JFKA, Robert Mueller, Deep State Apparatchiks and Machinations

[Benjamin Cole]

JFKA, Robert Mueller, Deep State Apparatchiks and Machinations 

 

Preamble

 

The M$M does not present major national political events as having been contrived by the Deep State; rather events are endlessly cast in the red v. blue, Donks vs. ‘Phants paradigm, with some culture wars, ID politics tossed in. 

Thus, the 1964 presidential election was cast, as usual, as Donks vs. ‘Phants, and not as “With JFK having been dispensed with by shadow-state action, Americans now have a choice of a nuke-nut (‘Phant Barry Goldwater) or a warmonger (Donk LBJ).”

 

Robert Mueller 

American recollections are brief, and Robert Mueller today is primarily recalled in fading memories for his nearly two-year run (2017-2019) as Special Counsel to the Justice Department, and his quixotic and ultimately unconvincing probe of Trump-Russia “collusion.” 

But Mueller goes back a long way in establishment Washington, also serving at the Director the FBI for 13 years, longer than anyone except J. Edgar Hoover. 

President George “W.” Bush appointed Mueller to the FBI top-dog position in 2001.

In fact, Bush appointed Mueller just one week before the infamous 9/11 attacks, though Mueller was nominated by the President in July. 

About that time, in July, as Mueller was being primed the FBI top-slot, some 9/11 researchers contend the Bush-Cheney neo-con Deep State team was also deep into plotting the attack on the World Trade Center. 

According to 9/11 researcher David Ray Griffin, author of the book The New Pearl Harbor, Mueller’s oversight of the FBI’s 9/11 investigation was essential to the cover-up that followed.  

In brief—following Griffin’s logic—a reasonable deduction is the Bush-Cheney team was in July planning to install Mueller to run the FBI, in anticipation the 9/11 attack.

Mueller’s behavior after 9/11 is indeed curious, and there are parallels in the 9/11 investigation to the JFKA Deep State cover-up, such as quick and easy answers to who or what conducted the event. 

According to Griffin, Mueller declared the FBI’s 9/11 investigation wrapped up within a month! 

Ponder that, in contrast, Mueller’s inconclusive Russiagate probe lasted two years. 

From Griffin’s book: “Nevertheless, on October 10…(with) dozens of other facts seeming to scream out for an extensive and intensive investigation, FBI Director Mueller, calling the FBI's month-long investigation of 9/11 ‘the most exhaustive in its history,’ declared it over.”

A month-long investigation was the “most exhaustive” in FBI history? 

Repeatedly, Mueller said that only the 19 dead hijackers knew of their 9/11 plans, and they left behind no paper documents, no computer records, no e-mails, no smartphone texts or geo-locations, no clues, nothing, nothing, nothing that trailed elsewhere. 

A redux of “Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut.” This time, 19 lone nuts. 

Later, “Mueller, according to the Washington Post, ‘described reports that several of the hijackers had received flight training in the United States as news, quite obviously.’ But he had the agents who were investigating this news reassigned.”

In brief, Griffin contends Mueller aggressively thwarted any true investigation into 9/11 and instead articulated a false, Deep State narrative. 

Mueller: Shades of the JFKA? 

Mueller was also on Team Neocon Bush-Cheney in other ways. 

Mueller would testify before the US Congress in early 2003 that “Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction, willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical or radiological material.”

It is hard to dodge the conclusion the Mueller was instrumental to covering up the full story of the 9/11 catastrophe, and then played a vital role in promoting US military actions in the Mideast—the fantastically expensive and yet counter-productive perma-wars that go on in some form to this day.  

More than few historians have noted that after the JFKA, the US became enmeshed in Vietnam. Aftwr 9/11....

Griffin’s View of 9/11

Author Griffin contends that high-ranking US, Israeli and Saudi leadership, a New York real estate developer, and many hundreds of other operatives had foreknowledge of, or participated in portions of the 9/11 attacks, and Mueller among them. 

