The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Matt Allison]

https://www.newsweek.com/putins-already-started-realize-hes-losing-ukraine-ex-russian-pm-1706713

 

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

I spent a couple weeks working at a studio near El Paso in January and February of 2020; I could see the mountains of Mexico from my casita. Mexico is a very large country and there are problems with how it's governed. The locals believe the cartels control everything, and from the stories I heard I tend to believe them. It is not a healthy situation for those good people to have to live with. 

However shooting Patriot missiles into Mexico is not the solution.

Is it better to be run by drug cartels or the Deep State? 

I think the Deep State is better, but the point is debatable. 

[W. Niederhut]

48 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Is it better to be run by drug cartels or the Deep State? 

I think the Deep State is better, but the point is debatable. 

It's not our country-- although we did confiscate half of it, at gun point, with the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.

Oddly, we Americans have always had difficulty grasping the concept of other people's sovereignty.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

41 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

It's not our country-- although we did confiscate half of it, at gun point, with the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.

Oddly, we Americans have always had difficulty grasping the concept of other people's sovereignty.

 

Well, for that matter, the government of Mexico stole all of the land from indigenous peoples also.

The slaughter of New World inhabitants, mostly by Old World diseases but also by European imperialists, is among the saddest stories in humankind. 

 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

 

Ex-US attorney doubts John Durham expected trial of former Clinton lawyer (msn.com)

 

I am surprised Donk allies MSN would run this 'Phant-friendly story, from the Washington Examiner. 

If Durham wins a conviction of Sussman in a trial, that will speak volumes. 

 

 

[Matt Allison]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Is it better to be run by drug cartels or the Deep State? 

 

I think we need to tangibly define the "Deep State" and the actual names of members.

The people that run cartels are known and it's clearly defined what they do.

Edited May 16, 2022 by Matt Allison

[Matt Allison]

 

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

I think we need to tangibly define the "Deep State" and the actual names of members.

The people that run cartels are known and it's clearly defined what they do.

Matt-

I recommend books by Michael Lofgren.

"Mike Lofgren first used the term Deep State in an essay, referring to a 'web of entrenched interests in the US government and beyond (most notably Wall Street and Silicon Valley, which controls access to our every click and swipe) that dictate America’s defense decisions, trade policies and priorities with little regard for the actual interests or desires of the American people.'" -Wikipedia

Today, I would say the establishment bases of both parties, the military-industrial complex, multinationals, Silicon Valley, allied media, think tanks, foundations, lobbyists. 

But Lofgren, who had a professional lifetime of experience, does a great job in his books, especially "The Deep State"--2016. You will happy to know Donks and 'Phants are equally revealed in his books. 

So, better to be run by cartels or the Deep State? In general, taxes are about 10% lower in Mexico. But we seem to have slightly better government in US. 

 

 

[Douglas Caddy]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I am surprised Donk allies MSN would run this 'Phant-friendly story, from the Washington Examiner. 

If Durham wins a conviction of Sussman in a trial, that will speak volumes. 

 

 

Yes, it is an important trial. The NY Times has a long article today about it. Based on it, there appears to be a good chance that one or more jurors will feel the prosecution will not prove a case beyond a reason doubt and hence there will be no conviction. However, in any criminal case there are always twists and turns right up to when the jury retires to reach a verdict.

[W. Niederhut]

      Peter Dale Scott's political science writings about "Deep Politics" and the "Deep State" originated half a century ago-- decades before Trumplicans seized on the concept of the "Deep State" a few years ago in an attempt to deny the Trump campaign's involvement with the Kremlin in 2016 (i.e., "Spy-gate," "Obama-gate," the "Nunes Memo," etc.)

     Trump and Bill Barr's Durham investigation is the most recent Trumplican propaganda effort to deflect attention from the fact that Donald Trump served in the White House as a compromised Russian asset.

