBI never found a single scrap of paper" linking Osama Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks.  Dick Cheney, similarly, told Zelikow's 9/11 Commission that evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 was not "forthcoming."   And Bin Laden, himself, told journalists at Al Jazeera and in Pakistan shortly after 9/11 that he had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

       As for Brian Sicknick's death, it's causal linkage to the January 6th riots has not been "debunked," in my opinion-- as I explained in two of your previous threads on the subject.

W Niederhut:

I am not disputing anything you say, save our disagreement on the Brian Sicknick affair. OK, we disagree on Sicknick, and that's fine. 

What I am referring to are FBI efforts after 9/11 to find domestic terrorists, often through enticement and entrapment. In some cases it looked like the FBI manipulated half-wits into possibly compromising statements, and then prosecuted, all in the heated emotions of the time.  

My bigger point is that national security state is a lot more fear-inducing than the guy in buffalo-horn hat. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W Niederhut:

I am not disputing anything you say, save our disagreement on the Brian Sicknick affair. OK, we disagree on Sicknick, and that's fine. 

What I am referring to are FBI efforts after 9/11 to find domestic terrorists, often through enticement and entrapment. In some cases it looked like the FBI manipulated half-wits into possibly compromising statements, and then prosecuted, all in the heated emotions of the time.  

My bigger point is that national security state is a lot more fear-inducing than the guy in buffalo-horn hat. 

 

 

 

My apologies, Benjamin.  I thought you were referring to alleged FBI interviews of 9/11 suspects.

I understand what you're getting at with FBI informants involved in subsequent domestic terrorism incidents.

As for the Brian Sicknick case, it's worth watching the new, synchronized 40 minute NYT video of the January 6th attacks on the Capitol.

The Capitol Police were, obviously, severely under-manned on January 6th, and they were getting physically assaulted and repeatedly hosed with toxic aerosol sprays.

I simply consider it highly improbable that a young man like Brian Sicknick would have abruptly died of unrelated, "natural," causes (basilar arterial thrombosis) shortly after being viciously assaulted and sprayed with toxic chemicals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I dunno. I would not draw conclusions yet. In the wake of 9/11, the FBI entrapped some half-wits into making terrorist statements and plans, in which the FBI itself was the driving force.

I have seen films of the riot at the Capitol.

Believe me, I have a lot of sympathy for the marginalized, the outcasts, the misfits, the estranged, the lost, the embittered. With a bump or two in the wrong direction, there goes I. 

That's who invaded the Capitol that day. Unsympathetically put, the "rabble." The guy in buffalo-horns hat? That's who we fear? 

We have already been through the whole debunked Brian Sicknick story. 

Really, the national security state is about 1 million times better-financed and globally menacing than the lulus who occupied the Capitol on Jan. 6. 

The national-security state (and media allies) always want dangerous domestic subversives and foreign enemies. 

I refuse to be afraid of the guy in the buffalo-horned hat. 

 

 

There's a lot of stuff here. Let me just start with 2 areas that I've gathered from reading your posts that you've seemed most obsessed about. But now I see you and W. are talking about Sicknick,. So I'll start with that in in this post..

Benjamin: We have already been through the whole debunked Brian Sicknick story. 
This Brian Sicknick again. I know you have quite a sense of mission about this, Benjamin. I think the general reaction on this forum was to not to jump to conclusions about the riots other than a general disgust that these misdirected losers seized our capital and a greater astonishment that that was allowed to happen. I never saw one mention of Sicknick's death here until you mentioned it the next dozen times. I had no resistance to the fact that you were pointing it out that there were still unanswered questions.
I guess your overall message is that " pervasive and censored media', was trying to misinform us. I tend to think that's BS. It was probably another case of a profusion of information all at once, and different witness testimony and people jumping to conclusions to come out with a story , and like all such stories, it was eventually ferreted out and exposed. In the final analysis, isn't it going to be known if Sicknick was hit with a fire extinguisher or not?
 
Are you aware of the existence of the film where a protestor hurls a fire extinguisher at the standing cops heads, below, and actually hits 2 of them in the head? You can access it if you're so inclined.
There was confusion at first, and some thought Sicknick  was one of the cops. It's probably that simple, no media conspiracy. But while we're on the topic of media conspiracies, as you might know 6 people died! It was actually a few months after the riots that they determined that a woman was trampled  by the rioters. They literally killed their own! Was the fact that it took months to find that out really as a result of a Trump coverup media conspiracy? heh heh
 
In the final analysis, I don't know what your point is to keep driving home.  You're not actually asserting Sicknick died of natural causes, are you? What does it matter if Sicknick died directly from blunt force trauma or stress trauma as result of weathering the  riots? He still died defending his country and doing his job. How well do you think you'd hold up to this,  being beaten by clubs and flag poles, Benjamin? These are some big dudes. This ain't Chiang Mai!
 
 
 
 
I'm tired of hearing about Trump and his corruption!  ( move his hands over his ears) I'M NOT LISTENING, I'M NOT LISTENING, I'M NOT LISTENING.
 
Glen Greenwald 2016-21
 
Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...