Indeed, when the Bush Administration was prospecting for a new FBI chief—one to be installed just before the 9/11 attack— one must assume (if you accept Griffin’s arguments) that a deal was obtained from Mueller that he would play on Team Neocon Bush-Cheney come what may, as a condition of his nomination in July, 2001. 

After all, Bush-Cheney could hardly have an FBI chief, with his enormous investigative capacities, declaring after 9/11, “Our investigation not only leads to Riyadh and Jerusalem, but into the White House itself.” 

Here is a little comic relief: Liz Cheney Likens Jan. 6 'False Flag' Claims to 9/11 'Inside Job' Theory: 'They Are Lies’—

Newsweek, 11/7/21

You know the old joke: How can you tell when Liz Cheney is promoting a Deep State narrative? Her lips are moving. 

 

Back to Griffin

Indeed, Griffin ponders if that “from the point of (Mueller’s) FBI and the Bush administration more generally, the events of 9/11 represented not a failure but a spectacular success.”

If Griffin’s assessment of 9/11 is accurate, Mueller’s character is nearly unfathomably craven. Despite being charged with protecting the American public, Mueller acted—at a very minimum—as a powerful and official accessory after the fact to the murder of 3,000 Americans, though one likely with general foreknowledge of the event. 

Then Mueller played a role in promoting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the oceans of subsequent carnage. 

What conclusions would Griffin and his adherents in the 9/11 research community draw about Mueller’s character? 

The Mueller Report

So comes Mueller, the deepest of Deep State apparatchiks, and man willing to abide by the murder of thousands of Americans and to recklessly promote a volitional war, to the Trump Russiagate scene. 

One might assume Mueller had worse than no credibility, and could be expected to develop or follow a narrative, if the Griffin book is true, or even half-true, or maybe even one-quarter true. 

And in truth, the famed Mueller Report is a Chimaera, the Greek mythological hybrid fire-breathing creature made up of various other animals, at war with itself and all around.

For example, despite two years of investigation, and the ability to seize phone texts, calls and geo-locations, e-mails, computer and paper records, financial documents records including bank accounts, and the ability to depose witnesses, Mueller’s final product states, “The report concludes that the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". 

But, unable to allege, let alone prove, any Trump-Moscow collusion after two years of investigation and all the powers of the panopticon state, the investigators blame the investigated: “Investigators had an incomplete picture of what happened due in part to some communications that were encrypted, deleted, or not saved, as well as testimony that was false, incomplete, or declined.”

That is pretty much of a whimper. 

So why did the DC establishment “go back to the well” and hire the Mueller, the same Deep State apparatchik who colluded on the 9/11 mass-murder coverup? 

Likely, they wanted a proven “made man” who would stick to a narrative. Even if there was no evidence that Trump was a Moscow Stooge, the Deep State wanted that Russiagate show to go on. 

Trump and the Deep State

The idea that the Deep State had and has the long knives out for Trump is not a topic of polite discussion in establishment DC. 

But then Trump is loathed, detested and reviled by the two establishment parties, and their lapdogs in M$M. Trump is the first true outsider President in the postwar era, and a singularly unpleasant fellow to boot.  

Was Trump a Deep State target? Actually, the Shadow Government never made any secret regarding their intentions to torpedo Trump. 

What other aspiring presidential candidate had contemporaneously written about him in the op-ed section of The New York Times, by a one-time director of the CIA: “Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.”

That line was penned by Michel J. Morell, professional lifer in the CIA, a onetime deputy director, and occasional acting director until his retirement in late 2013. 

The Morell missive was run in The Times on August 5, 2016 even before Trump became President. 

The Deep state hardly concealed what it planned to do to Trump. 

But Back To Griffin. Actually….

In truth, large parts of Griffin’s book are unpersuasive, for much the reasons that some JFKA explanations that involve too many witting pre-event participants are unpersuasive.

Conspiracies that involve more than a handful of witting plotters…well, such conspiracies entail a lot of moving parts, a lot of potential loose lips, a lot of huge chances for slip-ups that spill the beans, and lots of potentially credible confessions or exposes thereafter.

