Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greenwald Says Trump Caved into Second Impeachment Threats; Kept JFK Files Secret


Recommended Posts

Well, courtesy of Glenn Greenwald, a bit verbose in this Rumble segment, but he states that one reason Trump did not pardon Snowden and Assange, and also order release the JFK files, was due to threats from the establishment wing of the GOP (Bush-Cheneyites) during the second impeachment of the Trump. 

The modern-day Donks and old establishment wing of the 'Phants were horrified that Trump might pardon the pair, and release the JFK files. This was one motivating reason for the extremely odd second impeachment of Trump, which readers may recall began when Trump had a week left in office, and continued after he had left the White House. Trump was acquitted rather quickly by the Senate, mostly on strength of GOP'ers. 

But the message Trump got was that he would be convicted if he didn't back down on Snowden, Assange and the JFK files. 

Glenn Greenwald's certainly knows his stuff, and along with Matt Taibbi and Aaron Mate is at the very top of journalists covering the Deep State, aka the global security state. 

The cover story, that Trump was impeached as he had instigated the 1/6 "insurrection" has always seemed a bit thin. At the time, and to this day, there are no indications that Trump or important Trumpians were in touch with people in the scrum. Smartphone conversations and texts have been seized by the national security state for all messages and calls made from the Capitol and grounds on that day---yet not one shows a Trump-scrummer connection. 

In contrast, there have been serious questions raised, but no official investigation at all, into the question whether federal infiltrators and provocateurs instigated the scrum. 

BTW, this how Cheney reacted to stories that Trump was considering a pardon of Snowden: 

"Liz Cheney--tweets

@Liz_Cheney

Edward Snowden is a traitor. He is responsible for the largest and most damaging release of classified info in US history. He handed over US secrets to Russian and Chinese intelligence putting our troops and our nation at risk. Pardoning him would be unconscionable."

---30---

Wouldn't that be something if Cheney ran as a Donk in the next election? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry Ben,  just gotta go on record as personally finding virtually all of that as laughable and in a pattern of creating a larger counter history of events....entertaining though it is for Deep State thinking.  And just to irritate everyone further, I agree with Liz Cheney in regard to Snowden and actually in regard to a great many things related to actually maintaining a democracy including the extreme threat posed by Trump and his acolytes. 

The idea that Trump even thought about records release for more than a minute when someone brought it up is more than unlikely, much less that he could be successfully blackmailed in regard to them. .  

Part of my New Years resolution to be totally transparent and contrarian at my advanced age.  Probably brought about by seeing too many vehicles around me with "F Biden and anyone who supports this presidency"  and "Trump is our Leader".

 

Edited by Larry Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Part of my New Years resolution to be totally transparent and contrarian at my advanced age.  Probably brought about by seeing too many vehicles around me with "F Biden and anyone who supports this presidency"  and "Trump is our Leader".

Thanks for your comment, Larry.  Down here in GA, there are Trump 2020 signs that still haven't been taken down as well as the Confederate flags flying.  I too, have adopted this concept (only a little earlier than you did).  Some would say it has always been a part of my persona, just hidden below the surface.  But all that aside, I will comment on your actual content.  I agree in essence.  I firmly believe that with Trump all you have to do is "follow the money".  That is his guiding beacon, he doesn't give a D*@N about any other concepts or principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Sorry Ben,  just gotta go on record as personally finding virtually all of that as laughable and in a pattern of creating a larger counter history of events....entertaining though it is for Deep State thinking.  And just to irritate everyone further, I agree with Liz Cheney in regard to Snowden and actually in regard to a great many things related to actually maintaining a democracy including the extreme threat posed by Trump and his acolytes. 

The idea that Trump even thought about records release for more than a minute when someone brought it up is more than unlikely, much less that he could be successfully blackmailed in regard to them. .  

Part of my New Years resolution to be totally transparent and contrarian at my advanced age.  Probably brought about by seeing too many vehicles around me with "F Biden and anyone who supports this presidency"  and "Trump is our Leader".