     Durham's allegations against Sussman are, essentially, part of a propaganda effort to create the impression that the Trump campaign wasn't really involved with Kremlin efforts to install Trump in the White House in 2016-- and that Trump was an innocent victim of the "Deep State."  (Presumably, unlike Hillary's victimization by weekly 2016 M$M headlines based on anonymous FBI "leaks" associated with Rudy Giuliani.)

      The truth is that Sussman and Christopher Steele played no significant role in the FBI's tardy, unpublicized investigation of the Trump Campaign's numerous 2016 contacts with Kremlin assets.

     What a joke!

     This bogus Barr/Durham construct has been repeatedly debunked during the past 18 months, but it continues to re-surface in Rupert Murdoch's propaganda outlets and, now, in the M$M.

[W. Niederhut]

Tucker Carlson not only promoted the white nationalist “great replacement” theory, but repeatedly called on his audience to take action

www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/tucker-carlson-not-only-promoted-white-nationalist-great-replacement-theory

May 16, 2022

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

      Peter Dale Scott's political science writings about "Deep Politics" and the "Deep State" originated half a century ago-- decades before Trumplicans seized on the concept of the "Deep State" a few years ago in an attempt to deny the Trump campaign's involvement with the Kremlin in 2016 (i.e., "Spy-gate," "Obama-gate," the "Nunes Memo," etc.)

     Trump and Bill Barr's Durham investigation is the most recent Trumplican propaganda effort to deflect attention from the fact that Donald Trump served in the White House as a compromised Russian asset.

     Durham's allegations against Sussman are, essentially, part of a propaganda effort to create the impression that the Trump campaign wasn't really involved with Kremlin efforts to install Trump in the White House in 2016-- and that Trump was an innocent victim of the "Deep State."  (Presumably, unlike Hillary's victimization by weekly 2016 M$M headlines based on anonymous FBI "leaks" associated with Rudy Giuliani.)

      The truth is that Sussman and Christopher Steele played no significant role in the FBI's tardy, unpublicized investigation of the Trump Campaign's numerous 2016 contacts with Kremlin assets.

     What a joke!

     This bogus Barr/Durham construct has been repeatedly debunked during the past 18 months, but it continues to re-surface in Rupert Murdoch's propaganda outlets and, now, in the M$M.

W-

If Durham's construct is bogus, that will come out in court, as I am sure Sussman (himself a top-flight lawyer and a valuable party apparatchik) will be lawyered up with the best and best-connected legal talent Washington has to offer.  

Caddy points out for a criminal conviction Durham will need 12-0 on the jury. That's a very high standard, but a fair one whenever the state prosecutes. 

I consider Sussman innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

44 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W-

If Durham's construct is bogus, that will come out in court, as I am sure Sussman (himself a top-flight lawyer and a valuable party apparatchik) will be lawyered up with the best and best-connected legal talent Washington has to offer.  

Caddy points out for a criminal conviction Durham will need 12-0 on the jury. That's a very high standard, but a fair one whenever the state prosecutes. 

I consider Sussman innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 

 

Ben,

     If Sussman is found guilty of lying to the FBI, what does that prove or disprove about Russiagate-- about Trump's involvement with the Kremlin in 2016, and beyond?  Nothing, really.  It's a Bill Barr/Durham nothing burger-- a smokescreen to create a misleading public impression that Trump's Russiagate scandal was a hoax.

    The FBI's un-publicized investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign's Russian contacts wasn't triggered by Sussman or by the Steele Dossier.  In fact, Trump's 2016 Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort had been under surveillance by the FBI as early as 2014, because he had worked as an (unregistered) foreign agent of the Kremlin in Ukraine, Western Europe, and the U.S. for several years.

     You may still not realize that the story of Manafort and the 2016 Trump campaign's contacts with Kremlin assets was largely suppressed in the U.S. mainstream media prior to the election.  It had no impact on the 2016 election-- unlike the weekly headlines about Hillary's Emails.  As an example, we found out only in 2017 that the Editor in Chief of NYT, Dean Baquet, specifically put the kibosh on any stories about Trump and Russia prior to the election!

