Benjamin Cole Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) A fascinating non-partisan interview with John Kiriakou, the CIA whistleblower sent to prison on very weak charges by the Obama Administration. Charges the Bush jr. Administration declined to file. For whatever reason, the Obama Administration was known for prosecuting whistleblowers. Kikiakou has modest expectations for the new 'Phant House committee, as it will likely be partisan and also staffed by...CIA'ers. You can't make this stuff up. Unfortunately, no discussion about the JFKA. Verily, you think those CIA staffers are going hellbent into the JFKA? Does anybody ever take on the CIA? Kikiakou does refer to the Russiagate Hoax. It is remarkable how many serious students of the intel state regard Russiagate as a fraud, leading to questions about a soft coup attempt (replay of the Nixon episode?). As with Nixon, this does not make Trump a nice guy. It is just a reflection on how the intel state and the long knives of Washington work. Edited January 24, 2023 by Benjamin Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 YouTube videos are nice for opinion pieces, but reality seems to often interfere with such propaganda. I'm curious to see how you explain this, Ben. The article is free to read. https://wapo.st/3ZVgxIJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 24, 2023 Author Share Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 5 hours ago, Matt Allison said: YouTube videos are nice for opinion pieces, but reality seems to often interfere with such propaganda. I'm curious to see how you explain this, Ben. The article is free to read. https://wapo.st/3ZVgxIJ Matt: Thanks for posting a free article. Those of us counting our pennies on pensions are grateful. The WaPo story doesn't seem to have all that much to do with Kikiakou's observations, or that the Church Committee II is going to be a partisan effort staffed up with CIA'ers. And the JFKA may be off bounds...once again. YouTube carries presenters with op-eds, and WaPo has op-eds. It is not the medium, it is the presenters and what they say, that is important. I would not dismiss content on YouTube, anymore than I would dismiss all content in print. From WaPo: The FBI’s former top spy hunter in New York was charged Monday with taking secret cash payments of more than $225,000 while overseeing highly sensitive cases, and breaking the law by trying to get Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska removed from a U.S. sanctions list — accusations that shocked the cloistered world of his fellow high-ranking intelligence officials. It appears the FBI official McGonigal may have been corrupted by Russian oligarch money...although we should wait for trial and jury decision. These are only charges, accusations. Also Albanian money. The twin indictments are also a black eye for the FBI, alleging that one of its most senior and trusted intelligence officials accepted large sums of money and undermined the bureau’s overall intelligence-gathering mission. So it looks like the feds are prosecuting the defendant in two courts concurrently. I am always uneasy when the federal government, with unlimited resources, brings large and complicated cases against people with "ordinary" resources. Obviously, it is necessary sometimes. Two concurrent federal cases against McGonigal, in different jurisdictions? I remember what one defendant said or court expenses: "Oh, I will win, and I also will eating dog food the rest of my life if I stay out of jail." White-collar or complicated cases are beyond the purview of public defenders. It is charged the Manafort's old business buddy---or rather someone from whom Manafort may have swiped $14 million---Deripaska, is the source of money that corrupted McGonigal. Did Derispaska first corrupt Trump, and then the FBI? Maybe so. I will accept whatever our judicial system renders. It sure looks like Washington is for sale, especially for large sums of foreign money. Edited January 24, 2023 by Benjamin Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 Hmm, I don't think you're quite getting the implications of that arrest. This should help: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 There are obvious Trump - Russia ties. Looks likely we have a corrupted high ranking FBI official. But does anyone believe Russia put Trump in the WH? If Comey gets charged, or if it turns out that Comey’s pre-election revelations about Hillary Clinton were driven by McGonigal or Manafort that would be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted January 24, 2023 Share Posted January 24, 2023 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said: There are obvious Trump - Russia ties. Looks likely we have a corrupted high ranking FBI official. But does anyone believe Russia put Trump in the WH? If Comey gets charged, or if it turns out that Comey’s pre-election revelations about Hillary Clinton were driven by McGonigal or Manafort that would be interesting. Anonymous FBI official(s) in New York were a continuous source of alleged "leaks" to the M$M about Hillary's Emails during the weeks leading up to the 2016 election. The NYT ran weekly, pre-election headline news stories about Hillary's Email-gate nothing burger-- as documented retrospectively by Harvard's Berman Center and the Columbia Journalism Review. Simultaneously, Dean Baquet explicitly put the kibosh on any pre-election NYT stories about Trump's ties to Russia, as we learned in 2017. Trump also received Russian funds in 2016 through the NRA, and probably other sources. ($30 million from the NRA alone for Donald that year.) Kevin McCarthy was caught on open mic joking with Paul Ryan in (?) 