 

I just want to clarify that one can say "F Biden" and not be a Trump sycophant. Also, in my entire life I have never seen a sign or flag that had the actual F word on it until the Trump era. But it wasn't the Trump supporters that normalized that, it was the left with their "F Trump" signs and flags. Even our governor here in Michigan had a sign in her office that said "8645". That certainly is not behavior one would expect from the self proclaimed party of inclusion and respect.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/10/19/8645-meaning-whitmer-trump/3708927001/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly that is true Ty,  obviously there have always been strong feelings against sitting presidents - and strong language and even death threats...as with JFK.  But that was mostly over policies, and was not purely personal in most cases.  The last time I saw anything close to this was with the antiwar protests where high school teachers sent their students out in the street to beat up us college student commie protesters (maybe that's why I dislike broad brush terms so much?)

But I can say with the individuals I referred to its all personal, back to the "don't tread on me, I'll do what I want to and I have a gun" attitude.  Very, very personal and the ones I described do mean it about anyone who does not love Trump.  These are people I have observed not only fly Trump flags but fly them above the American flag.  They want a leader in the pure fascist sense - someone who will make everyone do what they want.

In a type of dark humor they are the ones at state level who want local control until some town or country does something they don't like and then they want new legislation or directives from the governor to force compliance with their view.

This also gives me an opportunity to state that I certainly acknowledge and have written about Deep Politics, about the power of special interests including Big Oil, Big Pharma, the MI/Political complex et al.   Such groups and interests always conspire for maximum control and power - no news there.  But they are also continually jousting for position, not in my view following any other long term master plan other than money, power and greed.  End of disclaimer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

But I can say with the individuals I referred to its all personal, back to the "don't tread on me, I'll do what I want to and I have a gun" attitude.

Very much the sentiment in my area of Georgia.  Since I am retired, not working in the local post office, I have few interactions with the public anymore, thank goodness.  My county is over 80% Trumpublicans (not just Republicans).  I only share my political views with a very limited number of folks while at the post office and even less now.  I have, by speaking out politically, lost contact with most of my family (who prefer it that way), my best friend from 1968 onward and cannot talk to many of my neighbors.  On a personal note, since you are much more well known, be careful out there, you just don't know what people will do currently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid it is the same here, and because I do a good deal of volunteer work and live where I was born and grew up so I am known to a lot of folks.  I don't go out of my way to talk politics and tend to look for common ground on subjects - amazingly, Trump aside, there is a lot of that.   But I have become frustrated enough by the deep political agendas (such as the "plandemic" propaganda that put lives at risk even among my medically trained relatives) that on occasion I feel I have to at least take a personal stance.  Writing "Creating Chaos" taught me how even small groups or single players (not just nation states) can weaponize the media to terrible effect - I just wish more folks would have read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to hear about these personal anecdotal stories from either side.
 
More of Ben, compulsively rushing to defend Trump. More falsehoods, but probably unwitting (looking for a reason to believe) falsehoods this time. 
Actually trying to spin one of Trump's worst First Amendment moments (including JFKA file release.) and make Trump's complete caving in to  be an innocent victim at the hands of others.  Of course no mention from either Greenwald or Ben about Trump Sec. of State Pompeo considering a plot to kidnap or possibly even murder Assange.
 
Let's take the opportunity to see how Trump looks as he handles this question in a live interview with FOX Candace Owens. He certainly doesn't act like a victim. If I could  find a clip of just this segment, I would, but since Ben is already using Glen Greenwald, I have no problem showing Kyle Kulinski's overview of it as well.
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that article was certainly a joke... Good grief. The corpse of Newsweek continues its sad zombie saga. Glenn Greenwald has demonstrated all the signs of accelerated mental decline the past few years, and it will be interesting to see how far he falls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Sorry Ben,  just gotta go on record as personally finding virtually all of that as laughable and in a pattern of creating a larger counter history of events....entertaining though it is for Deep State thinking.  And just to irritate everyone further, I agree with Liz Cheney in regard to Snowden and actually in regard to a great many things related to actually maintaining a democracy including the extreme threat posed by Trump and his acolytes. 

The idea that Trump even thought about records release for more than a minute when someone brought it up is more than unlikely, much less that he could be successfully blackmailed in regard to them. .  

