Joe Bauer Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 1 hour ago, Mark Knight said: I'm no fan of Trump. I believe he belongs behind bars, upon conviction. That said, I don't think criticizing his appearance makes him any more or less guilty. Let his actions themselves convince you of innocence or guilt. But that's just the way I think. The link Douglas Caddy posted clearly shows that Matt Goetz was involved in witness tampering with Roger Stone. If Goetz wasn't doing so on his own volition -- and there's no reason that he would -- then he was speaking as a representative of Trump, who indeed did make Stone's conviction "go away." They have video to go with the hot mic recording. Someone should be arrested based upon that evidence. My fear is that BC and others who think as he does believe the person responsible for the hot mic and the video should be arrested instead of the actual perps. 1 hour ago, Mark Knight said: "I'm no fan of Trump. I believe he belongs behind bars, upon conviction." "That said, I don't think >>> criticizing his appearance <<< makes him any more or less guilty. Let his actions themselves convince you of innocence or guilt." With due respect MK I believe it's totally fair game to do to Trump what Trump has been doing to others for years, his entire presidency and beyond...to the extreme - criticizing their appearances. "Watermelon Head Schiff." "Fat Jerry" Jerry Nadler. "Look At That Face" Carly Fiorina. "Slime Ball Comey." Disloyal Sleaze Bag" Mitch McConnell. "Al Frankenstein" Al Franken. "Mad Dog Mattis." "Danang Richard" Richard Blumenthal. "Nasty Kamala." "Dumbo" Randolf Ales. "That Dog" Omarosa Manigault Newman. "Dummy Beto." "Crazy Nancy." "Whacko" Susan Collins. And on and on and on. It's almost impossible to engage in a forum discussion about Donald Trump and keep it civil and social norms polite when the man himself is the polar opposite of those proper social attributes. The truth is Trump's obsession with publicly insulting others in the most graphic even crude ways is truly a pathological condition. He has no boundaries in this area of behavior. I only remember bullies in Junior High School constantly making fun of other kids like Trump does incessantly toward others with his vitriolic rhetoric. It seems obvious that Trump's seriously stunted and immature brain function is locked into that of a Junior High School kid bully. Still, I know two wrongs don't make a right and if I am asked, I will refrain from injecting such Juvenal sarcastic humor regards Trump into my postings on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 Well, curiosity killed the cat, as they say, and I find myself curious about individuals named "PERSON-1" -2 and -3 in the superseding indictment against the Proud Boys. By context (if you read primary materials, the indictment), the anonymous individuals were involved in planning the 1/6 event, and their true identities are obviously known to the Proud Boys (at least by now) and to the AG's office. So, I wrote an e-letter to the media office of the US Justice Department, and maybe we will get answer. Here: Proud Boys Superseding Indictment and PERSON -1 PERSON-2 PERSON-3 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1510791/download OK, in the superseding indictment, some people are identified as "PERSON-1" -2 or -3 and so on. These anonymous individuals appear to have been active in Proud Boys planning and activities leading up to Jan. 6, and their identities known to the government (by context). Why are the individuals not named? Were they government informants? Are they witnesses who are now cooperating with the federal government? I cannot find any reference to PERSON-1 -2 -3 in the M$M, or indeed anywhere else. The Proud Boys stand accused of illegally occupying the US Capitol, and people who participated in the planning of the event are referenced in an indictment, but their identities not revealed. They are not "un-indicted co-conspirators" or they would be ID'ed as such. I gather doing primary research is not something the M$M does anymore. I guess reporters nowadays like to re-post each other's stuff. I may not get a response from the Justice Department. Sometimes you have to work for a "name publication" to get a response. I contacted media relations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 40 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said: HAAAAA!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Mark Knight said: I'm no fan of Trump. I believe he belongs behind bars, upon conviction. That said, I don't think criticizing his appearance makes him any more or less guilty. Let his actions themselves convince you of innocence or guilt. But that's just the way I think. The link Douglas Caddy posted clearly shows that Matt Goetz was involved in witness tampering with Roger Stone. If Goetz wasn't doing so on his own volition -- and there's no reason that he would -- then he was speaking as a representative of Trump, who indeed did make Stone's conviction "go away." They have video to go with the hot mic recording. Someone should be arrested based upon that evidence. My fear is that BC and others who think as he does believe the person responsible for the hot mic and the video should be arrested instead of the actual perps. I agree, that neither Trump's or Biden's appearance, or mine for that matter, is of much concern. We are all old men, and the ravages of time are upon us. I do not think doing primary research--looking at indictments or the cases filed against people who occupied the Capitol--makes me a Trumper. Remember the lessons of the JFKA: Only upon scrutinizing evidence, including primary evidence, did the JFKA community gain a more-complete understanding of the event. In the early days of the JFKA research, people were accused of being communists or far-left nuts for doing primary research on the JFKA. Today someone doing primary research on 1/6 is accused of other biases. So be it. But hey, thanks to the internet, now you can do primary research too. You do not need M$M filtering. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1510791/download The above is the indictment against the Proud Boys. Why not read it? https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases The above are the breach cases. They are interesting reading, whatever your political leanings. I would be interested in your reading at least the superseding indictment, and if you have some insights. I have only done limited court reporting in the past. Edited July 31, 2022 by Benjamin Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 55 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: Well, curiosity killed the cat, as they say, and I find myself curious about individuals named "PERSON-1" -2 and -3 in the superseding indictment against the Proud Boys. By context (if you read primary materials, the indictment), the anonymous individuals were involved in planning the 1/6 event, and their true identities are obviously known to the Proud Boys (at least by now) and to the AG's office. So, I wrote an e-letter to the media office of the US Justice Department, and maybe we will get answer. Here: Proud Boys Superseding Indictment and PERSON -1 PERSON-2 PERSON-3 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-proud-boys-and-four-other-members-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/press-release/file/1510791/download OK, in the superseding indictment, some people are identified as "PERSON-1" -2 or -3 and so on. These anonymous individuals appear to have been active in Proud Boys planning and activities leading up to Jan. 6, and their identities known to the government (by context). Why are the individuals not named? Were they government informants? Are they witnesses who are now cooperating with the federal government? I cannot find any reference to PERSON-1 -2 -3 in the M$M, or indeed anywhere else. The Proud Boys stand accused of illegally occupying the US Capitol, and people who participated in the planning of the event are referenced in an indictment, but their identities not revealed. They are not "un-indicted co-conspirators" or they would be ID'ed as such. I gather doing primary research is not something the M$M does anymore. I guess reporters nowadays like to re-post each other's stuff. I may not get a response from the Justice Department. Sometimes you have to work for a "name publication" to get a response. I contacted media relations. Plenty of names for you from the main stream media: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/06/tarrio-proud-boys-seditious-conpiracy/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 This particular thread seems to have gotten more leeway than most [ANY?] other, so since I'm not wearing an Admin or Moderator hat on this thread, I'm not going to make any judgements about what's already been posted. You CAN ridicule Trump's appearance here, but it does nothing to strengthen or support any other arguments. That was my point, nothing else. As far as informants go, I would suppose that there are two types: those with government ties who are embedded, and those who are part of an organization who, for whatever personal reasons, become whistleblowers. Until we know differently, we cannot assume into which category Person 1, Person 2, and/or Person 3 fall. To attempt to do so without supporting evidence falls into the SWAG category, as far as I'm concerned [SWAG = "Scientific" Wild-A** Guess]. Making such an assumption bears the risk of being completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 24 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said: Plenty of names for you from the main stream media: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/06/tarrio-proud-boys-seditious-conpiracy/ Yes, but are questions asked about the identities of PERSON-1, -2, -3. 22 minutes ago, Mark Knight said: This particular thread seems to have gotten more leeway than most [ANY?] other, so since I'm not wearing an Admin or Moderator hat on this thread, I'm not going to make any judgements about what's already been posted. You CAN ridicule Trump's appearance here, but it does nothing to strengthen or support any other arguments. That was my point, nothing else. As far as informants go, I would suppose that there are two types: those with government ties who are embedded, and those who are part of an organization who, for whatever personal reasons, become whistleblowers. Until we know differently, we cannot assume into which category Person 1, Person 2, and/or Person 3 fall. To attempt to do so without supporting evidence falls into the SWAG category, as far as I'm concerned [SWAG = "Scientific" Wild-A** Guess]. Making such an assumption bears the risk of being completely wrong. That is why I am throwing the question of the identities of PERSON-1, -2, -3 to the larger community. I think I have narrowed it down somewhat: 1. Their true identities are known (this seems beyond dispute, by context). 2. In other federal prosecutions, the use of the word "Person" refers to an embedded individuals who were collaborating with the FBI. Embedded federal assets, in other words. 3. We know from the Whitmer kidnapping case, that embedding copious amounts of federal assets into a far right-wing group was done. So there is a precedent to ponder if federal assets were active in the Proud Boys in the days leading up to 1/6. I am always interested in what the intel state is doing---see my intense curiosity regarding the JFKA. I was no fan of Nixon. I believe he should have been impeached and sent to jail (after a fair trial with able defense) for what he did on Laos alone. But if the CIA boobytrapped Nixon, I want to know. Trump strikes me as grifter, though he has been not convicted of anything and deserves to considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I am still interested if the Deep State helped torpedo Trump. Keep an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 23 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Homeland Security watchdog halted plan to recover Secret Service texts, records show July 29, 2022 No paywall Homeland Security watchdog halted plan to recover Secret Service texts - The Washington Post (archive.ph) I'm somewhat surprised that this big story hasn't elicited any comments during the past 24 hours. Curfarri not only failed to inform Congress about the deleted texts, he also mysteriously shut down efforts to recover the deleted DHS text messages from January 6th. He's not a Rosemary Woods. He's a watch dog! (Or is he a lap dog?