Kirk Gallaway Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 41 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: uhh no Cliff, I was the first Bernie supporter here 42 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Gotta link? I sure do, I got 20 hours of video links. 40 hours of quotes from articles. And literally everything I've written since 2016! I'm sure you'll have the time. Now if that doesn't impress you, nothing else will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 4 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: What a load of farcical nonsense! I've presented you with an enormous amount of evidence, and at the same time made it clear that I am going to call you out for having no evidence at all in support your hollow narrative. You operate as if telling your little story of Russiagate is sufficient, but in the absence of any known evidence it certainly is not. Your MAGA fixation/obsession is no substitute for actual evidence, and it appears that somehow you have continued to operate as if there is some kind of value in the venomous rhetorical diatribe and vacuous partisan enmeshment in the cheap fixtures and imaginary fairytales of the likes of Rachel Maddow -- a thoroughly discredited imbecilic crackpot. If Rachel Maddow scripts are really all you have at your disposel, you should really consider calling it quits because contending with real verifiable facts supported by bona fide evidence can be an unforgiving ordeal for a thickheaded snake-oil salesman like those you seem to be attempting to emulate. The evidence I am calling upon you to produce is much more than your stereotypical rant; I'd like to see you refer me to Court Orders, judicially admissible direct and testamentary evidence capable of withstanding standard legal objections, and the work of genuine investigative journalists (as opposed to sensationalist commentators like Rachel Maddow), such as all of those listed directly below. And I'd suggest that you engage in some actual research by evaluating the evidence they have produced, as it sets forth the standard that you are going to have to surpass, since their work soundly demolishes the Russiagate hoax that you have been so ineptly attempting to perpetrate upon us. _____________ 'MATT TALIBBI ON THE CJR STORY EXPOSING FAKE JOURNALISTS' Usefulidiots | February 8, 2023 | https://youtu.be/QHCZE6S4LoA With Matt Taibbi’s Twitter Files and Jeff Gerth’s new in-depth reporting for CJR exposing the years of lies spread by Russiagaters, bitter attacks from outed journalists are rolling in. Gerth and Taibbi, who come from the old style of journalism where you fact check your work and don’t accept government officials’ claims on faith, have each shown clear, indisputable evidence of disinformation campaigns pushed by corporate reporters. And since the so-called journalists can’t argue the facts, they dig themselves a deeper hole with more lies and name-calling. Jeff Gerth has been working as a reporter for decades and published, in the very mainstream Columbia Journalism Review, a 20,000-word report on his findings, only to be called a liar and misdirecting magician in the most self-important article by Mother Jones’ David Corn (“The true media failure is that Trump got away with it and that articles like this one that you are now reading are still necessary.”) And possibly worse than that is the near complete silence from the rest of mainstream media who, as Gerth reported, refused to follow Bob Woodward’s pleas for introspection. They’re not silent, however, about Matt Taibbi. These corporate stenographers, either angry that Taibbi called them out for lying or jealous that they didn’t get the Twitter Files story themselves, haven’t made any substantive arguments against his findings both because they can’t, but also because they know they don’t need to. Their audiences are trained to believe them. _____________ 'VETERAN NYT JOURNALIST JEFF GERTH EXPOSES US MEDIA'S RUSSIAGATE DEBACLE' Pushback with Aaron Maté | The Grayzone | February 16, 2023 | https://youtu.be/fCkvD7gt89A In a new four-part series for the Columbia Journalism Review, veteran journalist Jeff Gerth documents US media's journalistic malpractice in covering Russiagate. Guest: Jeff Gerth, journalist who spent three decades as an investigative reporter at the New York Times, where he won the 1999 Pulitzer Prize. His new four-part series about US media’s Russiagate coverage in the “Columbia Journalism Review” is called “The press versus the president.” _____________ On January 30, 2023, Gerth published in the Columbia Journalism Review what his editor called an "encyclopedic look at one of the most consequential moments in American media history," the U.S. media's coverage of Trump's alleged role in the proven Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. _____________ 'THE PRESS VERSUS THE PRESIDENT, PARTS ONE - FOUR' By Jeff Gerth | Columbia Journalism Review | January 30, 2023 | https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php EDITORS NOTE: https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-ed-note.php Looking back on the coverage of Trump JANUARY 30, 2023 By KYLE POPE TABLE OF CONTENTS Editor's Note | Part one | Part two | Part three | Part four Seven and a half years ago, journalism began a tortured dance with Donald Trump, the man who would be the country’s forty-fifth president—first dismissing him, then embracing him as a source of ratings and clicks, then going all in on efforts to catalogue Trump as a threat to the country (also a great source of ratings and clicks). No narrative did more to shape Trump’s relations with the press than Russiagate. The story, which included the Steele dossier and the Mueller report among other totemic moments, resulted in Pulitzer Prizes as well as embarrassing retractions and damaged careers. For Trump, the press’s pursuit of the Russia story convinced him that any sort of normal relationship with the press was impossible. For the past year and a half, CJR has been examining the American media’s coverage of Trump and Russia in granular detail, and what it means as the country enters a new political cycle. Investigative reporter Jeff Gerth interviewed dozens of people at the center of the story—editors and reporters, Trump himself, and others in his orbit. The result is an encyclopedic look at one of the most consequential moments in American media history. Gerth’s findings aren’t always flattering, either for the press or for Trump and his team. Doubtless they’ll be debated and maybe even used as ammunition in the ongoing media war being waged in the country. But they are important, and worthy of deep reflection as the campaign for the presidency is about, once again, to begin. Kyle Pope was the editor in chief and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review. He is now executive director of strategic initiatives at Covering Climate Now. KE--Keep truckin' I like to see many points of view. That is what a forum is for. I actually stopped supporting Bernie Sanders when he caved into the wokesters, and said millions, even tens of millions of desperate illegal immigrants, did not pose a threat to US wages. He knows better (and said so for decades) but wanted the nomination. I still admire the guy. Jeez, at his age he had a heart attack and kept campaigning. Pardon the pun, his heart is in the right place. I wonder why so many old pols no longer retire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 16 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Incidentally, while we're all waiting for Kevin Hofeling to explain Paul Manafort's perjury and witness tampering during the Mueller investigation, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) has just asked the Feds to release the classified files on Paul Manafort and Russiagate. Final Signed Wyden Letter to DNI on 2016 Election Report Declassification (senate.gov) Well, it looks like Kevin Hofeling and his newfound MAGA bro, Ben Cole, have succeeded in completely hijacking our discussion on this thread about Paul Manafort and Russiagate. MAGA spamming works! How did we get from discussing Trump and Paul Manafort's desperate efforts to conceal their 2016 campaign contacts with GRU asset Konstantin Kilimnik to focusing on Hillary Clinton and Biden? I'm still waiting for Kevin to explain why Manafort was willing to tamper with witnesses and commit perjury to conceal his 2016 involvement with the Kremlin. And, incidentally, the classified Manafort files are a hot topic this week! Ron Wyden Calls On Biden To Declassify Paul Manafort Report | HuffPost Latest News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 16 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: I think you may be on to something there... In fact, after coming up with this bit of obvious disinformation during my research of the question, I'm more sure than ever that you ARE on to something... Keven, I think you just outed yourself. Anybody who believes the 1/6 hearings were a farce -- which is what your post suggests -- has either got to be a Trump supporter or is a believer in wacko anti-Trump conspiracies. I watched the 1/6 hearings and they were completely fair. Most, if not all, the witnesses were Republicans. The findings match perfectly with all the news I heard regarding the 1/6 crimes committed by Trump... some of which he himself admitted to. Russiagate was a difficult thing to follow, but not so the 1/6 crimes. It is obvious that Trump is guilty of the charges against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 On 3/28/2024 at 4:54 AM, Keven Hofeling said: Roger Odisio wrote: No, no army of lawyers, this is just all familiar territory to me because I've been following Russiagate blow by blow since the Hillary Clinton campaign first unleashed it against Bernie Sanders in 2016 (who I was rooting for to get the Democratic nomination for President, prior to learning that the Clinton machine had rigged the primaries against him [See Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries: https://cosmoso.