      The theory that the "Deep State" conspired against Trump was always bunk.

      If anything, the FBI and the M$M sabotaged Hillary Clinton's 2016 candidacy.

    

Edited May 17, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

26 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

     If Sussman is found guilty of lying to the FBI, what does that prove or disprove about Russiagate-- about Trump's involvement with the Kremlin in 2016, and beyond?  Nothing, really.  It's a Bill Barr/Durham nothing burger-- a smokescreen to create a misleading public impression that Trump's Russiagate scandal was a hoax.

    The FBI's un-publicized investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign's Russian contacts wasn't triggered by Sussman or by the Steele Dossier.  In fact, Trump's 2016 Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort had been under surveillance by the FBI as early as 2014, because he had worked as an (unregistered) foreign agent of the Kremlin in Ukraine, Western Europe, and the U.S. for several years.

     You may still not realize that the story of Manafort and the 2016 Trump campaign's contacts with Kremlin assets was largely suppressed in the U.S. mainstream media prior to the election.  It had no impact on the 2016 election-- unlike the weekly headlines about Hillary's Emails.  As an example, we found out only in 2017 that the Editor in Chief of NYT, Dean Baquet, specifically put the kibosh on any stories about Trump and Russia prior to the election!

      The theory that the "Deep State" conspired against Trump was always bunk.

      If anything, the FBI and the M$M sabotaged Hillary Clinton's 2016 candidacy.

    

As I have said repeatedly, I regard everyone as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 

Manafort was proven guilty in a court of law on tax, lobbying and loan fraud charges (as I recall). And nothing more. 

The Carter Page story is telling---a putative Moscow stooge, he was never even charged, let alone convicted. 

My take is the Clinton campaign, deeply experienced and smart in the ways of the Deep State and Washington, successfully instigated the Russiagate investigation. Trump & Co. were naifs in this regard. 

This reality does not make Trump a good president or a nice guy. My own take is Trump has the personality flaws of any other dozen men put together. 

The Donks successfully mined (and mine) Trump's manifest flaws, and have hoodwinked the American public into obsessing about Trump, instead of the Donk Party's abundant failure to represent the middle class. 

The lib press has become intel-state catamites, barking incessantly about ID politics and Trump's orange hair.

 

[W. Niederhut]

14 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

As I have said repeatedly, I regard everyone as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 

Manafort was proven guilty in a court of law on tax, lobbying and loan fraud charges (as I recall). And nothing more. 

Ben,

Manafort also engaged in witness tampering and repeatedly lied to prosecutors and to the FBI during the Mueller investigation-- even after agreeing to cooperate with the investigation as part of a plea bargain.

He repeatedly stonewalled Mueller's inquiries about his 2016 campaign contacts with Russian GRU agent Konstantin Kilimnik.

He also floated a Trump pardon to Rick Gates during the investigation-- telling Gates, "We'll be taken care of" -- in a blatant case of obstruction of justice and witness tampering by Trump and Manafort, himself.

See, for example...

Paul Manafort sentenced: 5 things to know about his downfall (usatoday.com)

Manafort entered into an agreement in September of 2018 where he pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and obstruction of justice in the District of Columbia in exchange for him cooperating with Mueller's investigation and the possibility of a reduced sentence. 

But only two months later, Mueller sought to void the plea agreement after prosecutors alleged that Manafort had misled them about his interactions with a Russian business associate, his contacts with Trump's administration and other subjects.

Prosecutors had accused Manafort of lying to them about five subjects, ranging from his interactions with a Russian business associate to his contacts with the Trump administration. He was also accused of lying about sharing polling data with the Russian national, Konstantin Kilimnik, and about meeting with him in Madrid, according to court documents. 

Prosecutors alleged that Manafort lied about how many times he met Kilimnik, according to a partially redacted transcript of a Feb. 4 hearing. Prosecutors contend Kilimnik has ties to Russian intelligence, which he has denied.