Thankyou, Tucker Carlson!!

[Leslie Sharp]

19 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

We disagree on recent events.

I do not accuse you of perpetuating a falsehood, only that you have a different point of view than mine. 

 

You can't accuse me for the simple reason I'm not perpetuating the falsehood that Trump won the 2020 election which must be the foundation of your view that there was a regime change.  

You have no evidence 2020 was stolen, nor does anyone else, yet you insist that your views should be 'respected'. Couching lies as "views" is absurd.  

Do the research yourself, and I challenge you to provide a single instance (other that an obscure case ruled on a technicality) of fraud sufficient to throw the election to Trump?

We do have evidence, videos and testimony, that Trump intended to interrupt the peaceful transfer of presidential power.  That is an attempted Coup.  

Edited March 17, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Benjamin Cole]

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You can't accuse me for the simple reason I'm not perpetuating the falsehood that Trump won the 2020 election.  

You have no evidence 2020 was stolen, nor does anyone else, yet you insist that your views should be 'respected'. Couching lies as "views" is absurd.  

Do the research yourself, and I challenge you to provide a single instance (other that an obscure case ruled on a technicality) of fraud sufficient to throw the election to Trump?  

I did not say the 2020 election was stolen.

I concur that Russiagate was largely a hoax, and I am very skeptical of the official Jan. 6 narrative. 

The two above episodes, and many smaller ones, appear to be events and narratives intended to undercut the Trump and populist wings of the 'Phants.

That is my view.  

In my view the national security state loathed, detested and reviled Trump, and used available investigative tools, prosecutorial agencies and party affiliations accordingly.  

You have a different point of view. That is fine. I do not accuse you of perpetuating lies. 

BTW, check out this article on the easy hackability of voting machines. From the NYT magazine, cover story, in 2018. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/magazine/election-security-crisis-midterms.html

A crisis! So...why did the NYT say the 2018 elections were very vulnerable to hacking...and go mute on the topic in 2020? 

Keep an open mind, and engage in civil conversation. 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

10 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Ben- those that deal in facts rather than opinion/speculation are likely to be considered more valuable contributors in pretty much any societal scenario you can think of.

Yes.

I do not accuse or suggest you deal only in speculation and opinion. 

I look forward to your contributions and points of view. 

[Leslie Sharp]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I did not say the 2020 election was stolen.

I concur that Russiagate was largely a hoax, and I am very skeptical of the official Jan. 6 narrative. 

The two above episodes, and many smaller ones, appear to be events and narratives intended to undercut the Trump and populist wings of the 'Phants.

That is my view.  

In my view the national security state loathed, detested and reviled Trump, and used available investigative tools, prosecutorial agencies and party affiliations accordingly.  

You have a different point of view. That is fine. I do not accuse you of perpetuating lies. 

BTW, check out this article on the easy hackability of voting machines. From the NYT magazine, cover story, in 2018. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/magazine/election-security-crisis-midterms.html

 

 

A crisis! So...why did the NYT say the 2018 elections were very vulnerable to hacking...and go mute on the topic in 2020? 

Keep an open mind, and engage in civil conversation. 

 

 

Notice your exclamation mark, Ben.

How am I being uncivil?  I'm stating fact with as little hyperbole as I can muster when dealing with propaganda.

 You view 2020 as a regime change.  Facts prove otherwise.  Facts also prove that Trump attempted to seize power by other means than the peaceful transfer of presidential power on January 6.  

Fact, not view, speaking of open minds.
 

Fulton County special grand jury heard second Trump call with top Georgia lawmaker

NBC confirmed the news with a foreperson for the special grand jury Wednesday night.https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/fulton-county-special-grand-jury-second-trump-call/85-b5f95e59-d2f3-4f13-80be-ce00e62f2dda

Georgia grand jury heard third Trump call attempting to influence 2020 election results

 Georgia grand jury heard third Trump call attempting to influence 2020 election resultsEx-president’s calls to state officials could lead to unprecedented criminal charges.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-grand-jury-georgia-call-2020-elections-b2302047.html

Edited March 17, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Benjamin Cole]

4 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Notice your exclamation mark, Ben.

How am I being uncivil?  I'm stating fact with as little hyperbole as I can muster when dealing with propaganda.

 You view 2020 as a regime change.  Facts prove otherwise.  Facts also prove that Trump attempted to seize power by other means than the peaceful transfer of presidential power on January 6.  

Fact, not view, speaking of open minds.
 

Fulton County special grand jury heard second Trump call with top Georgia lawmaker

NBC confirmed the news with a foreperson for the special grand jury Wednesday night.https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/fulton-county-special-grand-jury-second-trump-call/85-b5f95e59-d2f3-4f13-80be-ce00e62f2dda

We have different perspectives. I do not accuse you of propagating lies, or disinformation. 

I value your contributions to the EF, and encourage your participation. 

[Leslie Sharp]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

We have different perspectives. I do not accuse you of propagating lies, or disinformation. 

I value your contributions to the EF, and encourage your participation. 

Well that's very nice, Ben.  It does not however mitigate the fact that you cannot prove there was a Regime Change in 2020, and that you seem to reject that Trump attempted his own coup by disrupting the process in Georgia, and other states, that culminated on Jan. 6 in his attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power.  If you have a "perspective" on those events, I would very much like to hear it, and I will listen with an open ear.

[Paul Brancato]

Ben - What about the elections of 2000, 2004, 2016? Were you similarly wary? Ms. Clinton did not seem to me to have the support of the National Security State, at least not the FBI. Btw I’ve been an opponent of voting machines for a long time. 
i could and will turn things on their head. I think Trump is a crook and a xxxx. I’ve been hearing about investigations going back 15 years. Yet he’s still out there, still running for President and taking in $millions from his followers. I’d say the official effort to get rid of him is compromised. 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Well that's very nice, Ben.  It does not however mitigate the fact that you cannot prove there was a Regime Change in 2020, and that you seem to reject that Trump attempted his own coup by disrupting the process in Georgia, and other states, that culminated on Jan. 6 in his attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power.  If you have a "perspective" on those events, I would very much like to hear it, and I will listen with an open ear.

I am planning a post on the JFK, Nixon and Trump regime changes. 

I doubt it will meet with your favor, or maybe anyone else's. 

It is hard, even at this late date, to nail down the "facts" of the JFKA. The WC and HSCA failed, IMHO.

Similarly, my interpretations of the Nixon and Trump departures can be criticized for not relying on "fact."

So it goes. 

I look forward to your perspectives and opinions of how those three President left office. I will treat your presentations as earnest. 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ben - What about the elections of 2000, 2004, 2016? Were you similarly wary? Ms. Clinton did not seem to me to have the support of the National Security State, at least not the FBI. Btw I’ve been an opponent of voting machines for a long time. 
i could and will turn things on their head. I think Trump is a crook and a xxxx. I’ve been hearing about investigations going back 15 years. Yet he’s still out there, still running for President and taking in $millions from his followers. I’d say the official effort to get rid of him is compromised. 

Paul-

Actually, I think Bush jr. more or less "stole" the 2000 election, through the Florida thing. Many serious scholars think Bush stole 2004 through manipulation of Ohio absentee ballots. 

Paul--I am not approaching this topic of toppling Presidents through the red-blue pissing wars lens.

I am approaching from the perspective of an intel state (the globalist tool) removing Presidents they do not favor---in the JFK case brutally, in the Nixon and Trump cases through the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the state, matched with party hostilities and affiliated M$M. 

I hope I am treated civilly in this regard---I regard this as an extension of my understanding that JFKA was removed by the intel state. 

This does not go on anymore? Well, they can't keep shooting Presidents. So, how?

Are you not curious that Nixon was not replaced by Agnew (a regrettable lightweight type of fellow) but by Ford? 

This has nothing to do with my personal politics, which are those of an aging 1960s liberal, who is possibly only a little less idealistic than before. 

I look forward to your contributions to the EF.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

37 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I am planning a post on the JFK, Nixon and Trump regime changes. 

I doubt it will meet with your favor, or maybe anyone else's. 

It is hard, even at this late date, to nail down the "facts" of the JFKA. The WC and HSCA failed, IMHO.

Similarly, my interpretations of the Nixon and Trump departures can be criticized for not relying on "fact."

So it goes. 

I look forward to your perspectives and opinions of how those three President left office. I will treat your presentations as earnest. 

I've made presentations which you have yet to address in the specifics. 

[Leslie Sharp]

42 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Paul-

Actually, I think Bush jr. more or less "stole" the 2000 election, through the Florida thing. Many serious scholars think Bush stole 2004 through manipulation of Ohio absentee ballots. 

Paul--I am not approaching this topic of toppling Presidents through the red-blue pissing wars lens.

I am approaching from the perspective of an intel state (the globalist tool) removing Presidents they do not favor---in the JFK case brutally, in the Nixon and Trump cases through the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the state, matched with party hostilities and affiliated M$M. 

I hope I am treated civilly in this regard---I regard this as an extension of my understanding that JFKA was removed by the intel state. 

This does not go on anymore? Well, they can't keep shooting Presidents. So, how?

Are you not curious that Nixon was not replaced by Agnew (a regrettable lightweight type of fellow) but by Ford? 

This has nothing to do with my personal politics, which are those of an aging 1960s liberal, who is possibly only a little less idealistic than before. 

I look forward to your contributions to the EF.

 

Apologies Paul for interjecting here, but staying with Ben's continued argument that Trump was somehow the victim of the investigative and prosecutorial powers of the state, similar to Nixon, Ben is ignoring in fact Trump lost the election. The assertion can't go unchallenged.

Ben's position is confirmation to me that Trump is a kind of doppleganger by design - a "lookalike" meant to fool elements of the country he would uphold the Constitution and the Office of the President when in fact he was central to the attack on both in 2020.

And if I can ask, where doe Charles and Mike Flynn fit into the scenario when both are/were servants of the Military-Industrial Complex. Eastman is part of "the conservative establishment", so how does he avoid accusations of being a player within the conservative wing of the "deep state"?

Thanks for allowing me to add this to your conversation with Ben.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

Carlson blowback ...

New Jan. 6 footage shows Grassley just feet away from rioters, Chansley

. . . However, federal prosecutors hit back at Carlson in a court filing on Sunday, claiming that his presentation of the footage lacked context and only spanned about four minutes out of the hour that Chansley spent in the Capitol.

“The televised footage lacks the context of what occurred before and after the footage. Chansley entered the building as part of a violent crowd,” prosecutors said in the filing, which related Proud Boy Dominic Pezzola’s court case.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3903991-new-jan-6-footage-shows-grassley-just-feet-away-from-rioters-chansley/

and footage here at Des Moines Register...

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/16/new-footage-shows-how-close-chuck-grassley-came-to-rioters-on-jan-6/70013950007/

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

And jeez, Ford (not Agnew, another disagreeable fellow) ends up President? 

 

Agnew was indicted because he was a crook. They got him on criminal conspiracy, extortion , bribery and tax fraud. The DOJ had been looking into Agnew since 1966 for bribes,long  before Nixon picked him out of nowhere in 1968. Nobody predicted Nixon would pick a relative unknown like Agnew. .He plead to a deal to avoid prison. He resigned before Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. So Nixon picked Ford to appease your "Deep State"? Nixon's still battling for his job.Why?

I bet he never once considered Ford on the WC as a reason but wanted a malleable, perfect centrist, rather than a bad cop ideologue like Agnew. He was trying to come back to center by picking none other than the Republican Minority Leader Ford because he knew he was going to need him in his fight to remain in office, That was the political logic of it.

But let's take your logic that almost could have come through. Ben, you were living at this time, but you don't mention he  appointed none other than Nelson Rockefeller as his VP! Which could have been perfect according to your plan.Except, the last DUMPED VP of an incumbent was none other Nelson Rockefeller when Gerald Ford picked Bob Dole as his VP in 1976.

 There goes the perfect coup! Apparently Rockefeller wasn't that powerful!

But politically,  All this can be explained logically.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Kirk Gallaway

[Paul Brancato]

19 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

Agnew was indicted because he was a crook. They got him on criminal conspiracy, extortion , bribery and tax fraud. The DOJ had been looking into Agnew since 1966 for bribes,long  before Nixon picked him out of nowhere in 1968. Nobody predicted Nixon would pick a relative unknown like Agnew. .He plead to a deal to avoid prison. He resigned before Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. So Nixon picked Ford to appease your "Deep State"? Nixon's still battling for his job.Why?

I bet he never once considered Ford on the WC as a reason but wanted a malleable, perfect centrist, rather than a bad cop ideologue like Agnew. He was trying to come back to center by picking none other than the Republican Minority Leader Ford because he knew he was going to need him in his fight to remain in office, That was the political logic of it.

But let's take your logic that almost could have come through. Ben, you were living at this time, but you don't mention he  appointed none other than Nelson Rockefeller as his VP! Which could have been perfect according to your plan.Except, the last DUMPED VP of an incumbent was none other Nelson Rockefeller when Gerald Ford picked Bob Dole as his VP in 1976.

 There goes the perfect coup! Apparently Rockefeller wasn't that powerful!

But politically,  All this can be explained logically.

 

 

 

 

I always presumed that Agnew’s indictment was part of a move to get him out and put Ford in so that Nixon would be pardoned by someone with credibility. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Paul:I always presumed that Agnew’s indictment was part of a move to get him out and put Ford in so that Nixon would be pardoned by someone with credibility. 

I'm not sure why?  I said they've been investigating Agnew since 1966!

Of all possible new VP's, what guarantee would there be that Nixon would pick Ford? There was no obvious conclusion he was going to pick Ford. 

So you think the whole end point was that whoever these powers be,they could be sure that Ford would pardon Nixon?  How could they be sure of that?

I'm trying to understand Ben's assertion.  If Nixon is fighting for his political life from the "Deep state", wouldn't he just be giving them greater incentive to remove him from office by appointing their presumed "lackey" from the Warren Commission as VP to succeed him? 

I'm just trying to logically play out, what it sounds like  your assumptions here. That doesn't mean I necessarily accept them.