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democracy_Lost_Update1_EJUSA.pdf]). I have no particular talent, I've just been engaged in this debate on a Facebook group I started in 2015 since that time (and started a Facebook group on political assassinations the following year). I've assembled an enormous amount of information on both topics during the intervening years, and can deploy it very quickly, as is necessary with debates that take place in Facebook comments. It is said these days that I am on the left, although I am convinced that I am the equivalent of a typical 1980 era democrat who believes that free speech is just about the most important societal principal that there is, and understands the realities involved in the fact that the CIA and the military industrial complex effected a coup de tat over the democratically elected government in 1963. It's just that something strange has happened in the last forty years in which the role of the "traditional liberal" has somehow been coopted and transmuted into something unrecognizable to me. Liberals who support censorship, the CIA and war... WTF??? Roger, I recognize in your writing and convictions that you must have a similar story, particularly given your familiarity with the involvement of NPIC and Hawkeyeworks with the camera-original Zapruder film, which is -- in addition to the medical evidence -- the JFKA subject that interests most interests me (as I believe that once there is mainstream knowledge of the photographic fraud, and clandestine surgical alteration of JFK's body, in conjunction with the fraudulent autopsy, a critical mass will be reached whereby the issue of high level government conspiracy will no longer be in question). And with regard to Rachel Maddow's litigation defense that she does not present actual "news," the following is a Jimmy Dore video on the topic that I think you will be able to appreciate: Rachel Maddow "Is Not News" Says Court Ruling! The Jimmy Dore Show | Jul 1, 2021 | https://youtu.be/hDRoqIgUgEg?si=MRD7tNauRH0x1p-R KE-- Keep on truckin' IMHO, you, as an independent observer, will be subject to partisan detractors, and their commentary. The Jan. 6 committee was indisputably a political body, and conducted a politicized investigation. There was no adversarial process, or minority report---the same format as the Warren Commission, btw. How to explain the Jan. 6 committee censoring and suppressing the video of Jacob Chansley, aka Mr Buffalo Horns, being solicitously ushered around the Capitol, and even to the Senate chambers and gallery, by numerous Capitol Police officers who heavily outnumbered the docile and diminutive Chansley? The numerous uniformed Capitol Police officers did not even remove Chansley's flag pole from him, later described as a "weapon" by federal prosecutors, adding to the charges against Chansley. The Chansley video surfaced only after the other major political party gained control of House properties, and released the video. And only after Chansley was in prison. As I say, never trust a government investigation, and especially one from an overtly political body. Even an adversarial process might not reveal the truth...but might get you closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: Keven, I think you just outed yourself. Anybody who believes the 1/6 hearings were a farce -- which is what your post suggests -- has either got to be a Trump supporter or is a believer in wacko anti-Trump conspiracies. I watched the 1/6 hearings and they were completely fair. Most, if not all, the witnesses were Republicans. The findings match perfectly with all the news I heard regarding the 1/6 crimes committed by Trump... some of which he himself admitted to. Russiagate was a difficult thing to follow, but not so the 1/6 crimes. It is obvious that Trump is guilty of the charges against him. Sandy, your assumption or allegation or whatever it is that I have in this thread been deceitfully concealing some sort of personal MAGA allegiance as, according to you, revealed by the post you are responding to -- which has absolutely nothing to do with the January 6 hearings [which I also watched from beginning to end] -- and am therefore some sort of a closeted Trump supporter who is here misrepresenting my true political convictions (which in truth have always clearly and unmistakably been presented by me as being that I am firmly opposed to the CIA/oligarch captured political duopoly as a whole) is a grave personal insult, and deeply offensive. I had thought that such rhetorical indulgence in the tactics of duopolistic partisan political warfare was beneath you, but evidently you are actually not above the temporary insanity that has befallen so many as the result of the unfortunate modern-day contemporary McCarthyism and Russophobia. Very disappointing. This is, in my view, yet another demonstration of the ill effects of the Russiagate hoax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Well, it looks like Kevin Hofeling and his newfound MAGA bro, Ben Cole, have succeeded in completely hijacking our discussion on this thread about Paul Manafort and Russiagate. MAGA spamming works! How did we get from discussing Trump and Paul Manafort's desperate efforts to conceal their 2016 campaign contacts with GRU asset Konstantin Kilimnik to focusing on Hillary Clinton and Biden? I'm still waiting for Kevin to explain why Manafort was willing to tamper with witnesses and commit perjury to conceal his 2016 involvement with the Kremlin. And, incidentally, the classified Manafort files are a hot topic this week! Ron Wyden Calls On Biden To Declassify Paul Manafort Report | HuffPost Latest News I've went over the Manafort hoopla WITH EVIDENCE half a dozen times at this point -- and you sat back silent as Sandy attempted to carry your water for you on it -- to which you have since responded with ZERO evidence, presenting instead only your hollow narrative and conclusory allegations, and you should either put up or shut up. What, did the dog eat your evidence? Your hollow narrative just doesn't cut it. Post some actual evidence for me to demolish. Edited March 29 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) Apparently unseen by Kevin lol Edited May 29 by Matt Allison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 9 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: Apparently unseen by Kevin lol This proves? What exactly? I am sure if you can prove anything msnbc will put it on. Do you have any real proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) On 3/24/2024 at 7:50 AM, Benjamin Cole said: BTW, anyone interested in the evolving Jan. 6 story, should at least consider this recent report from The Hill. An earlier report, not as convincing, but interesting. Good information in these videos, although it was disconcerting to see right wing political prostitute Dinesh D'Souza (who I can't stand) in the second one. I'm convinced that there was a massive FBI cointelpro operation in play for the events of J6 at the U.S. Capital, and find the testimony of former US Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund very compelling in this regard. "A leaked interview between ex-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson revealed that Sund believed officials were aware of the January 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection before it happened and covered it up.... ...The actions, or lack thereof, taken by the government leading up to the January 6, 2021, riot led Sund to believe that intelligence officials in power were aware of the attack in advance and covered it up by failing to disseminate the information to those who needed it. After facing mounting pressure from Congress and the union representing the Capitol Police, Sund resigned from his position shortly after the riot. "If I was allowed to do my job as a chief, we wouldn't be here," Sund said in the interview with Carlson. "This didn't have to happen. Everything appears to be a cover-up." However, Carlson's interview with Sund never aired. Newsweek reached out to Fox News by email for comment. In the leaked footage, Sund goes on to say that he's "not a conspiracy theorist" but said it was concerning the way the January 6 attack played out. Sund explained that he was denied National Guard service in advance of the attack and was denied access to National Guard troops for 71 minutes during the attack. "You're in a fight, a fight for a couple of minutes wears you out," he said. "Let me tell you, it wears you out." Sund made the request for National Guard troops at approximately 1 p.m. on January 6. However, he did not hear back until 71 minutes later. It took more than three hours after Sund's request for 1,100 National Guard soldiers to be mobilized, according to a report by NPR. Trump allegedly made zero effort to deploy the National Guard and instead spoke at a rally in Washington, D.C., on the day of the riot. Vice President Mike Pence was the one who attempted to order deployment of the National Guard troops, according to a report by the Military Times. Sund criticized government officials for not delivering intelligence on the attack to the people who needed it. He believed that the officials knew in advance that the riot would happen. Weeks before the attack, Trump mentioned a protest occurring on January 6, 2021, that would be "wild"...." Ex-Capitol Police Chief Sounds Alarm That Jan. 6 Was 'Cover-Up' By Anna Skinner | Newsweek | Published Aug 03, 2023 at 1:16 PM EDT | https://www.newsweek.com/ex-capitol-police-chief-sounds-alarm-jan-6-cover-1817365 Tucker Carlson conducted a second interview of ex-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund which was published on August 10, 2023, and Sund convincingly made the case that there was a massive conspiracy calculated to deny his ability to adequately defend the Capital both in advance and during the riot: Tucker Interviews Former Capitol Police Chief About What REALLY Happened On January 6th TheDC Shorts | Aug 10, 2023 | https://youtu.be/W9R9oysRLK4?si=JR4JZhgu1zSnvBGc Tucker interviewed the former Capitol police chief about what really happened on January 6th However, I don't agree with Donald Trump's apparent position that the FBI cointelpro operation justifies the J6 riot (though I do think attorneys for the rioters should present evidence of entrapment, where applicable), nor that it vitiates the very real conspiracy that Trump was attempting to orchestrate that day to disrupt the electoral count in the hopes of getting the House of Representatives to decide the election and put in play the counterfeit slates of electors he had engineered to substitute for the legitimate electors. Trump should definitely be put on trial for that conspiracy. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics/recordings-trump-team-fake-elector-ballots/index.html Exclusive: Recordings, emails show how Trump team flew fake elector ballots to DC in final push to overturn 2020 election By Marshall Cohen, Zachary Cohen, Jeremy Herb and Katelyn Polantz, CNN 11 minute read Updated 4:47 PM EST, Thu December 28, 2023 CNN — Two days before the January 6 insurrection, the Trump campaign’s plan to use fake electors to block President-elect Joe Biden from taking office faced a potentially crippling hiccup: The fake elector certificates from two critical battleground states were stuck in the mail. So, Trump campaign operatives scrambled to fly copies of the phony certificates from Michigan and Wisconsin to the nation’s capital, relying on a haphazard chain of couriers, as well as help from two Republicans in Congress, to try to get the documents to then-Vice President Mike Pence while he presided over the Electoral College certification. The operatives even considered chartering a jet to ensure the files reached Washington, DC, in time for the January 6, 2021, proceeding, according to emails and recordings obtained by CNN. The new details provide a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the chaotic last-minute effort to keep Donald Trump in office. The fake electors scheme features prominently in special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal indictment against the former president, and some of the officials who were involved have spoken to Smith’s investigators. The emails and recordings also indicate that a top Trump campaign lawyer was part of 11th-hour discussions about delivering the fake elector certificates to Pence, potentially undercutting his testimony to the House select committee that investigated January 6 that he had passed off responsibility and didn’t want to put the former vice president in a difficult spot. These details largely come from pro-Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro, who was an architect of the fake electors plot and is now a key cooperator in several state probes into the scheme. Chesebro pleaded guilty in October to a felony conspiracy charge in Georgia in connection with the electors’ plan, and has met with prosecutors in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin, who are investigating the sham GOP electors in their own states. Kenneth Chesebro speaks to Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee during a hearing where Chesebro accepted a plea deal from the Fulton County District Atorney at the Fulton County Courthouse October 20 in Atlanta. Alyssa Pointer/Getty Images Chesebro is an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal election interference indictment against Trump. Trump campaign lawyer ‘freaked out’ about missing elector ballots, Chesebro says Michigan investigators ask pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro about the role of the Trump campaign in the fake electors plot. Chesebro tells them that top Trump campaign lawyers were alarmed that the sham certificates might not make it to the nation’s capital before the January 6, 2021, certification proceeding in Congress. Source: Obtained by CNN CNN has obtained audio of Chesebro’s recent interview with Michigan investigators, and exclusively reported earlier this month that he also told them about a December 2020 Oval Office meeting where he briefed Trump about the fake electors plan and how it ties into January 6. An attorney for Chesebro declined to comment. A spokesman for the special counsel’s office did not reply to a request for comment for this story. ‘A high-level decision’ Emails obtained by CNN corroborate what Chesebro told Michigan prosecutors: He communicated with the top Trump campaign lawyer, Matt Morgan, and another campaign official, Mike Roman, to ferry the documents to Washington on January 5. From there, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and a Pennsylvania congressman assisted in the effort to get the documents into Pence’s hands. “This is a high-level decision to get the Michigan and Wisconsin votes there,” Chesebro told Michigan prosecutors. “And they had to enlist, you know, a US senator to try to expedite it, to get it to Pence in time.” Trump campaign considered chartering jet to fly ballots to DC, Chesebro says Pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of the fake electors plan, tells Michigan prosecutors that top Trump campaign lawyers considered chartering a private jet to bring the fake elector ballots to the nation’s capital in time for the January 6, 2021, certification proceeding in Congress. Source: Obtained by CNN Chesebro also discussed the episode with Wisconsin investigators last week when he sat for an interview with the attorney general’s office as part of a separate state probe into the fake electors plot, a source familiar with the matter told CNN. Wisconsin prosecutors asked about the episode “extensively,” the source said, noting Chesebro discussed how a Wisconsin GOP staffer flew the certificate from Milwaukee to Washington and then handed it off to Chesebro. The firsthand account from Chesebro’s perspective helps fill in the narrative behind the effort to hand-deliver elector slates to Pence, which is vaguely referenced in Smith’s federal indictment. Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include conspiring with Chesebro and others to obstruct the January 6 certification proceeding. Before Chesebro’s guilty plea in Georgia, his attorneys reached out to Smith’s team. As of this week, he has not heard back from federal prosecutors, a source familiar with the matter told CNN. Federal investigators have spoken with several individuals involved in the scramble with the phony elector certificates, according to a source familiar with the matter. This includes interviews with Trump staffers who were tapped to fly the papers to DC, and some fake electors who knew of the planning. A spokesperson for the Trump campaign did not reply to a request for comment. Asked about the episode, a spokesperson for Johnson pointed to his previous comments, where he said, “my involvement in that attempt to deliver spanned the course of a couple seconds,” and that, “in the end, those electors were not delivered.” ‘Day-by-day’ coordination According to the recordings of Chesebro’s sit-down with Michigan prosecutors, he explained how a legal memo he wrote for Wisconsin transformed into a nationwide operation, where Trump lawyers were “day-by-day coordinating the efforts of more than a dozen people with the GOP and with the Trump campaign.” On January 4, 2021, Morgan sent an email to Chesebro and Roman asking for confirmation that all of the Trump elector slates had been received by Congress, according to the documents obtained by CNN. Matt Morgan participates in a news conference at the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, DC, in November 2020. Michael Reynolds/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Roman responded that the Michigan certificate had been mailed on December 15 but was still “in transit” at a US Postal Service facility in DC. Wisconsin’s certificate also had apparently not arrived. Chesebro told prosecutors that Morgan was “freaked out” when the campaign realized the phony certificates from Michigan were still in the mail. That same day, Morgan weighed in over email asking Chesebro and Roman to rethink how they would deliver the certificates to Pence. “As I thought about this more, a courier will not be able to access the Capitol to deliver a sealed package,” Morgan wrote on January 4, according to emails obtained by CNN “You will probably need to enlist the help of a legislator who can deliver to the appropriate place(s). I strongly recommend you guys discuss a revised delivery plan with Rudy (Giuliani) to make sure this gets done the way he wants.” ‘Can we charter a flight?’ Roman was concerned the Wisconsin documents wouldn’t reach Washington in time. “Can we charter a flight? The only available commercial from MKE (Milwaukee Mitchell International Airport) to DCA (Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport) arrives at 2130 tomorrow night,” Roman wrote to Chesebro on January 4 at 11:24 p.m. The job of physically flying the elector documents to Washington fell to two people: A Trump campaign staffer and a Wisconsin GOP official, according to the emails and what Chesebro told prosecutors. The Wisconsin GOP official who had that state’s elector documents landed after 10 a.m. on January 5 at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, according to the emails. Trump campaign aide Michael Brown flew with the Michigan certificates to Washington National Airport with a scheduled arrival around 1 p.m., according to emails obtained by CNN. A source familiar with the matter told CNN that Brown flew to DC from Atlanta, because the Trump staffers who had custody of the Michigan ballots were in Georgia for the Senate runoffs. The campaign booked and paid for Brown’s flight on Southwest Airlines, the source said. Federal campaign finance records indicate that a pro-Trump super PAC paid the airline on the day of Brown’s flight for travel related to election “recount” efforts. Trump Hotel meetup The emails show that Brown and the Wisconsin GOP official were instructed to meet Chesebro at the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington to hand off the fake elector certificates. Chesebro said in an email that he’d keep the ballots in his hotel room safe until it was time to pass them along. Barricades outside the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, on January 17, 2021. Pete Kiehart/Bloomberg/Getty Images Wisconsin Republican Party officials were annoyed at the request to courier the fake elector certificates to Washington. “Freaking trump idiots want someone to fly original elector papers to the senate President,” a Wisconsin GOP official wrote to then-state party chairman Andrew Hitt on January 4, according to the January 6 committee report. Hitt – who has provided information to federal investigators about the efforts to get the fake elector certificates to Washington, according to a source familiar with the matter – told