My favorite explanation of the JFKA, which I have posted in this forum, involves as little as two, and possibly three or four, witting pre-event participants. (Eladio Del Valle and Hermininio Diaz as the shooters, and possibly a decoy gunshot from the Grassy Knoll. Possibly the assassins were clued in by a higher up in the CIA or the CIA’s Miami station as to how work with and make LHO the patsy. BTW, Del Valle and Diaz were both dead within three years. Dead men tell no tales. https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27073-towards-a-simple-plausible-yet-explanatory-conspiracy-theory/).

That said, there are those who praise Griffin’s book, and Griffin  is likely correct in his contention that the federal investigation into the 9/11 was highly politicized—a Deep State narrative—and like investigations into the JFKA and Trump, drafted as a tale for public consumption. 

My question: Can anything Mueller is connected to be trusted?

Why was Mueller sanctified by the M$M, after his role in the dubious official 9/11 narrative, which even many laypeople think resembles Swiss cheese?

That Mueller is a Deep State apparatchik seem beyond debate. What was his real role in the Mueller Report? 

Why is another Deep State apparatchik, Liz Cheney, heading the Committee For the Perpetual Investigation Into 1/6, which (like the JFKA Warren Commission) quickly and absolutely finds no intel-state involvement in the event? 

BTW, none of this makes Trump a nice guy, or a good President. 

A Deeper Perspective

In the M$M, the Trump Russiagate-Impeach-a-rama are cast in the old paradigm, blue v. red, Donk v. ‘Phant, with a large dash of culture wars in the recipe.  The usual M$M pundits and outlets line up in the well-worn trenches, and fire predictable salvos and serve the kool-aid, blue v. red, to eager partisans. 

But the marriage of the Deep State, the modern-day Democratic Party (and the old, establishment GOP) and the M$M is now so complete, that no establishment versions of the “news” can be trusted.  See the "debunking" and censoring of Wuhan lab leak stories. 

Establishment DC, the Deep State and the M$M want to put a stake through the heart of the populist non-interventionist, anti-neo-con, anti-neo-liberal movement. A movement that does not embrace open borders for trade and illegal immigration. 

Unhappily for earnest democratic-populists, Trump became in the M$M the gruesome figurehead of one of the most-worthy and democratic movements in the postwar era. The visage of Trump allowed the entire democratic-populist movement to be portrayed as “far right,” colored by racism and nativism. 

We can only hope the democratic-populist movement is reborn and upgraded under better leadership. 

Conclusion

The JFKA, the Watergate story and the Trump-Russiagate and Impeach-a-rama follies all appear much deeper than what the M$M presented or presents. 

The JFKA story needs no elaboration here. The Watergate tale has been nuanced and made even more mysterious in recent years with revelations were more CIA-assets on the burglar team than White House personnel. 

E. Howard Hunt, the CIA asset who worked in the White House and led the burglar team, was also sending sealed envelopes by courier to the CIA, while nominally working for Nixon. 

The Russiagate story and the 1/6 scrum at the Capital are similarly mysterious. 

Many have wondered why security was so light in Dallas on 11/22/63. 

Why was security so light at the Capitol on 1/6? 

Here is a bit of an NPR broadcast from Tuesday, January 5, 2021:

Many in Washington, D.C., are worried about civil unrest on Wednesday, as the Proud Boys, a group labeled as extremists by the FBI, and other activists gather to protest just as Congress begins to add its imprimatur to last month's Electoral College vote.

 

So NPR was broadcasting warnings about civil unrest at the Capitol a full day before 1/6.

Yet, the commander of the Capitol Police civil disturbances unit—the official most responsible for protecting the Capitol in a riot—was “at home making meatloaf” on Jan. 6, reports the WaPo. 

The Capitol Police, with 3,500 members, and the DC Metropolitan Police, with 2,500 members, were seen as absent or standing down on Jan. 6. Many protestors texted in real time they had been “let in” to the Capitol. 