Part of my New Years resolution to be totally transparent and contrarian at my advanced age.  Probably brought about by seeing too many vehicles around me with "F Biden and anyone who supports this presidency"  and "Trump is our Leader".

 

Larry--

That's fine, I certainly do not require adherence to my views to have a discussion. Discussions are rather boring if everyone agrees!

I disagree with you, and I think Snowden and Assange should be let alone at this point. (In addition, I have reservations about the US prosecuting a non-US citizen for a role in releasing even national secrets. Imagine this scenario: You (Larry Hancock, a US citizen) are given Russian state secrets, which you publish.  Then, the Russian prosecutorial system comes after you, and perhaps when you visit modern-day CCP-controlled Hong Kong, you find yourself under state arrest for extradition to Russia. 

Really, Larry Hancock can be put in a Russian prison for violating Russian secrecy laws? 

But that is what the US is doing to Assange. 

As for the 1/6 scrum, there has been some excellent work done, all outside of M$M, that strongly suggests there were federal instigators in the scrum.  The curiously light security at the Capitol on the very day some expected troubles is remarkable as well. I would keep an open mind about this. 

This is not a re-write of history, nor a commentary on the accuracy of the national election. It is a commentary about 1/6. 

You can disagree with Greenwald on the Trumpian non-release of the JFK records. But Greenwald is certainly a knowledgable commentator...far more than the talking heads at various networks. 

As to civility in conversation, I would hope your sentiments come to imbue commentators everywhere, including in this forum. 

There is no need to ridicule or denigrate people with different points of view. 

(Side note: I weary of the constant profusion of vulgarity in seemingly every aspect of modern public life or entertainment. The English language is a rapier when properly used, and remarkably expressive, and I admire those who can use it thusly. To read a Charles Dickens is to be reminded of this great gift to us all.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting question on the legal aspect Ben - I suppose my question would be whether or not the information was classified and how I obtained it.  

If it was  open source information certainly not.

If it was classified  information and I got it from a third party who was violating security laws and I made it public then I probably would position myself as a reporter or as a yellow journalist acting in the public interest - or feed to reporters who could use it and were willing to defend their sources.  But I would have to justify it as a risk.  

If I had personally made an effort to compromise secrecy,  recruited informants, hacked systems or used my own legitimate access then that is another story and I need to be willing to take my lumps if its worthwhile.  We had a lot of that during the Vietnam war and i respected the guys who did that, took their lumps and did their time. 

I still feel that way but I'm also quite aware that  nation states are adversaries and act and against each other using various levels of knowing and unknowing tools - I wrote about that in Creating Chaos.  

Bottom line,  I actually have a lot of sympathy for whistle blowers who are willing to expose those government sins and take the consequences and I would whole heartily endorse stronger protections for citizens who do so - making the system better and protecting them personally.  But I don't feel its wrong to prosecute people who knowingly break the law and admit to doing so. 

As to Snowden

 

 

 

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Interesting question on the legal aspect Ben - I suppose my question would be whether or not the information was classified and how I obtained it.  

If it was  open source information certainly not.

If it was classified  information and I got it from a third party who was violating security laws and I made it public then I probably would position myself as a reporter or as a yellow journalist acting in the public interest - or feed to reporters who could use it and were willing to defend their sources.  But I would have to justify it as a risk.  

If I had personally made an effort to compromise secrecy,  recruited informants, hacked systems or used my own legitimate access then that is another story and I need to be willing to take my lumps if its worthwhile.  We had a lot of that during the Vietnam war and i respected the guys who did that, took their lumps and did their time. 

I still feel that way but I'm also quite aware that  nation states are adversaries and act and against each other using various levels of knowing and unknowing tools - I wrote about that in Creating Chaos.  

Bottom line,  I actually have a lot of sympathy for whistle blowers who are willing to expose those government sins and take the consequences and I would whole heartily endorse stronger protections for citizens who do so - making the system better and protecting them personally.  But I don't feel its wrong to prosecute people who knowingly break the law and admit to doing so. 

As to Snowden

 

 

 

...

Well, I guess we must await your thoughts on Snowden.