the January 6 committee that the couriering ended up being overkill, because the original documents that the state party had mailed to Washington actually made it in time. Getting the certificates inside the Capitol The documents still had to be hand-delivered to Pence’s Senate office in the Capitol. The electors plot – as envisioned by Chesebro and other Trump allies – was that Pence could reject Biden’s legitimate electors and recognize Trump’s “alternate electors” on January 6, while lawmakers tallied the electoral votes from each state. Per federal law, the certificates need to be physically presented on the floor of Congress during the joint session, while lawmakers tally the electoral votes. Chesebro told investigators that Roman connected him with an aide for a Pennsylvania GOP lawmaker that he believed was Rep. Scott Perry to turn over the documents. Chesebro wasn’t certain which congressman the staffer worked for – and the January 6 report says a staffer for a different Pennsylvania Republican, Rep. Mike Kelly, helped shuttle the documents that day. “I had the Wisconsin stuff. [Trump campaign aide] Mike Brown had the Michigan stuff. We walked to the Longworth Office Building, and the guy with Perry, or whatever his name is, and some other fellow, that were like staff members of the House, took them and said, ‘We’re going to walk them over to the Senate and give it to a Senate staffer,’” Chesebro told Michigan prosecutors, according to the audio obtained by CNN. “I don’t know why logistically we didn’t take it directly to Johnson. But that’s how we did it,” he added. Chesebro describes role of two GOP lawmakers in electors scheme Pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of the fake electors plan, tells Michigan prosecutors about how Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson and Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry, both Republicans, helped get the fake elector ballots to the Capitol floor for the January 6, 2021, certification proceeding. Source: Obtained by CNN Kelly and Perry’s offices did not respond to CNN’s requests for comment. Brown did not comment for this story. CNN previously reported that he testified in June to Smith’s grand jury in the Trump election subversion probe. CNN previously reported that Roman sat for a proffer interview with Smith’s team before Trump was indicted. He was also indicted in the sweeping Georgia election racketeering case, in connection with the fake electors scheme, and has pleaded not guilty. Roman’s attorney did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The details from Chesebro put a finer point on how members of Congress, including a sitting US senator, were involved in making sure the electoral certificates for Trump ended up in Pence’s hands. The January 6 committee first revealed last year Johnson’s involvement in trying unsuccessfully to deliver the fake elector certificates to Pence, who announced on the morning of the joint session that it would be unconstitutional to do what Trump wanted and unilaterally overturn the election results. The committee revealed text messages during their hearings last year that Johnson aide Sean Riley sent to Pence aide Chris Hodgson, saying that Johnson “needs to hand something to VPOTUS please advise.” “What is it?” Hodgson asked. “Alternate slates of electors for MI and WI because archivist didn’t receive them,” Riley responded. “Do not give that to him,” Hodgson said. ‘F**k these guys’ In his Michigan interview, Chesebro also dished on some of the internal disagreements among the Trump lawyers, campaign officials and other allies, who clashed over the purpose of the electors’ plan and how far to take things on January 6. Chesebro has maintained – then, and now – that the plan was a lawful move to preserve Trump’s legal rights. Even before the Trump electors met in their state capitals on December 14, 2020, to cast their fake ballots and sign the certificates, Chesebro heard about concerns from some of the electors about possible legal jeopardy, according to emails and text messages reported by the Detroit News and obtained by CNN. Chesebro added hedging language for the faux certificates from Pennsylvania and New Mexico in response to those concerns. He proposed to Roman and Morgan that they add the contingency caveats to the paperwork for all seven states in the plan. But Roman rejected the idea, according to the emails. “F**k these guys,” Roman texted Chesebro on December 12, 2020. Trump campaign staff member Michael Roman in his booking photo at the Fulton County Jail on August 25 in Atlanta. Fulton County Sheriff's Office By this time, the Trump campaign had essentially cleaved in two. Top officials who had managed day-to-day activity for Trump up to the election, including in court, say they ceded responsibility to Rudy Giuliani and others, such as Chesebro, according to congressional testimony transcripts. Roman effectively switched teams to work under Giuliani’s structure, according to the testimony from Morgan and others. A spokesperson for Giuliani did not reply to a request for comment. ‘It really went south on me’ Chesebro told Michigan investigators that his own emails show that Morgan remained deeply involved, including in the final hours before January 6, to ensure that the certificates reached DC. “I don’t have a really warm feeling toward, at least, the top Trump lawyers that did this, hid from me what they were doing and then lied to Congress about me. So, it’s been really difficult,” Chesebro said. Chesebro describes role of GOP lawmakers in electors scheme Pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of the fake electors plan, tells Michigan prosecutors about how Congressional staffers helped get the fake elector ballots to the Capitol floor for the January 6, 2021, certification proceeding. (Chesebro says a staffer from Rep. Scott Perry’s office was involved, but the January 6 report says it was someone from Rep. Mike Kelly’s office.) Chesebro further describes the fallout from his involvement the attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Source: Obtained by CNN In his congressional testimony, Morgan said he knew of the elector plan but wanted to distance himself from the effort, delegating the work to others, including those under Giuliani. Morgan told the January 6 committee last year that he initially believed the electors were only meant to be used as a contingency. The electors, he believed, should meet in their state capitals and cast their electoral votes but “not necessarily submit” the certificates to Congress unless “we prevailed” in court. Morgan told the committee that the plan changed in December, saying it morphed from a “cast-and-hold” operation and had “shifted to cast-and-send.” And that’s when Morgan told the committee that he backed out, testifying that he directed an aide to “email Mr. Chesebro politely to say, ‘this is your task. You are responsible for the Electoral College issues moving forward.’” “This was my way of taking that responsibility to zero,” Morgan told the committee, later adding that he “moved on” after that email was sent. Morgan explained that he was concerned that the new plan to try to count the fake electors on January 6 “would make the Vice President’s life harder, and I didn’t want to be a part of that.” “Mr. Morgan stands by his congressional testimony,” his defense attorneys told CNN in response to his emails and Chesebro’s statements to investigators. Ultimately, on the eve of the joint session of Congress, Morgan helped get the ballots in place, according to the emails and according to Chesebro, who blamed his legal troubles squarely on the Trump campaign’s legal team. “I could have avoided all this,” Chesebro vented to Michigan prosecutors. “It’s been a real lesson in not working with people that you don’t know and are not sure you can trust, because it really went south on me.” Edited March 29 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 (edited) 22 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Well, it looks like Kevin Hofeling and his newfound MAGA bro, Ben Cole, have succeeded in completely hijacking our discussion on this thread about Paul Manafort and Russiagate. MAGA spamming works! How did we get from discussing Trump and Paul Manafort's desperate efforts to conceal their 2016 campaign contacts with GRU asset Konstantin Kilimnik to focusing on Hillary Clinton and Biden? I'm still waiting for Kevin to explain why Manafort was willing to tamper with witnesses and commit perjury to conceal his 2016 involvement with the Kremlin. And, incidentally, the classified Manafort files are a hot topic this week! Ron Wyden Calls On Biden To Declassify Paul Manafort Report | HuffPost Latest News Kevin Hofeling resonded: I've went over the Manafort hoopla WITH EVIDENCE half a dozen times at this point -- and you sat back silent as Sandy attempted to carry your water for you on it -- to which you have since responded with ZERO evidence, presenting instead only your hollow narrative and conclusory allegations, and you should either put up or shut up. What, did the dog eat your evidence? Your hollow narrative just doesn't cut it. Post some actual evidence for me to demolish.\ Kevin, Your response here is simply pathetic. It's gibberish. How many moronic falsehoods can a sophomoric spammer cram into a single ungrammatical sentence? "I've went over the Manafort hoopla?" "Hollow narrative?" "ZERO evidence?" Now I know why you respond to forum debate questions with internet spam, instead of intelligible answers. Let's keep this debate about Manafort and Kilimnik simple enough for you to understand. Clearly post your answers to this question for us. 1) Why did Paul Manafort willfully engage in perjury during the Mueller investigation--to lie about his 2016 campaign contacts with Konstantin Kilimnik-- even AFTER he agreed to a plea bargain deal to cooperate with Mueller? In other words, why was Manafort so desperate to conceal his campaign contacts with a Russian GRU asset that he would risk serious consequences? In fact, Manafort would be rotting in jail today if Trump hadn't pardoned him. P.S. Don't ask Sandy to carry your water for you. Answer my question or, as you so genteelly put it, "Put up and shut up." 🙄 Edited March 29 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 12 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: Good information in these videos, although it was disconcerting to see right wing political prostitute Dinesh D'Souza (who I can't stand) in the second one. I'm convinced that there was a massive FBI cointelpro operation in play for the events of J6 at the U.S. Capital, and find the testimony of former US Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund very compelling in this regard. "A leaked interview between ex-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson revealed that Sund believed officials were aware of the January 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection before it happened and covered it up.... ...The actions, or lack thereof, taken by the government leading up to the January 6, 2021, riot led Sund to believe that intelligence officials in power were aware of the attack in advance and covered it up by failing to disseminate the information to those who needed it. After facing mounting pressure from Congress and the union representing the Capitol Police, Sund resigned from his position shortly after the riot. "If I was allowed to do my job as a chief, we wouldn't be here," Sund said in the interview with Carlson. "This didn't have to happen. Everything appears to be a cover-up." However, Carlson's interview with Sund never aired. Newsweek reached out to Fox News by email for comment. In the leaked footage, Sund goes on to say that he's "not a conspiracy theorist" but said it was concerning the way the January 6 attack played out. Sund explained that he was denied National Guard service in advance of the attack and was denied access to National Guard troops for 71 minutes during the attack. "You're in a fight, a fight for a couple of minutes wears you out," he said. "Let me tell you, it wears you out." Sund made the request for National Guard troops at approximately 1 p.m. on January 6. However, he did not hear back until 71 minutes later. It took more than three hours after Sund's request for 1,100 National Guard soldiers to be mobilized, according to a report by NPR. Trump allegedly made zero effort to deploy the National Guard and instead spoke at a rally in Washington, D.C., on the day of the riot. Vice President Mike Pence was the one who attempted to order deployment of the National Guard troops, according to a report by the Military Times. Sund criticized government officials for not delivering intelligence on the attack to the people who needed it. He believed that the officials knew in advance that the riot would happen. Weeks before the attack, Trump mentioned a protest occurring on January 6, 2021, that would be "wild"...." Ex-Capitol Police Chief Sounds Alarm That Jan. 6 Was 'Cover-Up' By Anna Skinner | Newsweek | Published Aug 03, 2023 at 1:16 PM EDT | https://www.newsweek.com/ex-capitol-police-chief-sounds-alarm-jan-6-cover-1817365 Tucker Carlson conducted a second interview of ex-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund which was published on August 10, 2023, and Sund convincingly made the case that there was a massive conspiracy calculated to deny his ability to adequately defend the Capital both in advance and during the riot: Tucker Interviews Former Capitol Police Chief About What REALLY Happened On January 6th TheDC Shorts | Aug 10, 2023 | https://youtu.be/W9R9oysRLK4?si=JR4JZhgu1zSnvBGc Tucker interviewed the former Capitol police chief about what really happened on January 6th However, I don't agree with Donald Trump's apparent position that the FBI cointelpro operation justifies the J6 riot (though I do think attorneys for the rioters should present evidence of entrapment, where applicable), nor that it vitiates the very real conspiracy that Trump was attempting to orchestrate that day to disrupt the electoral count in the hopes of getting the House of Representatives to decide the election and put in play the counterfeit slates of electors he had engineered to substitute for the legitimate electors. Trump should definitely be put on trial for that conspiracy. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics/recordings-trump-team-fake-elector-ballots/index.html Exclusive: Recordings, emails show how Trump team flew fake elector ballots to DC in final push to overturn 2020 election By Marshall Cohen, Zachary Cohen, Jeremy Herb and Katelyn Polantz, CNN 11 minute read Updated 4:47 PM EST, Thu December 28, 2023 CNN — Two days before the January 6 insurrection, the Trump campaign’s plan to use fake electors to block President-elect Joe Biden from taking office faced a potentially crippling hiccup: The fake elector certificates from two critical battleground states were stuck in the mail. So, Trump campaign operatives scrambled to fly copies of the phony certificates from Michigan and Wisconsin to the nation’s capital, relying on a haphazard chain of couriers, as well as help from two Republicans in Congress, to try to get the documents to then-Vice President Mike Pence while he presided over the Electoral College certification. The operatives even considered chartering a jet to ensure the files reached Washington, DC, in time for the January 6, 2021, proceeding, according to emails and recordings obtained by CNN. The new details provide a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the chaotic last-minute effort to keep Donald Trump in office. The fake electors scheme features prominently in special counsel Jack Smith’s criminal indictment against the former president, and some of the officials who were involved have spoken to Smith’s investigators. The emails and recordings also indicate that a top Trump campaign lawyer was part of 11th-hour discussions about delivering the fake elector certificates to Pence, potentially undercutting his testimony to the House select committee that investigated January 6 that he had passed off responsibility and didn’t want to put the former vice president in a difficult spot. These details largely come from pro-Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro, who was an architect of the fake electors plot and is now a key cooperator in several state probes into the scheme. Chesebro pleaded guilty in October to a felony conspiracy charge in Georgia in connection with the electors’ plan, and has met with prosecutors in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin, who are investigating the sham GOP electors in their own states. Kenneth Chesebro speaks to Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee during a hearing where Chesebro accepted a plea deal from the Fulton County District Atorney at the Fulton County Courthouse October 20 in Atlanta. Alyssa Pointer/Getty Images Chesebro is an unindicted co-conspirator in the federal election interference indictment against Trump. Trump campaign lawyer ‘freaked out’ about missing elector ballots, Chesebro says Michigan investigators ask pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro about the role of the Trump campaign in the fake electors plot. Chesebro tells them that top Trump campaign lawyers were alarmed that the sham certificates might not make it to the nation’s capital before the January 6, 2021, certification proceeding in Congress. Source: Obtained by CNN CNN has obtained audio of Chesebro’s recent interview with Michigan investigators, and exclusively reported earlier this month that he also told them about a December 2020 Oval Office meeting where he briefed Trump about the fake electors plan and how it ties into January 6. An attorney for Chesebro declined to comment. A spokesman for the special counsel’s office did not reply to a request for comment for this story. ‘A high-level decision’ Emails obtained by CNN corroborate what Chesebro told Michigan prosecutors: He communicated with the top Trump campaign lawyer, Matt Morgan, and another campaign official, Mike Roman, to ferry the documents to Washington on January 5. From there, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and a Pennsylvania congressman assisted in the effort to get the documents into Pence’s hands. “This is a high-level decision to get the Michigan and Wisconsin votes there,” Chesebro told Michigan prosecutors. “And they had to enlist, you know, a US senator to try to expedite it, to get it to Pence in time.” Trump campaign considered chartering jet to fly ballots to DC, Chesebro says Pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of the fake electors plan, tells Michigan prosecutors that top Trump campaign lawyers considered chartering a private jet to bring the fake elector ballots to the nation’s capital in time for the January 6, 2021, certification proceeding in Congress. Source: Obtained by CNN Chesebro also discussed the episode with Wisconsin investigators last week when he sat for an interview with the attorney general’s office as part of a separate state probe into the fake electors plot, a source familiar with the matter told CNN. Wisconsin prosecutors asked about the episode “extensively,” the source said, noting Chesebro discussed how a Wisconsin GOP staffer flew the certificate from Milwaukee to Washington and then handed it off to Chesebro. The firsthand account from Chesebro’s perspective helps fill in the narrative behind the effort to hand-deliver elector slates to Pence, which is vaguely referenced in Smith’s federal indictment. Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include conspiring with Chesebro and others to obstruct the January 6 certification proceeding. Before Chesebro’s guilty plea in Georgia, his attorneys reached out to Smith’s team. As of this week, he has not heard back from federal prosecutors, a source familiar with the matter told CNN. Federal investigators have spoken with several individuals involved in the scramble with the phony elector certificates, according to a source familiar with the matter. This includes interviews with Trump staffers who were tapped to fly the papers to DC, and some fake electors who knew of the planning. A spokesperson for the Trump campaign did not reply to a request for comment. Asked about the episode, a spokesperson for Johnson pointed to his previous comments, where he said, “my involvement in that attempt to deliver spanned the course of a couple seconds,” and that, “in the end, those electors were not delivered.” ‘Day-by-day’ coordination According to the recordings of Chesebro’s sit-down with Michigan prosecutors, he explained how a legal memo he wrote for Wisconsin transformed into a nationwide operation, where Trump lawyers were “day-by-day coordinating the efforts of more than a dozen people with the GOP and with the Trump campaign.” On January 4, 2021, Morgan sent an email to Chesebro and Roman asking for confirmation that all of the Trump elector slates had been received by Congress, according to the documents obtained by CNN. Matt Morgan participates in a news conference at the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, DC, in November 2020. Michael Reynolds/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock Roman responded that the Michigan certificate had been mailed on December 15 but was still “in transit” at a US Postal Service facility in DC. Wisconsin’s certificate also had apparently not arrived. Chesebro told prosecutors that Morgan was “freaked out” when the campaign realized the phony certificates from Michigan were still in the mail. That same day, Morgan weighed in over email asking Chesebro and Roman to rethink how they would deliver the certificates to Pence. “As I thought about this more, a courier will not be able to access the Capitol to deliver a sealed package,” Morgan wrote on January 4, according to emails obtained by CNN “You will probably need to enlist the help of a legislator who can deliver to the appropriate place(s). I strongly recommend you guys discuss a revised delivery plan with Rudy (Giuliani) to make sure this gets done the way he wants.” ‘Can we charter a flight?’ Roman was concerned the Wisconsin documents wouldn’t reach Washington in time. “Can we charter a flight? The only available commercial from MKE (Milwaukee Mitchell International Airport) to DCA (Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport) arrives at 2130 tomorrow night,” Roman wrote to Chesebro on January 4 at 11:24 p.m. The job of physically flying the elector documents to Washington fell to two people: A Trump campaign staffer and a Wisconsin GOP official, according to the emails and what Chesebro told prosecutors. The Wisconsin GOP official who had that state’s elector documents landed after 10 a.m. on January 5 at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, according to the emails. Trump campaign aide Michael Brown flew with the Michigan certificates to Washington National Airport with a scheduled arrival around 1 p.m., according to emails obtained by CNN. A source familiar with the matter told CNN that Brown flew to DC from Atlanta, because the Trump staffers who had custody of the Michigan ballots were in Georgia for the Senate runoffs. The campaign booked and paid for Brown’s flight on Southwest Airlines, the source said. Federal campaign finance records indicate that a pro-Trump super PAC paid the airline on the day of Brown’s flight for travel related to election “recount” efforts. Trump Hotel meetup The emails show that Brown and the Wisconsin GOP official were instructed to meet Chesebro at the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington to hand off the fake elector certificates. Chesebro said in an email that he’d keep the ballots in his hotel room safe until it was time to pass them along. Barricades outside the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, on January 17, 2021. Pete Kiehart/Bloomberg/Getty Images Wisconsin Republican Party officials were annoyed at the request to courier the fake elector certificates to Washington. “Freaking trump idiots want someone to fly original elector papers to the senate President,” a Wisconsin GOP official wrote to then-state party chairman Andrew Hitt on January 4, according to the January 6 committee report. Hitt – who has provided information to federal investigators about the efforts to get the fake elector certificates to Washington, according to a source familiar with the matter – told the January 6 committee that the couriering ended up being overkill, because the original documents that the state party had mailed to Washington actually made it in time. Getting the certificates inside the Capitol The documents still had to be hand-delivered to Pence’s Senate office in the Capitol. The electors plot – as envisioned by Chesebro and other Trump allies – was that Pence could reject Biden’s legitimate electors and recognize Trump’s “alternate electors” on January 6, while lawmakers tallied the electoral votes from each state. Per federal law, the certificates need to be physically presented on the floor of Congress during the joint session, while lawmakers tally the electoral votes. Chesebro told investigators that Roman connected him with an aide for a Pennsylvania GOP lawmaker that he believed was Rep. Scott Perry to turn over the documents. Chesebro wasn’t certain which congressman the staffer worked for – and the January 6 report says a staffer for a different Pennsylvania Republican, Rep. Mike Kelly, helped shuttle the documents that day. “I had the Wisconsin stuff. [Trump campaign aide] Mike Brown had the Michigan stuff. We walked to the Longworth Office Building, and the guy with Perry, or whatever his name is, and some other fellow, that were like staff members of the House, took them and said, ‘We’re going to walk them over to the Senate and give it to a Senate staffer,’” Chesebro told Michigan prosecutors, according to the audio obtained by CNN. “I don’t know why logistically we didn’t take it directly to Johnson. But that’s how we did it,” he added. Chesebro describes role of two GOP lawmakers in electors scheme Pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of the fake electors plan, tells Michigan prosecutors about how Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson and Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry, both Republicans, helped get the fake elector ballots to the Capitol floor for the January 6, 2021, certification proceeding. Source: Obtained by CNN Kelly and Perry’s offices did not respond to CNN’s requests for comment. Brown did not comment for this story. CNN previously reported that he testified in June to Smith’s grand jury in the Trump election subversion probe. CNN previously reported that Roman sat for a proffer interview with Smith’s team before Trump was indicted. He was also indicted in the sweeping Georgia election racketeering case, in connection with the fake electors scheme, and has pleaded not guilty. Roman’s attorney did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The details from Chesebro put a finer point on how members of Congress, including a sitting US senator, were involved in making sure the electoral certificates for Trump ended up in Pence’s hands. The January 6 committee first revealed last year Johnson’s involvement in trying unsuccessfully to deliver the fake elector certificates to Pence, who announced on the morning of the joint session that it would be unconstitutional to do what Trump wanted and unilaterally overturn the election results. The committee revealed text messages during their hearings last year that Johnson aide Sean Riley sent to Pence aide Chris Hodgson, saying that Johnson “needs to hand something to VPOTUS please advise.” “What is it?” Hodgson asked. “Alternate slates of electors for MI and WI because archivist didn’t receive them,” Riley responded. “Do not give that to him,” Hodgson said. ‘F**k these guys’ In his Michigan interview, Chesebro also dished on some of the internal disagreements among the Trump lawyers, campaign officials and other allies, who clashed over the purpose of the electors’ plan and how far to take things on January 6. Chesebro has maintained – then, and now – that the plan was a lawful move to preserve Trump’s legal rights. Even before the Trump electors met in their state capitals on December 14, 2020, to cast their fake ballots and sign the certificates, Chesebro heard about concerns from some of the electors about possible legal jeopardy, according to emails and text messages reported by the Detroit News and obtained by CNN. Chesebro added hedging language for the faux certificates from Pennsylvania and New Mexico in response to those concerns. He proposed to Roman and Morgan that they add the contingency caveats to the paperwork for all seven states in the plan. But Roman rejected the idea, according to the emails. “F**k these guys,” Roman texted Chesebro on December 12, 2020. Trump campaign staff member Michael Roman in his booking photo at the Fulton County Jail on August 25 in Atlanta. Fulton County Sheriff's Office By this time, the Trump campaign had essentially cleaved in two. Top officials who had managed day-to-day activity for Trump up to the election, including in court, say they ceded responsibility to Rudy Giuliani and others, such as Chesebro, according to congressional testimony transcripts. Roman effectively switched teams to work under Giuliani’s structure, according to the testimony from Morgan and others. A spokesperson for Giuliani did not reply to a request for comment. ‘It really went south on me’ Chesebro told Michigan investigators that his own emails show that Morgan remained deeply involved, including in the final hours before January 6, to ensure that the certificates reached DC. “I don’t have a really warm feeling toward, at least, the top Trump lawyers that did this, hid from me what they were doing and then lied to Congress about me. So, it’s been really difficult,” Chesebro said. Chesebro describes role of GOP lawmakers in electors scheme Pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of the fake electors plan, tells Michigan prosecutors about how Congressional staffers helped get the fake elector ballots to the Capitol floor for the January 6, 2021, certification proceeding. (Chesebro says a staffer from Rep. Scott Perry’s office was involved, but the January 6 report says it was someone from Rep. Mike Kelly’s office.) Chesebro further describes the fallout from his involvement the attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Source: Obtained by CNN In his congressional testimony, Morgan said he knew of the elector plan but wanted to distance himself from the effort, delegating the work to others, including those under Giuliani. Morgan told the January 6 committee last year that he initially believed the electors were only meant to be used as a contingency. The electors, he believed, should meet in their state capitals and cast their electoral votes but “not necessarily submit” the certificates to Congress unless “we prevailed” in court. Morgan told the committee that the plan changed in December, saying it morphed from a “cast-and-hold” operation and had “shifted to cast-and-send.” And that’s when Morgan told the committee that he backed out, testifying that he directed an aide to “email Mr. Chesebro politely to say, ‘this is your task. You are responsible for the Electoral College issues moving forward.’” “This was my way of taking that responsibility to zero,” Morgan told the committee, later adding that he “moved on” after that email was sent. Morgan explained that he was concerned that the new plan to try to count the fake electors on January 6 “would make the Vice President’s life harder, and I didn’t want to be a part of that.” “Mr. Morgan stands by his congressional testimony,” his defense attorneys told CNN in response to his emails and Chesebro’s statements to investigators. Ultimately, on the eve of the joint session of Congress, Morgan helped get the ballots in place, according to the emails and according to Chesebro, who blamed his legal troubles squarely on the Trump campaign’s legal team. “I could have avoided all this,” Chesebro vented to Michigan prosecutors. “It’s been a real lesson in not working with people that you don’t know and are not sure you can trust, because it really went south on me.” KE- Keep on truckin'. Yes, Trump could have been playing dirty too---that's the point. You can have side-by-side "covert operations" going on. There are possibly Trump's somewhat feeble, clumsy and far-fetched plans, which were unconnected to the Jan. 6 scrum (I will let the courts decide what Trump did). But there are also literally dozens, and perhaps more than 100-200 federal assets embedded in the crowd on Jan. 6, and then the mysterious decision of the Capitol Police to stand down. The use of provocateurs is hardly unknown, and such provocateurs in the Whitmer case...raise serious questions. The strange behavior of Ray Epps of the Oath Keepers, his role in triggering the first entrance to the Capitol, his non-prosecution, and then his lionization by the NYT is very odd. The odd and non-viable pipe bombs placed outside DNC and RNC HQ, which resulted in the Capitol being largely evacuated before the Jan. 6 scrum. The whole inexplicable Jacob Chansley episode. And the dearth of legacy media reporting on all of the above---akin to the JFKA post-WC scenario. I agree with you on Dinesh D'Souza being a right-wing wheeze-bag, although I am keeping an open mind on his report on the use of "mules" and ballot harvesting to tilt elections. The same thing one major party did in Ohio in 2004, btw, swinging that state and national election back then to the President known as "W." Just for fun, see this https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/magazine/election-security-crisis-midterms.html In 2018 the NYT screamed that there was a "crisis" in election security, that voting machines can be hacked, rigged, etc. Nothing really changed since then, but the NYT declared the 2020 election solid as a rock. So it goes. When the Sunnis massacre the Shiites and vice-versa, you can try to rationalize and put white hats on one side. When the two major parties tussle in the US...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 (edited) 9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Kevin Hofeling resonded: I've went over the Manafort hoopla WITH EVIDENCE half a dozen times at this point -- and you sat back silent as Sandy attempted to carry your water for you on it -- to which you have since responded with ZERO evidence, presenting instead only your hollow narrative and conclusory allegations, and you should either put up or shut up. What, did the dog eat your evidence? Your hollow narrative just doesn't cut it. Post some actual evidence for me to demolish.\ Kevin, Your response here is simply pathetic. It's gibberish. How many moronic falsehoods can a sophomoric spammer cram into a single ungrammatical sentence? "I've went over the Manafort hoopla?" "Hollow narrative?" "ZERO evidence?" Now I know why you respond to forum debate questions with internet spam, instead of intelligible answers. Let's keep this debate about Manafort and Kilimnik simple enough for you to understand. Clearly post your answers to this question for us. 1) Why did Paul Manafort willfully engage in perjury during the Mueller investigation--to lie about his 2016 campaign contacts with Konstantin Kilimnik-- even AFTER he agreed to a plea bargain deal to cooperate with Mueller? In other words, why was Manafort so desperate to conceal his campaign contacts with a Russian GRU asset that he would risk serious consequences? In fact, Manafort would be rotting in jail today if Trump hadn't pardoned him. P.S. Don't ask Sandy to carry your water for you. Answer my question or, as you so genteelly put it, "Put up and shut up." 🙄 Your post pretends to be responsive to what I wrote but actually isn't in any way. My last message to you is still calling for a response. I had written as follows: I've went over the Manafort hoopla WITH EVIDENCE half a dozen times at this point -- and you sat back silent as Sandy attempted to carry your water for you on it -- to which you have since responded with ZERO evidence, presenting instead only your hollow narrative and conclusory allegations, and you should either put up or shut up. What, did the dog eat your evidence? Your hollow narrative just doesn't cut it. Post some actual evidence for me to demolish. Rather than allow you to continue to waste my time, as seems to be your objective, I am going to provide you with the links to the posts in which I answered your questions when Sandy Larsen presented them to me on your behalf. And then I will conclude this post with some basic straightforward questions for you which, if your respond to them, will elicit a reply from me. The following are the links: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30264-trump-on-releasing-the-jfk-records/?do=findComment&comment=532096 https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30264-trump-on-releasing-the-jfk-records/?do=findComment&comment=532124 https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30264-trump-on-releasing-the-jfk-records/?do=findComment&comment=532136 https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30264-trump-on-releasing-the-jfk-records/?do=findComment&comment=532145 https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30264-trump-on-releasing-the-jfk-records/?do=findComment&comment=532153 And these are my questions for you: 1. Specifically, upon what evidence do you rely for the proposition that Paul Manafort willfully engaged in perjury during the Mueller investigation--to lie about his 2016 campaign contacts with Konstantin Kilimnik-- even AFTER he agreed to a plea bargain deal to cooperate with Mueller? 2. Specifically, upon what evidence do you rely for the proposition that Paul Manafort concealed his campaign contacts with a Russian GRU asset? 3. Specifically, upon what evidence do you rely for the proposition that Konstantin Kilimnik is or was a GRU asset, or a spy of any kind for Russia? Edited March 30 by Keven Hofeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 (edited) On 3/27/2024 at 5:09 AM, Keven Hofeling said: Why merely assume that the journalists least sympathetic to the right-wingers are being hoodwinked by right-wing news sources? I've provided links to many of those articles, and it would take only a cursory examination to rule out your hypothesis. With regard to Putin preferring Hillary over Trump, there is some recent reporting on that which appears perfectly legitimate to me: CIA Manipulated Evidence To Hide Evidence Russia Wanted Clinton To Win In 2016, Not Trump: Report By Leif Le Mahieu | Feb 16, 2024 | DailyWire.com | https://www.dailywire.com/news/cia-manipulated-evidence-to-hide-evidence-russia-wanted-clinton-to-win-in-2016-not-trump-report WMD, Part II: CIA "Cooked The Intelligence" To Hide That Russia Favored Clinton, Not Trump In 2016 Russia didn't fear Hillary Clinton. “It was a relationship they were comfortable with,” some CIA analysts believed, but intelligence was suppressed. On the fall of the last great Russiagate myth MATT TAIBBI, MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER, AND ALEX GUTENTAG | FEB 15, 2024 | https://www.racket.news/p/wmd-part-ii-cia-cooked-the-intelligence And with regard to Ukraine, will you tell me if it would make any difference to you if the following three propositions are true? 1. That the current Ukrainian government is the product of a 2014 CIA supported coup de ta that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. 2. That areas of the Donbass region in Ukraine inhabited by an overwhelmingly Russian population has sustained many thousands of casualties as the result of Ukranian artillary fire since 2014, and was about to be invaded by NATO supported Ukrainian forces at the time of the Russian intervention. and, 3. Russia was ready to end the war and withdraw its troops in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality just a few months after the invasion began and was refused because of ex-British PM Boris Johnson, who pressured Kyiv into continuing the fight. If you dispute the veracity of these propositions, let me know, and we will discuss the precise details further. 'WHY RUSSIA WENT TO WAR NOW' Ted Snider in ANTIWAR [excerpt] In April 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky received 73% of the run-off vote and was elected President of Ukraine on a platform that featured making peace with Russia and signing the Minsk Agreement. The Minsk Agreement offered autonomy to the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of the Donbas that had voted for independence from Ukraine after the 2014 US backed coup. But despite the massive peace mandate, Zelensky was pushed off the path of diplomacy by ultranationalists who, wielding power beyond their small support, threatened Zelensky "if he continues along this line of negotiating with Putin," according to the late Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Politics and director of Russian Studies at Princeton. Under the force of this pressure, Zelensky was, Professor of Russian and European Politics at Kent Richard Sakwa told me, "thwarted by the nationalists." Reversing the campaign promise upon which he was elected, Zelensky now refused to talk to the leaders of the Donbas and implement the Minsk Agreements. Receiving none of the support he needed from the US to be able to stand on his election platform, Zelensky was pushed off it. The US also applied no pressure to push him back on. Sakwa says that "As for Minsk, neither the US nor the EU put serious pressure on Kiev to fulfil its part of the agreement." "They did nothing to push Ukraine into actually implementing it," Anatol Lieven, senior research fellow on Russia and Europe at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told me. Pushed off the path of diplomacy mapped out by the Minsk Agreement, and receiving no support or pressure to reorient back on it, Zelensky, instead, yielded to the ultranationalists and enacted a decree establishing the Crimean Platform, which, contrary to the mandate he was elected on, promised to de-occupy and reintegrate Crimea, militarily if necessary. The first summit meeting of the Crimea Platform was attended by every member of NATO. Zelensky was threatening war with Russia. And, according to Sakwa, Ukraine had massed 100,000 troops, accompanied by drone missiles, along its eastern border with Donbas. This mobilization preceded the Russian buildup on its western border with Donbas in 2022. There was "genuine alarm in Moscow" that Ukraine was about to escalate the seven year old civil war and invade the largely ethnic Russian Donbas region. At around this time, in February of 2022, the alarm was heightened by dramatically increased Ukrainian artillery shelling into the Donbas that was observed by the Border Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Sakwa told me that most of the ceasefire violations exploded on the Donbas side of Ukraine. According to UN data, 81.4% of civilian casualties occurred in the “self-proclaimed ‘republics’.” Russia feared that the promised military operation had begun. Zelensky wouldn’t talk to the leaders of the Donbas, Minsk was dead and Russia feared an imminent operation against the ethnic Russian population of the Donbas. At the same time, Washington had become a leaky faucet on promises of flooding Ukraine with weapons and open doors to NATO: two red lines Putin had clearly drawn. In the year before the war, the US provided Ukraine with $400 million in security assistance. Biden spoke of "a new strategic defense framework" and promised that “security assistance” would be topped off with a new $60 million package that would, for the first time, include lethal weapons. While flooding Ukraine with lethal weapons, the US and NATO refused to assure Russia that NATO’s door was closed to Ukraine. During his meeting with Biden, Zelensky once again stated that he “would like to discuss with President Biden here his vision, his government’s vision of Ukraine’s chances to join NATO and the timeframe for this accession.” Biden, in barely coded language, spoke of his “support for Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations” and American support for Ukraine’s “being completely integrated in Europe.” In October, 2021, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin again "stressed . . . that there is an open door to NATO" for Ukraine. In November, the US signed the US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership that committed to helping Ukraine make the reforms that are necessary for its ascension to NATO. The document says that the US and Ukraine will be guided by the 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration. In Bucharest in 2008, the US and NATO guaranteed Ukraine eventual membership in NATO: "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agree today that these countries will become members of NATO." For well over a decade, Putin had warned of the red line at NATO expansion into Ukraine. Now, with Ukraine knocking on the door and the US and NATO continuing to extend the invitation and refusing to bolt the door, Putin forced diplomacy back onto the menu in February 2022 by serving the US a proposal on mutual security guarantees and a request for immediate negotiations. While Washington showed some flexibility on arms control, responding that "The United States is willing to discuss conditions-based reciprocal transparency measures and reciprocal commitments by both the United States and Russia to refrain from deploying offensive ground-launched missile systems and permanent forces with a combat mission in the territory of Ukraine," they simply and firmly refused to discuss the availability of ascension into NATO for Ukraine. The US response was unyielding, reiterating the insistence that “The United States continues to firmly support NATO’s Open Door Policy.” Russia tried to talk; the US was unwilling to talk. And, they had no intention of talking. Derek Chollet, counselor to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, has recently admitted that negotiating NATO expansion into Ukraine was never on the table. Talks on the existential threat of NATO expansion into Ukraine and up to Russia’s borders were not on the table. Ukraine was still asking; the US was still firmly committed to the open door. And negotiations were never on the table for the US. That was the end of talks. Ukraine was committed to taking Crimea and the Donbas, they were refusing to talk and now troops were massing at the border and artillery shelling was increasing horrifyingly. Russia feared the imminent invasion and operation against the ethnic Russians of the Donbas. That was the moment Russia chose to invade Ukraine. That doesn’t make it legal. That doesn’t make it moral. But that may explain why, after more than a dozen years of warnings, Russia chose now to go to war. [ ... This is an excerpt. Please support ANTIWAR DOT COM ... ] https://original.antiwar.com/ted_snider/2022/04/25/why-russia-went-to-war-now/ The fascinating thing about the #Ukraine war is the sheer number of top Western strategic thinkers and scholars who have warned for years that it was coming if we continued down the path of demonizing and trying to destroy Russia. No-one listened to them and now we have trigger happy fools putting the blame solely on Russia and Putin. A small compilation of some of these warnings, from #HenryKissinger to #Mearsheimer are presented here (compiled by Rnaud Bertrand). *WESTERN STRATEGIC THINKERS WHO HAD WARNED OF UKRAINIAN CONFLICT* 1. *George #Kennan, America's foreign policy strategist*, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy. As early as 1998 he warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia". 2. *Henry #Kissinger*, in 2014. He warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that the West therefore needs a policy that is aimed at "reconciliation". He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO" 3. *John Mearsheimer* - arguably the leading geopolitical scholar in the US today - in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome." 4. *Jack F. Matlock Jr.*, US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed" 5. Clinton's defense secretary *William Perry* explained, in his memoir, that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia" and that in 1996 he was so opposed to it that "in the strength of my conviction, I considered resigning". 6. *Stephen Cohen*, a famed scholar of Russian studies, warning in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential" 7. *CIA director Bill Burns* in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests". (He was then Ambassador to Moscow in 2008 when he wrote this memo). He is now director of the CIA. ‘08 memo ‘Nyet Means Nyet: Russia's NATO Enlargement Redlines’ 8. Russian-American journalist *Vladimir Pozner*, in 2018, stated that: NATO expansion in Ukraine is unacceptable to the Russian, that there has to be a compromise where "Ukraine, guaranteed, will not become a member of NATO." 9. *Malcolm #Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia*, warned in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem". 10. *Paul #Keating, former Australian PM, in 1997*: expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system [in early 20th]" 11. *Former US defense secretary Bob Gates* in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation" 12. *Pat Buchanan*, in his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire: "By moving NATO onto Russia's front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation." 13. In 1997, a group of individuals including *Robert McNamara, Bill Bradley & Gary Hart wrote a letter to Bill Clinton* warning the "US led effort to expand NATO is a policy error of historic proportions" and would "foster instability" in Europe. Today it's fringe, traitorous position. 14. *Dmitriy Trenin* expressed concern that Ukraine was, in the LT, the most potentially destabilizing factor in US-Russian relations, given the level of emotion & neuralgia triggered by its quest for NATO membership. 15. *Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia*, warned a year ago that "[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level." He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it." 16. Even last year, *famous economist Jeffrey #Sachs*, writing a column in the FT warning that "NATO enlargement is utterly misguided and risky. True friends of Ukraine, and of global peace, should be calling for a US and NATO compromise with Russia." 17. *Fiona Hill* :"We warned [George Bush] that Mr. Putin would view steps to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO as a provocative move that would likely provoke pre-emptive Russian military action. But ultimately, our warnings weren’t heeded." 18. *Aleksandr Dugin*, in 1997, had predicted everything that Putin has done, in his book "Foundation of Geopolitics." EVERYBODY knew that trying to rope Ukraine into NATO was crossing Russia's red line, but now people would like to hold up Russia as a villain. From https://mobile.twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592 Matt Taibbi: Intel Blob COOKED THE BOOKS In 2016 Probe; Russians Wanted HILLARY, Not Trump The Hill | Feb 27, 2024 | https://youtu.be/uHt5ZF9i8qg?si=QJq6UFASWVWIgG1w Edited March 30 by Keven Hofeling 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