Numerous leads regarding federal assets in the crowd on 1/6 have simply not been followed up. 

The 1/6 event of course, has been cast in the tiresome blue v. red paradigm, with CNN, MSNBC, WaPo et al foaming at the mouth, and Fox reporting that nothing important happened. 

Red v. blue. 

As usual, the M$M is likely missing, or even obfuscating the bigger picture, just as they did in the JFKA, Watergate and 9/11.

[W. Niederhut]

Ben,

     I'm relieved to see that you are finally studying some of the 9/11 Truth research literature.  Better late than never.

     Your summary of David Ray Griffin's 9/11 analysis is on target.

     Conversely, your harebrained attempt to use Robert Mueller's (and Liz Cheney's) involvement with the Bush/Cheney/PNAC administration as evidence that Trump's involvement with the Kremlin, and Trump's January 6th coup plot, were Deep State fabrications is ludicrous.

     It's a fallacy of overgeneralization-- erroneous extrapolation from the facts.

     Nice try, but no cigar.

     Trump's Russiagate scandal was no hoax, and his January 6th coup plot was no mere "scrum," as you have endlessly claimed.

     Nor did you ever read the Mueller Report.

     For obvious reasons, many informed people in both political parties were deeply concerned by the prospect of an uneducated, inept, unscrupulous con man like Donald Trump ascending to the Presidency.   To theorize that those rational concerns are evidence of a "Deep State" plot against Trump is nonsense.

    Trump and his PR people-- including Steve Bannon and Fox News-- "discovered" the Deep State in an attempt to deflect blame from the Trump campaign's involvement with the Kremlin in 2016.

     And, as Cliff Varnell, Kirk Galloway and I have pointed out, repeatedly, there was no Deep State/M$M sabotage of Trump's ascension to the Presidency in 2016.   

     The exact opposite was the case.  Hillary Clinton's 2016 candidacy was sabotaged by the M$M-- with weekly M$M headlines about her Email nothing burger during the weeks prior to the election.  She was also sabotaged by James Comey and Rudy Giuliani's FBI-linked, Weiner laptop  October Surprise.

     Simultaneously, the NYT and M$M suppressed pre-election stories about Trump's longstanding enmeshment with the Russian mafia and Putin's oligarchs.

Edited June 25, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

W-

We have different perspectives on recent events. Thanks for reading. 

I do now know how you square Mueller's credibility after 9/11 (if Griffin's book is at all accurate) with any faith in his dubious and inconclusive reports on any topic, including Trump

Mueller aided and abetted in the murder of 3,000 Americans...and then was rehabilitated to tell the truth...about any other topic? 

Keep in mind the Mueller Report, like the 9/11 Commission, like the Warren Commission, like the 1/6 show, like the old HUAC show trials, are akin to prosecutorial briefs in which prosecutors do not have to prove anything, do not have to answer to defense counsel....in fact, they know their findings will not be challenged in a court of law.

No exculpatory evidence is necessarily provided, no one will ever be held accountable for any findings.  

 

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W-

We have different perspectives on recent events. Thanks for reading. 

I do now know how you square Mueller's credibility after 9/11 (if Griffin's book is at all accurate) with any faith in his dubious and inconclusive reports on any topic, including Trump

Mueller aided and abetted in the murder of 3,000 Americans...and then was rehabilitated to tell the truth...about any other topic? 

Keep in mind the Mueller Report, like the 9/11 Commission, like the Warren Commission, like the 1/6 show, like the old HUAC show trials, are akin to prosecutorial briefs in which prosecutors do not have to prove anything, do not have to answer to defense counsel....in fact, they know their findings will not be challenged in a court of law.

No exculpatory evidence is necessarily provided, no one will ever be held accountable for any findings.  

 

Ben,

      Have you read the Mueller Report?

      Are you aware that Trump, Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone stonewalled Mueller's investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign's contacts with Kremlin assets-- even committing perjury, after plea bargaining?

      That Trump floated pardons to Flynn, Manafort, Gates, and Stone during the investigation -- engaging in witness tampering and obstruction of justice?