Oddly, Obama commuted the sentence (by a large amount, something like 35 years) for Chelsea Manning. For some reason, this Manning deal gets a "pass" from M$M and others. Should Manning serve the 35 years in prison? 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-commutes-bulk-of-chelsea-mannings-sentence.html

Anyway, I look forward to more of your insights, on national security and the JFK assassination, even though we may be at loggerheads on a few topics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Ben, that was a loose piece of copy on the message.   My thoughts are really quite simple and were in the previous message.  He had to make the call on whether each element of what he released was significantly important to break the law rather than trying to use the system, somehow feed it into the media piece by piece as an anonymous source or whether the urgency of the situation demanded he take the immediate and total initiative rather than exploring some other route.  When he decided to act as he did he accepted the risk and the probable punishment.  

I personally think he should have been more selective, exercised some sort of judgement and that the way he did it did damage national security - did the ultimate sentence fit the crime,  that's purely subjective. If I had a magic wand I would examine the situati8on in more detail - I don't claim to recall it all myself at this point - and probably wave that wand to commute it to some extent.  But I certainly would not have given him a total pass in the first place. 

From that point on we could settle back to a philosophical dialog that would last forever - as I said, I was offering a personal opinion, this should clarify the opinion and that's really all I have to say on Snowden, - which was really not the reason for my initial post in the first place.  I posted to express an opinion, to to take a position, did that, done.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Sorry Ben, that was a loose piece of copy on the message.   My thoughts are really quite simple and were in the previous message.  He had to make the call on whether each element of what he released was significantly important to break the law rather than trying to use the system, somehow feed it into the media piece by piece as an anonymous source or whether the urgency of the situation demanded he take the immediate and total initiative rather than exploring some other route.  When he decided to act as he did he accepted the risk and the probable punishment.  

I personally think he should have been more selective, exercised some sort of judgement and that the way he did it did damage national security - did the ultimate sentence fit the crime,  that's purely subjective. If I had a magic wand I would examine the situati8on in more detail - I don't claim to recall it all myself at this point - and probably wave that wand to commute it to some extent.  But I certainly would not have given him a total pass in the first place. 

From that point on we could settle back to a philosophical dialog that would last forever - as I said, I was offering a personal opinion, this should clarify the opinion and that's really all I have to say on Snowden, - which was really not the reason for my initial post in the first place.  I posted to express an opinion, to to take a position, did that, done.

 

Fair enough, I always enjoy reading Larry Hancock---even the denser than lead SWHT. Egads, I can't remember who is Hernandez, all three or four of them.  

The Red Bird angle is interesting, and of course you are refreshing now.  It sure seems like there was loose talk about the JFKA before the event, and talk by people who had means and motives. Real talk? Machismo? Braggadocio? Intentionally misleading plants? 

One could wish the ubiquitous smartphones, with their audio-video capabilities, had come along a few decades earlier....

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Sorry Ben,  just gotta go on record as personally finding virtually all of that as laughable and in a pattern of creating a larger counter history of events....entertaining though it is for Deep State thinking.  And just to irritate everyone further, I agree with Liz Cheney in regard to Snowden and actually in regard to a great many things related to actually maintaining a democracy including the extreme threat posed by Trump and his acolytes. 

The idea that Trump even thought about records release for more than a minute when someone brought it up is more than unlikely, much less that he could be successfully blackmailed in regard to them. .  

Part of my New Years resolution to be totally transparent and contrarian at my advanced age.  Probably brought about by seeing too many vehicles around me with "F Biden and anyone who supports this presidency"  and "Trump is our Leader".

 

Damn Larry, you are on a roll today/this evening based on this and the comments below.  Thank you for speaking up.

I've not conversed with my former two favorite cousins since the 2016 election.  Because of their facebook comments.   It hurts, I still love them but can't talk to them because they would be antagonistic to my views based on those comments.

I thought about having a flag made that says "Biden Won, F YOUR Feelings, Get Over It".  But in this part of Texas flying it, from the back of my truck I fear would likely get the truck, or me, abused.

Kinda like the bus in 2020.

But there's always some hope still left, however faint after all these years.

Beto for Texas — Official Website (betoorourke.com)  

 

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...