2017 about the fact that Russia had funded Trump's 2016 Presidential campaign. (It's not surprising, especially since Russian oligarchs had been bankrolling the Trump Organization since the early 1990s, according to Belton,* and Felix Sater bragged in 2015 that Putin was going to put Trump in the White House.) Russian military intelligence (GRU) also hacked multiple U.S. state voter registration databases in 2016, and Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, had shared sensitive polling data with Russian GRU agent Konstantin Kilimnik before the election. The GRU, certainly, knew in 2016 which U.S. swing states could be swung with the fewest invalidated votes. * https://www.amazon.com/Putins-People-Took-Back-Russia/dp/0374238715 Edited January 24, 2023 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 25, 2023 Author Share Posted January 25, 2023 48 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: Anonymous FBI official(s) in New York were a continuous source of alleged "leaks" to the M$M about Hillary's Emails during the weeks leading up to the 2016 election. The NYT ran weekly, pre-election headline news stories about Hillary's Email-gate nothing burger-- as documented retrospectively by Harvard's Berman Center and the Columbia Journalism Review. Simultaneously, Dean Baquet explicitly put the kibosh on any pre-election NYT stories about Trump's ties to Russia, as we learned in 2017. Trump also received Russian funds in 2016 through the NRA, and probably other sources. ($30 million from the NRA alone for Donald that year.) Kevin McCarthy was caught on open mic joking with Paul Ryan in (?) 2017 about the fact that Russia had funded Trump's 2016 Presidential campaign. (It's not surprising, especially since Russian oligarchs had been bankrolling the Trump Organization since the early 1990s, according to Belton,* and Felix Sater bragged in 2015 that Putin was going to put Trump in the White House.) Russian military intelligence (GRU) also hacked multiple U.S. state voter registration databases in 2016, and Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, had shared sensitive polling data with Russian GRU agent Konstantin Kilimnik before the election. The GRU, certainly, knew in 2016 which U.S. swing states could be swung with the fewest invalidated votes. * https://www.amazon.com/Putins-People-Took-Back-Russia/dp/0374238715 W- But how many Donks switched votes on Hillary e-mail stories, or the now debunked Russian bots phantasm? My guess is dozens perhaps, nationwide. Also, wasn't the "Russians corrupted the US election" meme a Donk-calculated method to delegitimize the Trump victory, a precursor of the "stolen election" myth perped by the 'Phants? Also, what do think when an extremely knowledgable and admirable man, John Kiriakou, former CIA official put into prison on dubious charges for revealing info about US-sanctioned torture, calls Russiagate a hoax? You are well-read...but I would bet Kiriakou is better informed than you. After all, Kiriakou has spent his professional life immersed in the Deep State or tracking it.... If Russiagate was a hoax...and it seems it was...then did we witness a soft coup attempt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 25, 2023 Author Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said: There are obvious Trump - Russia ties. Looks likely we have a corrupted high ranking FBI official. But does anyone believe Russia put Trump in the WH? If Comey gets charged, or if it turns out that Comey’s pre-election revelations about Hillary Clinton were driven by McGonigal or Manafort that would be interesting. Paul-- I believe the Donks put Trump into the White House by abandoning the middle and employee classes. The Donks don't even hide it anymore. They want open borders especially for cheap labor, and Biden put the knife into railroad unions. The Donks have made every effort to divide their voting base by sex, race and even private sexual preferences. While pandering to Silicon Valley, multinationals, Wall Street and media interests. The 'Phants have their own foibles, worse in some ways. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 25, 2023 Author Share Posted January 25, 2023 2 hours ago, Matt Allison said: Yes...but so what? An FBI official has been corrupted by Russian and Albanian money. And that means Trump was bought off too? BTW, by some accounts Manafort stole $14 million from Deripaska. I guess Deripaska thought so. I am the first to say Washington floats on a pool of lobbyist money, foreign and domestic. Suppose Derispaska wanted revenge on Manafort, for Manafort eloping with $14 million of his money. So Deripaska corrupts some FBI guys to concoct a case again Manafort and Manafort's buddy, Trump. What would that take? A few million? Once again, let me say, "Fine, accusations and charges are only that. Let us see what comes out in public court, and what a jury rules. I accept all jury decisions." We have John Kiriakou calling Russiagate a hoax. What is the genesis of that hoax? Why was the FBI (with a willing M$M and Donk party) hoaxing the US public. Do you know? Did we witness a soft coup attempt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said: Do you know? Did we witness a soft coup attempt? Nope. Trump and the MAGAs colluded with the Russians, as W so ably pointed out to you yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 New York Times G.O.P.-Led Senate Panel Details Ties Between 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia A nearly 1,000-page report confirmed the special counsel’s findings at a moment when President Trump’s allies have sought to undermine that inquiry. By Mark Mazzetti Published Aug. 18, 2020Updated Nov. 4, 2020 WASHINGTON — A sprawling report released Tuesday by a Republican-controlled Senate panel that spent three years investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election laid out an extensive web of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Kremlin officials and other Russians, including at least one intelligence officer and others tied to the country’s spy services. The report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, drew to a close one of the highest-profile congressional investigations in recent memory and could be the last word from an official government inquiry about the expansive Russian campaign to sabotage the 2016 election. It provided a bipartisan Senate imprimatur for an extraordinary set of facts: The Russian government disrupted an American election to help Mr. Trump become president, Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were eager for the help from an American adversary. The report portrayed a Trump campaign that was stocked with businessmen with no government experience, advisers working at the fringes of the foreign policy establishment and other friends and associates Mr. Trump had accumulated over the years. Campaign figures, the report said, “presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities.” Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians Donald J. Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, during the 2016 campaign and presidential transition. Like the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who released his findings in April 2019, the Senate report did not conclude that the Trump campaign engaged in a coordinated conspiracy with the Russian government — a fact that Republicans seized on to argue that there was “no collusion.” But the report showed extensive evidence of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and people tied to the Kremlin — including a longstanding associate of the onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, whom the report identified as a “Russian intelligence officer.” The Senate report was the first time the government has identified Mr. Kilimnik as an intelligence officer — Mr. Mueller’s report had labeled him as someone with ties to Russian intelligence. Most of the details about his intelligence background were blacked out in the Senate report. Mr. Manafort’s willingness to share information with Mr. Kilimnik and others affiliated with the Russian intelligence services “represented a grave counterintelligence threat,” the report said. It also included a potentially explosive detail: that investigators had uncovered information possibly tying Mr. Kilimnik to Russia’s major election interference operations, conducted by the intelligence service known as the G.R.U. Democrats highlighted Mr. Kilimnik’s potential ties to the interference operations in their own appendix to the report, noting that Mr. Manafort discussed campaign strategy and shared internal campaign polling data with the Russian and later lied to federal investigators about his actions. “This is what collusion looks like,” Democrats wrote. Their assertion was a sign that even though the investigation was carried out in bipartisan fashion, and Republican and Democratic senators reached broad agreement on its most significant conclusions, a partisan divide remained on some of the most politically delicate issues. The report is an exhaustive look at the various ways that the Kremlin’s intelligence services exploited ties to the Trump campaign to help carry out a stealth attack on American democracy. By focusing on the Russian actions as a national security threat, the Senate investigation differed from the Mueller inquiry, which examined whether there was evidence to charge anyone with specific crimes. The Senate investigation found that two other Russians who met at Trump Tower in 2016 with senior members of the Trump campaign — including Mr. Manafort; Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law; and Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son — had “significant connections to Russian government, including the Russian intelligence services.” Links between the Kremlin and one of the individuals, Natalia V. Veselnitskaya, “were far more extensive and concerning than what had been publicly known,” the report said. The report’s findings about Mr. Kilimnik and other Russians in touch with Trump campaign advisers confirmed an article in The New York Times from 2017 that said there had been numerous interactions between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence in the year before the election. F.B.I. officials had disputed the report. Though there was no evidence of any agreement between the Russians and the Trump campaign to work together, there was clear coordination, said Senator Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with the Democrats and is a member of the Intelligence Committee. “The Russians were doing things to disrupt American democracy and help the Trump campaign and the Trump campaign was doing things to amplify and utilize what the Russians were supplying,” Mr. King said in an interview. “There may not have been an explicit agreement but they were both consciously pursing the same end, which was the election of Donald Trump. And for the Russians, the extra benefit was disrupting American democracy.” The president and his allies have long tried to discredit the government investigations into the 2016 election as part of a “witch hunt” intended to undermine the legitimacy of Mr. Trump’s stunning election. Since the release of Mr. Mueller’s report, Attorney General William P. Barr and numerous Republican senators have recast the president as the victim of politically motivated national security officials in the Obama administration. Releasing the report less than 100 days before Election Day, lawmakers hoped it would refocus attention on the interference by Russia and other hostile foreign powers in the American political process, which has continued unabated. Members of Mr. Trump’s own party led the Intelligence Committee’s work. Much of the investigation was overseen by Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina, but he temporarily stepped aside as the chairman of the panel in May because of a federal investigation into stock sales he made before the coronavirus pandemic began rattling the United States. He was succeeded by Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, though Mr. Burr voted to endorse the report’s conclusions. The report could have partisan benefits for Democrats, who were using their convention this week as a platform to portray Mr. Trump as unfit and incapable of being president. Andrew Bates, a spokesman for former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said the report showed “the Russian government intervened in 2016 to help Donald Trump get elected and to undermine our democracy. Donald Trump welcomed it with open arms. They are working toward the same goals again this year, and Trump refuses to reject their assistance.” President Trump called the report “a hoax,” but a White House spokesman said it helped confirm what the president and his allies had long said — “that there was absolutely no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. “This never-ending, baseless conspiracy theory peddled by radical liberals and their partners in the media demonstrates how incapable they are at accepting the will of the American people and the results of the 2016 election,” said the spokesman, Judd Deere. The report is the product of one of the few congressional investigations in recent memory that retained bipartisan support throughout. Lawmakers and committee aides interviewed more than 200 witnesses and reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents, including intelligence reports, internal F.B.I. notes and correspondence among members of the Trump campaign. The committee convened hearings in 2017 and 2018, but most of its work took place out of public view. The report suggested that Mr. Manafort was compromised by his financial ties with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs, who themselves were connected to Mr. Kilimnik, the Russian intelligence operative. It cited Mr. Manafort’s ties to Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch described as a “proxy” for Russian state and intelligence services who claimed that Mr. Manafort owed him money. And it described at length Mr. Manafort’s relationships with a cluster of pro-Russia oligarchs in Ukraine, who had paid him tens of millions of dollars as a political consultant in Ukraine. “Manafort conducted influence operations that supported and were a part of Russian active measures campaigns, including those involving political influence and electoral interference,” the report said. Before, during and after he was forced out as Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, the report said, Mr. Manafort offered inside information and assistance to these Russian-aligned interests. Mr. Kilimnik was Mr. Manafort’s intermediary with both Mr. Deripaska and the Ukrainian oligarchs, according to the report. It recounted how he briefed Mr. Kilimnik at an August 2016 meeting on the Trump campaign’s strategy to defeat Hillary Clinton, describing efforts in the battleground states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Minnesota and the margins by which Mr. Trump might win. The report also shed new light on the interaction between Russian intelligence and WikiLeaks — and between WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign. WikiLeaks, which released tranches of stolen Democratic emails that helped damage Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, not only played a clear role in the election interference but also “very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort,” the report said. The Intelligence Committee sought to track calls between Mr. Trump and Roger J. Stone Jr. — an adviser to the Trump campaign who was in contact with Guccifer 2.0, the online pseudonym for Russian intelligence operatives dumping the Democratic emails — in an effort to discover what Mr. Stone might have told Mr. Trump about the hacked emails. In written answers to Mr. Mueller, Mr. Trump said he could not recall discussing WikiLeaks with Mr. Stone, a response challenged in the Senate report. “The committee assesses that Trump did, in fact, speak with Stone about WikiLeaks and with members of his Campaign about Stone’s access to WikiLeaks on multiple occasions,” the report said. Last month, Mr. Trump commuted a prison sentence Mr. Stone had received after he was convicted on seven felonies of obstructing a congressional investigation that threatened the president, his longtime friend. The committee sent a letter last summer to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington suggesting that Trump campaign advisers may have illegally made false or misleading statements to congressional investigators conducting the panel’s inquiry, according to four people with knowledge of the letter, which was first reported by The Los Angeles Times. The committee said in the letter that Mr. Trump’s onetime chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon and his former campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis may have committed a crime by lying under oath, and they cast doubt on the testimony of Donald J. Trump Jr. and Mr. Kushner. Prosecutors never filed charges. Mr. Barr has appointed a criminal prosecutor, John H. Durham, to review the actions that intelligence and law enforcement officials took in 2016 to better understand the Kremlin’s interference campaign and interactions between Russians and Trump campaign advisers. Last month, Mr. Barr told a congressional committee that he was determined “to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus ‘Russiagate’ scandal.” The Justice Department’s independent inspector general has found that law enforcement officials had sufficient basis to open the Russia investigation and acted without political bias. But the Senate report did criticize the F.B.I., saying the bureau should have done more to alert higher-level officials at the Democratic National Committee that their servers may have been infiltrated by Russian hackers. It also criticized the bureau’s handling of the so-called Steele dossier, a compendium of rumors about purported Trump-Russia links compiled by Christopher Steele, a British former intelligence agent. The bureau used some of Mr. Steele’s information in applications to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser. The Senate report nonetheless endorsed the F.B.I.’s decision to investigate Mr. Page. “Page’s previous ties to Russian intelligence officers, coupled with his Russian travel, justified the F.B.I.’s initial concerns about Page,” it said. The report portrayed the dossier as shoddy and criticized the F.B.I.’s vetting of Mr. Steele as “not sufficiently rigorous or thorough.” At the same time, it dove into one of the main subjects of the dossier — whether the Russian government has compromising material on Mr. Trump from his past business dealings in Moscow. The report explicitly said it “did not establish” that the Russian government obtained any compromising material on Mr. Trump or that it tried to use such materials as leverage against him. It did, however, spend pages describing Mr. Trump’s relationships with women in Moscow during his trips there starting in the mid-1990s, when he began looking for sites to build a Trump Tower. Mr. Deere, the White House spokesman, did not comment on those details in the report. According to the report, Mr. Trump met a former Miss Moscow at a party during one trip in 1996. After the party, a Trump associate told others he had seen Mr. Trump with the woman on multiple occasions and that they “might have had a brief romantic relationship.” The report also raised the possibility that, during that trip, Mr. Trump spent the night with two young women who joined him the next morning at a business meeting with the mayor of Moscow. Reporting was contributed by Charlie Savage, Sharon LaFraniere, Julian E. Barnes, Michael S. Schmidt, Nicholas Fandos and Katie Benner. Mark Mazzetti is a Washington investigative correspondent, a job he assumed after covering national security from the Washington bureau for 10 years. He was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on Donald Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia. @MarkMazzettiNYT A version of this article appears in print on Aug. 19, 2020, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Senate Panel Ties Russian Officials to Trump’s Aides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 25, 2023 Author Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, Matt Allison said: Nope. Trump and the MAGAs colluded with the Russians, as W so ably pointed out to you yet again. Matt: You are making a statement. But John Kiriakou, and many others (Bret Stephens, Aaron Mate, Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, Kim Iversen) say they regard the Mueller Report as an "elaborate hoax." I do wish Kiriakou had expounded more on the why---why does he regard Russiagate as a hoax. He writes for the LA Progressive, a paper-website in my old hometown. Maybe I can get him to explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 25, 2023 Share Posted January 25, 2023 Ben- I don't know enough about Kiriakou to proffer a theory on what his motives or agenda is, or how much it aligns with the America-haters you also mentioned, but Russiagate was not a "hoax" in any way, shape or form. That is why above I posted the entirety of the NYT article discussing the conclusions of the Republican Senate Select committee on Trump and his collusion with the Russians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 25, 2023 Author Share Posted January 25, 2023 1 hour ago, Matt Allison said: Ben- I don't know enough about Kiriakou to proffer a theory on what his motives or agenda is, or how much it aligns with the America-haters you also mentioned, but Russiagate was not a "hoax" in any way, shape or form. That is why above I posted the entirety of the NYT article discussing the conclusions of the Republican Senate Select committee on Trump and his collusion with the Russians. Like the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who released his findings in April 2019, the Senate report did not conclude that the Trump campaign engaged in a coordinated conspiracy with the Russian government"--NYT From the story above. Even with the slanted NYT wording...no there, there. Here's the problem: Words like "extensive" are loaded. You and I have had "extensive" contacts by some measures. Have I corrupted you? I love conspiracies, but even I know when you read words like "linked" or "tied" or "contacts" you get into mushy territory. Remember the whole Carter Page fandango? People can have meetings---unless we know what was said or agreed upon...we have nothing. And we have to assume innocence until proven guilty, in a court of law. Can you ID a US policy that was made under Russian duress? If Trump was a Russian stooge or asset, and he did something prosecutable, fine, let it rip. If he is found guilty in a court of law, fine, if he skates, so be it, if he is exonerated, then good. Political bodies and their investigations...are not so convincing. The WC, the 9/11 Commission, the Flight 800 investigation. I will try to contact John Kiriakou, and see if he will flesh out his view that Russiagate was a hoax. Maybe he even has some insights on the JFKA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now