      Are you aware that Mueller never subpoenaed Donald Trump or his family members during his investigation?

      9/11 and Mueller's partial investigation of Russiagate are two separate, historic events.

      I have no doubt that Mueller has been deeply involved in the U.S. military-industrial complex, (including the Bush/Cheney "War on Terror") going back to his active military service in Vietnam after graduating from Princeton.

      But, in the case of Rod Rosenstein and the Russiagate investigation, my impression is that Robert Mueller, more or less, helped Bill Barr land the Republican plane.

      If you disagree, explain why Mueller never subpoenaed Donald Trump or indicted him for the multiple counts of obstruction of justice detailed in the Mueller Report.

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

      Have you read the Mueller Report?

      Are you aware that Trump, Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone stonewalled Mueller's investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign's contacts with Kremlin assets-- even committing perjury, after plea bargaining?

      That Trump floated pardons to Flynn, Manafort, Gates, and Stone during the investigation -- engaging in witness tampering and obstruction of justice?

      Are you aware that Mueller never subpoenaed Donald Trump or his family members during his investigation?

      9/11 and Mueller's partial investigation of Russiagate are two separate, historic events.

      I have no doubt that Mueller has been deeply involved in the U.S. military-industrial complex, (including the Bush/Cheney "War on Terror") going back to his active military service in Vietnam after graduating from Princeton.

      But, in the case of Rod Rosenstein and the Russiagate investigation, my impression is that Robert Mueller, more or less, helped Bill Barr land the Republican plane.

      If you disagree, explain why Mueller never subpoenaed Donald Trump or indicted him for the multiple counts of obstruction of justice detailed in the Mueller Report.

I have not read the Mueller Report in its entirety. The old "day job" keeps me at bay sometimes...

You may be on to something that Barr and Mueller, reportedly friends (assuming people in DC and Hollywood have "friends"), on some levels worked together regarding Trump.

I speculate that Barr was brought in to provide adult supervision on Trump, and ease his exit out. Trump needs adult supervision, and Barr provided it. 

Mueller did not have anything on Trump---the array of investigative tools the panopticon state has today dwarfs 1984.

If you need people to sign detailed confessions to make your case...you never had a case. 

But you miss the bigger picture: What did the multi-nationals-Deep State-elite truly hate about Trump?

ID politics was just posturing. Yeah, the multinationals care about Detroit so much. Silicon Valley loves American Blacks so much they have vowed to hire and train Black people instead of Indian nationals as software programmers for the next 10 years. In addition to putting the BLM flag in their web pages.

What the Deep State loathed, detested and reviled about Trump was his populism, his questioning of open borders for trade and immigration, and his tariffs on China and The Wall.

(No one has ever explained why the left-wing should be against The Wall. But you are a stupid nativist Trumper if you think The Wall is OK. People are trained by M$M into partisan positions. 

Trump asked out loud why the US has troops in S. Korea yet, or why the US pays for NATO. Trump ridiculed and disagreed with the CIA, the first President to do do. He was loose cannon on deck also. Trump at heart was a non-interventionist. 

Obviously, the globalist-Deep State wanted Trump out.  

The partisan take on US policy making...has limitations. Abortion, gun rights, ID politics color perceptions, and the bigger picture is lost. 

The bigger picture to the destruction of the American middle class. That has happened in fact---and the Donks were NAFTA-happy about it. 'Phants too. 

Getting Nixon out, getting Trump out...nothing changes.

Liz Cheney is HRC wearing a wig and glasses. 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

11 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Whatever.

Interesting genealogy, and there is no doubting Mueller's upper-crust credentials, nor his allegiance to establishment power. 

In general, I refuse to play ID politics, and do not care about a person's ancestry. No one is guilty or liable or sanctified  for what ancestors did. 

In this particular case, Mueller's family history is interesting information. 

Still, no doubt Mueller is a Deep State apparatchik, of his own accord, and has made his history, even if his dad was a millwright. 

So...given this context...what was the Mueller Russiagate Hoax about? 

 

[Ron Ege]

Benjamin, your posts give much food for thought.  For me, being around now for just shy of 80 years, that old Denmark quote too often comes to mind.  

[Andrew Prutsok]

A good post. My only point of contention with the "deep state had it in for Trump," is if it were true, why didn't it just blow his brains out or shoot his plane out of the sky, which is their usual MO. Hell, Comey gave him the final boost he needed to be elected with his Weiner laptop bullshit, with the help of the New York Times which relentless stoked the stupid email server stuff throughout the entire campaign.

I wonder if any of the 911 hijackers ever lived with the Paines?

[W. Niederhut]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

In the same post where Ben admits that he never actually read the Mueller Report, he insists that Mueller, "did not have anything on Trump..."   Huh?

What about multiple counts of obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and stonewalling of critical evidence by key witnesses?

Ben's concepts of both Russiagate and Trump's January 6th coup attempt seem to come not from primary sources, but from Trumplican pundits and propagandists in the right wing media.

Surely, Mueller was  Deep State, MIC player.

But why did Mueller never subpoena Donald Trump, Don, Jr., Ivanka, or Kushner?

IMO, he wasn't persecuting Trump, as Ben erroneously theorizes.

He was landing the Republican Russiagate plane, with Rosenstein and Barr as co-pilots.

Edited June 30, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

The Deep State didn't get their guy ("girl" Hillary, in this case) in, so they tried a few methods to get Trump out early.

Bernie was not going to protect the Deep States drugs, trafficking and weapons sales franchises either, so they got rid of him early in the process.

If you really look at Bernie's treatment, you can see how the 2016 election was not about Democrats vs. Republicans.

It was about Insiders [(the Deep State versus Outsiders (represented by Trump and Bernie)]. Bernie probably would have beaten Trump.

 

Geez, Robert.  Surely, you aren't clueless enough to deny Trump's longstanding enmeshment with Putin's oligarchs.

https://www.amazon.com/Putins-People-Took-Back-Russia-ebook/dp/B07VMZYK13

Do you also believe that Putin and the GRU didn't conspire to put Trump in the White House in 2016-- trolling social media and hacking multiple voter registration databases throughout the U.S.-- as the Republican-controlled Senate Intel Committee confirmed?

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf

That Paul Manafort wasn't a long-term Kremlin employee prior to 2016?

That Manafort didn't repeatedly lie about his 2016 campaign contacts with GRU asset Konstantin Kilimnik-- even after he agreed to cooperate with Mueller's investigation?

That Michael Flynn didn't lie about his 2016 efforts to sabotage U.S. sanctions imposed against Russia for meddling in our election?

That Trump didn't fire James Comey to shut down the FBI investigation of Flynn's Russia contacts, as Trump told Lavrov afterwards?

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Geez, Robert.  Surely, you aren't clueless enough to deny Trump's longstanding enmeshment with Putin's oligarchs.

https://www.amazon.com/Putins-People-Took-Back-Russia-ebook/dp/B07VMZYK13

Do you also believe that Putin and the GRU didn't conspire to put Trump in the White House in 2016-- trolling social media and hacking multiple voter registration databases throughout the U.S.-- as the Republican-controlled Senate Intel Committee confirmed?

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume1.pdf

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf

That Paul Manafort wasn't a long-term Kremlin employee prior to 2016?

That Manafort didn't repeatedly lie about his 2016 campaign contacts with GRU asset Konstantin Kilimnik-- even after he agreed to cooperate with Mueller's investigation?

That Michael Flynn didn't lie about his 2016 efforts to sabotage U.S. sanctions imposed against Russia for meddling in our election?

That Trump didn't fire James Comey to shut down the FBI investigation of Flynn's Russia contacts, as Trump told Lavrov afterwards?

 

W.--

There just doesn't seem to be "any there there" to the Russiagate Hoax (apols to Gertrude Stein). 

"Links" and "ties," and Kilimnick might have had "links and ties" to Russian intel....If Kilimnick was a Moscow informant, did anyone know it? 

This sloppy use of language is familiar to those old enough to remember the 1950s and 1960s. People were savaged for having "links and ties" to socialist or communist organizations, or people in such organizations. 

I am happy to let the courts decide on Trump and he is accorded what I accord anyone, that is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. You might wish to adopt such a principle. 

What is your take on why Putin invaded Ukraine on Biden's watch, and not on Trump's? 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

The Deep State didn't get their guy ("girl" Hillary, in this case) in, so they tried a few methods to get Trump out early.

Bernie was not going to protect the Deep States drugs, trafficking and weapons sales franchises either, so they got rid of him early in the process.

If you really look at Bernie's treatment, you can see how the 2016 election was not about Democrats vs. Republicans.

It was about Insiders [(the Deep State versus Outsiders (represented by Trump and Bernie)]. Bernie probably would have beaten Trump.

 

I agree that the globalist establishment recoiled in horror at the outsider Trump winning the White House, and one with populist macroeconomic policies, the worst sin of all time (no more open borders for trade with China and illegal immigration). 

Explain to me again why anyone is against a wall on the southern border---unless you want to flow of desperate cheap labor to into America to continue, undercutting wages. Bernie Sanders know this. 

Sadly, Trump has more personality flaws than any other dozen men on the planet put together. As much as I admire his macroeconomic policies, and his respect for free speech (lacking in the Donks), Trump appears to lack the personality of a President. 

Even Donna Brazile says HRC forces stole the 2020 nomination from Sanders. There is something Nixonian about HRC. 

We see from the fawning 1/6 Cheney-crat Committee coverage (Trump lunged at the wheel of his limo, there were armed mobs of Trump supporters invading the Capitol) how compromised the M$M is today. Sadly, even members of this Forum appear to drink the M$M kool-aid. 

I hope an earnest populist emerges to take Trump's place, one without Trump's weakness.

In the end, Trump, like abortion, gun rights, ID politics, is a diversionary and divisive distraction. Something for the kool-aid drinkers. 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W.--

There just doesn't seem to be "any there there" to the Russiagate Hoax (apols to Gertrude Stein). 

 

 

 

There's a lot of there there, Ben.   You have simply chosen to ignore the facts.

Did you ever study that excellent Atlantic article by Franklin Foer that I posted for you, Russiagate Was Not a Hoax? *

(I'll re-post it for you and Rob Wheeler.)

 

*   Russiagate Was Not a Hoax - The Atlantic

[Paul Brancato]

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

There's a lot of there there, Ben.   You have simply chosen to ignore the facts.

Did you ever study that excellent Atlantic article by Franklin Foer that I posted for you, Russiagate Was Not a Hoax? *

(I'll re-post it for you and Rob Wheeler.)

 

*   Russiagate Was Not a Hoax - The Atlantic

This article is so disturbing on so many levels. 

[Jeff Carter]

Franklin Foer’s Atlantic article essentially concedes that the Kilimnik “theory” is not only an evidence-free speculation, but investigators could not even articulate what they think may have happened. That Manafort and Kilimnik “spoke” during the 2016 campaign is repeatedly dangled as some sort of mysterious unprecedented event, but the rarely noted obvious fact is that the two men were close business partners for a decade and spoke pretty much every single day for all that time. And that Kilimnik was a trusted informant for US State Dept officials attached to the US Embassy in Kiev, and had been for years. And prior to joining Manafort, Kliminik was employed by the NED-financed International Republican Institute in Moscow for a decade as well. Foer describes Kilimnik’s relationship with Manafort as a massive political scandal, but never refers to his ties to US State or intelligence-linked IRI? What kind of journalism is that?

Rick Gates, who was a cooperative witness to Mueller and the third leg of the Manafort office, has consistently stated that the alleged Kilimnik-GRU ties are nonsense, and that the “polling data” was nothing more than what was routinely published in US mainstream media. Again, that never figures in the breathless speculation or supposedly "objective" journalism.