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 37 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said: Plenty of names for you from the main stream media: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/06/tarrio-proud-boys-seditious-conpiracy/ That article fairly sums up the federal case against the Proud Boys, and in the bottom paragraphs, makes reference to "Person-1"--but does not ask, "Who is Person-1"? Evidently, the WaPo has no curiosity regarding if Person-1, -2, -3 were federal assets or informants. If the mysterious Person-1-2-3 were federal assets ---then why did not the federal government interdict the Proud Boys on 1/6? Keep an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 3 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: I'm somewhat surprised that this big story hasn't elicited any comments during the past 24 hours. Curfarri not only failed to inform Congress about the deleted texts, he also mysteriously shut down efforts to recover the deleted DHS text messages from January 6th. He's not a Rosemary Woods. He's a watch dog! (Or is he a lap dog?) I agree with you (I hope you are sitting down). Something wrong happened, on the face it. Government records should not be destroyed. I am especially curious as what could have been erased concerning 1/5 messages. And why has Biden not fired James Murray, Secret Service Director on whose watch the SS institutionally washed texts? Murray is leaving in July or early August to take a cushy, lucrative job with Snapchat, the left-ish social media outfit. He received high praise from the Bidens. I hope the texts become public, and let the chips fall where they may. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 21 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: I agree with you (I hope you are sitting down). Something wrong happened, on the face it. Government records should not be destroyed. I am especially curious as what could have been erased concerning 1/5 messages. And why has Biden not fired James Murray, Secret Service Director on whose watch the SS institutionally washed texts? Murray is leaving in July or early August to take a cushy, lucrative job with Snapchat, the left-ish social media outfit. He received high praise from the Bidens. I hope the texts become public, and let the chips fall where they may. It's not about Biden, Ben. It's about Trump's "Deep State" appointees -- including Chad Wolf--who were, evidently, co-conspirators in Trump's J6 coup plot. I had raised this question on the forum shortly after the J6 attack on Congress-- i.e., did people in the Trump administration conspire to obstruct security for the Congress, despite having advance intelligence about the anticipated violence? I believe that they did-- Wolf, Murray, Ornato, Wray, Chris Miller, and, evidently, people in the Capitol Police administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 Just now, W. Niederhut said: It's not about Biden, Ben. It's about Trump's "Deep State" appointees -- including Chad Wolf--who were, evidently, co-conspirators in Trump's J6 coup plot. I had raised this question on the forum shortly after the J6 attack on Congress-- i.e., did people in the Trump administration conspire to obstruct security for the Congress, despite having advance intelligence about the anticipated violence? I believe that they did-- Wolf, Murray, Ornato, Wray, Chris Miller, and, evidently, people in the Capitol Police administration. W- First, thanks for your pleasant and intelligent response. You could be right. Perhaps Trump and a network of a few accomplices (relative to the platoons of the real Deep State) planned and successfully and radically limited defenses at the Capitol on 1/6, so that Trump forces (Proud Boys) could halt counting of the EC ballots--and even had limited success, though of a stillborn nature. The Secret Service, hitherto Deep State apparatchiks, are now protecting Trump politically. But...my take is that the "Trump Plan" plan sketched above was never going to work, and no one except the loonies would believe it would work. But then Trump has a few screws loose and may have tried it. I have to posit against the above Trump Plan scenario the leviathan of the real Deep State, with hundreds of billions of dollars in budget, 17 different agencies, a panopticon, able to read every text and e-mail sent in America. And the Deep State is about 1000 times more capable than the Trumpers in manipulating events and press coverage. How on earth could Trump & Co. plan anything without the real Deep State knowing every step well in advance? It appears that Deep State had at least three plants in the Proud Boys active in 1/6 planning in the days leading up to 1/6: Persons-1, -2, and -3 in the superseding indictment. It goes without saying it is hard to make a phone call, text or fly on a commercial aircraft (or even drive a car with valid license plates) or even book a hotel room without the Deep State knowing about it, if they want to. For these reasons, I am leaning to the side that 1/6 may have been a Deep State op, and not a Trump op. But, I am keeping an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 1 hour ago, Mark Knight said: This particular thread seems to have gotten more leeway than most [ANY?] other, so since I'm not wearing an Admin or Moderator hat on this thread, I'm not going to make any judgements about what's already been posted. You CAN ridicule Trump's appearance here, but it does nothing to strengthen or support any other arguments. That was my point, nothing else. I've gotten a little carried away in Trump bashing lately. Guess it's just pent up angst ( years worth ) about the guy on a personal level. Just an awful person in so many ways and on so many levels imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted July 31, 2022 Share Posted July 31, 2022 "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts